Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265

Mobile editors

Many editors editing from a mobile platform have a button to edit articles but no button to go from the article to the talk page. If you are dealing with new editors in particular who are editing on mobile, you will need to provide them with a direct link to the talk page if you expect them to discuss something. The only way to find an article talk page from the mobile app is to actually enter "Talk:Foo" into the search bar. Please be aware of this issue in particular when considering sanctions against relatively inexperienced mobile editors for failing to discuss. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's weird since there's a link on the talk page for the main page but not vice versa...... AcidSnow (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: This is strange!! I can see an icon which directly takes me to the talk page. It is just beside the lead edit button, between watchlist and edit button. Even now I can see that button (editing from mobile) and I don't have beta enabled?? Any thoughts?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

P. S. On a related discussion, do you know that IP users cannot edit from mobile version Wikipedia?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You would need to ask the Mobile folks - it remains very unclear who can do what and whether certain issues are bugs or current design features. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see what Nikkimaria sees, in my case on an iPhone 4, Safari, mobile setting. I have to log in, and I can't go to the talk page directly. If I switch to the desktop version I have the regular old look, with the buttons for talk page etc--but I don't have reading glasses strong enough to read the screen. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Same for me - iPhone 4S, Safari, mobile. There's only an edit button and a watchlist button, nothing in between (I'm logged in already). There also doesn't seem to be a way to go from desktop to mobile without changing the url or using the back button, but that's to be expected. Ansh666 19:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of admin actions (India Against Corruption)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Name Defend IPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey all. The latest entry in this IAC saga is user:Name Defend IPA. I blocked this user as a role account, since their name and comments seem to indicate that. They insist otherwise on their user talk page, and asked me to bring this here on the suspicion that I am involved. There's a lot more history to this, but I was terribly bored with this situation when I was dealing with it, and cannot be arsed to do the digging myself. Sorry. I accept any judgement on my admin actions, as always, and my admin recall standards apply; any admin action I've performed can be freely reverted, if anyone feels that it should be so. Particularly, if another admin feels that this account should be unblocked, either to participate in this thread or entirely, I won't stand in the way (though I would counsel caution).

It should go without saying, but I will assert that I've never been paid or otherwise compensated for anything I've done or am planning on doing for Wikipedia (except for one of those t-shirts for Teahouse stuff years ago), I don't know Sitush from Adam (though I think they may have revealed their real name to me at some point), and know nothing and care less about IAC, beyond their actions on Wikipedia. But y'all can be the judge of that; don't take my word for it if you don't want. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The background to this saga is in this section at ANI and most recently the disruption by Name Defend IPA (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3. Note that "Name Defend" is the name of a website purporting to be an Intellectual Property Rights firm. Their website is at namedefend.in. According to Whois [1], the namedefend.in domain was registered yesterday. Ditto the creation of the website. The registrant is Sarbjit Roy. Note that Sarbajit Roy is the convenor of the current organization claiming the name India Against Corruption. Note also that here Name Defend IPA claims to be Claus Bruentrup, an intellectual property agent and the registrant of indiaagainstcorruption.info. According to Whois, a Claus Bruentrup is the registrant although the email address does not match the one given by Name Defend IPA. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"PS: I neglected to mention that all edits of this account are being made through official servers of the investigative agency investigating Wikipedia." Whether or not this contravenes NLT, this is clearly a role account ("We are not concerned about your personal view(s)") and so should remain blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the history here (I haven't followed this IAC drama), but the account name certainly violates WP:ISU. Can't the user simply request a new name? That seems to be obvious solution here rather than vague conspiracy theories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a sockpuppet anyway. (The clue is in the fourth word.) - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the not so thinly veiled hint at legal action and "investigation", he has now accused Sitush of being "a long running sock-puppet account for a Wikipedia Admin with high technical and programming skills who knows all about sockpuppet detection" and another editor, Wifione of being the sockmaster and in the employ of Indian "PR Fakers" with no evidence whatsoever [2]. Apart from the "role account" issue, there may be more than one reason for him to remain blocked unless he retracts the lot. Voceditenore (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

They have been making accusations like those for a long time. Indeed, almost from their first day here under another username. It would seem that they hope that if they say it often enough then it will become true and/or that mud sticks (as with their recent cack-handed attempt to frame me for copyright violation). Honestly, we should just block this person on sight. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And with that, talk page privileges should be taken away. Posts should be discussing unblocking, not throwing out wild accusations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just revoked TPA. Can one of you please tell them how to request an unblock? I gotta run. Kids! Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge closure required

A month-old merger proposal that could use closing by an uninvolved editor: Talk:Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations#This is an advert. --McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Already done, by Graeme Bartlett. Epicgenius (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to waste resources at WP:ANRFC for a simple close

WP:CONSENSUS seems clear at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page, but Drmargi contests the results per this edit. Am I required to tax the admin resources at WP:ANRFC or can an admin just revert this stubborn editor. Please note the contentious nature of this hatnote with prior reversions on July 30, August 14 and September 10.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the lack of responses, I guess I do have to go to WP:ANRFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am no longer watching this. If anyone comments here ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs a chill pill

Would someone have a moment to drop a note to User talk:Carmaker1? I stumbled across this editor today and his behaviour on Wikipedia is outrageous. I glanced at some of their edit summaries and they are both rude and intimidating. For example, "it is quite lazily presumptuous to believe that...", "I have warned enough of you countless times... Anyone that reverts this without reason, will banned for vandalism", "some of most stupid, lazy errors can mislead readers...", "the writing in this article is very juvenile"... and those were just the first few edit summaries I looked at. This editor's talk page is peppered with notes from other editors about the need for civility and less rudeness. My concern is that editors like this turn new editors off. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a definite mismatch between the edit made and the temperature of the edit summary. See these: [3] [4] [5] [6]. It's not hard to find others: just look for any edit summary more than a couple words long and check the diff. And I'm reasonably certain the claimed "vandalism" in these articles is anything but: it's that Carmarker1's preferred means of designating when a particular car was produced (model year vs. actual production year), at least in many cases. While I have no opinion on the content itself (I really don't know enough to say either way), the edit summaries are unacceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, what do you mean by "it's that Carmarker1's preferred means of designating when a particular car was produced (model year vs. actual production year), at least in many cases"? I can't parse that at all. Maybe it makes complete sense and it's just the result of me being sleepy (I've been up for 21 hours), so feel free to attribute it to my sleepiness :-) Your overall point, that the edit summaries are far from accurate (and therefore are quite un-called-for), is clear. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, after reviewing my edits, I can see some of them are too generalized and the commentary might be vague or irrelevant to the actual edit. Some of them have spawned from a series of edits, I've done in relation to the same topic over a given amount of time and see a bad pattern, that needs to be called out or addressed (in frustration). The majority of editors ignore an article's talk page, but will see via edit history, when another editor comments on detrimental edits, that keep being user-reinstated without any consensus. Saying "If anyone removes this correct information, you are vandalizing and will be banned if made to be a pattern", is how I've seen it. User: ilovemyflorida kept doing this awhile back with me and was permanently blocked, since they were making a mess of Wikipedia. They still continue to sneak back onto Wikipedia, via alternating IP addresses. This makes things for me, other users, and even administrators difficult, in regards maintaining an article's accuracy and not taking attention from adding new information to Wikipedia. I should be civil to 100% of everyone, but in addition to that, it would be terrible for us to be spending 75% of the time tolerating vandalism or inaccuracy (instead of 10-20%), by pretending they aren't threats to Wikipedia credibility in the mainstream.—Carmaker1 (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

See, e.g., this diff, which changed 1995 to Fall 1994 production (1995 model year). In case you're unfamiliar, when automakers (at least in the US) release a new model year of vehicle, they designate it as being from the subsequent calendar year. That is, a car available from June 2007 was probably produced starting in April or May 2007, and will be called the "2008" model of that same car. Carmaker1 seems to prefer designating vehicles by their model year rather than production year. I'm not sure what the standard is, but it looks like it's been a problem with this user for some time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not correct at all and makes me wonder if you are being thorough and accurate in presenting your evidence. Some of Magnolia's viewpoints make sense, but I really question what you're trying fully establish against me. Objective facts or subjective opinions?—Carmaker1 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't clear. I'm trying to parse your sentence and can't quite — I was asking for rewording, not demanding evidence. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Many of Carmaker1's edit summaries claim to be reverting vandalism. The edits reverted do not appear to be vandalism. Rather, the reverts Carmaker1 is making are to restore his/her preferred manner of addressing the issue of car model years. So rather than just someone getting frustrated with vandalism and lashing out through edit summaries (as can happen), this is actually a case of edit warring and incivility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I see above, some opinions on my supposed viewpoints are not even being fully pieced together. I am not focused on model years, but moreover everything as a whole coming together about when a vehicle was developed, introduced, produced, sold, and replaced/retired. Studying my edit history will even prove I despise the singular use of model years, so Mendaliv you're rather making point-blank assumptions. Only the US-market is focused on model years and I follow world or inclusive standards. When investigating someone, things cannot and should not be looked at on a superficial level.
I stand for either labeling a vehicle from its start date, in the form its production year or if not the production year, then properly referring to a model year. Saying that "the Lexus NX came out in 2015", is what I consider to be incorrect. It is already on sale in Japan and the 2015 calendar year has yet to start for another 3.5 months. Calling the NX a "2014 model" is also somewhat incorrect, as Lexus officially referred to its initial "model year" as "2015". Model years are mostly a US phenomenon, while the rest of the developed world uses initial registration or production dates. My way of seeing it is, "In 2014, Lexus introduced the NX compact crossover." Or, "In 2014, Lexus introduced the 2015 model year Lexus NX." As well as, "the Lexus NX was launched as a 2015 model." I do not believe a model year should be used by itself as a date to refer to an actual event in a timeline, unless specific prepositions are used to clarify that.
By specific prepositions, I mean the following: in (the), for (the), during (the). Solely stating "in 2015", gives the impression the vehicle was first made available in the calendar year of 2015. That is incorrect. By comparison, "in the 2015 model year", further distinguishes the calendar year from a specific designator, such as a model year. One can even say alternatively, "For 2015, Lexus introduced the NX crossover." In that case, for refers to the model year of 2015. I try to avoid doing the latter format, as for can be mistaken for changes that occurred during January-December 2015 versus September 2014 - August 2015. Saying, "during the 2015 model year, Lexus launched NX crossover", works as well. Alternatively, the use of during can be, "...during 2014, began production of the NX crossover". One has to be careful with wording, as it can muddle up a timeline. Short-sighted wording does not sound "encyclopedic", like some users have stressed. Even stressed to the point of insulting some of us when we were (I was) novice editor(s).
I keep coming across many Wiki articles in which many things are worded/dated incorrectly and then I proceed to fix that. In between such efforts, my helpful edits are reverted or "played around with" by other users, usually dubious IPs. When this occurs too frequently, it becomes rather frustrating to be endlessly correcting/re-adding the same information manually (no revert button), while other Wikipedia users neglect maintaining such areas and allow these troublesome edits to pass undetected (for sometimes months to years!). If I feel as if I am having to keep those areas tidy by myself, and then further targeted, upon my own VALID contributions randomly being nitpicked. It cannot be too shocking that one would be reacting so poorly against any hint of maliciously editing. All of it spawning from the repetitive fixing of the similar detrimental/malicious edits, especially when doing it manually and lengthily.
Various editors have been unusually rude to me before I even react in a similar manner (sometimes throwing expletives, racism), so such behaviour isn't unprovoked and anyone claiming that I am somehow doing this at random, should really look below the surface and not be making shallow assumptions. I do not even use volatile expletives. I am very particular about accuracy on Wikipedia, especially in regards to timelines that piece things together. Information from Wikipedia articles often "leak out" (copy-pasting) into the online "mainstream" and are eventually seen as "fact" by readers. Wikipedia information about a vehicle will show up on dedicated Youtube videos, forums, blogs, municipal dealerships (occasionally), social media, and even in automotive journalism. When any of this information proves to be incorrect, it become extremely misleading and counterproductive.
Plenty of sources absorb this information online, which gets absorbed offline later on. I take the greater effort to then informatively debunk and then proceed to correct it via Wikipedia. Some F-150 owners were shocked when I cleared up confusion, on when the seventh, eighth, & ninth generation F-Series were each initially launched, as many thought it to be 1980, 1987, 1992. Each were introduced in fall 1979, fall 1986, & fall 1991 as 1980/1987/1992. Anyone previously rejecting/skeptical of parts made in 1979/1986/1991, will now trust them respectively.
Also, a prominent Toyota design engineer apparently forgot that he worked on a design project, that ended in 1987. He assumed he did so in 1989. It was muddled to him, as a result of reading newer marketing material, written by novice Toyota personnel in the 2000-10s and magazine journalists. The Toyota personnel, lazily sourced the 1990 Previa from an error-laden Wiki article and vague information from its late 1989-early 1990 launch. I provided him legal documentation from 1987, that reminded him otherwise, showing visual proof of that model in 1987. He thus remembered.
I exhaustively try to eliminate such misinformation and often do not take well to others making it 3 times more difficult. I seem to be the only person in the automotive section, that frequent invests time in providing background information on (pre-launch) vehicle development history and timelines. I am active in keeping such areas levelly accurate, inside and outside of Wikipedia (when I can), as I realize it to be a very powerful medium for easy research to the masses and as a tool to keep things connected. I spend my own money in regards to access WP: PAYWALLs and collect deeper information for Wikipedia, something many users will not go beyond doing.
The fact that other (not too many) editors are quicker to question/challenge my valid contributions over that of possible vandals, has somewhat reduced my patience. Especially when I'm simultaneously met with overlooked, glaringly incorrect errors to re-fix, that do not even catch their attention. I do not appreciate how efforts are more invested in reverting/challenging my thoroughly researched edits, as against the tomfoolery of dubious (mostly IP) editors that easily go unchecked. It is not acceptable to be "uncivil" towards others, but those up to "no-good" cannot be too shocked when eventually someone concernedly confronts them. After they prove to be troublesome by intentionally making detrimental changes to an article or ruining its quality, by frequent haphazard or half-baked wording/edits. The latter case (poor wording), I try to avoid coming across harshly, as that fits good-faith a bit better.
I usually do not comment on "good faith" edits in the manner that's being suggested. Only edits/contributions in which the "obvious is the obvious" and anything otherwise, is rather glaringly careless editing and possible mischief. Some of the Ford truck articles have been the result of careless, poorly worded and researched editing that confuses readers. Magnolia perhaps should take better notice of many other "rude users" as well, as singling me out is quite absurd and of possible bias. My frustration targeted those that knowingly revert useful edits or repeatedly make detrimental edits to articles (i.e. vandalism). Painting me as a foaming at the mouth editor is quite laughable and insulting, when I am often forced to do certain exhaustive research by myself and equally fend off troublesome vandals, with little-to-no administrative response nor guaranteed collective assistance in maintaining quality. My harsh wording stands to address those with "sinister intentions", that I won't tolerate nor swallow their vandalism. I've made necessary adjustments to that hardline stance, but experience some regression against obvious, frequent vandalism. I myself have left Wikipedia over other users making the environment uncomfortable for 100% well-meaning contributors. ————Carmaker1 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

7.75 KB. Are you kidding? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I am literally "kidding". I had actually retracted that before the submission, as I realised it to be unfair and not indicative of my full "official" opinion on this matter. Whether or not I personally feel that way is another matter, but I officially will not let that dictate further actions taken by me on Wikipedia.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

On another note, I've noticed some other chosen non-automotive edit summaries of mine. It's quite clear that my Michael Jackson edit summary, while volatile, was in response to a case of vandalism. I provided the actual source years ago, that stated when Kelly and Jackson recorded in late November 1994. Does November 6-8, 1994 sound like late November to you? Factually it is not, especially when the source stated otherwise. Not my sole opinion in the least. Some of these "bad edits" are done repetitively by IP sock puppets (if that makes sense), so it can figuratively drive someone "nuts" when they are not dealt with and prevented from doing damage. How is that "not vandalism", when they intentionally put an unrealistic date in the face of cited evidence?
That IP user had been continually playing with recording dates on multiple Michael Jackson articles, to the point I felt I had to impose a hardline stance against their vandalism. It's not Wiki-correct to do that, but it became very difficult to be sifting through and repairing everything they were doing elsewhere. This is my point in how things need to be studied carefully, before making accusations towards me and even others, in how they handle potential vandalism.
Also, if a sentence states a new model or changes to an existing model came out "in 1995", it isn't accurate if it was October 1994 instead. That is simple math and science, not my opinion. A 1995 model year run in the US, would've been as early as January 3, 1994 and end on December 30, 1995. Essentially 2 years. The 1995 model year Dodge Neon was launched in January 1994 and that is also fact by documented history. If someone said "the Dodge Neon was introduced in 1995" and continued reverting/editing it to that mistake, how is it not vandalism? Someone in fact has been doing that and after contacting so many administrators, I finally got some help in addressing that issue. I might stay away from Wikipedia/article for months, to find they intentionally re-added the wrong date and then hundreds of websites copied that diff as fact.
Again, that is concrete fact and not my subjective opinion. Someone else could not even see the wool being pulled over the eyes, until I politely messaged and briefed them on the situation.

In the UK, we do not use model years so often, but registration based on (14 reg/64 reg). So that everybody meets halfway, I add both the model and production years to an article when possible. I disagree with solely listing a model year to refer to dated events, especially in regards to start of production dates. To accuse me of fighting over model years is incorrect. Info box production and model year sections are not recognized by Wikipedia as the same thing, so I follow that template. It seems that only users on the domestic Ford pages, who will engage in edit warring on this and revert my corrections repeatedly. User: Stepho-wrs and User: OSX agree with this idea, while even the former educating me on it.

Anything I've said in the edit summary links, while volatile in some cases, is mostly in response to perceived malicious editing and unfortunately, spilt over frustration from other significant corrections of possible vandalism. Checking the article diffs, proves that. The fact you are choosing to write it off as only "my opinions" is unfair and a bit biased. As an engineer, I value facts over mere opinion.––––Carmaker1 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I've responded to User:Carmaker1 on my talk page, and I'm hoping to be singing Kumbaya soon. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to say, that as a fellow member of the automobile WikiProject I am well aware of Carmaker1's edits. While sometimes the edit summaries may appear a little harsh, I understand Carmaker1's frustration in dealing with very thick American editors (not all Americans are like this) who downright refuse to take a step back and listen, failing to acknowledge that model years are primarily a US construct and the rest of the world does not use them in any substantive form. I personally have the same frustrations. As Carmarker1 states, the compromised structuring is as follows: "the Dodge Neon was launched in January 1994 for the 1995 model year." But, some editors don't like this as they only want model years to be discussed. I have many a time been in argument with editors (always IPs or new accounts) who think Wikipedia is doing the world a disservice by internationalising (and thus de-Americanising) content. The usual justification is that the US is the largest market with the most sales so the article should revolve around the US point-of-view at the expense of all others. What Carmaker1 and other experienced Wikipedia editors do is to include both perspectives in the clearest and most straightforward manner. It is therefore extremely frustrating and innacurate to revert these changes to say the Dodge Neon was introduced in 1995, when it was introduced for the 1995 model year only (actual release being Jan 1994). OSX (talk • contributions) 04:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you OSX, as that is mainly my problem, as seen via my edit summaries. I've unfortunately lashed out in frustration from endless patterns of vandalism or detrimental edits resurfacing, not necessarily me directly attacking users for the fun of it. One particular user (Cudak), proved to be rather difficult, when I corrected sections on a Mustang article and they kept reinstating the incorrect information. When that user proceeded to make false, unwarranted accusations/warnings of vandalism on my talk page, it felt very personal/embarrassing and generated a defensive statement in return. No one had done that on my talk page ever, not even administrators, in vandalism being a serious accusation. I rarely do that myself even (leave unwarranted vandalism warning templates).
Ford Motor Company began production of their "Fox-body" Mustang in the year of 1978, not 1979 as then wrongly listed in the info box. As you know, how were they correct to reinstate "1979" start of production, even when there was newly cited proof that proves it 100% incorrect? That is not me favoring my "preferred style" like Mendaliv stated above, but proven fact. We encounter these issues, which are at times brushed off as "unimportant" to moderate. What may apply other sections of Wikipedia, doesn't always 100% fit in the automotive section the exact same way. Developmental information can turn into original research, that even if published, may not be utilized for Wikipedia by another third-party (i.e. I interview BMW G30 engineer, yet WP:OR and no 3rd-party use/sourcing for 5-series article).—Carmaker1 (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The catch is, how do you make sure that "the Fox-body Mustang, introduced in 1978" (a correct statement) does not get conflated with "a 1978 Fox-body Mustang" (which is an entirely incorrect statement)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The way you do that, is by dual-implementation of model and production years in the infobox. I've really had the issues with some users substituting model years for "years of production". This is how many owners, of let say the second generation Toyota Tacoma, will wrongly assume their truck was launched in 2005. It was presented in early February 2004 and went on sale in the October 2004. For owners of the first generation Toyota Tacoma, they will always be correct in listing 1995 to 2004, as production began in January 1995 and sales in February/March 1995 as a 1995.5 model. Most of them have gotten wrong, regarding year-to-year changes, in the substituting model year for actual launch dates. Changes on that model have been in October 1996, mid-1997, and October 2000 for the 1997/1998/2001 model years. It may sound opinionated, but this does not seem to be a bigger problem among owners of European brands, that better absorb accurate timelines. Mostly USDM models, like the Camaro, Mustang, etc. Automotive journalists, in turn (semi-often) will use any information from here as fact and we definitely want it to be 99% reputable if they do. I think the journalists are my biggest pet peeve, as a majority of readers follow their word and them doing poor research, still allows them to print their material as valid sources.——Carmaker1 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

By adding "for the 1979 model year", as we always have to do for any articles which deal with US market cars. If someone (usually an IP) cannot comprehend the difference between a car built in 1978 and a car labelled a 1979 by marketers, then WP can hardly be faulted. My best answer is to block IPs from editing and to ignore people who cannot read entire sentences. I sure hope I don't sound elitist... Also, I can't express how surprised I am to find myself defending a rude, impatient editor such as Carmaker1. He loves adding citations to sources which are inaccessible to the common man (such as myself), but I must also state that I have never ever caught him in an untruth.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm rude and impatient? In many examples I have been, but never to you IIRC. Thanks in general, but I've never recalled having issues with you nor any of your helpful contributions. Perhaps I need to be more direct towards troublesome editors (not volatile, but firm and direct manner). Rather than providing vague, generalized edit summary rants, that can be confusing and chilling to unrelated users.
Until I learned how to use Twinkle for warning templates a few months ago (shockingly late), things were 10x times harder with reducing vandalism. I'd attribute my recent actions, being towards vandalism (music articles, Hyundai i20) and oppositional edit warring on dates (Ford sections), with the former example flying under the radar too long amongst other editors/admins. Then being used for 3rd-party research and I later notice the mistakes casually (outside of Wikipedia). It's quite obsessive on my part, but probably my Asperger's doing the talking.
As for some of my citations, I have a habit of focusing on publicly withheld, behind-the-scenes, or "semi-personal" information for Wikipedia contribution. As an automotive design engineer, I realize due to non-disclosure agreements and competitor benchmarking, usually thorough development information is very difficult to obtain and at times will barely surface, via some of the rarest sources. I will try to remember, to not be financially insensitive with my PAYWALL citations, especially since I am no longer, solely a dependent of parental/family affluence and a working man.——Carmaker1 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

Removal of indefinite protection for two minor pages protected > 5 years ago

Hi, I stumbled across this category: Category:Wikipedia_pages_protected_against_vandalism. At least two pages here seem very minor and were protected many years ago. One page (the user page) doesn't actually seem to be protected. I think it would be good to have an administrator deprotect the two pages protected a long time ago, and possible to consider deleting the /version1 page, and possibly the category if it's no longer used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected a few, from my understanding needs to stay for attribution and so is fully protected for that reason. The category exists for pages which are fully protected due to vandalism and is the companion category to Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism. So Portal:Current events should be the only one in the category as that's actually (partly) the reason it's protected. I'm not sure why User talk:Vianello is in the category. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody mentioned the category, but mistakenly used [[Category:Wikipedia_pages_protected_against_vandalism]] instead of [[:Category:Wikipedia_pages_protected_against_vandalism]]. (This is one of the standard reasons why talk pages or Wikipedia discussion pages show up as category members of bizarre categories). I have corrected the mistake. —Kusma (t·c) 08:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kusma, I was looking for where one of the templates had been transclused and forgot that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Heads up: Scottish independence referendum, 2014 is today

Just a quickie: if anyone has a free few minutes, you might wish to keep an eye on Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and related articles. Voting in the referendum is today, and that page has already attracted a spot of vandalism. I've semi-protected the page for 1 day, but it might need a firmer hand if people with strong opinions from either camp start POV pushing. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we'll have to be on our toes if the vote is Yes for independence. Should Scotland choose independence, it wouldn't come into effect until March 2016. GoodDay (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If the majority of Scots vote for independence, the page may need to be semi-protected until then. There's probably a lot of anti-separatist sentiment, translating into vandalism. Epicgenius (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Whichever side wins, I expect protection will be necessary on various Scotland-related pages. There's plenty of vitriol from elements on both sides. BethNaught (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Even without the vitriol, people will try to change things prematurely, because that always happens when things are voted for (successors are selected, etc.) but not coming into effect for some time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! First I've heard about this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI editing on Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild

There have been some odd removals of cited, relevant material from the article Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild. Specifically, removal of his position as Hon. Pres. of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. The removals have been made by NCJR (talk · contribs) (NCJR are the intitials of Jacob Rothschild), and by 89.206.151.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which resolves to Rothschild Capital Management Ltd. The Rothschild family, of which Jacob is the head, is one of the most notable families in British banking and the Jewish community. I shall be notifying both the registered editor and the IP of this thread immediately after saving this. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo, blanking and COI

Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo suffers from occasional blanking of mention of his son, James Palumbo, Baron Palumbo of Southwark. The latest one is here. Please note the edit summary "There is no need to mention James Palumbo on the wiki as this is about me". The history of the IP edits does suggest it is used by members of Peter Palumbo's family. 81.137.206.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Dropping a COI notice and notification of this thread onto the IP talk page. According to our articles, there is a disagreement between father and son concerning custody of the family money. DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Block review

I have blocked User:Academiava4 as an obvious sock puppet, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wipeouting. I am posting here for review because I have made two edits to the related article, which is Premakeerthi de Alwis. I wasn't intending to get involved as an admin on this article, but the sock is so obvious I didn't see any point in waiting for the SPI team to deal with it. Feedback is welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering User:Academiava, User:Academiava2, and User:Academiava3 were linked... I'd say we have a rubber duckie on our hands. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:Listusers is your friend. It showed me that Academiava5 and Academiava6 had been created just today, so I've Template:Sockblocked them too. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And User:Academiava7. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 09:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blacklisted the username to see if that helps. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I forgot that it was an option. #7 was registered after I had blocked everyone else; when blocking #5 and #6, I checked and saw that #7 hadn't yet been created. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Help required from more experienced hands

I seem to have blundered or been the victim of a glitch or most probably a bit of both... in closing an RM I seem to have moved Great Comet to great comet twice, not once as intended, in each case deleting the article at the target and its history, and so the second move moved the resulting redirect from the first move over the article, losing both the article and its history. Or that's what I think happened, looking at the article histories. Not good.

I need advice from old hands... Any suggestions as to how to recover from this (apart from be more careful next time)? Andrewa (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Check the page history and restore the revisions :) I've restored the article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. Andrewa (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Trivial question

The title of this topic is supposed to grab everyone's attention.

An editor complained that I had marked as minor a revert (with an edit summary) that I made. They said it implied vandalism. I had actually not marked the undo of the three edits as minor. Unbeknownst to me, the software had done so thanks to a very old script I installed, I believe before I became an admin.

Regardless of why it was marked as minor, my view is that any revert with an explanation does not imply anything more than whatever the edit summary says. The mere fact that it's marked as minor is, uh, of minor importance. (WP:MINOR appears to support the complaining editor's view, but I don't think it takes into account a revert with a summary.)

Now, I can stop using this technique (I'd uninstall the script), but I don't want to just because one editor didn't like it.

Comments should be pretty easy, so there's no excuse for not responding. And pursuant to the intructions at the top of the page, I've notified all minor users at Wikipedia of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, to my understanding an edit marked as minor is supposed to be an edit reasonably expected not to require notice, comment, or review by other editors; things like typos, minor tweaks, and non-substantive edits. Much in the same way that using rollback, which leaves no edit summary, implies the edits rolled back were vandalism (or something similar not requiring comment), marking an edit as minor does much the same. You did leave an edit summary, which mitigates that to some extent, though. At its core, it's a really technical policy point, even more so than technical misuse of rollback, since just so many people use the minor edit setting in a manner inconsistent with WP:MINOR. I don't consider it a big thing, though I wouldn't do it intentionally. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As editors may choose to omit minor edits from view in their watchlists, it's desirable to not mark an edit as minor if the nature of its changes is non-trivial in nature or is not reverting vandalism. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It matters because of the watchlist issue. I used to mark edits minor by default, but got sufficient complaints that I stopped, and now rarely mark them as minor even manually, because too many people have differing idea about what is minor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I hadn't thought of the watchlist issue. I really do like the script implementation otherwise, so it will be hard to give it up. Perhaps I'll contact the writer of the script and see if they can add a parameter that will do everything it already does except mark it as minor.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information

Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information is heavily backlogged - as I type this, it contains 4721 images. I'm not an image copyright expert, otherwise I'd start on it right away. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, looking at the contents of the category, some of them just need to be tagged as no permission, and the uploader notified, all of which can be done easily enough using Twinkle or a similar tool. I'll find some time tomorrow and make a start. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Davido

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Davido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings Administrators. I need some clarification with the nationality parameter on Wikipedia. Davido was born in America but lives in Nigeria. Since he has both an American and Nigerian passport, should his Biography read: Davido is a Nigerian American recording artist .... or Davido is an American born Nigeria recording artist...? Which is correct. I need some clarification because I believe the former is right. Thanks. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not an issue for administrators to deal with. ansh666 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move War at Scottish independence referendum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was a move war at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. The editor who started the move war has been blocked, but admin eyes on the article might be appropriate with respect to other sorts of warring. (It is already semi-protected against vandalism.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Given your edit warrior was a sockpuppet, and I found a few more sleepers in the drawer, indef move protected that article. Courcelles 05:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal for Topic Ban to be Lifted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was handed down a topic ban on Lady Gaga pages after I dragged an argument over the critical consensus that was listed on the talk page for her album, ARTPOP, out for a lengthy amount of time. I understand why my actions were unacceptable and have spent over half a year acquiring a more consensus/communal-based attitude in regards to the way edits are to be made on this site. I have apologized to the involved parties and have stated outright that I respect them as editors and would like to work with them in the future, if this ban is allowed to be lifted. Six months is a lengthy ban, and I have been allotted more then enough time to reflect on my actions. I was also blocked for sock puppetry, something I have admitted and apologized for. Shortly after, I was accused of sockpuppetry twenty-five times, and was accused of operating accounts in other countries. This experience was anxiety-inducing and horrific, and after experiencing what it is like to have false accusations lobbed at you daily, I can honestly say that I will never engage in that activity again. I understand that, even though I have been editing on this site for three and a half years, there is always room for improvement and will adjust my future actions accordingly. I will respect consensus in regards to other editors' opinions, I will communicate other users with respect, and will assume WP:Good Faith. I legitimately want to work towards making this site a more accurate place and will make edits with that goal in mind, if administrators will allow me to. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Based on the above mea culpa and time served, and per WP:ROPE, lets see if Reece can work well with others. I have no background on this case, no idea of the specifics, but based on the above explanation, I feel comfortable that Reece has learned from his mistakes, and is willing to work well with others. --Jayron32 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I skipped past the part where you supposedly "apologized to the involved parties" because that's clearly not the case. Then I got to the "...for a single offense" line and knew this was a pile of horsecrap. This topic ban wouldn't exist if it was a "single offense". It is also a requirement for any party wishing a reduction of a topic ban to actually prove they have positive edits elsewhere, which is not shown anywhere in this request. So, false statements + complete inability to acknowledge all the issues that led to the topic ban + no proof of positive editing elsewhere = no reduction of topic ban yet the panda ₯’ 20:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted lengthy apologies on the talk pages of IndianBio and Snuggums, involved parties. Therefore, my statement about apologizing was not a false statement and I'm confused as to why you would say it was "clearly not the case". The argument I discuss above was the incident that resulted in my topic ban. You may disagree on the semantics of "single instance", but it was one long conversation that I was describing with the term "single instance". I've done extensive work in other areas, including the 30 Rock page, the page for Tina Fey, How I Met Your Mother, and minor edits on the pages for Bob's Burgers, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and Inside Amy Schumer. I would also ask you not to refer to my edits as anything resembling "a pile of horsecrap", as this is an insult and is against wikipedia policy. I am legitimately trying to move past the incident above, and having been banned for half a year from editing pages relating to this one artist, I understand why what I did was wrong. Half a year is a very, very long time. I have admitted my guilt, apologized, and expressed my genuine desire to contribute with other users. I would ask that you not focus on the semantics of my post and see the fact that I genuinely want to contribute accurately. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're under the bizarre belief that it's only those 2 people who a) are "involved parties", b) that you dragged into the dispute, c) that you insulted one way or another, or d) that you need to apologize to, then it just shows how far detached you are from the incredible breadth and depth of the disruption you caused the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking from me here. I apologized to the two parties that were most involved, even though these two accused me of sock puppetry twenty five times, accusations that you were involved in. I am under no obligation to apologize to anyone, but I did so because I want to better the relationship that existed between the three of us before this instance occurred and because they are the two main editors of all Lady Gaga pages and I want to make sure that I am able to edit alongside them civilly. I've admitted that my actions were unacceptable and have shown that I have edited positively on a wide variety of other pages; it seems to me that you're belaboring the issue here needlessly. It was never my intention to insult anybody, and can remember being insulted by others several times who were not reprimanded. Again, I'd ask you to stop trying to find fault in my above post where it doesn't exist by focusing on the semantics instead of the substance. There is nothing in my post that insinuates that I am anything resembling "detached", as I admitted right out that my actions were unacceptable. Are you asking for a personal apology or something? Reece Leonard (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth taking a look at the linked "apologies". Just looking at the first link: [7], Were I the recipient of that, in those circumstances, I think I'd be at least shaking my head a little. Gems like:

• "I posted on Snuggum's page because I wanted you to see it, but he pretended to archive it and just deleted it instead, probably because I called him out on some pretty damning stuff he did in the past."
• "a nearly five month hiatus from this site, a hiatus primarily instigated by the repeated WP:Harassment I had to deal with every time I logged on thanks to your incessant accusations of sock puppetry without any evidence to back them up whatsoever"
• "I want to note that this is a large step I am taking with how suspicious your edits on this page have been"
• "I'm not going to go into these issues any further, although Snugums actions are clearly unacceptable and extremely serious. It's clear to me that you are a couple of teenagers interested in pop culture (information backed up by IndianBio's page and my own inferences about Snuggums) and I understand that "stanning" for pop icons is a current fad, and you two seem to be well versed in this internet-pop-star culture."

and it goes on and on... would hardly give me the warm and fuzzies. In fact I don't see an apology at all in that wall of text - perhaps Reece could clarify, if I'm looking in the wrong place? Begoon ^talk 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The first post refers to the fact that these two accused me of sock puppetry on twenty five instances without evidence, which would absolutely count as harassment, and one user went so far as to attempt to post personal information that he believed to be mine from a social media account that he also believed to be mine in an attempt to "out" me, which is obviously against WP policy. I was fearful of getting on this site because I knew that someone was trying to find me off-site, a terrifying notion. I mentioned this action so that these two would be aware of the fact that they had acted inappropriately so that we could all work together in the future. The "stanning" section was my attempt to assert that I knew where they were coming from. I did not say the comment about their age as an insult, seeing as how IndianBio is actually a teenager. None of these were insulting or came from a place of malice at all; I was simply trying to convey that we had both made mistakes and was willing to move past them. I apologized for my actions several times in that post. Reece Leonard (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just read it all again, slowly, twice. I see you saying you are willing to work with them, and telling them what they need to do to facilitate that. I see you telling them how upset you were about it all, and why that was their fault. I see you say "I apologize that you feel the need to do that." at one point, but, really, I don't see an apology. I guess you felt you were making a huge gesture, and that therefore it's an apology, but I honestly don't see how you can link that post and say "I did apologise". I don't want to labour it, but that's my considered outside view. Hell, I haven't even offered an opinion on whether you should apologise, or who to - I think forced apologies are meaningless. I just found it odd to read that, pointed at as an "apology", is all. Begoon ^talk 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I stated that I understood why they felt my actions warranted the response they gave me and apologized that I made them react that way. That is an apology, and It clearly shows that I am willing to better myself for the sake of the good will. I'd like to clarify that I didn't assign fault to them other than for the twenty five false accusations they made. I took responsibility for my actions otherwise. Reece Leonard (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that's what you intended. Trust me, though, it really doesn't read that way, and serves mostly to reignite matters. I offer this as honest advice, should you ever find yourself in this position again. Begoon ^talk 14:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)\

Thanks for letting me know. I'll make sure to word my posts more carefully in the future. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I actually recommend brief, friendly and sincere over just "careful" and ;tldr, but careful is good too, when applied with regards to the recipient of the message. Now..., if only I could always hold myself to those standards... Begoon ^talk 16:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reece, right now you're on "equal" footing to everyone who has ever appealed a topic ban. Those who believe it was "punishment" think it's like a jail sentence: sit out some time, and come back all happy - which never works, because it's not punishment. All editors who wish to appeal a topic ban have to show the community 2 things to get the restrictions lifted: 1) extensive positive editing elsewhere on the project while topic-banned, and 2) extensive positive interactions with others/adherence to the rules while topic-banned. It's truly an "actions speak louder than words" requirement. Your last thousand edits (well, dozen or so really) show neither a) positive interactions nor b) contributions elsewhere. (To be honest, "apologies" are typically not taken into account, but if you're going to state you've "apologized to all those affected", you need to actually apologize to all the people, not just 1 or 2 you think are important (oh, and they actually have to be apologies)). You say you've "learned" that both your editing style AND your interaction style didn't fit. So, spend 6 months/1,000 edits proving that you learned - that's what we ask of anyone the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The downright denial that he socked only once, while the SPI reports clearly indicates that he socked multiple times (two registered accounts, multiple IP socks) is what scares me tbh. I don't see any ounce of remorse over the actions he had done. And well, as everyone else pointed out on the apolog faux-paux, so there you go. Has he proved himself beneficial to the community within this time? The answer is, no. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have stated remorse for my actions several times, in several sections on this page alone. You personally accused me of operating twenty five accounts without proof, which constitutes as a ridiculous case of WP:Harassment. The "multiple IP socks" that you refer to were not me, you accused me of being these IPs without any evidence at all, and several of these were located in different countries and couldn't possibly be me. This history shows that you have exercised very cloudy judgement when it comes to myself, and that the answer is not "no" simply because you stated it is. Despite all of these actions, I have reached out to you several times with the hope of improving our relationship. I have given extensive proof that I have made positive edits on this site during the six months that I was topic banned. It's puzzling why those have not been acknowledged at all. It's also confusing where this entire fabricated backstory came from that Panda has spun from the fact that I used the word "punished" once. I never, ever stated anything about believing that I could just "come back" and have everything work out. This "thousand edit" requirement is something you just now made up on the spot, and if you were to actually look at my previous edits, you would see that I have done extensive work on other topics. I would never do anything to come back to any kind of administrative forum like this one, partially because having to post on this forum is a nightmare; you make a post with a single word and an entire backstory is made up and assigned to you. I have provided several links to several edits I have made during the half a year I was topic banned, have stated that I completely understand that my actions were unacceptable and have reached out to those who I may have caused problems with in the past. I have demonstrated that I have a new outlook on editing and am asking for a chance to prove that. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Begoon pointed it out clearly for you above. You do not reach out to people with the implication that they purposefully harassed you, while you dug this mud pie for yourself. You socked, plain and simple and multiple times, within the time frame given to you to completely avoid Lady Gaga related topics. Then flat out deny them even going so far as to remove them from your talk page (which you have all the liberty to do so). But now you are accusing even Panda of fabricating a back story? Seriously, stop. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I will point out, for the umpteenth time, that you are making vague, general comments about "multiple instances" of socking when only two were ever found to have any merit and twenty five of them were found to be flagrant and false. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I simply stated that he made a generalization based on the usage of one word. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have concerns that you note you "have spent over half a year acquiring a more consensus/communal-based attitude" (emphasis mine), yet you were socking at least four months ago. Your message above unfortunately appears to gloss over the level of disruption you caused and completely omits the confirmed socking.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've edited my above post to include these instances. I did not include that information because it had nothing to do with the implementation of my topic ban. Additionally, those instances were instrumental in providing me the mindset I discussed. I have apologized and have been punished accordingly. As I stated above, I will not be engaging in any activity like this in the future. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You've never been "punished" - the project and its editors have been protected. You therefore need to give good reasons why the protection level should be lowered, not suggest that you've appropriately served some for of punishment. That might just be the crux of the problem with your request overall the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're focusing on the semantics instead of the substance of the issue. I was referring to the instances in which I was blocked, not the topic ban. I apologize for not wording my post accurately. Again: what are you asking me to do here, specifically? Reece Leonard (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

See above. Since you think it's "punishment" you think that simply sitting things out fixes things ... no, you have to PROVE yourself to the community like everyone else the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate. I do NOT believe it to be punishment, and have provided several links to positive edits I have made during the last six months that prove my growth. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the socking in May '14, which makes the "half a year" of good work an untruth. Also per the Panda about the lack of evidence that there was positive work outside of the area affected by the TBAN. In addition, the TBAN is realistically narrow enough so that I have strong doubts it is able to prevent constructive edits unless the editor is solely focused on a single artist, which is probably not a good idea anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "half a year of good work". I stated that, over the half-year period for which I was topic-banned (a banning in which DangerousPanda was involved) I was educated on how to better my edits. That last socking incident was four months ago and I have not committed any violation since then. I understand that I should've included that in my above post, but I did not think it was supposed to be included seeing as how this took place after my topic ban was instituted and had nothing to do with it's implementation. The point is that I would like to contribute on certain pages that I am not currently allowed to contribute on. I have learned that my aggressive arguing tactics caused strife and have apologized and adjusted my actions accordingly. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

*Comment I would only approve and support the ban to be lifted if Reece is taken under editor review and monitoring of his edits related to the Lady Gaga pages for sometime, unless it can be sure that he would not resort to the old editing pattern. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC) (Forget it, I'm taking back this)

I'd be fine with a temporary monitor to make sure that I don't make inaccurate edits. Reece Leonard (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The OP has gotten off easy not to have had her primary account indeffed for the socking. I don't see any need for the community to be tolerant of recent puppet-masters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I only see evidence that removing this ban would increase problems. Reece may consider, in the future, whether wikilawyering is, in fact, the best path. I suggest it is not. Begoon ^talk 18:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that this is going nowhere. I will continue to make constructive edits and appeal at a later date once I have provided sufficient evidence that I have shown growth. I withdraw my current appeal. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing username

Changing username is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. If there is no reason why not to, can it redirect to the same place as Changing Username redirects to? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus to change some interface messages

Hi, there was consensus at the Village Pump on a now archived discussion to re-word some interface messages. Could this be done? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's not really consensus, is it. You probably needed a proper RFC for that. Besides, interface messages cannot typically be changed by admins. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The village pump really is the place where this kind of thing is supposed to be discussed, and admins definitely can change the interface messages. There's enough support for changing the messages that I'm willing to make the edits in question, and "checked" seems to be the most popular option, so I'm willing to use that terminology instead of "reviewed". I hesitate right now solely because Sam Walton makes a vague statement at the end, Additionally it could be beneficial to include either a brief explanation of what NPP is or some link to WP:NPP in the notification or email, and I'm not sure how to put this into practice. Should he provide an explanation (or text that I could just copy/paste into place), it would be a lot simpler, and I'd be willing to do it. Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not at all near a sufficient consensus for an interface message change. Even if it is a beneficial change (which I believe it may well be) you need to have more participation and discussion - a 'silent consensus' for something like this sets a dangerous precedent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm more with Nyttend on this. There was broad support for the change and it was discussed in the appropriate place which is highly viewed. I don't see a "dangerous precedent" as the changes can just be reverted if it turns out that there is not consensus for the change. With that said, I don't see agreement on the exact wording, so I have pulled the discussion out of the archive and hopefully it will receive further attention on this point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, on that basis I'll wait to see if there are any suggestions for a NPP explanation. If none are suggested, I would not like to be the one person to provide the explanation and so think it would be best left as just the checked/patrolled wording change for now. Sam Walton (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification

Consensus has established that the restriction should be worded as follows SMcCandlish is banned from moving pages until October 15th, except in the following cases:

1. Where the page is in his own userspace
2. Where SMcCandlish is the sole human editor to edit the page

This strikes a solid median between the concerns that the original reason for the the ban (not so great judgment in the area) could still be an issue, and those who wish to give SMcCandlish the chance to prove himself. I did not include provisions to stuff like "if spelling mistakes are only being fixed" as @The Bushranger: mentioned that it would subject the ban to potential wikilawyering, and to the fact that it asks for a judgement call, which can be debated, and the community already imposed the ban because that wasn't working. This also helps SMcCandlish, as he wishes to avoid ANI drama. With only 2 and a bit weeks left, it shouldn't mean much in the long run if the spelling, etc. provisions are left out. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

---

I – SMcCandlish – was banned for three months from directly making page moves, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish: "SMcCandlish is banned from making page moves for 3 months. They may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth, but not move pages." That ban is over in about a month. In the interim, I ask that its wording be clarified, and WP:Editing restrictions be updated with the clarification. The wording is over-broad, and needs to be narrowed to apply only topages about which some controversy could conceivably arise. In particular, it should not apply to pages within my own userspace, nor to recent pages (in any namespace) of which I am the sole editor (or sole substantive editor; no one cares about a tweak by a bot, or someone's off-hand typo fix). The ban's excessively broad wording is impeding my ability to develop templates and do other routine work on new stuff that no one has any interest in until it's no longer in draft/alpha form. While I would love to assume in good faith that no one would notice or make trouble about an obviously non-controversial move of one of my own pages, someone has already filed one WP:POINTy, vexatious, rejected ANI case against me for even daring to use WP:RM, so I'm not taking any chances.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see revised request.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support allowing the moving of pages created within userspace to other titles within userspace, or from userspace to mainspace. Oppose allowing "recent pages (in any namespace) of which I am the sole editor (or sole substantive editor; no one cares about a tweak by a bot, or someone's off-hand typo fix)". We do, in fact, care about attempting to weaken a ban through Wikilawyering. The fact of the matter is that (as should be obvious by the fact you were move-banned) any move by you is controversial, as a result of your own actions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Mostly oppose: I'm not thrilled with SMC's manner in the above request for a reduction in sanction. It reflects much the same disruptive attitude that led to the current sanction. SMC: Assuming good faith, the problem that led to your pagemove ban resulted from repeated mistakes on your part in considering certain pagemoves to be uncontroversial. I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that your understanding has changed, preferably through a track record of success at RM (which I would be happy to evaluate if you have a list of RMs). That said, you are quite correct that you should be allowed to move pages within your own userspace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (see below)
  • Based on SMC's statement below, and his compilation of statistics, I'm in favor of giving him another shot along the lines of his revised request below. And of course, when the original ban expires, any new limitation would expire as well. My prior concern about SMC's manner might more be an issue of the medium in which we practice; being assertive can come off as being aggressive, being humorous can come off as being disrespectful, and the like. As such, I would encourage SMC to review his interactions; I got the impression from the ANI thread where the ban was instituted that there might be a problem like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm definitely assertive, and I get a lot done as a consequence. A secondary consequence, alas, is that everyone with a personality conflict with me tends to dogpile me emotively at ANI and other process pages, and tend to canvas each other to do so [8], as well as engage in shameless personal attacks all against me all over Wikipedia, which never, ever have any consequences for them for some reason, not matter how baldfaced they are. I also lean toward being wry in disputes (though I try to avoid outright sarcasm and often revert myself to self-moderate when I go there). Not being transparently serious and deferent in every interaction has it's costs, I suppose. But in 9+ years of moderating myself, I think this is as good as it gets; I'm not likely to be different next week or next year. I don't think the fact that I can be abrasive sometimes really justifies the vitriolic treatment I get at AN/ANI/AE almost every time (not that there's many times, but they sure are memorable, rather like being thrashed by a mob). Many now indef-blocked, perpetually disruptive, system-gaming WP:CIVILPOV pushers and other forms of editwarrior, who were clearly WP:NOTHERE to do anything useful, have been treated with far more respect and good faith than I usually get in such proceedings, until they were indef'ed, usually regretfully and after enormous amounts of deferential giving of the benefit of the doubt, which I never get (nor do any other MOS/AT regulars; there's a clear "wikiprojects should do whatever they want autonomously", anti-consistency bias growing in ANI and especially in AE, reflecting increased real-world factional interest in POV-pushing WP's content. Reglardless of the "wikipolitics": The noticeboards are not supposed to be popularity contests, but I'm hard-pressed to see the difference these days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a little considered about this: The wording is over-broad, and needs to be narrowed to apply only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise. I think this statement might be at odds with an understanding of why this editor received a ban. They're asking to be allowed to self-judge what's potentially "controversial" and what's not, when that's the exact thing the community agreed this editor was't so hot at. I would expect them to judge any of their own future actions as justified and reasonable. That seems to be how they got in trouble in the first place. As far as the wording being "over-broad" I think both closing admins, @Protonk: and @DangerousPanda:, commented that they were erring on the safer side. Were they asked to clarify the boundaries of their closing on this issue?__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • they didn't consult me but I don't think that's a big deal. They're free to consider the restriction overly broad and ask the community for input on that front. As was pointed out on my talk page and in a number of emails I am merely an empty vessel for the community's displeasure. ;) Protonk (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Protonk, there were two admins with differing views on what the remedy should say and why, one who had reverted the other, so it seemed less WP:PARENT side-taking to just ask WP:AN for neutral administrative input than to ask one of those two admins in particular to modify it. No slight was intended.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'd prefer not to edit the restriction as proposed because it abuts against the actual locus of controversy, namely that many editors decided SMcCandlish had trouble distinguishing which moves were controversial and which were not. Changing the restriction to "apply only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise" would invite the same problem that caused the ban discussion in the first place. I'm not saying that SMcCandlish's actions will be as problematic, but I don't feel the need to push us back to the same place. I don't have a problem with allowing moves in other namespaces, but I'm also not convinced that there is a strong reason to do so. I'm prepared to be convinced on that front, however. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Mostly support. We ought not fuss about you moving pages in your userspace, and if you're the only substantive editor for a page, it's not as if people are going to raise controversy if you're not currently banned. We ought to apply the G7 speedy deletion criterion's wording for pages you've created: if we'd accept your request for a G7 deletion for a page, you should be able to move it. The vague bit about pages that aren't controversial would be a bad idea, simply because it's so broad. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Normally, Nyttend, I'd concur with your reasoning that if we'd accept a G7 it'd be fine. But the difference between a G7 and a pagemove is that a G7 has an admin evaluation before the action is undertaken. Here, there has to be a reliance on SMC to appropriately evaluate, in effect, whether G7 applies, and to do so with no oversight. I'm not too crazy about that idea given the surrounding circumstances for this pagemove ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Well in that case, Mendaliv, at least you could support allowing him to move a page that only he had edited, or that only he and a bot had edited. I would expect SMC to know how to determine whether an account is bot-flagged, and if I'm wrong, he can be taught in a couple of minutes. It's not a judgement call; this kind of decision, itself, is something that a bot could easily make with complete reliability. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a fair enough point. I can support that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – at least narrow the ban to article space to make it unambiguous and not overly restrictive. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - leave it as it is. BMK (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support page moves from or within his own user space. He should be able to move pages freely in his own user space regardless of restrictions. It is similarly uncontroversial to move pages from his user space to other name spaces. For other moves, he can seek consensus or ask for assistance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support both clarifications. Sensible really, none of the controversial moves that led to the ban were to articles in either of these categories (own userspace or sole substantive contributor) so I see no reason why this would cause any problems. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Revised request: I ask that, before the move ban expires in four weeks anyway, the remedy be clarified to exempt moves within my userspace, moves (e.g. of drafts) from my userspace to another namespace, and moves in any namespace of pages of which I am the sole substantive author (i.e., other than bots, AWB runs or other automation, or trivial edits like typo fixes), on the same basis as G7. I wasn't expecting to be taken as proposing specific wording (which I've since struck) such that "appl[ies] only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise" would be in the revised remedy. I was just describing two specific cases, and then spelled them out after "In particular...": my userspace, and draft stuff I'm working on that no else knows or cares about. I think this should address essentially identical concerns by The Bushranger, Mendaliv, Elaqueate and Protonk.

  As may not have been clearly conveyed to everyone by my initial request, the point to being able to move non-userspace pages I've created but no one else has substantively edited, is that I already asked for assistance once (noncontroversial or "speedy" RM is a just a request for an admin to move something for you, that just happens to be filed at WP:RM instead of done with G6 template {{db-move}}), and I was tendentiously hauled in front of ANI again, where the complainant didn't get boomerang sanctioned or even slightly criticized, despite the patent vexatiousness of the endeavor. There is no reason to expect that my using any other method of asking an admin to move something for me (e.g. via a regular G6 or G7) won't have precisely the same WP:DRAMA result, unless this remedy is adjusted, or I just abandon what I'm working on for a month in cases where it needs moving around. Abandoned work usually doesn't get picked back up again, or I wouldn't care otherwise. A month isn't very long, but it's long enough to move on to something else and leave stymied work incomplete.

  Since Mendaliv asked: Unless I've missed one, every single RM I've filed, since the original ANI, has gone the way I suggested, both regular and speedy ones. User:SMcCandlish/RM log|I've gathered a big pile of stats for you. I would bet that most of the RMs I've commented in, filed by others, have as well (this has actually been true for years) but it's not something I would keep track of (the stats just gathered show about a 95% accuracy rate lately, with regard to how I !vote and how RMs close). It's also likely that most if not all of the very moves at issue in the original ANI will actually be sustained by consensus, because they were in fact based on policy and precedent, even if making them en masse without discussion was a poor idea; Update: Not only have they lasted over two months with no issues arising, comments so far at the mass RM to move them back to status quo ante have unanimously mostly opposed doing so. None of that's really relevant because I'm not asking for a clarification that allows me free rein to exercise judgement about what might be controversial.

  Some of the above comments' approach, treating me like some kind of dangerous wikicriminal, are a bit over-the-top. In 9+ years of editing here, I have but one other short-term topic ban (made by a deeply involved admin I chose not to appeal against, just to avoid the drama which probably would have taken longer than the month the ban was for). I think a little perspective and more good faith is called for. The accusations of wikilawyering, system-gaming, a disruptive attitude, and untrustworthiness to make any kind of move at all, are all particularly inappropriate and unsubstantiated, no matter how unpopular I am with some people.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:ROPE support. The ban expires in 4 weeks. Loosen it now and give him some rope. Either hes improved, and this will allow a more gradual re-entry into the area, or he hasn't in which case we may see issues arise while the ban is still in-force and it is easier to extend. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. If I were someone chomping at the bit to go do something disruptive and "hang myself", I wouldn't have waited until the ban was almost over, and then asked for extremely narrow clarifications that leave me no wiggle-room to do anything disruptive. It's not even a re-entry into anything, as it wouldn't affect my [non-]ability to move real articles; it's just a technical clarification so I don't get pilloried in yet another WP:WIKILAWYERing re-ANI exercise just for shuffling my own drafts and template sandboxes around. If I were begging for wiggle room to do something questionable, I wouldn't be using full RM process for page moves that I could have listed as "speedy" non-controversial RMs (see my RM activity in the last 24 hours, e.g. Talk:Blue Grey#Requested moves), even though WP:ANI concluded against the second of Justlettersandnumbers's second ANI request, an accusation that I was abusing that process, and explicitly permitted me to use it; I'm clearly considering the fact that an objection was raised at all to be good enough reason to go the long route at least for now, across the board). WP:ROPE? Seriously? I'm a long-term, constructive contributor, with no blocks at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - am commenting only as someone reasonably familiar with the move/RM process. In my view SMcCandlish's statistics not only support his active involvement in improvement in titling (his statistics on both counts would probably be better than my own, his view having carried against my own on more than one occasion), but also his willingness to explain and engage. So if a non-admin opinion counts it would be a clear support. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Non-admin OPPOSE: He will game the system. SMC is already back to his old tricks of making tendentious arguments, arguing for mass changes, and attacking anyone who opposes him. At the moment, he's in another spat with @Justlettersandnumbers: see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Teeswater_sheep#Discussion ; and he is making multiple move requests on several other animal breed pages, just a sampling includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russian_Black_Pied ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dutch_Landrace ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blue_Grey ; and (multiple species here) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corsican_Cattle . NONE of these appear to be getting brought to the animal project pages for each species, and putting up multiple move requests across many different articles is clearly attempting to cover his tracks and game the system. Look at his contribs . Rope has been given, obvious what happens with it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• If "they may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth", putting up move requests is far from gaming the system — he's doing what's explicitly permitted by the ban! Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Putting up massive move requests of 6 to 20 articles at a time, all on the talk page of one of those articles (perhaps with notice on other pages, but certainly no notificatin that he has 10 or 15 simultaneous requests pending all across wikipedia is definitely gaming the system. Montanabw^(talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blatant assumption of bad faith, backed up by nothing at all. Montanabw needs to read WP:RM and Template:Rm; the documentation for doing multi-page move nominations specifically says to do them this way. If someone would like to change that process, please take that up at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves as a proposal. It has nothing to do with me or this AN discussion. Montanabw does not have any special right to personal notification of moves of articles that the editor has no connection to, and the entire point of WP:RM is that it serves as a venue for publishing proposed move discussions in a centralized location; individual editors are almost never notified of RMs, and RMs are usually not cross-linked unless there's a special connection between them, because it can come off as canvassing. Note also that Montanabw supports someone else's much more "massive" multi-page RM, put up on one article's talk page at Talk:Teeswater sheep, but which proposes moves that would reverse ones I made, making their argument here self-contradictory.

  This editor habitually engages in personal attacks against me, despite prior productive collaboration a few years ago (and directly against the position of Montanabw's new wikifriend, and my current biggest detractor, Justlettersandnumbers [9] – anyone else feel this is all about interpersonal drama? Note Montanabw's characterization of well-reasoned policy disputes between me and Jlan as a "spat", into which Montanbw has chosen a side for the exact opposite of Wikipedia-helpful reason. This is not a good sign.).

  The latest such attack was made after being asked to engage in formal WP:Dispute resolution. The bizarre post came in a subthread of the RM at Talk:Teeswater sheep about needing to stop engaging in personal attacks no less [10]. That one included an unsupported accusation of "bullying", and an open admission by Montanabw of engaging in WP:GANG behavior to engage in WP:HARASSMENT to make a WP:POINT ("I am basically siding with people who hold a view opposite from my own preference on titles ... because you are bullying them..."), and continued with further unsupported accusations of WP:TE, among other more generalized personalized negativity, which Montanabw tries to psychologically project as Wikipedia-wide hatred of me, one message after accusing me of attacks and projection, and linking to the same Kiger Mustang discussion mentioned below, in which I make no attacks). This rant concludes with recognition that I probably feel "picked on", followed by shameless victim blaming, in which it's okay for Montanabw to engage in the picking-on, as long as putting me in my place is the goal. Montanabw really does hold the opposite view on titles as the one being espoused against me here (i.e., holds the same view I do); see this mutual discussion about that agreement, confirmation of it elsewhere to that effect, and both our participation in the recent-ish Talk:Mustang#Requested move (July 2014).

  It's unclear how this doesn't constitute WP:GAMING the system, another thing Montanabw has accused me of repeatedly, including right here. What was that about projection again? Anyway, I have a lot more diffs showing Montanabw's weird, abusive behavior toward me, but perhaps this is enough to put a stop to it. I've been hoping, despite the evidence piling up, that dispute resolution may be forthcoming, but now that I look further, I see it has been explicitly rejected [11], in a way that sadly fails to realize that the explicit purpose of DR is to settle personal disputes between editors. I'm not sure what Montanabw thought it would be for. The tone of it seems to be a declaration of war, basically, as well as of superiority. Just one more example in a very long string of such antics (yes, I have a lot more diffs.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, I see no sign that SMcCandlish truly understands the disruptive nature of what he was banned for and continues defending his actions as he did in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#SMcCandlish_page_move_ban:_request_for_clarification; and he indeed is still attacking and casting aspersions on others as he has done above in this very request. Dreadstar ☥ 03:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What attacks? Diffs please. Also, how many times do I need to repeat that I acknowledge it was disruptive before you'll consider that I understood that? Isn't once enough?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  In response to your question about attacks and aspersions committed by you in this very section, I complied this list on a temporary subpage so as to not clutter up this AN request. As far as your acknowledgement of the disruption you caused, I'm not seeing anything like that in your initial request above. I remain unconvinced. Dreadstar ☥ 18:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  None of these constitute attacks at all. You seem to think that one must never defend oneself from accusations. According to you, it constitutes a personal attack to even observe that an assumption of bad faith is an assumption of bad faith, or to complain of a personal attack or other abuse and actual provide a diff that demonstrates it, or to ask AN for input on whether your perception of a user conduct issue is accurate, or to express one's feelings about the subjective experience of ANI process without criticizing anyhone in particular. I don't think anyone else shares your views in this regard, and it's certainly not what WP:NPA says. Not sure what else to tell you. PS, re: "I'm not seeing anything like that in your initial request above" – Did you miss the original ANI, and the negotiated close that was aborted by the early closure? I was quite clear in it. The purpose of the current request is a technical amendment, about moving my own pages; further apologetics regarding the issues raised in the original ANI case didn't seem relevant. I'm not appealing my move ban, or trying to "convince" anyone of anything. It's a simple clarification. I do of course, again, reaffirm my understanding of the controversial nature of the moves at question in that first ANI request. But this AN request has already been hijacked for all sorts of character assassination against me that has nothing to do with the AN and me moving pages in my userspace or which no one else knows or cares about.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, no, you're free to defend yourself, but attacking and casting aspersions on others (not necessarily an individual, but broad attacks on groups, as you have clearly engaged in), is unnecessary to defend yourself with - especially when you're attempting to get your ban reversed or ended early, this just goes to show your own lack of recognition of the disruption you cause. And yes, I saw the original ANI request you made, but in a second attempt to modify your ban, you made absolutely no comment recognizing the disruption you caused - so yes, you needed to say it more than once. And repeating it now, while attacking me is inappropriate. I don't think you've learned anything from your ban and the comments of others - and once again, in your very post above you attack others: "this....AN request has already been hijacked for all sorts of character assassination against me.."; this isn't about them, it's about you, your request and your behavior. No, I don't think you get it at all, and I believe this is why others mention WP:ROPE - you don't get it and will continue disrupting after your ban is over. Dreadstar ☥ 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (no admin) - keep things simple, wait a month. For things you need to be moved make a wishlist in user space, - we might come, look and help. - it's not the only overly broad topic ban there is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – His request to merely be able to perform moves within his own userspace, moves from his userspace to another namespace, and moves of pages where he is the sole substantive author, seems uncontroversial enough to gain my support. Mojoworker (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Moving an article from namespace into mainspace if an invitation to engage in massive WP:FORKing. A clear example of his intent to do things like this is here. Allowing him leeway where he is the creator of a fork or arguing if he is a "substantive" contributor will just be opening up a another round of tl;dr debate. Take a look at his contribs list and the examples I have listed above. Montanabw^(talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:CFORK. But, I'm unconvinced – you can easily fork without doing any moves at all and if he really wanted to develop in his user space, he could just cut and paste to a new article in mainspace. Mojoworker (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Opening a discussion, then an RfC for more input when that discussion doesn't come to consensus, is not evidenciary in any way at all of POV-forking. So, yet another zero-evidence attack by Montanabw. Yes, let's look at Talk:Kiger Mustang. We see me raising a scope issue, and Montanabw playing the WP:IDHT game, demanding sources for what is already sourced, refusing to read or respond to anything of substance, perpetuating personalized tensions, accusing me of WP:DEADHORSE beating, and generally engaging in a WP:FILIBUSTER pattern to prevent discussion; I've worked around this by opening an RfC so the community can discuss it whether Montanabw wants us to or not, and whether anyone wants my own further input or not. But nowhere is there me engaging in a "vicious personal attack", an indefensible claim Montanabw made here about that discussion.

Elsewhere, Montanabw recently muses, in finishing up another multifaceted, unsupportable attack on me, "I am wondering if it [sic] time to discuss how to stop this endless drama." [12] The answer to that question is obviously "yes", but I submit that it's not in the way that Montanabw is thinking. This is just the tip of the diff iceberg. Montanabw has already explicitly rejected voluntary dispute resolution, leaving not too many avenues left, none of them pleasant. I've asked by Montanbw and Jlan again to engage in DR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How you deal with people who disagree with you, SMC, is not filling me with confidence that this is going to work out. It's not particularly civil. And, frankly, she has you dead to rights on the tl;dr criticism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How should I, then, deal with someone who shamelessly attacks me again and again and again, even in administrative noticeboards, even after multiple warnings? We have a policy against that. We don't have a policy against writing longer posts than average, last I looked. False equivalence, Mendaliv. This is pretty typical though. I cannot actually remember a single time in the last 2 years when an ARBATC issue came up in which a double-standard wasn't applied, to chastise the AT and MOS regulars, while allowing their detractors, especially if they claimed to represent a wikiproject, to escape even the mildest criticism, and to exercise effective immunity from WP behavioral policies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How about by realizing that constructive criticism is not an "attack", particularly when it is an objective explanation of your apparent behavior? Montanabw^(talk) 00:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If your criticism was constructive, sure. But it's been simply antagonizing, and sharply increasing in response to you having more and recent editorial conflicts with me (i.e., strongly indicative of a strategy to "win" arguments by procedurally muzzling me). Otherwise we wouldn't be engaged a dispute of this sort. It's instructive to go over our interactions from last year and earlier, and note how much more collegial they were even when we disagreed. That was when you were unhappy with Jlan and thought me an ally against him (not sure Jlan would be happy with those diffs). I suggested dispute resolution the other day for a reason; we actually have a history of being able to cooperate. Even a month and a half ago they were much better. Constructive criticism? How about stop picking "us vs. them" sides. I have no interest in playing any factional games "against" other editors. Notice how RMs I open, and !votes I post in RMs, with regard to various animal breed articles are based in policy arguments, while your and Jlan's RM activities are almost entirely couched in terms of ad hominem arguments about what I personally did or said? I know I'm not the only one who thinks that's really weird and inappropriate; others have already commented[13] on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Seems a reasonable enough request. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support revised request. Seems reasonable enough. But I'm close to indifferent, given the relatively short amount of time between now and when the ban expires on its own. Also, can we stop fucking using WP:ROPE in discussions like this? I think it's a little disgusting that the principle "you can't break the wiki" has been transmogrified into "well, this guy's an asshole, let's cut him a little slack and see if he'll do something crazy enough to be obviously blockable" Protonk (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  Why have policies, guidelines, RFC's, and ArBCom at all if one can't 'break the wiki'? Why have admins? Let the fastest gun in the west rule! Law of the jungle! Yeah!  :) Dreadstar ☥ 04:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support When someone is able to prove themselves we can let go. Anything else is a punishment.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  Mark, have you noticed, however, that SMC has not "proved" anything other than his need for a LONGER and tighter restriction? Montanabw^(talk) 00:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  [14][15][16] – Montanbw doesn't seem to be keeping up with the fact that her and Jlan's accusations are being consistently rejected, for over a month now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support clarification/Oppose loosening I've had conflicts with SmC before, so I'm not unbiased, but there is absolutely no harm in rendering the wording of SmC's ban less vague. Explicitly state that it doesn't apply to SmC's own user space, and clarify its other terms but do not change them. Let it time out. As for WP:ROPE, it's WP:POINT. If you think SmC's going to do something disruptive, then don't loosen the ban. That's more important than hoping that SmC or anyone will get in more trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal - userspace/(mostly)sole author seems reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support WTF should anyone care where he moves pages that are within his own userspace? It was ridiculous kind of prohibition in the first instance. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently nobody asked me :-) I honestly believe that it was never the intent of the community to prevent SMC from moving things solely inside their own userspace. Indeed, such a prohibition was never part of my "reclosing" of the original close. This entire discussion didn't need to occur - just a check from Protonk and myself would have easily clarified this without any form of drama the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Before closing this section, administrators may want to be aware that SMC has active move requests encompassing what (I think) are over 60 animal breed articles consolidated into separate Rm requests on 11 different articles. Two other editors (not me) have made additional RM requests to undo many of SMC's earlier undiscussed page moves that led to his initial restrictions. Please see the lists and further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#Multiple_move_requests. I believe that there are well over 100 articles affected by SMC's earlier moves and RMs. Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Talk page is not at the same title as the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

May someone have a look, what went wrong with Black Pied Dairy cattle and its talk page? --PigeonIP (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved the talk page so it matches the article name. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request info from deleted rev

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings! I'm preparing a deletion review for Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations...I was hoping someone with access to the tools could take a look at the history of that page and give me the name of the administrator who declined the speedy nomination on 24 September. Thanks in advance! Kelly ^hi! 06:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

GB fan (talk · contribs) declined the speedy as it wasn't a valid criteria. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 07:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CFD requiring action

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 29#Category:Cleveland Stars players appears to have fallen through the cracks and needs closing, please can an uninvolved admin review? GiantSnowman 19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done; I'll let someone more experienced with actual category-work implement the Merge. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for The Devil's Advocate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) from all the so-called "drama boards". This would include WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:AE, and WP:RfArb. I do not believe this user is here to help, but rather is simply trolling. A glance through his contributions seems to indicate that he is attracted like a moth to a flame on the dramaboards. I do not think he is helpful, and would like to start a conversation about this unhelpfulness. Evidence from two different situations happening on ANI now:

• Reverting my archiving of off-topic discussion he started.
• Reverting administrators seemingly just to pick fights

Enough is enough. He isn't helping anything.

jps (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone with 10 years of experience should know, two incidents, even if problematic, are not likely to result in a ban.

If you plan to include more evidence, I suggest you withdraw this until that evidence is ready. If you think this is enough evidence, I suggest you are wrong. If your plan was to start a fishing expedition that's inappropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

QT is being absurd here. Drmies gave completely invalid reasons for hatting the discussion, blocked me for unhatting and then numerous editors objected to his block on my talk page. What QT was doing is even less valid since he is not an admin so he cannot even claim any right to do anything about the discussion, never mind that he is directly involved in that discussion and thus should not be trying to close anything concerning it absent clear consensus from uninvolved parties. Not only that, his claim about it being off-topic is wrong. The discussion is objecting to Mdann removing material from an article. I pointed out that the material being removed consisted of numerous BLP violations, original research, and citations to self-published blogs. He seems to be trying to silence a critic, given that I also frequently criticized his behavior on AE during the Sheldrake dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not very helpful. jps appears to be frustrated; I am trying to defuse, while you are inflaming.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just concerned that someone might jump to conclusions after reading his statement without realizing the personal history at play or the other side of the matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think, Sphilbrick, that TDA's response is additional evidence, in fact. I think that we often don't see the forest for the trees here at Wikipedia with the culture that demands diff after diff after diff. Let's have a discussion. I don't think his behavior is helpful at all and I just chose some examples from the last two days to illustrate it. jps (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that it's not helpful for The Deveil's Advocate to personally unhat discussions about their conduct. Better to ignore that, post it elsewhere as asked and then point back. If others agree, then it'll be unhatted soon enough. However I don't think two incidents in the course of a week support a topic ban on the individual from the boards broadly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There's not anywhere near enough evidence for this. To be banned from AN and ANI should require extraordinary evidence. This isn't extraordinary evidence. pbp 23:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose- IMO the 31 hour block was on the harsh side, and should have been enough to satisfy TDA's opponents. There is no call for a topic ban from AN and ANI; not on the scant "evidence" presented here. Reyk _YO! 23:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Reyk, that block could have been a lot shorter, but they were unwilling to stop their disruptive behavior. These reverts, they're just tirritating, and I'm not sure that I've ever seen them make a positive contribution to ANI. If they have, I'd like to see some diffs. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, I just don't like it when an admin takes an erroneous or excessive action and then tries to squeeze a concession out of the person they just took action against in exchange for clemency. That is really just a shakedown. As far as positive contributions, I would say the section QT is insisting on closing is a positive contribution, unless you think there is something negative about pointing out that the article someone is being raked over the coals at ANI for editing actually had some serious problems that were addressed with others still left unaddressed. Kind of sad that QT would rather rake me over the coals as well for pointing that out rather than actually address the issues in the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think it's pretty plain that this was not a positive contribution. Like it or not, a whole bunch of apparent idiots entrusted me with the tool to make precisely those kinds of decisions, and this particular one was not fun, so I thought I'd be kind to you and make you a pretty decent offer: say you won't repeat the behavior that an admin thought was so disruptive and that admin will unblock you immediately. Were you so intent on persecuting that other admin that you couldn't promise that? Or were you so intent on derailing the thread that you couldn't leave inappropriate material out? Or did it not fit your plan to make that rather serious claim in a separate thread? And were you so uncertain of yourself that you wouldn't ask another admin via an unblock request, fearing that they would agree with me and you'd be shown up and lose face? I find this all very strange. If you clamor about admin abuse, you're obviously thinking it's a serious matter--but not serious enough to place it in the appropriate spot, which is a dedicated thread, with evidence, on AN or ANI? Do you really think that accusing admins of impropriety is a laughing matter, rather than a serious charge or, as it may well have been, a complete lack of good faith? Drmies (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I raised it where I did because that is where people were discussing it. The reason I was resistant to starting a separate thread is because I had already done all the work of compiling the evidence there, it seemed to be getting a response, and it was where I thought people would be watching for any new issues regarding the two editors who were the subject of discussion. All you did was impose an unnecessary burden on me for reasons that were not even valid because I actually did "put up" by providing lots of evidence for my position and I was not "hijacking the discussion" as it directly concerned the matters being discussed (GamerGate, Titanium Dragon, bans from the topic area).--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support...I wouldn't go so far as to say TDA is a troll or is trolling but he seems to gravitate to whatever drama he can stick his nose in. Like his two previous topic bans from 9/11 related articles (which he violated each time and was blocked for ban evasion) TDA just does not know when to stop. Therefore, a ban of limited scope (still leaves millions of other pages to work on btw)...is a good idea.--MONGO 00:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support... And I agree with Mongo above. I think his editing in general on the Zeitgeist movement related pages puts him very much in thick of the issues he was previously topic banned for also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. MONGO and I do not often agree, but on this we do. This drama mongering and disruptive behavior has gone on for some time, and for too long. Gamaliel (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Just two cases in which the other you are involved yourself. Also Gamaliel above is conveniently wanting a topic ban for an editor who posted evidence of him being involved in the content disputes he topic banned another used for. In fact I think editors who shamelessly support topic bans this easily on one-off cases should keep away from ANI. --Pudeo' 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I do support a topic ban on a user who has a documented history of making up allegations about myself and others on the drama boards. He did the same thing to me last year. I wonder what next year's allegation will be. Gamaliel (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the need for this. Everyking (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I might have been inclined to take this seriously if the term "drama boards" and "trolling" weren't tossed about like a volleyball...but no.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't be silly. Silencing people you don't like is not in the spirit of the project.--Adam in MO Talk 04:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. At this point, without more evidence of general disruption to "drama boards", I can't support the topic ban as presented. What I would support is a restriction from undoing the actions of any other editor on those boards, with the usual "vandalism" exceptions. If the user posts something which is removed, or hatted by another editor, they should not undo that action - if the action was inappropriate, someone else will do so. Similarly, they should not "unclose" discussions because they feel they have not "finished" or dislike a result. The disruption I have seen comes from an unwillingness to accept that a discussion is over, or that their point is misplaced or off-topic. Begoon ^talk 04:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. All the votes should be inverted. Being banned from the "drama boards" is a reward, not a penalty.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. TDA's username says it all. They flag their intention, and their history at noticeboards indicates they are not joking, but actually do what they claim to do, which is to stir the pot by taking contrary positions. That violates the spirit of WP:POINT and is not welcome. If someone chose the name User:WikiTerrorist and their actions amounted to subversion, malicious editing, harassing other editors, and general disruption, we'd also ban them. The same applies here, since TDA lives up to their name. A topic ban from these noticeboards is a light sanction which will save much unnecessary drama. The term "dramaboards" is likely used because TDA uses them to create unnecessary drama. The fault lies at TDA's feet and justifies the sanction. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. They're not dramaboards because TDA makes them so. The name itself might just be a clue on that one. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I'll admit, the last week has seen TDA slipping into some dangerous territory when it comes to behaviour. I'm not sure if it's exasperation or plain old fatigue ... or indeed, if they're slowly beginning to lose it all, but they are concerning me. What TDA needs is NOT a break from dramaboards, they need a voluntary break from the entire drama that is Wikipedia so that they can recharge, refresh and renew. It's early fall where I am - time to look at the changing leaves, chop a cord of firewood, and relax the panda ₯’ 09:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. TDA has been challenging the authority of admins lately, and predictably, they've been blocking him and trying to topic ban him. I won't support this kind of harassment. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Viriditas, I don't understand your "strong oppose" !vote. Why not support the call for a topic ban? Your !vote will only allow him to do more harassment. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment:Harassment? Here is something he said recently which actually sounds like harassment in every direction, Maybe there is something wrong with Carol's behavior, but it sure as fucking hell isn't excusing anything Sitush is doing here and all of you taking his side should feel like fucking gobs of shit because that is what you fucking are when you enable this kind of abusive treatment. There is a difference between assuming good faith and being an ignorant jerkoff. The Devil's Advocate 03:31, 18 September 2014 Here is the diff [17] so what does that say? Maybe the people 'voting' now here have never been the subject of his nonstop attacking and his attempts to draw false compiled information to make his points trying getting people blocked. Yes, I do support a topic ban on a user who has a documented history of making up allegations about myself and others in places like this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. TDA has tended to take a rather dissenting viewpoint on most threads I have seen, but in general he is civil and not disruptive about it. The incidents mentioned in the proposal are not good, but they don't rise to anything that they justify a sanction as severe as a topic ban from AN or AN/I. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• In general? So how would you feel then if he called you a 'gob of shit' or an ignorant jerkoff? That is just a rhetorical question Sjakkalle. No reason to give a serious reply. He really should have been blocked for a week or two or more for his comments above. Why give him a free pass to swear and act that way in a 'drama board' thread. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I stole Eric's pass and lent it to TDA for the duration of this thread. Hopefully this thread won't last too long, as Eric might need it back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Silly. Two diffs do not a case make. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unhatting is somewhat disruptive but not enough for a block!, Plus there's only 2 diffs isn't enough evidence at all ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose insufficient justification presented. NE Ent 22:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose procedurally, while Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Devil's Advocate is a redlink. IMO there's certainly a case to be made here, but you're not making it effectively with a simplistic 2-diff WP:AN post. Take your time, build the case, and head to RFC/U if desired. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and Speedy Close: There will never be a consensus to topic ban someone based on a short proposal with two diffs like this one. I would propose that everyone should be banned from posting on drama boards, or be much more judicious in when they post on them. Imagine!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy close? Why is that? None of the above read this link [18] or care that this guy is out of control and likes to verbally grind on people and tendentiously name call? That kind of communication ok? Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed but absolutely no way to be construed as in defense of The Devil's Advocate - indubitably both by name and by nature. TDA is a self confessed seeker of drama; "My concerns about Wikipedia also mean I am more of a regular on various conduct noticeboards ". Unfortunately, whenever he pokes his nose in, he always just makes matters worse.

Like jps: I think that we often don't see the forest for the trees here at Wikipedia with the culture that demands diff after diff after diff. Let's have a discussion - this very AN case is symptomatic of the community's refusal to take long-term patterns of behaviour into consideration, ignoring the smokling guns and instead only concentrating on an isolated matter in hand that is very often only the tip of an iceberg. We see it on all the drama boards, Arbcom included, and that's why so many users are able to continue their trolling with impunity. Listen up, wannabe admins who have nothing better to do than haunt the drama corners: keep looking over your shoulders, and remember that like TDA, many of you are living in very thinly glazed glass houses.

TDA, take some advice, pipe down, make your sig less of its intended red rag, mind your own nose clean for a while, stop leaving TL;DR rants in business that does not concern you, and then you won't be the object of the very forums you delight in populating.

Now, somebody, please close this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The arrogant snark by Kudpung illustrates very well why we have such chronic incivility and anti-admin editors, and why it's so difficult to get consensus on civility. This thread is not a refusal to take long term patterns of behavior -- it's a refusal to accept banning someone on the cheap. AN is specifically not for long term behavior issues, WP:RFC/U is. The name calling ("wannabe admins") is just as incivil as anything TDA has posted, the pejorative phrasing of the "advice" (red rag, rants), the placement of the advice here instead of User_Talk:The Devil's Advocate and the request for a close after they have had the all important Last Word all tend to escalate tensions rather than defuse them. I almost closed this about twelve hours ago, but with only a 11 to 4 opposition and not a lot of elapsed time, I lacked confidence a (non-admin closure) would stick. If Kudpung was interested in minimizing "drama," they should have simply closed it. I'll suggest than anyone concerned with incivility on Wikipedia start by fixing what they can control: their own behavior. NE Ent 13:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad policy? Ask the admin to reverse himself?

When Nixon was about to be impeached, we did not ask Nixon to decide on his own actions. Same thing with Saddam Hussein.

Likewise, if a page is protected, a request to any administrator in good standing should be the way to go, not to get the permission of the cop that made the arrest (protected the page).

Also, if you aren't going to change this, the name of the protecting administrator should be plain and out there to see, not hidden somewhere. In contrast, on the mobile version of Wikipedia, the name of the last editor is plain and out there to see at the top of the article.

Eatfoodnow (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

support in part you are correct in that wikipedia lacks impartial oversight (real oversight, not the wikipedia jargon term of oversight). Admins are frequently chummy and look the other way when another admin is bad. If an admin does something, frequently you will need his ok to overturn it. That is like Stalin being the police, prosecutor, judge, and appeals court. However, your Nixon example is a little off. You are also correct I n that the last editor to edit is shown on the mobile wikipedia page, but not the desktop version. The admin protecting the page can be found on the history page. Finally, you are correct in that Wikipedia is a hostile place full of inequality and bullies. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well. Faulty comparison. Your not knowing the name of the protecting admin does not mean that the protecting admin decides what content goes in or out. And as a matter of fact, that's not our policy. The protecting admin here (since I assume you're talking about Vani Hari is Guerillero who, as far as I can see, protected the article on WP:BLP grounds. autoconfirmed users can still edit the article; you can't just swoop in with a brand-new account and make edits, since that's precisely why it was protected in the first place. If you don't wish to be a Wikipedian (by making other edits to other articles and improve our project) you can always place an edit request on the talk page. (BTW, the last editor was Rosiestep, and thatch editor has nothing to do with the protection--so please don't be too hasty.)

  Finally, if this was your edit, you shouldn't be surprised to see significant chunks of that material being cut even if you were to get autoconfirmed and add it. Srich32977 can tell you that, and there is a talk page full of material, of course. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I protected it on sock-puppetry and BLP grounds and I still believe that the reasons for protection are valid. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• You know Nixon chose to resign, right? NE Ent 21:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• The reason we follow this practice is that the original admin may know something about the situation that others do not. Going to them first allows them to present their case for why the action was taken (which s/he may not have fully explained initially). After that, a decision can be reversed, even against the original admin's wishes, if it is deemed to be incorrect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Saddam Hussein, and even Nixon, were probably guilty of actions much worse than the protecting admin is. I'm even certain that, with few exceptions, all admin's actions are done in good faith. The proper procedure is to ffirst get the admin's comments (which may bend up in convincing him/her to reverse the decision); if you're still convinced that the admin was wrong, but the admin is unwilling to reverse the action, you can go to more public forums to get the community to decide. And the admin stiull has the right to know about this discussion, and to try to convince users that (s)he was correct, but the community has the last word. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Backlog on WP:AIV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could we please have some eyes and trigger fingers on WP:AIV? There are active vandals that need attention, including 46.208.86.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 120.61.85.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thomas.W ^talk 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ALLBACKLOGS. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent Semi protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Need urgent semi protection on Jayalalithaa due to this. Article is attracting lot of vandalism.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 22:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedies 1 and 1.1 in the Waldorf education case (Pete K banned/Pete K ban clarified) are stricken. In lieu of these remedies, the following restriction is enacted: Pete K is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of Waldorf education, broadly construed. Enforcement of this provision shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Waldorf education case and shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date it is enacted, and if such appeal is unsuccessful no less than one year after the decline of the most recent failed appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Userpage moved

see User:Adarsh Arvind--Musamies (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Move reverted and note left for user. Nthep (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of Talk:???

Hi, would an admin recreate this page, please, so I can add an {{oldrfd}} for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 20#???. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Interview regarding incident on Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not really sure where to put this, but I've been approached for an interview about my role in the article dispute over Zoe Quinn/GamerGate - apparently, the fact that I got a discretionary BLP-related topic ban from the article by @Gamaliel: upset some folks off of Wikipedia, especially after the doxxing incident, and it ended up rising to the attention of some members of the press because of the dispute over the neutral point of view on the article. I have discussed the topic ban with him here, and he stated that he would consider the matter again in a week, and I'm fine with that for the moment. I've had a number of people off-Wiki approach me to talk to me about these issues in the last month or so, and several more have privately messaged me on various websites since this happened, but now I'm starting to get people asking questions on behalf of publications.

WP:TBAN applies to Wikipedia, and not to the rest of the internet. However, I know that off-wiki behavior, such as WP:CANVAS, as well as things like the doxxing incident can and do get people banned. None of these things really apply here. That being said, it is inevitably going to touch on what happened on the article, seeing as that is what the interview is about, and it concerns an article from which I have been topic banned, and so I thought I would chat with all of you folks here first.

What rules should I make sure to read over again before I speak to members of the press? Are there general guidelines for this sort of thing? I know other editors and various random folk who contribute to Wikipedia in various ways have spoken to the press in the past; are there any particular pitfalls I should watch out for that previous incidents brought up?

Thanks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This may also be relevant; Wikipedia has been getting emails about this article according to @Yunshui:. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all of which mention your username, I might add. I'm not suggesting you directly canvassed anyone, but I imagine your postings on 4chan and Reddit haven't exactly discouraged anyone from emailing. It's fairly easy to deal with (since OTRS doesn't deal with content disputes, we've just been sending them back templated messages), but still indicates that the community which attacked Zoe Quinn seems to have designs on Wikipedia now. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am not a regular poster on 4Chan, though of course that's pretty much impossible to prove, it being 4Chan and all; IIRC I made a couple of comments about the doxxing there when it happened, and you've likely seen screenshots of both of them as I used my user name over there (and that pretty little picture of my avatar). I do post on Reddit on occasion; I've only made four posts about the stuff as far as I can tell, one of them over a month ago and the other three a couple weeks ago when the doxxing incident occurred. I think a big part of the issue here is they see the harasssment, DDOSing, death threats, and attempted censorship directed at people discussing the whole mess, and perceive the doxxing, disparagement, threats of bans, ect. of editors on Wikipedia as being part of that broader campaign of intimidation. Most of the folks who have spoken with me about it are much more focused on the censorship and harassment of gamers/journalists/other people angle and the corruption of the press angle; at least one of them told me that "anyone bringing up Quinn was a shill", which kind of reflects their paranoia, though, as Kurt Cobain once said, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you." Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You were doxxed by Wikipedocracy long before the GamerGate shit hit the fan. You were banned because you violated internal policies and it's clear you still don't get the fucking point of it all. I know I opposed your proposed edits to the article in question, but don't bother with the interview. There's nothing anyone has to gain from it other than your name being thrown out there more.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you topic banned because you were concentrating on and kept bringing up stuff about Quinn that highly negative and wasn't reliably sourced? Does that mean you're a shill? Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Alas, my secret is out! D: Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And Kurt Cobain didn't say that, he sang it in a song. Not all songs, not even all Nirvana songs, are autobiography, and suggesting it is means one doesn't recognize persona or irony. To put it another way, Johnny Cash never took a shot of cocaine and then shot his woman down. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

FFS, don't get involved with "the press" because you were banned from editing the articles here. There is no need to give anyone in this external dispute the time of day, particularly so they can cause whatever you said to be on some navel gazing bullshit sentence on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Wikipedia has nothing to apologise for simply because we have upheld our BLP policies during this particular outbreak of stupidity. If others have a problem with this, they have the entire remainder of the Internet to complain about it. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

While I find the doxing of you disgusting and understand it must have had a strong negative effect, I do agree with others that putting yourself out there by doing an interview is only going to attract more attention to you including plenty of people seeing the doxing who never would have otherwise. And unfortunately, you'll probably find however well the interview goes, a big chunk of the attention isn't going to be positive whatever the personal POVs of those reading about you surrounding gamersgate issues are (Streisand effect and all that). So think carefully before you agree (to be clear, I don't agree with the way this could easily turn out for you, I'm simply pointing out it may happen). Still it's up to you if you want to do an interview. If you chose to do so, the only thing I can recommend is that you are honest, and yet also be careful with what you say since even a journalist supportive of your POV could easily quote you in such a way that doesn't put in a good light to many. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading about interview stuff and taking notes and looking at past things that the person/outlet have written all morning to see what their POV is (because no two people ever have the same point of view about the world) and looking over my notes to try and get stuff straight in case I go through with this, which I'm still contemplating. Thank you for your feedback. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad block of User:Metropolitan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could a neutral admin please review this [19] bad block? I've stated my concerns in the dif and would like a review since I believe it was unacceptable due to the fact that the blocking admin was way way way too involved. Caden ^cool 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote indirectly at Caden's talk page, I have never interacted with Metropolitan other than in my role as administrator which does not make me involved. However, I had already been handling a few discussion closures at Talk:Paris where Metropolitan (and Caden for that matter) was actually involved, which is why I was attracted to the ANI report filed by Metropolitan. Having read and analysed it I blocked Metropolitan because I found his report of alleged ownership was baseless and caused additional disruption in the whole Paris article dispute. If other administrators disagree, please feel free to unblock.

Disclaimer: As Caden rightfully pointed out at User talk:Metropolitan I did at first revoke talk page access for Metropolitan, but that was totally unintentional and has now been restored with some effort. (For the record, I am suffering from a broken mouse that has a bouncing button making random double clicks at the slightest touch. Hoping to get that fixed tomorrow.) De728631 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are involved. Infact you are way too involved in this. You should not been the admin to close the ANI report, nor should you have been the admin to block him. Everything you have done was not right. You've been involved right from the beginning and as far as I'm concerned you did not act as a fair admin. Caden ^cool 00:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please post a diff showing De's involvement. NE Ent 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Filing an erroneous ANI report is not "harassment," it's making a mistake. Closing the report is fine, blocking the filing editor is inappropriate overkill; it would be best if De unblocks the editor. (Contrary to the statement at [20], there's no evidence De is unfit to be an administrator; see WP:NOTPERFECT). NE Ent 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock Just a quick look seems to indicate a very bad block. Why would they also be blocked from the talk page for the standard offer? Undo please per NE Ent.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, the talk page block was an accident and has been removed. De728631 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to have been consensus at WP:ANI#Ownership behaviour on the Paris article that the report was entirely unjustified (with several editors noting that a WP:BOOMERANG-type result was likely), and so some kind of admin response to this seems sensible (though I'd suggest that the block duration was too long given that Metropolitan hasn't been blocked since 2006). I'm not seeing any evidence to support the claim by Caden that De728631 is WP:INVOLVED in this dispute - De728631 appears to have only ever posted on the talk page twice, and in an admin capacity on both occasions. From skimming their last 500 edits (going back to late July), I'm also not seeing any evidence to support such a claim... Caden: can you please provide evidence to back up this very serious accusation? Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Why is an admin response necessary, justified, or appropriate? Shouldn't feedback / correction / intervention always start at the lowest possible level? Filing multiple ANIs may be grounds for admin action ... edit warring over a closing might be grounds for admin action ... but simply filing an incorrect report is now a blockable offense necessary to prevent further disruption? NE Ent 02:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that admins should at least warn editors for making clearly unjustified reports given that this can be a form of unhelpful WP:IDHT type conduct or harassment. Whether a block is justified or not would depend on the severity of the conduct. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Gentlemen, thanks a lot for your input. I am now going to unblock Metropolitan based on your review. In hindsight I agree that a 60-hours block would have been a bit long. Anyhow, I stand by having blocked him in the first place, especially since he had received a final warning for edit warring at the Paris article a few days earlier. This combined with the unjustified ownership report made me think that a block was needed in order to prevent further disruption. As to involvement, Caden seems to think that I was unfit to handle the ANI closure and subsequent block because I had already taken administrative action at Talk:Paris before that. De728631 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. You were not "involved", but you did the right thing by unblocking and that is something everyone can see proves you to be a good admin. We all make mistakes and one can stand by their actions and still be considered a good administrator because these things do happen, but you took the community input seriously and did not hesitate to make the change. That is not just respectable...that is also admirable!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks De728631. I assume your good faith on my talk page block, I would be glad if in return you would assume my good faith on the WP:OWN case I raised, especially about the 2013 RfC [21] which has been constantly ignored during 16 months. I have posted an initial warning of possible WP:OWN case on 25 septembre 2014 [22]. Considering its very rude reception and the escalation, I decided to bring it to the AN/I on 27 septembre 2014 [23]. I would be pleased if you would explain exactly how my behaviour could consist a WP:HARASS case, as I simply have no clue. Yours faithfully. Metropolitan (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The ANI filing was disruptive, period. When it's suggested that you stop digging, it's a good idea to stop. When told in policy-based reasons to stop, then stop. Continuing to dig is disruptive. This means that unfortunately, a brief block was valid - the imposed block was a little bit too long. There's NO humanly possible way that De was considered involved, and suggesting so was a complete red-herring. So, the unblock is done, and as long as Metro doesn't continue digging, we'll all be fine - after all, blocks are supposed to teach the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No one has ever told me to "stop digging". You're the first one to raise that point and the message has been received, but that doesn't explain why the initial facts I've shown on the only single case I raised haven't been answered. Metropolitan (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been unable to show that this was in any way a "bad block". I cannot fathom why you claim WP:OWN, yet refused to show a single proven behavioural situation related to it. Serious accusations without proof leads to blocks, as they are personal attacks. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The behavioural situations are detailed here [24] and fits exactly the examples of WP:OWN described here [25]. I'm saddened by your questions as they force me to repeat myself and thus gives the feeling the WP:HARASS point could be valid... so I don't know if I should better answer you or not anymore. Metropolitan (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am disappointed that yet another charge of admin misconduct (here, "INVOLVED") is made without a shred of evidence, and I am glad to see that this discussion (at least so far) has failed to uncover any evidence of improper involvement (whether the block was right or wrong or excessive is another matter). Caden, you may not make such accusations this lightly: such a failure of AGF is disruptive and, in my opinion, a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I concur that statements about admin involvement should be supported by diffs. Actually pretty any statement about another editor that's not pure opinion should probably be backed by diffs.NE Ent 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Nick-D and Drmies. It wasnt a lack of AGF, nor was it an accusation on my part. In regards to involvement, what I mean is that I believe that De was wrong to handle the ANI closure and the block because he had previously performed administrative action at the Talk:Paris page before that where he closed several discussions. Because of these things I felt he was not a neutral party. I also felt his reasons for the block were not accurate because I saw no harrasment or disruption or personal attacks. Caden ^cool 19:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oops. Yes, De was involved. Metropolitian participated in a discussion [26] which De closed [27], and per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs, "or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor." (emphasis mine). See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure, "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor." It's a confusing, of course, because the name of the board includes "administrators" and many closures (e.g WP:AFD) are admin actions because they require a sysop bit to complete the action. Obviously the action was done in good faith, so I don't see any need for action beyond a gentle reminder to De et. al. to be aware that not all gnomish work is actually admin work. NE Ent 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alan Liefting violating topic ban

User:Alan Liefting has a topic ban: "Alan Liefting may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted." (decided here). He has been blocked for violations 6 times (last time in April 2013); since his last block, he has been warned by me and others when he again violated the ban; August 2013 (after which he retired for a year); the same happened in August 2014[28] after he had again violated his topic ban; he now stopped editing for a month. Basically, despite not being blocked for more than a year now, he hasn't edited most of the time, and violated his topic ban in any short period he did edit.

He has now asked me to no longer post to his talk page[29], which means I no longer can warn him. I also can't block him probably, as the one that started the discussion that lead to the topic ban. But since his return to editing on 27 September, he has yet again clearly violated the topic ban, here, here and here. His post to me makes it clear that he is well aware of the topic ban, but continues nevertheless. I haven't checked and don't really care whether the particular edits are correct or not; a topic ban means "don't edit in that area", not "don't make errors in that area".

Can someone warn him of this discussion and take the necessary actions (basically escalating the previous block to one year)? Thanks. Fram (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notified. I'm too "involved" to impart the suggested block however. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Having a third party post the notification is unnecessary -- per WP:NOBAN a user cannot prevent you from posting required notices on "their" page -- because it isn't actually theirs. It's a page provided by the community to facilitate communication with them. NE Ent 09:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• As the previous block was for 3 months I'm blocking for 6 months this time. Though I'm open to dropping it down to between 3 and 6 months of others believe it would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I do think a doubling of the block is a tad excessive (especially after a year with no blocks) but with this I think others may have to weigh in as to whether or not they feel the length is appropriate. I would have gone with another 3 months but.. just how long of an increase the block deserves would also depend on the given offense.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would advocate dropping this to a warning. Of the three edits cited, only this [30] is what I would see as within the scope of the topic ban. There is not (or should not be) any ban on Alan editing category pages (adding Commons links is entirely reasonable), just on editing to change categorization (e.g. removing credible categories). Alan is an editor with much to contribute, I don't like to see such editors blocked and 3 or 6 months is very heavy. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Righteous block, don't have much opinion on the length (6 is fine, 3 is fine, 4 is fine). The ban wording is clear -- mainspace only and WP:NS clearly lists Category and Draft namespaces as distinct namespaces. I agree Alan has much to contribute and I don't like to see editors blocked either, but that's on Alan. NE Ent 10:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The ban wording isn't clear. The problem behaviour last time was about the removal of categorizations, so changing the boilerplate text on something that just happens to be in the category namespace has never been a problem behaviour and should never appear within a ban text. As I noted at the time, his problem behaviour was about categorization on mainspace pages too. It was never specific to "pages in the category namespace", it was "categorization applied to pages". If the ban was unclearly worded, we should give any editor the benefit of the doubt over it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the ban wording is very clear, what you are arguing is that it was not a deserved or correct ban, that the wording shoumd have been different. Furthermore, he has been warned numerous times blocked six times for violations "of the actual wording", not of what you think the wording should have been. The warnings came with examples of what were violations, so it is not as if he wasn't made aware what the violating edits were. He could have come here any time inbetween his blocks to get a clarification or a change of the wording, if that was what he wanted. He never did, as far as I know. Fram (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree the ban wording is crystal clear and all three edits are crystal clear violations of the topic ban the wording on which is very broad. It applies to any and every edit made anywhere on Wikipedia (except the mainspace only) which relates to categories, I don't think it could be made clearer except by removing the mainspace exception (which I agree isn't needed). Given the number of blocks I would expect that Alan Liefting has made himself fully conversant in the terms of the ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Do you think a 6 month block for adding Commons links to a category page is a justifiable action that improves WP and is in some way preventative? (of what?)

If you don't think that, and you're still supporting a block for it in this case, then that's way past punitive and into hounding, just because of who the target is. Now that's a recognised common practice on WP, but not one that's ever justified.

As to whether the topic ban wording is appropriate, then WP:EDR has it as "category-related edits outside of mainspace". I do not see adding Commons links as "category-related" even when done on a category page. Even Fram's own comments in 2013 were "you are not allowed this at all, no matter if you do it right or wrong". Note this, not there. There is no valid ban on Alan editing category pages, the ban is on Alan editing the categorization of pages, which isn't the same thing. Today we see him being hoist for edits that are outside that ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misuse my words to support your position, Andy Dingley. "This" was and is "making category-related edits outside of mainspace", which includes e.g. making edits to pages in the category namespace and making edits about categorization in other namespaces (except the main namespace). I couldn't have said "you are not allowed there", as he can read category pages as much as he wants. But "this", i.e. editing of them, is not allowed. Fram (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way is adding a Commons link a "category-related edit"? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely justified. After reviewing prior discussions (the topic ban discussion, the heated rhetoric on Alan's talk page after the 3 month block), a six month block will prevent other editors having to spend time discussing and monitoring Alan's edits. Is the ban broader than necessary given the prior discussion? Perhaps, but violating it and arguing after the fact is not the way to address that. NE Ent 23:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would have advocated blocking his ability to alter his preferences, and then dropping his HotCat. (Redacted) — CpiralCpiral 19:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed personal attack. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comparing Alan Liefting to a sufferer of addiction or Asperger's Syndrome is nothing short of a personal attack. I don't disagree with the block; Alan knew full well not to perform these edits, a fact I reminded him of when he returned. But to attack him as you've done above is beyond the pale. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is just taunting him. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that was stupid. The editor did revert later on, but still... User:Cpiral, please be a lot more careful and considerate when dealing with this kind of thing, insulting or taunting an already blocked editor (not even a vandal or the like, just an editor with one unacceptable editing aspect) is never a good idea and will only reflect badly on yourself. Fram (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Userpage moved again

see User:Adarsh Arvind, second move--Musamies (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted, page protected, user warned, eyes on. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we transition the rename process to m:SRUC?

Please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Should we transition the rename process to m:SRUC? and discuss. –xeno^talk 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it now acceptable to put links to porn in an article on a kid's cartoon? Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm watching whilst my daughter is surfing and she picks on a link to a wikipedia article April O'Neil. Prominently at the top, some idiot has decided to add a link to their article on their favourite porn starlet April O'Neil (pornographic actress). So being a responsible parent and wikipedia editor I remove it only for another editor to see fit to restore it [31] twice. So I request semi-protection to have A) Michael Greiner state there is a sensible technical reason for having such a link and spouting that wikipedia isn't censored so it should stay and B) CambridgeBayWeather suggest this is a content dispute and I should try WP:DR.

Excuse me but are people really so clueless that they would advocate advertising porn articles on an article concerning a kids cartoon? Can you not see what an unmitigated PR disaster it would be if some hack cottoned on to the fact that wikipedia was promoting porn to kids for nearly two years? WCM_email 20:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just semi'ed it for a month so we can have a discussion without anyone pushing something as an anon IP. I have to think on how I feel about it - given the propensity for porn actors to choose familiar-sounding names, this must have happened somewhere else before? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would be careful with any edits taken with the idea that one is acting as a "responsible parent". Wikipedia really isn't censored. A 'responsible parent' that does not want their child to see allusions to and even imagery of pornography would be well advised to keep their child off of Wikipedia. Attempting to sanitize Wikipedia, as a 'responsible parent', is fraught with innumerable problems. The issue in general is a highly contentious one, and as such the likelihood of a child encountering pornography or related materials on Wikipedia goes up considerably the longer a person is on the project. Indeed, it can be as simple as tripping across whitehouse.com. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Can you next time use a more accurate section header? No links to porn were put in that article, a link to an article about a porn actress was added as a hatnote. That article probably contains links to porn (considering the subject matter), but that's quite different from what your section header (and section itself) suggests. Please undo the protection and restore the hatnote. You are aware that there is something like the "random article" button, which may well lead to much more explicit articles with one click? I do love it though that O'Neill's action figure (the non-porn one!) is made by ... Playmates Toys ;-) All that can be done is to move the TMNT article to April O'Neill (TMNT) or something similar, and change all links from TMNT articles to that new title; that way, only people who search directly for April O'Neill will end up at a disambiguation where they encounter the "offending" article link, but everyone coming from another TMNT article is spared the embarassment/revelation/whatever. Fram (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but are you guys really serious? This isn't a case of a kid tripping over an article about porn on wikipedia, you're advocating we link it from an article on a kids cartoon, you're directing kids to porn. Can you not see how crassly irresponsible that is? WCM_email 21:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• And where would you like to finish drawing that line? WCM, you might find this article from 2 years ago interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had a table of contents or an index then these two articles would be next to each other. This is no different. Wikipedia is not all suitable for children and they need to be either supervised or have enough discretion to know what links are suitable for clicking on. Chillum 21:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Anybody could inadvertently arrive at a sex- or porn-related subject by general browsing (in certain topics), and with youthful curiosity and an apparently ever more profane vocabulary, unsupervised children are bound to come across something you wouldn't want them to see in the end. Either ban them from WP, show them Wikipedia for Schools, use a filter system on your computer, or heaven forbid, visit a supposedly family-friendly site like Conservapedia – but remember that Wikipedia really isn't censored. BethNaught (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm watching whilst my daughter is surfing and she picks on a link to a wikipedia article Bullshit. [32] KonveyorBelt 21:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:Konveyor Belt, if someone proposes a pretty serious problem here, and all you have in response is "bullshit" and a link to some login page, then I strongly suggest you stay off of this board, which isn't supposed to be a forum for teenaged-potty-mouth-kneejerk responses that display not just a total lack of decorum but also a lack of good faith. As far as I'm concerned, WCM's issue ought to be addressed by mature and even-keeled editors and administrators, and if "bullshit" is all you got, then you're not one of those editors. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Or if Conservapedia isn't restrictive enough, try Metapedia, defenders of Western white civilization. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While I oppose leading kids to pornography, the article on the porn actress does not actually contain pornography. Checking the links (for completeness sake, Ms O'Neil is not my type), the article does contain a link to the actress's website, but there's enough clicking involved to find anything that if the kid finds something from reading about TMNT, so it sure as hell wasn't an accident that they "stumbled" on pornography (unless the kid is so young that they wouldn't actually be reading Wikipedia and would be better off with a Google Image search). Oh, and apparently the the Adult Film Database assumes you know what you're getting into from the get go. Still within the realm of "no, kiddo, we know damn well you were looking for porn."

At any rate, if one starts to type "April O'Neil" in the search bar, the article on the pornographic actress is also suggested, so it's not like removing the link makes it harder for anyone searching the porn actress from finding her, nor does it prevent kids from finding out about her while trying to find out about the cartoon character.

So, it makes no difference whether or not the link is included. Either way, children are not being lead to porn and are no more hidden from it than before, and if they do click the link, there's still no porn on that page. If they go further, then the kid is at fault for going where a truly responsible parent would have taught them to not go. One might as well get angry at Wikipedia that you can find pornography on 4chan. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is so much vulgarity and pornographic language through television entertainment nowadays, day and night, that Wikidpedia in comparison looks like Disneyland. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It does make a difference, this isn't a case of inadvertently tripping across porn, its there right at the top of the article and I still maintain it demonstrates bad judgement to defend adding a link to a porn actress from an article concerning a kids cartoon. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is released this month in the UK, so there will be more examples of kids searching for this. This came up in a google search with safe search enabled and the wiki article is the first on the list [33], what exactly do you think girls are most likely to search for? This isn't a spotty teenage boy surfing for porn and making up an excuse when caught.

I supervise my kids surfing, I know the Internet is not kid friendly but I'm astonished you guys can't see the problem here. WCM_email 22:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Again, where would you like to draw the line? It is easy to be offended by this, but we can't just make this edit and proclaim things to be 'fixed'. We need some measure that can be applied universally. That's not easy, and is always controversial. Until you can start defining 'fixed' in the context of the entire project, and not just this article, there's really no way to proceed forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why responsible parents would not teach their kids not to click links that contain the word "porn" in them. Please explain why you have to react as if there actually was pornography in the TMNT April O'Neil article (because that would be a problem), or even in the article for the actress; when the only way a kid reading about April O'Neil would end up finding pornography is if the kid actively searched for it. Please explain how removing the link is going to help when children are just as likely to find out about the article through our search bar. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit disingenuous to call April O'Neil a "kid's cartoon" character when that character's most recent prominent appearance was Megan Fox's portrayal in a film rated PG-13 for violence (and frankly, that film had way more suggestive and revealing shots of April than the article you are complaining about). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think the OP is missing a crucial point here, the character's article does not contain or link to porn, it links to a Wikipedia article about a woman who acts in porn films and is clearly identified as such. For his daughter to be exposed to any porn here she would have to choose to click on a hatlink that clearly states the the person in the article is a porn actress and then decided to click on an external link to her main site. Unless you daughter lacks reading comprehension I don't think she would be likely to do that.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Called in my mother on this (since I'm pretty sure she raised a couple of kids), and she saw that if someone found pornography from the TMNT April O'Neil article, the person was not lead, they made a deliberate choice. It may not have been an informed choice, but it was at least their choice to satisfy their curiosity. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not missing a point but there is some very poor judgement and poor listening skills being shown here. I have not advocated censorship or removal of content and frankly don't give a monkeys if any one of you wants to waste their time on the subject. But linking it from an article on a kid's cartoon is a pretty dumb idea and having an admin edit through protection to put it back shows really poor judgement. WCM_email 22:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not that no one's listening, it's that no one's made a decent point for removing the link. The points raised have either been dismissed ("leads to pornography" shot down by "they have to make deliberate effort to find porn,"), just claims that it's poor judgement, ridiculous, etc, without actually explaining why. No one's going to listen if no one's going to explain. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Kids are going to see pornographic material at somepoint whether it's on here, tv or elsewhere on the internet, If OP doesn't want his kids seeing "offensive" material he should set up a filter like everyone else. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned this would require to click multiple links after reaching this article to even find pornographic content meaning that for his daughter to have be exposed in this situation she would have had to chosen to look for it. I would also mention that people disagreeing with a suggestion does not mean that they weren't listening.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would have removed it as well. Just because an edit is "compliant" with WP policies and guidelines doesn't always mean it is necessarily the right decision. Common sense is often overlooked and disregarded here on WP. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• But again, the April O'Neil article is as much about a provocatively dressed PG-13 film character as it is about a "kid's cartoon". Should we remove all mentions of and links to the 2014 film from the article as well? --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked over the whole thing very carefully. I'm a grandparent and the oldest is encouraged to use Wikipedia to answer questions that we can't provide an answer for. However, they are not doing this unsupervised and I would not stop them from going to look at something like the penis article. While I'm not keen on the idea of kids being led to porn, I also had to consider the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. I looked at the target, April O'Neil the porn actress, and it did not appear to contain any porn and to actually find any was going to take at least one more click. So there seemed to be no need to censor by protection. At the same time there may be a consensus to not have links to people connected to the porn industry so I suggested that that it be taken to DR, which I assume has been done. I would also suspect that there are plenty of direct links from other articles to pages that contain images that some people are going to see as offensive. @Konveyor Belt:, the link you provided leads to a log in page. Can you give us some idea of what it says. I really don't want to open an account there. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I opened an account there a couple of weeks ago at the height of the MV furore, the thread is entitle Sexualisation - Commons & Wikipedia, the sub-topic *Totally* acceptable hatnote. First comment dated 5 August 2014:

“ Let's say a kid goes to see the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. He enjoys it and when he gets home he fires up the old Wikipedia machine to learn more about it. After reading about Michelangelo and the crew he clicks on the link for their loyal sidekick, April O'Neil (T-H-L). At the top of that article?

Quote: This article is about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character. For the pornographic actress, see April O'Neil (pornographic actress) (T-H-L).

Well done, Wikipedia.

”

Most of the rest of the comments don't add much beyond disparaging wikipedia and one mentioning me and this thread. WCM_email 23:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I totally get where WCM is coming from. And the "it's all over the Internet" arguments are lame. I mean, so are ads all over the place and totally bogus claims but we're not going to allow those on Wikipedia, are we? An we have a long standing essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that addresses some of the other concerns. That said, I really can't come up with a solution that's compliant with content policies. One thought would be changing the note to "For the actress, see April O'Neil," but really don't like that, because it kind of misleads the reader and might lead to more click throughs. So I'm left "I wish we could fix that but I don't see how to do it." NE Ent 23:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert in disambiguation nuances, but why is the title of the other article "April O'Neil (pornographic actress)" at all? You should only have to do that if there was a "April O'Neil (actress)" to differentiate from, I thought. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The IP editor who restored the link to the actress complained to JamesBWatson, who gave a very reasonable answer. I've alerted him to this thread. For myself, I'm depressed to see the people triumphantly pointing out that "Wikipedia is not censored" above. No, it isn't, but it's not a playground for adolescent (in mind or in years) males, either. Or maybe it is. Are you guys aware of the gender gap problem wrt to editing Wikipedia? I have refrained from ever, even once, commenting on that subject, but this time I feel I have to ask, do you want to drive women away with all that testosterone, Konveyor Belt and Orangemike? With your putdowns and references to Wikipediocracy (a link which one apparently needs to be registered to even see its probably delightful explanation of why the OP's complaint is "bullshit" —· but then perhaps all the tough guys you're talking to are registered, Konveyor Belt?) and Metapedia and Western white fucking civilization? Bah. And no, we don't want the link to the porn actress on the TMNT article. Hammersoft, it might be nice to have "some measure that can be applied universally", but while we wait for that, probably interminably, it's perfectly ok to use common sense. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

I don't even know where to start. Fortunately Bishonen said it for me. Wikipedia is not censored, is not a license for a lack of common sense.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC))

• And *I* don't know where to start. My point, Bishonen, is that there is no justification for the removal that has been put forth. Just vague concern over a porn actress (not porn mind you, an actress...oh the horror!) having the same name being linked from the article. Why? Why should we edit an article to remove information where in any other article that didn't involve porn, we wouldn't think of doing it? Why? Is that common sense? No, it isn't. It's knee jerk activism to 'protect the kids'...on a resource that isn't in the business of protecting kids! And this for a series that isn't interested in protecting kids (note the PG-13 rating)! That's ridiculous. So, if you want to remove then come up with some measure that makes sense to do so. Your 'common sense' is yours. If I don't share in your 'common sense', I guess I'm automatically wrong, eh? No, Wikipedia not being censored doesn't give free license but it sure as hell doesn't mean we arbitrarily (and this is grossly arbitrary) remove content because someone is 'offended'. Since we're so worried about the possibility of offending 'responsible parents', let's remove the link to the actress' article from April 7 and List of people from Phoenix. Heaven forbid some parent should discover Wikipedia makes mention of porn actresses from Phoenix! --Hammersoft (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia is a resource for readers, not a place for editors to flex their "freedom" muscles. What necessary and significant information are we giving readers when we link and so connect porn with childrens' cartoons? How is that connection useful or significant to the content of an article on childrens' cartoons? Its not. And parents are also our readers so when one has something to say, listen up. We might learn something in discussing the issue that will make Wikipedia more widely respected.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC))

And since when is a PG-13 movie a "children's cartoon"? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With the link, people searching for the porn actress who end up at the cartoon character will have the link they meant to go to instead. The point of disambiguation links is to include stuff that has the same name but is quite different. "How is that connection useful" misses the point -- there is no connection other than the name, that's the link's use. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just because the poster is a parent doesn't give them trump rights over the article. Sorry. I concur with Ahecht; since when is PG-13 a children's cartoon? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster, I have tried a little experiment on that ninja article. No doubt someone is going to yell at me about primary meaning and needless dab page and all that, but I thought it was worth a shot. And, eh, can we not all start reverting and speedy-deletion-nominating before we can evaluate? And can we perhaps agree that not everything is cut and dry, and that some things maybe aren't censored but still subject to common sense? Drmies (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the hatnote(s) indicate that the actress based her name on the character? I'm not sure what the precedent is for stage names that are like that. Also if you're concerned that the main article might be classified as adult material for having certain words, you can rephrase it to "adult film star named after the character". -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Some pages relevant to this discussion, think of the children, thought-terminating cliché, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

No one here is advocating that children be exposed to porn. I've yet to see any indication that anyone here actually likes the actress (she certainly doesn't satisfy my aesthetic desires). So, comments that people included it because she's their favorite actress or characterizing those who are against removing the link as adolescent boys or puerile adults is a bad-faith attack and a sign that such editors need to back out of the discussion and let people who are capable of thinking about this rationally handle it.

When we ignore emotion on this matter, and get down to reason, the only real question is "does this link help or hurt the site?" It is pretty much standard to have disambiguation links at the top when two articles share at least a large portion of their name. But, it's not like people who want to know about the actress can't find her (and it's not like children searching for the cartoon character won't see the porn star come up in the search bar, either).

I'm not so much for including it as I am against the senseless nonsense of removing it because some people are upset that a child could choose to click through multiple pages to get to porn. We might as well hide our article on Google because you can search for porn on that. As I've said (for like the third time now), removing the link doesn't stop people who want to know about the actress from finding out about her (just as it doesn't stop kids searching for the cartoon character in the search bar from finding her).

Common sense says that if someone clicks through several pages to get to something off site, it was probably their choice. IAR means we're not responsible for other sites' content. IAR does not mean we have to do something just because we're scared that we'll have to teach our kids about the world. It means we should not be scared to do something because someone might get upset.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I hope how you see that your last sentence works just as well for your opponents. :) Drmies (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What about the sentence before it? Because that certainly excludes those who want to remove the link. Also, I don't have "opponents", I'm merely asking some fellow editors to be rational. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait. Having an "opponent" doesn't mean one is on a battleground, unless one thinks of life as a first-person shooter. Second, you are very liberal with your irony this evening: in order to avoid battle, you're asking others to be rational? Did you forget the sarcasm indicator, or did you just really call those who disagree with you irrational? Which can be seen as a personal attack more suitable for a battleground? Drmies (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored or a children's site nor one in which we actively strive to make kid friendly...but kid safe. We don't want under aged children to be victim of abuse as editors...but as a responsible parent....why would you be allowing your child on Wikipedia when you know we have stuff that is not child friendly or even work friendly. This is a moral judgment and is not a matter of a content dispute but telling others they are in the wrong. As always, feel free to point out were I am wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Good answer. NE Ent 02:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

The OP said that no one seems to be listening. It appears that the OP isn't listening to the counter-arguments. The OP removed the hatnote. It was restored. I see that it has now been changed to a link to a disambiguation that in turn goes to both the cartoon (the primary) and the porn actress (labeled correctly simply as actress, because there is no mainstream actress with that name). Is the OP satisfied now? If so, the community did listen after all. Does the OP still want something done? If so, what? To make it impossible for someone to find the actress without typing "(actress)" after her name? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Besides...it isn't "porn actress" its "Adult entertainment actor". But I am too concerned with the business terms and we don't always use what is current in the business. We had a long discussion about whether we should still use the term "Actress" and the community seems to desire to continue to use that term. I can live with that...but I can't live with someone else's morality controlling content.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that you and I are in agreement that we were listening to the OP and that the OP was either asking too much, that Wikipedia actually be censored, or wasn't explaining what they were asking. I would still like to know whether the minor changes have satisfied the OP. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help Please

This article Draft:Hillsboro Aquarium animal list is just being used by Venasaur587 et. al. to copy and past this list into zoological articles. Can this draft article be deleted?VViking_TalkEdits 00:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) I am adding this article as well Draft:Hillsboro Seaquarium Can someone delete these and look at the actions of the creator of the pages? VViking_TalkEdits 08:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MfD is thataway. ansh666 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RM backlog

Any volunteers for WP:RM#Backlog? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll close a few. Number 57 11:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done 30, and I think I've had enough for one evening! Number 57 17:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated, this reduced the backlog to less than three weeks. Other volunteers to reduce that even further? (or am I pushing my luck here...?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

At Peace

Could the At Peace page be locked? The band have asked fans to vandalise it [34]. Regards, Haminoon (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely and added PC1.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't leave talk page messages per RBI and DENY.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Berean Hunter. Because I didn't revert or rollback does that mean the four users who made accounts specifically for this exercise will be able to edit it again soon? Haminoon (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I know what you mean, Haminoon. I thought that you did rollback to a stable version. If not, please make the adjustments you feel necessary. If you are worried about the return of vandal accounts just let me know on my talk page if they are vandalizing and I'll block them as vandal-only accounts. I presume that they are throw-away accounts and that the operators will abandon them when they see that they won't be able to vandalize their target article.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Technical help

Can someone help @Doc9871: with the MfD he tried to file: here, here and here. It looks like he was trying to file a new MfD where old ones had existed, but didn't do it right, and also didn't list it. It's been many years since I've done this myself, or I'd just do it, but I'm afraid I'd muck it up too. Without comment one way or the other as to the merits of the nomination, it should at least be listed correctly. Can someone help him complete the process? Thanks! --Jayron32 11:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to jump in and help, and then saw what page he has trying to MfD. WP:POINT might be a better page to direct him to. In general folks should only nominate things for deletion they actually want deleted. If he's sincere, I'd recommend he simply undo his edits and use WP:TWINKLE to start the MfD: doing it manually can be quite error-prone. 28bytes (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it - it's now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse (2nd nomination). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC/N closure

Can someone pls close and archive this RFC Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog

I know that many admins hesitate to get involved at WP:SPI, however there are only 4 open cases where checkuser has been requested. The remaining 65 (+/-) open cases only require review from any admin with the time and inclination to review the evidence. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD/IAR review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made a IAR close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination) avoid disruption: I think the nature of the discussions speaks for itself. Since it is quite possible that Discretionary sanctions will be needed, and I am not experienced with that, I ask for assistance. If any admin who was not a participant in the discussion wants to revert my close, please feel free. Possibly I was naive in thinking anything I did could avoid further problems here. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related issue, User:Shrike added a DS notice to the talk page. Aren't those meant to be added by Admins? I've added the appropriate edit notice to the page itself, and I certainly think the article comes under A-I discretionary sanctions. The talk page of the article and the AfD are a bit of a clusterfuck. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know anyone can add this notice. I didn't know of any abuse of this in my whole history of editing in WP:ARBPIA.--Shrike (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I wrote at DGG's talk page, I think the snow close was unfortunate; while the discussion leaned Keep, the notability question is complex, sensitive and in my opinion not clear-cut. The article's topic is an Arabic phrase that basically says that when Muslims are finished persecuting Jews, they will take on the Christians. If said by Christians, it will reflect anxiety or prejudices; if said by Muslims it becomes a very hateful expression that can be interpreted as calling for genocide. It's the last version (by Muslims) that makes the topic very sensitive, as it naturally can be a beloved quote for people with an Anti-Islam agenda: for instance one of the current sources in the article is Bat Ye'or. Some of the other sources are mentions in passing by political commentarors, not the kind of sources that give a clear-cut notability for a stand-alone article. I was in the thinking box myself about whether and how to "vote"; also because the article hasn't yet found a clear form, I believe the notability question here merits careful considerations rather than a speedy close. While it's not a direct or good parallell, the topic may raise some of the same concerns as the "Jews and Communism" topic. The debate in the AfD was heated and some of it may have been out of line, but much of it was rooted in sincere concerns; not meaningless tit-for-tat bickering. It's also worth to take into considerations that Arabs and Arab-speaking people, who may have particular knowledge about the topic, are not very well represented at Wikipedia, so there should be some time for those who are here to give their voices if they want. Iselilja (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Having seen some of the racist rhetoric at the AfD, I am entirely sympathetic to DGG's desire to cool things down before blocks were necessary. That said, I think the AfD should be reopened, as there were also good-faith source- and policy-based discussions going on that were not really resolved. If people continue to attack other editors based on their perceived or actual religious or ethnic affiliations, then discretionary sanctions can and should be applied. Prior to reopening the discussion it would be a good idea to remind some of the participants not to engage in that sort of thing. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is that AfDs/RFCs etc in this topic area tend to attract the same involved battleground editors, whose !vote I could predict with my eyes closed. The WP:RM at Talk:1834 Safed pogrom is another example. This one has not yet attracted the entire crowd, and discounting the regulars, there was only one editor in favour of deletion and six in favour of keeping. I can't really see it going any other way, particularly with the huge improvement in the article since the AfD started.
  • I suggested ages ago creating a special type of discussion for this sort of topic area (Macedonia would probably be another one) to prevent those editors appearing with their entirely predictable views and the discussion ending up going the way of whichever side happens to have the most editors at the time. Maybe it's time to revisit that. Number 57 21:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There was one upset Arabic-speaker, somewhat understandably given the topic, but bad manners are unacceptable, and ethnic mud-slinging inexcusable. He was notified, and modified his tone, and just desisted. As to 'involved battleground editors', whose votes you could predict with your eyes closed, part of 'the entire crowd', is that an attack on someone's good faith? If you mean myself, as an editor or two off-line who disagree with me know, I was in two minds. I only voted 'No' in the end on observing 'Keep' votes by editors whose judgement seemed to be swayed by some obsession with Hamas, which has zero connection with this phrase.

What you call a huge improvement consists of

• (a) not correcting the Arabic in the lead: the only source for the phrase does not provide the lead version.
• (b) not correcting the patently solecistic grammar of 'predominantly used among or against Arab Christians fearing or threatening them that they will share the fate of Jews in Arab and Muslim countries', though it stands out like dogs' balls. I left it there to see if anyone among those rushing to judgement was actually reading the page attentively. No. An obvious blooper remains at the very top of the page.
• (c)In adding

'In 1940, Walter Clay Lowdermilk noted the alleged proverb in a rather critical review of the White Paper of 1939. He assumed, that similar to the Assyrian genocide of mostly Christian Assyrians in Iraq after the British left the former mandate and their loyal native troops behind, the Jews in the then Palestine Mandate region 'would be massacred' similarly by Muslims, if left as a minority.[7]

the editor just copied the source and made the links to Lowdermilk's terms without even realizing what he or she was doing. The Assyrian Genocide refers to events from over three to 2 decades before the British Mandate in Iraq expired, indeed before the British Mandate itself, and was committed by Turks, not Iraqi Muslims. Lowdermilk's statistics of 80,000 dead cannot refer to any event in the otherwise tragic episodes that struck villages in Northern Iraq in 1933, in a clash of many ethnic and religious groups. The conservative estimate for 1933 was 600 (British figure) to 3,000 (Iraqi/Assyrian estimate).

The whole voting process took place without anyone bothering to check, source by source, the content against the source language, or correcting the numerous errors. That is rather unusual in my experience, because 'voting' without even trying to examine how a contested article is constructed, is not evidence of any concern for wikipedia's required standards of editorial control. I don't know if it makes any difference to things, to reopen the AfD. Perhaps my tolerance of cantankerousness is high, but as the I/P area goes, it was manageable. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did not vote in the AfD. I was not even aware of this discussion, since I don't check AfDs. And also I am sure some people can probably say that I am a dedicated POV warrior. When Number 57 says that he can predict the !vote with his eyes closed, that is true of course. But there is an unstated implication there, with a false balance. As anyone who has read the article can see, it is pure WP:COATRACK, with a not-subtle message of attacking Hamas. Why does one want to make up stuff to attack them, when they are already so bad? The majority of so-called references to this article are totally passing mentions. I picked one at random: "It is one of the reasons Christian Palestinians increasingly ask for a double nationality and apply as well for Israeli citizenship," the sentence is "from time to time the slogan "After Saturday comes Sunday" is heard, meaning that having dealt with the Jews, the Christians' turn will come next". That is the beginning and the end. Are we going to devote an article to the slogan "Death to Arabs" now? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think there would be justification in having a "Death to the Arabs" article, but more from the point of view that it's a common football chant from Beitar Jerusalem fans (there are numerous articles on football chants – see Category:Football songs and chants). However, the way in which the suggestion was raised (i.e. as a tit-for-tat measure) is a classic example of everything that is wrong with this area of Wikipedia. Number 57 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not raise this suggestion as a "tit-for-tat measure", but as an example of Reductio ad absurdum. Apparently, in this area one has to state the obvious, so let me say it. I have no interest in writing any "Death to Arabs" article. But, with the logic being presented here, one can easily do it. Search Google Scholar for "Death to Arabs", pick a few references, add a section "Role in the changing Israeli community", add a quote from some marginal group inside Israel, and you get an analogous article. The fact that people agree with my absurd proposal baffles me. I am willing to bet nobody who voted !keep in the article is going to start a "Death to Arabs" article. Please wake me up when that happens. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

'as a tit-for-tat measure) is a classic example of everything that is wrong with this area of Wikipedia.'

I dislike these untimely insinuations. DGG need only glance at my email to him on 23 August 2012 to recall how much I deplore, with concrete examples, the creation of provocative articles that, for NPOV balance, tempt other editors to mimic the same ethnic-suffering-articles for the other side (tit-for-tat), and the kind of voting en bloc without reasoned arguments practiced in Afds. I even experimented with writing an article to see how votes would go if if was, as I expected, Afd'd. Editors were creating killing of settlers articles one after another, or supporting them in Afds, while challenging similar articles (not written by me) on killings of Palestinians. It didn't work, because no one challenged its appropriateness.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an insinuation, it's a fact. After reading Kingsindian's comments, I was going to respond by saying that this used to be exemplified by editors creating articles on every single victim of the conflict, with subsequent AfDs seeing pro-Israeli editors !voting to keep Israeli victims and delete Palestinian victims, and vice versa, but it seems you got there first (although failing to mention the vice versa bit). I got so pissed off with this behaviour that I created a bundled nomination with victims from both sides, but I vaguely recall that it led to editors simply splitting their !vote depending on the side of the victim... Number 57 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no vice-versa logic operant that I can recall. Victim articles have been overwhelmingly created concerning Israelis/Jews, as are rocket articles (vs the undocumenteed missile/bombing strikes). I tried publicly to stop the abuse and on more than one occasion advised editors generally with a 'Palestinian concern' not to imitate the habit. Correct me if I am wrong, but the problem was with one POV on this topic. Category:Terrorism deaths in Jerusalem; Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank;Category:Israeli terrorism victims yield, sieving out overlaps, about 35 examples (excluding several not tagged with those cats) vs.Muhammed al-Dura,Faris Odeh,Khalil al-Mughrabi,Iman Darweesh Al Hams; Khalil al-Mughrabi,Mohammed Abu Khdeir, Beitunia killings (6 articles, all because the events were photographed, or lead to court trials, or, as is rarely the case, the object of scandal). Note that the Palestinian cases are so few (despite a far higher killing toll) that we have no cats for them. One must 'always connect' but 'always discriminate', otherwise judgement just obscures all by 'a curse on both their houses' /re editors)Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Uphold close. I don't participate in this area of conflict but I saw the AfD and I found good quality sources discussing the topic. To me that makes for a very simple answer at AfD: "Keep" per WP:GNG. There is certainly a topic here, so the AfD was closed correctly. The question of how to shape the article content will always be up for discussion, but DGG saw the simple AfD answer was already determined, and thus closed the AfD, rightly balancing the various arguments in the process. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Uphold close. DGG IAR close invoked as well WP Snowball, rightly so, as the article was beyond deletion then. I dont see any attack against Hamas, but a sort of differentiated perspective on the role of the quote in general and the islamization of the Palestinian movement, which had been open for arab christians in the past but tend to close the doors in the meanwhile. Serten (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment proves my point. The article is not about the slogan but about Islamization of Palestinian political life. Ask any uninvolved editor to read the article and see what he comes away with. The whole last section "Role in the changing Palestinian community" drives home the point, not-so-subtly. It even contains a long quote by PFLP denouncing Hamas. PFLP is a virtually defunct organization and should have been dissolved years ago (after Habash retired). As I said, would you support an article on the slogan "Death to Arabs"? I can assure you that is a much more widely spoken slogan than this ridiculous phrase. Ugly things exist in all societies. To make WP:COATRACK articles out of them is quite a different matter. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

George Habash came out of the Christian minority and the PLPF quote contains the sentence How can such mottos serve the Palestinian struggle?. If you have any source based content on "Death to Arabs", add it to the origin, as it mirrors The Sword Verse. Serten (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We have one scholarly article on the phrase. As I said earlier, I would support retention of the article were it possible to supply information that clarifies the history of that phrase, and the preemptive closing of this AfD has more or less absolved editors of their obligations to fix the article to justify its retention. A few tweaks have been made, but (a) Lowdermilk's ludicrous error of gross historical confusion still stands, and it can't be fixed because to note that he has screwed up his history would be original research. As a result, the article, lacking RS, must use a source just for this phrase that will ineludibly disinform all readers: (b) despite the fact that the phrase is attested all over the Arab world, the article focuses on a "case against the Palestinians" (for whom there is no evidence of acting on the slogan's apocalyptic message), by showcasing one comment from a nigh moribund communist fraction critical of Hamas:(c) as typified by the Israel Amrani interview, it appears to pop up as an intrusive editorial gloss to cast an ominous light, when nothing in the interview otherwise refers to it (many cases exist of its use in this way). One can't note this (WP:OR) simply because we have no metacritique by scholars of the phrase itself, something I think requisite if articles of this kind are not to become playpens for skewering groups, societies, and countries, by innuendo as editors coatrack it with generic examples of reported use (on walls here, lampposts there). In encyclopedic terms, you do need serious sourcing that analyses a phenomenon, linguistically, sociologically, historically to avoid the temptation, so often suffered in this area, of playing politics. It is tempting for unwise editors keen to shortcircuit history by spinning the horrendous violence wrought on numerous ethnic communities (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Yazidi etc.) over the last century in the Middle East as due to what is a relatively recent trend, Islamic fundamentalism, when that trend itself is a consequence of repeated Western meddling (it was the foreseen consequence of the Iraq invasion of 2003), and, while I am rigorously opposed to anything that smacks of political correctness, a global encyclopedia should exercise care and discretion in what it will tolerate from editors who cannot distinguish preaching a cause via article creation of this kind, and the neutral description of events, problems and even usage. That is why I insist that sensitive articles use scholarly sources, not newspapers, optimally, and that articles that cannot draw on the sober analyses of scholars from th outset should be reviewed with caution. In these cases, one needs wide input from disinterested outside editors and administrators and a due period of reflection to ensure that all angles are covered in deciding what we should have.Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, if WP should consist of featured articles only, then go ahead. If you have a problem with linkings, mention them on the talk page. I assume Lowdermilk ment it exactly is it has been worded. Serten (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply to this: has Lowdermilk confused the events of 1894/1915-17 with the events of 1933 or not? I've given the evidence for this absurd confusion. If I am wrong correct me (2) If I am not wrong, and you support the retention of the article with a patent piece of anhistorical nonsense in it, what are your suggestions for retaining Lowdermilk,in such a way that his disinformation does not seed its way into our article and lead a global readership to think that 80,000 Christians were killed in 1933 and that a soil conservationist authoritatively predicted on the basis of that non-fact that a similar genocide would befall the Jews in Palestine in 1948 (nothing of the sort occurred of course)?Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Do I have to care? On the talk page, some guy still claims the saying is a Jewish invention, while Lowdermilk described it already in 1940. Serten (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so. You supported the retention of an article. (b) you personally added a source and the content. I pointed out here (see above) that your edit is sheer nonsense, in the sense that you paraphrase Lowdermilk's egregious confusion of two distinct eras, giving the impression what he stated was true, whereas it is a non-fact, a huge blunder. I asked you here what should be done, and you answer:'who cares'. If you don't care about historical accuracy, that's fine. You can stay away from articles. But editors should, in general, feel responsible for the accuracy of the articles they edit, and esp. for fixing the problems their editing creates. So be so kind as to fix it. 'It's your baby', and I for one am tired of baby-sitting.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Since my reductio ad absurdum obviously didn't work, let me take a truly absurd example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pizza_cheese. Note how many comments emphasized that passing mentions of "pizza cheese" were not enough. It took some real unearthing by Northamerica1000 to get articles directly addressing the topic at hand, and even this was finally contentious. I can assure you that "pizza cheese" is more notable than this stupid phrase. This is my last comment. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if its your last comment and the other guy stopped babysitting, can we close? Serten (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Please undo the damage to wikipedia's reliability caused by your edit. To close this off, as you defy a request that you assume responsibility for the mess you created on this article, would not be good form. You made the mess, the article passed, so fix the mess at least.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure That discussion was a mess, and a good deal of the opinions provided are not relevant to the point of the AfD, I can see that letting that run further and firefighting all the crap in the article might have resulted in a no consensus down the road, or a keep, but not a delete. I am not suggesting that a proper discussion couldn't have come to a delete conclusion, I don't really have an opinion on that, but I am suggesting that this one never would. Leaving the AfD open would, in the end, change nothing as to the retention of the article, and prolong the drama. A bold and sensible use of IAR. ObDisclosure: As near as I can recall, I've never edited on this or related topics. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, I cannot resist a final comment. Since my earlier comments were directed more at the merits of the AfD rather than the merits of the IAR/Snow Keep close, I will address the latter. Firstly, WP:SNOW does not apply here, because clearly there were multiple people proposing deletion, or at least significant change in the article. WP:SNOW is not a synonym for "it will likely end up as no consensus or keep". Secondly, WP:IAR does not apply. It is hard to argue against WP:IAR but I will try. This will necessarily get a bit meta and WP:SOAPBOXy.

There was one very passionate person who was arguing against, and multiple less intemperate, but no less firmly opposed people. The person (%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%88_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%83%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D9%85) was mostly arguing on the merits, though some of the comments came across as anti-Jewish. However, he recognized this and clarified his remarks to Dougweller and Nishidani. People may or may not accept his clarification, that is not relevant here. I will remind people that this is not the "Western Wikipedia". "Zionist" is routinely used in the Arab world (and for that matter the non-Arab world) to refer to Israel. The user was making some valid observations, though some of the comments tended towards battleground behaviour. As anyone who edits in this area knows, it is very hard to avoid the latter, though one must always strive to avoid it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure I am not an admin, but I believe that DDG had good and sufficient reasons to end the debate early as it clearly was not going anywhere other than keep based upon policy. It was a matter of discretion and DDG could have left it open, but I do not think as one commentor above stated that closing an AFd as a "keep" absolves editors of their obligations to improve the article. Valid observations about a topic do not necessarily go to policy or guidelines, and further debate here really wouldn't have gone anywhere. There is a perfectly good talk page for those discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support close As a participant at the AfD in question, the discussion was clearly getting way off track in a direction that was inappropriately focused on the alleged racism of participants and sources rather than the quality or widespread availability of the references. DGG diagnosed correctly that issues of notability had been met and that leaving the AfD open would only further inflame an already problematic battleground, rather than foster a civil discussion. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guías Amarillas

Hi, can somebody please speedy delete Guías Amarillas? It's scam. Some non-admin is reverting my speedy nomination. I'm a member of the info-es OTRS team, where we received a complaint about this article. As far as I can see the sender is right and this is indeed a scam company with a fake phone directory. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it.

This site is not in English, but if I am reading the translated version correctly, it is confirmation that the company is running a scam.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that you also identified other sites indicating that it is a scam.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm also an OTRS agent, but I formed my opinion and deleted the article before reviewing the OTRS ticket. I have now reviewed the OTRS ticket, which provides some links to evidence that it is a scam, including one I independently found.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting eyes on two articles

About twenty minutes ago, there was a heavy crash at the Formula One Japanese Grand Prix, involving driver Jules Bianchi and a crane. The latest official word is that Bianchi has been taken to a local hospital, unconscious, and things are looking grim overall. We might want to get some admin eyes on those two articles for the next day or so, just to make sure that we don't get any troll-type vandalism going on. rdfox 76 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Second that, although the regular F1 editors will doubtless be their usual vigilant selves. Also keep an eye on Marussia F1, Bianchi's team. A couple of years ago another of their drivers, Maria de Villota, suffered a serious injury in a crash, which arguably contributed to her death last year, so there may be activity related to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Also please keep an eye on Talk:Jules Bianchi; we've already had a vandal claim Bianchi has died, and amazingly, an editor who restored that vandalism twice, while deleting another editor's comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Meir Kahane

Maybe some of you can have a look at this. There's an IP jumper who's been "trimming" the article for some time now, and I regularly revert, but I wonder what the point of it is. In addition there's been a recent edit war where I suspect POV is a propelling force. I'm not calling for action, necessarily, but I would like some of you to check out the history, the recent edits, and maybe that edit war, and act accordingly if actions are necessary. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be far more nefarious than trimming. The jumper's edits are focused on obfuscating Kahane's colorful criminal record through tortuous wordplay. This article should be semi-protected. DocumentError (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with document error on this one, I remember that IP user's work, something needs to be done about it. - SantiLak (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, SantiLak and I can't agree on the weather. So when we do agree on something you can take it to the bank. Get a rope. DocumentError (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Huge number of infoboxes broken

This morning {{Infobox election}} began appearing malformed on numerous articles (every one I've seen - e.g. Next United Kingdom general election, German federal election, 2013 etc). The template hasn't been edited since December last year, so I assume something underlying the template has been edited and messed things up. This infobox is used on several thousand articles, and needs fixing pretty quickly. If anyone can help, please comment at Template talk:Infobox election. Cheers, Number 57 11:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It was caused by a change in Template:Hide in print, now corrected by User:WOSlinker[35]. Fram (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of terms of use

Could you please clarify the terms of use for:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MET_Hall_New_YorkCity.jpg

It appears to be covered by GNU Free Documentation License,but the disclaimer language is unfamiliar to me and I would appreciate what extra requirements may be needed for citing the source.

Thank you,

Richard Preti (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.68.93 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• You would want to ask that question at Commons, where the photo is located the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

IP on a weird punctuation campaign

68.98.155.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been engaged in a number of style edits on numerous articles going back since August, mostly changing straight-line quote marks ' and '' into ‘,’,“,”. He's broken some blue-links along the way. He also has applied his own idiosyncratic capitalization changes, changing things like "White House Chief of Staff" to "White House chief of staff". There have been a few good edits along the way. I left a message on his talk page.

I reverted a few of the most recent, then saw he has been at it for some time now. Here's one example diff [36] combining his personal rules of capitalization and quote marks, and breaking a blue-link to boot.

To be honest, I have no idea where to report this. Choor monster (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Attention admins - please stop this immediately. I'm familiar with the underlying subtext of these specific kind-of punctuation edits. It has to do with a punctuation conspiracy theory (seriously, that's a real thing) orchestrated by David Wynn Miller and is not - as might otherwise be presumed by a person unaware - anything related to an ESL editor. I strongly recommend IP editor by indefinitely blocked. DocumentError (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why I looooove WP. How else would I learn such a thing exists?

Meanwhile, I recently decided to work on improving Helen Hooven Santmyer and her novel “... And Ladies of the Club”. I've been pushing the curly quotes everywhere relevant, and suddenly I'm feeling guilty of gross hypocrisy. Comments on the novel's talk page would be welcome. If told this should not be an exception, I will change everything myself. Choor monster (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, the reason I posted here is because I'd like help! Looking down his contributions, it's clean down to Michael Flynn, then Thomas Braden is the first article I didn't get to (except for the one above that I gave a diff for). Choor monster (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would double check, but I'm sure the MOS recommends using the use of ' and " over the Microsoft styled "smart quotes". The specific guideline is at MOS:QUOTEMARKS. There has also been several ArbCom rulings over switching from one style to another that are of relevance to this case. —Farix (t | c) 20:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Backlog

There's a backlog at Category:Requests for unblock. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves backlog

This is just a heads-up that there is a long backlog at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Backlog. Attention from administrators is kindly requested. Thank you. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarity on "Syrian Civil War" general sanctions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

General sanctions were established for Syrian Civil War-related articles about a year ago. In recent days, however, these sanctions have been applied to many articles relating to the ongoing conflict and insurgency in Iraq, such as Iraqi insurgency (2011–present). Of course, the conflict in Iraq involves "spill-over" from the Syrian Civil War, but I think it is a stretch to call these sanctions "Syrian Civil War" sanctions if they are going to be applied to the Iraqi conflict. In that case, I'd like to request that the general sanctions be renamed to encompass the conflict in both Iraq and Syria, so that there is no mistaking the scope of the sanctions, at present. Clarity should be established, in such a contentious area. RGloucester — ☎ 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with modifying the sanctions so they cover the Syrian Civil War and the Iraqi Civil War. PhilKnight (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

At the moment the sanctions (see Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions cover "all pages related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed." The question being raised seems to be whether these cover articles such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎ and certainly articles such as Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014). Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume that they do, given that they are being applied in those articles. I'm not asking wether they should or shouldn't, merely asking for clarity. When an editor is notified about "Syrian Civil War" sanctions, he may not know that these also apply to Iraq-related articles. In other words, I'm asking that the name of the sanctions be changed to encompass their scope. RGloucester — ☎ 13:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That would indeed be helpful. I'm not sure this is the right page though to discuss a community sanction. @Callanecc:, @Bbb23: who are the Admins most involved. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The sanctions were created on this very page, which is why I used it. They are not Arb Com sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm clear they aren't ArbCom sanctions. As "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." I would have expected ANI to have been the venue, but I'm obviously wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since no one seems to be doing anything here, and as I don't want this come to naught...I'll propose a name. How about calling them the "Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" general sanctions? That adequately encapsulates the scope, deals with what needs to be dealt with, &c. It is better than trying to come up with something absurd like "Levantine-Mesopotamian conflict (2011–present)". RGloucester — ☎ 22:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• It seems reasonable to me to assume that this should also apply to the current conflict in Iraq as well; after all, it's essentially the same fight, now spread over two countries instead of just one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

• Changing the name seems like a good idea however I don't think it's a good idea to change the name without broadening the scope of the sanctions as well. So my proposal is as follows:

The area of conflict for the Syrian Civil War general sanctions is amended to apply to all pages related to the Syrian Civil War or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. However the one revert rule continues to apply to articles, not all pages, in the area of conflict.

Addition underlined. Probably worth moving Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (WP:GS/SCW&ISIL). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

At the moment 1RR applies to anything to do with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as that's been seen as part of the Syrian Civil War. It's worked pretty well I think and I believe it has cut down on edit warring considerably. I would prefer it to continue to apply - I'm not happy to suddenly change it from 1RR to 3RR. I just noticed that Bbb23 is away until at least the 9th which is why he hasn't responded. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That was the intention, the clarification regarding 1RR was that it applies to articles not all pages, which I've clarified a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me then. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support Callanecc's proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: This is not controversial, and in fact does not alter the status quo (merely enshrines it in text). As such, I believe that we should be able to go ahead and implement it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to "be bold" and made the appropriate changes to the pages myself, per Callanecc's proposal. I hope this will bring clarity to what is otherwise a murky topic area. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What to do about offline meatpuppeting when all we have is circumstantial evidence

• It recently came to my attention that two Wikipediocracy users have been discussing me and my actions over the past week. It is not in the public threads, and so I can not link to the discussion in question (how I am aware of this I will not say, except via more secure communications lines) nor conclusively identify the two individuals in question. However, circumstantial evidence indicates at least one of the editors was Coat of Many Colours, a somewhat active Wikipediocracy editor, following his/her block and this thread regarding September Morn (and, a note, our blocked editor left such lovely quotes as "I have no idea who Wikipedia's chimpanzee token academic is (if that's supposed to be Drmies I would have to take issue on "academic", token or not)". I suspect that this PM has contributed to the disruption at Beauty Revealed, in which an editor with no previous interest in art has introduced POV, unreferenced material, and edit warred to keep "their" version in the article, despite indications that their edits violate the MOS, policy, and guidelines. So is there any action that can be taken? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

An interesting quote, for those who can't read the thread. Denial that s/he was disruptive, calling editors monkeys, and offering to communicate regarding certain things via less open channels. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a block because of my putative disruptive editing. One of my critics there has loudly and persistently declaimed my sock-puppetry from the beginning long before the present drama. Apparently he thinks I'm an editor he and his mate the chimpanzee token academic Andrew mentions made ardent wiki-love to before Bozo very nicely thought to out him as a sock. The same now trying to get an interaction ban slapped on me though I have faithfully observed a voluntary ban I made months ago. He (she), I was never able to work out which, has nevertheless mentioned me dozens of time since in not very pleasant terms on his Talk page and others. I mean he's obviously demented. Simply on health and safety grounds I should want to steer clear.

I've posted several time here, usually when drunk or otherwise intoxicated, and mostly on the so-called Google "right to be forgotten" EU judgment, where I have expertise. My posts weren't really received very well and I don't know enough about Wikipedia to contribute usefully otherwise. I do admire the expertise of others here. I simply can't match it.

As for Andrew [no Wikipedia user name mentioned - Crisco] I dare say he means well. If he would like to email me with some details about himself that at least allows me to make a judgement about his bona fides then he might find that worthwhile and perhaps we can strike an acquaintance on the strength of it [Emphasis mine].

• Well, that's exciting. "Monkey"? I've heard worse this week (wait, you're Andrew, right, and I'm the monkey? allegory is hard, dude). As for academic--yeah, after the Ole Miss game I sent my diploma back, so they may have a point. If that's about me at all. I can't read it, Crisco, since I'm not a member of that club, and the only advice I can give you is to disregard it. But if this is flowing into other articles, that would be serious: I am not familiar with that editor and haven't looked into their history; if indeed they have not edited art articles before, this is certainly interesting. I'm curious to hear what other admins/editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder about this text: I've posted several time here, usually when drunk or otherwise intoxicated. What is that usually and otherwise intoxicated? Is this the valuable editor we want back? About the ardent Wikilove - well, kinda exagerated. The only thing why I was a little nice to him it was because I thought he was Child of Midnight, (alias 74) an old friend - whom I tought was trying to make a new clean nice comeback with this account -even if he is currently under a block -well - but I was wrong. Child of Midnight could never be so mean to start spreading rumors that were forbidden to spread around here. Or drunk. Hafspajen (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• It's not the first time the editor has lightly edited art-icles. Pretty sure it's not Coat- I didn't know Coat was a regular contributor to the echo-tank of the powerless. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• But of course is Coat, I understand the coded messages very well: That's a block because of my putative disruptive editing - he is blocked. One of my critics there has loudly and persistently declaimed my sock-puppetry from the beginning long before the present drama - that was me, I said he was Child of Midnight. Misplaced loyalty... The thing with though I have faithfully observed a voluntary ban I made months ago - well, that is not exacly so - he stopped editing my nominations - but never stopped commenting on me, my behaviour, he is constantly checking my edits, my talk page, keeps record om everything I do and did - yes - and constantly makes snide remarks on everything I said or did. The same now trying to get an interaction ban slapped on yes, Crisco asked for it on ANI I asked for that, Dmies talk. - He (she), I was never able to work out which, has nevertheless mentioned me dozens of time since in not very pleasant terms on his Talk page and others. I mean he's obviously demented - well, that's me - he thinks I am an infernal mentee, the disgraceful editor, and much much more - all very negative things. Note that telling on your talk page .might just tell him (her) to fuck off and hang the consequences - IT IS actually indeed telling it:fuck off - only in a snidish backward way (on his talk). And also I've posted several time here, usually when drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Coat admitted several time he was drunk when he edited. Not to talk about the bouncing IP adresses and the different comments from them. Hafspajen (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Nah, I meant the other one wasn't Coat. Sorry, I wasn't clear in my comment, which refers to the editor that was editing Beauty Revealed. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Extra eyes on Stephen Collins article

Some highly inflammatory allegations are hitting the news today. So far it's all tabloids, so it's not yet reaching WP:RS. But as the word spreads there's a good chance things'll get heated on the article and talk. So any extra eyes over there would be helpful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hitting the reliable sources now, LA Times, CNN, etc etc. This is, apparently, something that happened. Which means we're now gonna have awful but reliably sourced allegations coming in, coupled with fallout (the subject was fired from an upcoming project, for example). Heads up. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

People may also want to keep an eye on associated articles. The one for the upcoming project, and one for the guild whose board he resigned from, are likely in need of extra eyes. Can anyone else think of any other articles that likely need extra attention for a few days? - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, do we have the names of victims? Should we protect those titles, or monitor them against violations of WP:BLP1E? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just figured out that the article was protected on 7 Oct. Currently there is an apparent editwar between autoconfirmed users, what will you do? VandVictory (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission

The RfC to appoint 3 individuals to the 2014 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission has begun. Nominations will be accepted through October 17 23:59 (UTC). Following the nomination period, comments will be welcomed to discuss the suitability of the candidates.

Best regards, Mike V • Talk 03:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Move

Someone please, move This page to Gumti River. The river original name is Gumti River (please see Banglapedia - http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/G_0240.htm). Almost 9 years ago, Gumti River redirect to another page, that's why i cant move it. some admin, please help. Thank you. --Aftab1995 (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No need for immediate admin intervention; let's just keep the discussion on the article talk page and file a WP:Requested move if necessary. Will comment on talk in a few moments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please delete

Wrong language Irakin ja Levantin islamilainen valtio, please delete--Musamies (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - in future you can tag with {{db-r3}}. GiantSnowman 14:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Threatened with blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, user User:GiantSnowman is repeatedly threatening to block me from making edits simply for making sourced redirect edits which he deems vandalism, despite him being told potentially otherwise. Can something be done about this? It's hardly in the nature of Wikipedia to ban somebody for making sourced edits which are, at best, a minor inconvenience. As an aside, the redirects were immediately deleted without even a warning or attempt to discuss whether they should remain. So, the matter was resolved without my input and then the user threatened to block me. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffs please - we need to see links to exactly what the issues are the panda ₯’ 14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's on my talk page. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me add: you created Dozy Antiscore as a redirect to a person's article. Try reading wP:BLP and consider if perhaps a block would be in order if you pulled that crap again in the future the panda ₯’ 14:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How was redirecting a nickname "crap"? Links please to which specific part of [[WP:BLP}} a redirect of a nickname it violated. It was a sourced edit for something I believed was a notable nickname. If somebody has an issue with something on this website, it is usually resolved with WP:BRD, NOT by threatening somebody with an edit block for innocent mistakes, without even attempting to explain why the mistake was incorrect. That action is far too dictatory for my liking. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the other redirect (The naughtiest left-back around town pointing to Leighton Baines) was deleted by @Tokyogirl79: (iirc) along with an edit summary of 'vandalism'. LRD 14:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also "for the record", user Chillum backed my case that it wasn't vandalism. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Chillum has actually said that you are "trying to test the limits of what is acceptable..." GiantSnowman 19:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's something else the user said: "I don't think this is an obvious case. What needs to be determined is if this nickname is established and likely to be useful. My personal opinion given the sources and the results of a google search is that people may look for the article by that name". I noticed that you had omitted that sentence so I am glad that I could help you here. I'm definitely not accusing you of the strawman argument, not at all! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They said that a fortnight earlier, before you created a second poor redirect. You are also ignoring their comments here... GiantSnowman 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I was not notified about this discussion. Secondly, RealDealBillMcNeal is creating BLP-violating, implausible redirects, such as The naughtiest left-back around town and Dozy Antiscore, despite previous warnings. Time for a WP:BOOMERANG? GiantSnowman 16:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't violate BLP, nor is it vandalism as you describe it to be on Real Deal's page . It's his nickname, and he has sources to back it up, and yes, I know Twitter is not considered reliable, I meant the other two. Calm down and talk it out, it's not block worthy (check my block log and you'll see I know a few things about blocks, having recieved a few of 'em )  :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it does, and yes, given the size of your block log, it's telling that you're the only person defending him... GiantSnowman 19:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually , no I'm not. On his talk page he has a few defenders as well as here. It's not BLP nor is it vandalism, so please don't mislabel it like that. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• On it's own, this should not be considered vandalism. I would not support using either of these redirects myself, but a case could be made, and reasonable, competent people might support it. Depends on lots of things like how commonly it is used, by whom, how likely it is that someone would be searching for it, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc etc.

  The problem is that this did not occur in a vacuum. With RDBMN's history of vandalism in the past, combined with several instances of boundary-testing (see his talk page), I am quickly coming to the conclusion that RDBMN is engaged in a long campaign to lightly troll everyone, just enough to have fun, but not so much that he gets blocked.

  So I'll play bad cop today. RDBMN, if it appears you are continuing to test the boundaries of what is blockable and what isn't, I will block you from editing indefinitely. Stop playing silly buggers in article space. If you are not sure that something could not possibly be considered "boundary testing", err on the side of caution and assume it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A campaign to troll? Jesus, that's taking it way too far. I hardly spent hours thinking of ways to make articles that would easily be deleted in a matter of minutes, I made sourced edits! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• A quick Google search confirms what I thought you meant, that Dozy Antiscore was a nickname for Jozy Altidore. We don't require WP:RS for alternate-name redirects or nickname redirects: we simply require that they be plausible, and its appearance in current social-media contexts demonstrates that it's definitely plausible. With that in mind, I would have no compunction about creating Dozy as a redirect to Jozy if not for this discussion. Since it would occur in a vacuum if I created it, does anyone have objections? Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's how I'd read Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects; for non-neutral redirects, especially to a BLP, I'd think you also want it to be a commonly-used, likely-to-be-useful search term. I think it's a grey area, where you and I might reasonably disagree, but it would probably be better not to be bold, but to have a content-related discussion about it somewhere (not sure where, TBH) before you create it. Otherwise I'm pretty sure someone is going to nuke it per their interpretation of BLP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to give my 2 cents. I personally disagree with Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects and was surprised that was the guideline, however it does appear to have some degree of consensus. I don't think such redirects are appropriate but it seems others in the community disagree. Chillum 19:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd rather admins err on the side of caution and take such actions until the creator can explain why the redirects (or whatever the case is) are plausible or appropriate. Not everyone knows what such-and-such subject's widely known nickname is, and nowadays it's very possible that this might end up on twitter or Facebook with a lot of lulz simply because there's an ongoing attack against a living person and we have to be careful not to facilitate that. Plain old vandalism and social media linking to vandalized revisions are bad enough as it is. So instead of organizing some drama perhaps the OP could have simply explained what was going on, shown there are sources for that in the BLP and everything would be OK. Quite frankly I would have done the same as GiantSnowman and TokyoGirl without the least hesitation or regret. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's the thing though - these are not widely known nicknames! They are used by a minority of people, certainly do not excuse the negative connotations of the nicknames, and do not merit such obscure redirects. GiantSnowman 20:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I DID provide sources for both redirects that I corrected. The Guardian is not a social media source. The Liverpool Echo is not a social media source. That's the entire point of this complaint; that I was threatened with a block for making sourced edits! It's right there in the opening line! Oh, and a "minority of people" i.e. Everton and Sunderland fans; the clubs the edits were about! Duuuuuh RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't actually look at the validity of the redirects other than their apparently negative names, but if that's the case plus RealDealBillMcNeal's edit history then it seems to be this should be even more of a boomerang situation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they're well known. He came with citations, and you removed them calling it vandalism, which it isn't. As a regular user I know that wasn't vandalism. Then you started saying it violates BLP, which it doesn't, further you have no support that it does and no one else other than you called it vandalism. I think you should retract your post on his page, at the least. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Putting my two cents in here: when I deleted the redirect for "The naughtiest left-back around town", I saw nothing in the article that showed that this was a common nickname. I did a search via Google and didn't see much to show that this is a common enough nickname to really warrant it being used on Wikipedia. We've got to be very careful about what we create on Wikipedia as far as redirects go because people create nicknames for celebrities all the time. Sometimes a nickname might get tossed around by a few people and then dropped fairly quickly by the majority of people, as seemed to be the case with the "naughtiest" nickname. While redirects are cheap, we also need to be discerning with what we create. If you can find enough coverage to warrant it being mentioned in his page, then we could re-create the redirect. If not, then it shouldn't be recreated. Most of the coverage I found for this specific nickname (no comment on the other nickname) showed that this was predominantly used during a very short period of time last year. If it's being used by fans or others, it's not getting a huge amount of coverage on the internet at large from what I can see. Basically, because nicknames are so frequently created for people (and because they can sometimes be made with negative intent) we should only create redirects when the name is used very frequently and over a period of years, like The Hoff or Becks. Since there was already a conversation about this on RealDealBillMcNeal's talk page, I didn't think that it was really worth blocking over at this point in time, but I would recommend that any further redirects be discussed on the person's talk page before creating them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The bit about neutrality of redirects actually says "The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#D3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes." I agree that the nickname should be in the subject's article first. I also agree that RealDealBillMcNeal is pushing the boundaries too far. If this continues I would support an indefinite block (which I might impose myself) or we could go for a topic ban right away. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A topic ban from creating any redirects could be a start. GiantSnowman 10:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and then I wouldn't be able to create such redirects as that for Finn Bálor, Zidanes y Pavónes, Melty, Maggle... Maybe this is an attack on Pavon because the Galatcticos system failed, huh? Where does the pettiness regarding redirects start and stop? Do you delete Maggle because you think it's an attack on the Texas accent? I see that the redirect Dirty Leeds exists. Is this going to be deleted as it is an attack on Don Revie? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to include this redirect you made in the list, along with your reasoning behind it. Anyone searching for "Dirty Leeds" should know that Leeds United is the club and proper search term they are looking for, and as a disparaging term used during a specific period in their history, should be considered for deletion. We do not want to encourage creation of redirects such as Boring Arsenal, Sad Mackem Bastards or Man U Never Intended Coming Home 1.

As mentioned in your talk page, we do not want inappropriate or ridiculous player-specific redirects such as God, Judas, Psycho, Sicknote and so on. Like NebY said two posts below, anyone looking for those search terms should know the specific player that they are looking for. If they are unaware of the player himself, you would have to seriously question why that person is looking for "the naughtiest left-back around town" on Wikipedia. LRD 01:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, who's reading things correctly here? Sting is an appropriate nickname because Gordon Sumner uses it himself. Madonna for similar reasons. Just because the front page of a 2-bit newspaper gives a guy a nickname, that does not mean it's appropriate to use anywhere - even if other newspapers pick up its use. If some newspaper somewhere suddenly started to call the Founder of Wikipedia "That Wiki Wanker", and the New York Times and Chicago Tribune both picked it up, is someone going to create a redirect? the panda ₯’ 09:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• We set up redirects so that readers can find articles that they would have trouble finding otherwise. Readers who know these nicknames can be assumed to be familiar with the actual names and not need nicknames to find them (especially, though not only, when the nicknames are assonant). We don't set up redirects to record nicknames; we use the actual articles for that, if and when it's appropriate to record the nicknames at all. NebY (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL at the fact that making sourced redirects is "pushing the boundaries". As I said last time, delete the sourced redirect, inform me, and the sourced redirect won't be reproduced! If I actually wanted to be a vandal and a troll as one put it, the deleted sourced redirect would be created again and again! But no, I didn't recreate the sourced Leighton Baines redirect again, did I! Do some of you people set out to deliberately discourage editors from making edits they believe are correct or are you just inherently rubbish at being administrators? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are a clever troll, who knows full well that if you were to repeatedly recreate the same redirect you would be blocked straightaway. What is meant by you 'pushing the boundaries' is that you move onto a different redirect to try and avoid being caught, as you can (and do!) claim every time that "I thought it was valid, honest guv'nor" - we're telling you they are NOT. GiantSnowman 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Mate, you are really, really overthinking things here. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A notification I got

Resolved

I don't know if this is the right place to ask (it involves a probably-deleted page or edit, but isn't requesting undeletion, though only admins and the like can poke their noses into deletions, and no other pages in the header seemed right), and I'm unsure if it's even appropriate/allowed to ask at all, but I got a notification that I was mentioned by User:2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:1C8F:3BD4:6CDE:CB12 (now subject to a rangeblock) on [[:[No page]|[No page] talk page]]. I bet (hope?) it was something completely pointless like transcluding ANI or something (since I've not to my knowledge interacted with said editor), but my distracted "oh notifications don't act like that" ogling has gotten the better of me and I'm now dying to know why I was mentioned... Meh, curiosity killed the cat, I guess. (But satisfaction brought it back?) - Purplewowies (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP was just messing around by transcluding a bunch of stuff on User talk:2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:1C8F:3BD4:6CDE:CB12. One of the things they transcluded was another user's talk page, on which you had left a comment. Nothing to worry about. Deor (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Good to know, I guess. It is curious that when a page/edit is deleted, the notification just breaks. :P - Purplewowies (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page created after deletion request closing

See User:BCA-2005--Musamies (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

YAB (Yet Another Backlog)

For the record, Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues is also in need of attention with >400 entries. De728631 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy closed

An arbitration case with regards to the Banning Policy, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc (talk · contribs) is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions.
2. Tarc (talk · contribs) is prohibited from reinstating edits or comments that were made or apparently made by a banned user and were reverted for that reason by another editor, regardless of any exception to the applicable policy that might otherwise apply. He is also admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, particularly since he continued even after the disruption was apparent. Tarc is warned that he is likely to be blocked for a long time and/or banned from the project, without further warning, if he does this sort of thing again.
3. Smallbones (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.
4. Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 17:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Backlog

Okay, RFPP is blocked up so we need some brave souls to go and clerk some of these requests, a handful over 48 hours old and upto 38 pending requests. While you're there also consider our RFC on the layout of RFPP over on the talkpage. tutterMouse (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Blacklog mostly cleared thanks to some admins but we really could do with some more regular admins clerking there so please feel free to muck in from time to time. tutterMouse (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem on the weekends, when fewer admins are around. It's back up to over 20 unanswered cases as of right now. Handy link: WP:RFPP -- Diannaa (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Vandalism-only accounts

I was considering nominating Category:Vandalism-only accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion but I thought it'd be worth getting some other opinions in case I'm missing something obvious. I can't see a reason to document and list every vandalism only account which has been blocked on Wikipedia but I wanted to get some other opinions. In terms of statistics gathering, the category is only used when {{uw-vaublock}} or {{uw-voablock}} are placed on the talk page, which isn't always (as {{uw-block}} or {{uw-vblock}} are sometimes used with |indef=yes) so the category isn't a true representation of vandal only accounts, would be better to have a bot search through the block log with set criteria. As I said just wanted to get some more opinions before nominating. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally just add {{indefblocked}} to the talk page, and add that it is a vandalism-only account in the edit summary. So, yes, I do not see this category as repsentative.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't give a badge of honor - RBI and DENY are more important. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be in favor of categorising all VOAs, but since the current contents are far from comprehensive and since there's no way to ensure that future VOA blocks will always be included in this category, I don't see how this category is going to help us. The bot idea is probably the only way to do it. Nyttend (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with this: categorization can be beneficial, for instance, to run statistical analyses. Of course, as Callanecc points out, the category at present is rather noisy. Furthermore, there's going to be a lot of missing accounts in this whose userpages were deleted back in the days of CAT:TEMP. It's possible that there's a better method for tracking VOA and other block types, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Category:Vandalism-only accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC

Notice: Media Viewer RfC. I am posting here because this RfC has special need for broad participation, and because it may require special administrator action if it passes. Alsee (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove page protection - politics in India problem

Sorry - I put this in the wrong place. I moved my issue to the page protection board.

Resolved

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete button

The actual button that does the deed, not the one at the top that takes you to the delete screen. I've been away for a few days, and I don't remember the button being at the left hand side before. I seem to remember it being central. This is in Monobook. Has someone moved it, and if so, why? I can't see the point of a change and would prefer it to be central. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can confirm it's different. Definitely unintentional, I've filed bugzilla:72041 for it. Legoktm (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting worried... Peridon (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Could someone please look at the AIV reports... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What should Wikimedia do to protect their editors against real-life threats?

I raised this issue in the recent India conference (Oct 4-5, Bangalore) that our works in Wikipedia sometimes bring real-life threats. Mr. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) told me during 3 Oct's dinner conversation that they don't have any special section till now to handle these issues. Currently, Sitush is facing some serious threats. Here he told, some spammers lodged a false complaint agains one of his domains. In a personal email, he told me, he is now living in a different city. My question is clear and simple— what should Wikimedia do to protect their editors against real-life threats and harassment? --Tito☸Dutta 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a little more nuanced than that, but let me summon my colleague Philippe who can describe what WMF can do better than I can. Ijon (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's a little more nuanced than that — Mr. Bartov, I can not understand it fully, but, yes, you gave some wonderful explanation that day. What I am trying to highlight, (most probably) we do not have any organized procedure here. In a recent email Sitush wrote to me that WMF is not properly communicating with him. --Tito☸Dutta 21:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tito has slightly overstated things that I've said/have been said about me but but underlying query is valid and his concern is appreciated. FWIW, Philippe did contact me on Friday and expects to do so again this coming week. I doubt that there is much that he or anyone else at WMF could say in public regarding the specific case. Who was it that said something like "the wheels grind exceedingly slow, but exceedingly fine"? - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This section needs to be updated/expanded with more details, I think. --Tito☸Dutta 00:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that section only works in one direction: I've had my clean block log spoiled because of a drive-by admin who did not realise context of both on- and off-wiki harassment. I then had to swallow follow-up comments from others that claimed I "recanted" or "retracted" my original (revdel'd) statement, which I did not because in context it was not a threat and indeed the real problem was the obvious poking from someone who has a record of such snide tactics. I've also had to endure in silence the repeated reference to that event by another drama-seeker who has opted to keep stirring disingenuously when all that was needed was for them to ask any admin "did the revdel'd content mention me?"

  Anyways, people with some history here might recall PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs), a good admin who was forced to quit due to real-life harassment that he said the WMF were useless at handling; Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) is another who went the same way, although in that case I am less certain whether the WMF were involved. I suspect the problem is that we can write whatever we want into policy/guidance but ultimately each case will be different and the ability to deal with such situations will vary accordingly. In my case, for example, I am already massively out of pocket due to the ongoing situation but I'm not expecting anyone to reimburse me because it would set a dangerous precedent; Qwyrxian, on the other hand, was able to extricate themselves to avoid being out of pocket, albeit at the cost of not participating here at all. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• This raises a number of critical issues. As Sitush says, I'm limited in what I can say - not because i'm trying to be opaque but because I don't want to prejudice potential strategy by talking about it publicly. I've been in contact with Sitush a couple of times (and, for the record, with PMDrive a NUMBER of times, and we just finished up a situation on nl.wiki that made significant waves). We're in the process of developing a strategy that we hope will ultimately be useful here. However, when we're dealing with off-wiki harassment, the truth is that our options are limited. That doesn't mean we don't have options, though. For instance, we have the Legal Fees Assistance Program, which is helpful if the harassment goes that far (and we pray that it doesn't), and we have been open, historically, to providing other support (using vehicles such as the Defense of Contributors fund) when it makes sense. We worry - a lot - about triggering the Streisand effect and actually acting as a magnet for the attention, making things worse. As far as fleshing out the policy and guideline pages, it's difficult to list what our response will be, because it's situational: we evaluate each one independently. Generally speaking, we try very hard to do whatever we can to support editors. We liaise with law enforcement where necessary and useful, and we have provided legal support when that made sense. No one should be harassed for giving of their time and knowledge to help make the encyclopedia, and therefore the world, a better place. We attempt to help out in virtually every case that we've heard of. Sometimes, our role is necessarily very quiet and background. But don't ever think we don't care and aren't tracking these situations - we do care, and we are tracking. And please, if you ever see one that you're not sure we're aware of... send me a note at philippe@wikimedia.org, and let me know about it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:Philippe (WMF), that's wonderful. Would you please add some of these info in our Wikipedia help page Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment (no one will read this AN discussion, everyone will go there). Neither financial help, nor legal help, it will be very helpful for our editors if they get a clear way to get "suggestions" from "anti-abuse team".
  Sitush Sir, email sent to your "custom domain" email address is bouncing back. --Tito☸Dutta 17:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's because the India Against Corruption sock/meat farm have got my domain taken down on the false charge that it was being used for Nigerian 419 scamming. I'm struggling to work out how to get the issue sorted because the registrar seem to be blanking me and thus far no-one here has been able to come up with a solution. If anyone can make a false charge of 419 scamming and it is accepted by the registrar seemingly without investigation then there isn't much hope for the internet, is there? Hm, I could get wikipedia.org taken down in a matter of days by doing that. Food for thought? - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Whoa! Wonderful. It is too much. WMF should help you here. --Tito☸Dutta 17:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Philippe knows about it. I don't think there is anything that the WMF can do. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It may take the Foundation a few months even within their system. My user pages were protected quickly.[37] But not til 2012 did they finally stop the thousand odd explicit death threats passed through their email system to me from long term abuser JarlaxleArtemis. (Though I hope he doesn't see this message, just in case!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how Carolmooredc turns everything into a comment about herself. But I'm gone now, so it is someone else's problem. - 94.13.184.237 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• From another direction: Philippe, the IAC sock/meatfarm would very much like to get information from the WMF about editors who have added what they call "wrong content about us": "As you noted the individual editors are responsible for the content uploaded to Wikipedia and WMF bears no liability. In these circumstances is WMF prepared to provide the actual names and addresses of the editors who added wrong content about us so IAC could hold them responsible ?"[38] Putatively, they want information about users in order to hold them legally responsible, but actually it also seems to be for the purpose of harassing and threatening them in any way that they can. There are many examples, but a recent very serious one is the way they got Sitush's domain taken down by making malicious and unfounded accusations. (It's extraordinary that a mere driveby unevidenced accusation by an enemy had that effect — as Sitush says, are any domains safe if that's how it works? But anyway.) Note that I'm not suggesting the WMF gave IAC any of the info that made it possible for them to locate Sitush's domain — I'm pretty sure you didn't — but can the rest of us feel sure that if we don't ourselves inadvertently give IAC information, the WMF won't either? Me, for example: while I haven't added wrong, or any, content about the IAF, I think I have disobliged them in other ways. I'm glad to say the WMF knows very little about me, but I presume they do know, or can get, my IP and user agent. So, will you resist giving anybody that, short of being ordered to by a court of law? I would assume yes, but I'd like to have it unequivocally stated. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

Yes. We do not comply with any requests for user info that are not ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

• Spammers are united, fighters are lonely. Frankly speaking, I was advised by a couple of WP India editors to stay away from these IAC articles, I directly come under their "area of activity and jurisdiction." and I was attacked once or twice by their men. Iam calling more attacks for me by rejoining these discussions.
  Sitush is retired and is looking for legal advices. Who should give it? Me or WMF? Thanks Bishonen for replying. --Tito☸Dutta 12:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Given I was harassed to the point of having to leave university by a then-sitting member of Arbcom abusing his position there, which was then taken up by others off-Wikipedia for years, I think the WMF aren't only useless, they can easily be part of the problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As a senior member of India Against Corruption "IAC", who is outraged by the lies and canards against our body being spread by a small cabal of ill-informed Western editors of Wikipedia, I say the issues here are actually as follows:-

1. That the article on IAC is factually incorrect
2. That members of IAC have used almost every Dispute Resolution forum of Wikipedia to enforce WMF's legally binding Terms of Use which govern the international use of domain names and websites.
3. That IAC cannot be compelled to follow the self-written (and legally foolish) policies of the English language Wikipedia community which is controlled by cabals of racist editors living in their self constructed dreamworlds where they act out their role playing fantasies.
4. That IAC, as a body, reserves the right to take on individual editors of Wikipedia in the real world for any factually incorrect statements published on Wikipedia projects.
5. That IAC stands for Openness, transparency, FLOSS, Free Speech etc. which is why IAC has given a very long rope to the English Wikipedia community to self regulate themselves, and has always communicated civilly with WMF's senior officers in this process.
6. That it was User:Sitush who walked out of "En.Wikipedia"'s mediation after IAC produced numerous reliable sources to trash his article on IAC (and refused to rejoin despite being pinged by the mediator) directly on the pre-agreed issues for mediation.
7. That IAC is holding written communications (shared with WMF) from (a) Prof Meera Nanda (b) Prof Ramachandra Guha (c) Prof Alison Brysk, all objecting to the misuse of their books in the IAC article which have been inserted by this user.
8. That the WMF's users (editors) should be aware that it is not only US laws which apply in cyber space.
9. That if anybody has been "harassed", it is the IAC and its subscribers by such systematically constructed falsehoods about it which constitutes "cyber impersonation".
10. That WMF should immediately appoint a Grievance Officer as mandated under Indian cyber law and directed by the High Court of Judicature at Delhi, exclusively for aggrieved Indians to get their content disputes (including the reporting of child pornography) resolved without having to interact with Wikipedia's users / uploaders directly. X the hamster (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Bishonen: It ought to be a really serious concern for WMF if Admins "with so many checkusers in their pocket" [39] are not on their records :-) X the hamster (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? It looks like it, so X the hamster should be blocked:

• "That IAC, as a body, reserves the right to take on individual editors of Wikipedia in the real world for any factually incorrect statements published on Wikipedia projects."

There are other legal threats i there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It was not a legal threat, but an extract / summary from WMF's "Terms of Use" X the hamster (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Full version : "You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content. WMF generally cannot offer any protection, guarantee, immunity or indemnification." X the hamster (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that X the hamster is indeed making legal (or quasi-legal) threats in order to exert a chilling effect on other editors. Someone please block him/her indefinitely. Cardamon (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

X the hamster, you may or may not have some type of legal right to sue an editor here, but under Wikipedia policy, you are not allowed to intimidate or make legal threats against another editor. Period. That's a VERY blockable offense. There is a difference between legal rights outside of Wikipedia, and our policy against legal threats here. You have crossed that line very clearly. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

IAC is here after being repeatedly INVITED by WMF and OTRS to resolve the matter with the "community". Any legal actions initiated have been done so by individual person/s who Sitush posted abusive emails to from those domains. These are not IAC actions, and "I" have never initiated any legal action or made any legal threat. AND whether you like it or not, these are real world criminal offences (in both USA and India) against which WP community policies are no legal defence whatosever. SOMEBODY may be penalised for them and at some point of time its for WMF to take the call on either shielding their user or entering into a very public spat with a prominent Indian entity who stands for the same values WMF claims, and who have availed each and every DR process offered to them as OUTSIDERs. X the hamster (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The IAC would certainly like to share our experiences about how our "guest" editors were harassed and abused by cartels of Wikipedia's "community" of editors and Admins. Accordingly, we say that WMF can and should do absolutely nothing to protect such rogue editors, and let them face the music on their own in such cases of flagrant abuse. X the hamster (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, this thread is not on "IAC content dispute". It is on "Editors' real-life security" issue, that was discussed in a recent conference as well. User:Sitush's event is a part of it. --Tito☸Dutta 08:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:X the hamster now indef-blocked and added to the list at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that X, who continues to claim no legal threats have been made - a statement that IMHO is wrong - has been indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

XHamster, Xhamster.com, and 'X the Hamster'- our beloved mascot, are registered trademarks of Hammy Media Ltd, Cyprus. You are hereby asked to CEASE AND DESIST such cyber impersonation immediately as they are being done in violation of the law. Failure to do so will result in legal action taken against "India Against Corruption" registered at B-59 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024, India.

Santa Fünke, Hamster Defend IPE (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Another block is in order most probably for legal threat.I won't be surprised if it is the same user/meatpuppet. --Tito☸Dutta 09:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  I blocked them for legal threats, no idea whether it is the same or not. May by semi-proteaction of this page for a day would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a joke account, intended to poke fun at X the hamster's comments above. Still, technically those are legal threats, and joke accounts like this really don't help matters - good block. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding no source information!

Hi.

PersianFire (talk · contribs) add no source information in some articles about Iran-Iraq War ([40] - [41] - [42]) and delete some reliable information from some anothers! ([43] - [44])

I tried explain for him in edit summaries and my talk page, but he doesn't care and revert my edits. Please take care of these sensitive articles.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is meant to be a summary of the article, which in the case of Karbala 5, clearly states that the battle was indecisive and that it contributed greatly to the completely indecisive end to the war. The problem is that bits such as "Iraqis maintain the siege of Shush, Dezful, Andimeshk as well as continuing to siege the nearby Air Force Base named Haft Tappeh - all were receiving artillery fire and were hit by Frog-7 missiles" simply overwhelm the infobox; it's supposed to have things such as "Iranian counter-attack fails", not phrases dozens of words long. And are you seriously arguing that this is a reliable source? It's a blog post! We need to have books or academic journals as the sourcing for this article, and a blog post is wildly inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

William M. Connolley on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had raised some issues with the article in question. Basically its about the lede, which refers to so called "main conclusions", which are sourced with various 2001 IPCC statements. I asked for the background of the choice of this "main conclusions" and for an update to 2014 status. See Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Multiple_issues_in_a_nutshell and previous edits I have as well tagged the site in question.

User:William M. Connolley reverted the tags twice, first time with a reference to a "WP:WASTEOFTIME" policy I am not aware of. [45][46] [47] further revert to the tagged version by User:Lithistman

The article is under Discretionary sanctions, he should be aware of but neverthless I put a warning tag on his user page and informed him formally about the Noteboard section. Point is, the article is using outdated material AND the choice of that material is not based on evidence.

There is an ongoing discussion about what the article stands for: See Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Steven_E._Koonin where other users, namely User:Jonathan Lane Studeman question what the article is about. (So therefore my question remains, if such reputable minority-view scientists are not to be found listed here, then what exactly is the nature and purpose of the current list?)

That said, I assume that the base of the article is being discussed not only by me and its worth while to have a closer look on it. Therefor the tags, the new section on the talk page and my questions. I would expect the article should be updated to state of 2014 and to be along WP policy. Connolley has not contributed to the talk page but reverted twice. I would prefer that the claims and issues were dealt with properly. Serten (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG - Disclaimer, I used to frequent the article in question (but de-watchlisted it months ago).

WP:BOOMERANG might apply here.

• Serten (talk · contribs) was also alerted to DS on climate - June 27 2014
• Per WP:OWNTALK Serten deleted the notice two minutes after receipt
• Despite Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Principles, Serten casts aspersions and fails to assume good faith by initiating sensationalist section headings like "Hidden agenda"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I am uninvolved in this other than having re-added the tags once when WMC removed them. He removed them with no discussion at talk, no attempt at modifying article content to fix the concerns expressed by the initial placer of the tags, and with unhelpful edit summaries. Unless I have missed something policy-wise, WMC has earned himself a block for edit-warring, given that there are not policy exceptions for not liking tags placed on an article. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Before I went here, I have been repeatedly accused of WP:SOAPBOXing, Gish galloping, drive-by tagging, not knowing about science nor scepticism and so forth. Now is some discussion ongoing on the article now and it seems, at least some got the notion that this list (and its inclusion criteria) are outdated and need some cleanup.NewsAndEventsGuy is among them.strikeout inserted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC) The discussion is still controversial with regard to the inclusion criteria, the most probable source for the current ones is a two page common press release of science academies for the 2005 31st G8 summit. It contains various other statements and appeals, which are not being included, for whatever reason. Serten (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: My Hobby horse polo is on DYK and WMC] tries to get "funny" as well. I count that as childish and offensive. Serten (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "outdated". It could be more clearly presented, but outdated? Uh-uh. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree some updating can be done but it wasn't outdated and I removed the POV tag because he didn't show or discuss any POV content. I believe Serten has been pushing a fringe POV on the climate change topics. He is unable to accept consensus, for instance on these flags he says "If you need a source to assess changes between the different ARs, Oppenheimer provides one. If you continue with OR, ok, the article stays tagged. Its rather simple". I am getting tired of his long spiels with references to just authors or whole books without saying exactly what he is using to substantiate anything, and when something is pinned down it turns out to be wrong or a misquoted bit they probably got from a targeted Google search. Dmcq (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And when I said the tags would be removed when there was a consensus the points were dealt with satisfactorily he said "I'd say WP rules, e.g. on OR offset consensus. Right?" A general consensus can override a local one but I believe this shows the basic problem they have with cooperating with others. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never understood why we've allowed that article to exist on here. Lists of dissenters from a mainstream viewpoint is one of the major propoganda techniques used to support a minority view. See A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, for instance. And, while referencing the many mainstream sources discussing the problems with such lists there... and then we turn around and make our own version of one for global warming. The page shouldn't exist; other arguments about it are fairly irrelevant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ill copy out from the talk page there what I said to another editor who thinks Wikipedia should be doing things and taking a position:

You seem to think that Wikipedia articles should do something other than being an encyclopedia with summaries of what reliable sources have said about notable things. This article is here because the topic became notable when a number of organizations set up lists of scientists who disputed global warming was happening. Perhaps a list of scientists who don't think fossil fuel use reduction might be useful - but it has no notability as a topic so there is no Wikipedia article about it. This is summarized in the first pillar of WP:5P, and WP:POLICY has a nice one-liner "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia" The goal is a free reliable encyclopedia.

Personally I think a bit more about such lists in perhaps the article climate change denial would be a good idea. As to the list article I understand the concern that giving a list of such scientists might help climate change denial but people really are interested in having a good reliable list of such people as is shown by it being a notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Such notable lists are notable, and, indeed, we have an article on the Oregon Petition, and it is highly reliably sourced - and makes it clear it's propoganda. It does not repeat the propoganda list. A reliable encyclopedia may well report on such propoganda techniques. What it does NOT do is create its own. Our goal here is a reliable encyclopedia - and List of scientists, etc. has no place in a reliable encyclopedia. This is a hijacking of Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The idea of "starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend" simply doesn't work. Wikipedia is in the job of informing people in the hope that good information will win over dogma and stupidity. The list is not a straight copy, the entries are vetted by BLP to check the entries really are scientists and that they really do oppose the mainstream view and that chops the number down very considerably indeed. Dmcq (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, I think it's time to do something I should have done a long time ago: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Cuerden that, as it exists today, the article in question is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Global warming itself is a scientific fact, of course, as is the warming influence of human activity, but with regard to whether governments should take drastic action now in order to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite the cost of doing so, the public policy debate rages on and there are reputable, eminent scientists are on both sides. This list, however, appears to be restricted only to scientists who have made statements contradicting basic climate science. The names of scientists who question the need for or efficacy of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions are currently excluded from this list unless they have made such statements. The list's sole purpose, therefore, appears to be as a propaganda tool for advocating a significant change in public policy, similar to the "lists of deniers" that are compiled by advocacy Web sites. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serten:, can you be more specific about what administrative action you expect, keeping in mind that one point you made (lede sourced to outdated sources) is a content dispute? --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Others, can I remind all that this is the Administrators' noticeboard, a place to bring items to the attention of admins, but not a place to debate content. Whether the list should be an article in Wikipedia is a legitimate question of debate, but that's not an admin question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I find User:Serten to be less than helpful - he seems to be be repeating uninformed opinions, mixed with post-modernist claims about science that simply don't apply in the hard sciences. He's mixing science, politics, and opinion in endless and ever-changing combinations. He has found little support (which is understandable - even I have trouble figuring out what he does try to say sometimes, and I suspect he uses English with the grammar of my native language). Having gained little traction with arguments (if we can call them thus), he now tries to poke harder by tagging and complaining. I find him a disruptive influence, if not by intention, then at least in effect. Some editors react with more patience to that, some with less. If we expect unlimited patience, we will lose many good editors... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serten: When you name someone at AN, you are required to notify them. Please do so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC) My bad.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

S Philbrick(Talk) asked what I expect from the action here. I mean, if you have been repeatedly ignored with abusive comments and think you may have a point, better avoid editwarring but tend to the community, right? Connolley has repeatedly tried to ignore my inputs, similar tactics including similar abusive comments e.g. in Ozone depletion, where I had tried to introduce post-modernist claims. I then took to writing articles, e.g. Ozone depletion and global warming and Reiner Grundmann and insofar spread the "disruptive influence" of fresh oxygen. I strongly disagree with the idea of climate change being a part of "hard sciences". The IPCC is policy based, policy funded and policy driven. Leading figures like Michael Oppenheimer point out large uncertainities and see the interaction and research about socio-political developments as major asset, not as a liabiliy. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has been more of a freak show depicting past of WP internal conflicts than a article describing 2014 state of science, see @Adam Cuerden: or @Jonathan Lane Studeman:. Connolley seems to ignore that and is among those that prefer to keep climate change articles in pre 2009 fashion. With regard to my language skills, I am far from being as perfect as Stephan, but I have done major edits in articles like Eurabia, Forestry or Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom and written large articles like Eurafrika, Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries without being accused of "incomprehensible gibberrish" as Connolley tends to call it. My cooperation based work gets even positive feedback now and then, compare Template:Did you know nominations/Ahmed Taymour. My approach here was to raise attention on the article and its lock-in. Its up to the admins wether they see a block as being necessary. Serten (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A fairly good example of why I ignore you as far as possible as well. Reiner Grundmann is a German sociologist and political scientist and Serten tried to have his talking about how policy decisions are made as a major source on the scientific consensus on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User Dmcq, your comment is a nice example why it was necessary to approach the enlarged community in this case. Serten (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Time to close? Thanks for your answer. While there are sometimes it is appropriate to post to this page to raise attention to an article, e.g. an article is getting a lot of outside attention and may need protection or potential eyes on edit warring, that doesn't seem to be the case here. I don't see any indication you're looking for any specific admin action other than paying attention. I'm too involved to close this myself but suggest this thread is ready for closure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there is no current need for admin action, exceept keeping an eye on it. I will mention the case in the ongoing Arbitration/Request, which spread from here. ThnxSerten (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy speedy needed, please

I've tagged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Derbyshire/Archive 4 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Derbyshire/Archive 5 as CSD G6. They are both empty, and the current archive page is #3. I'd be grateful if someone could delete them quickly, before the page archiving bot, which I've just set up for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Derbyshire, lest they cause it any difficulties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Both done by Nyttend. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Histmerge needed

I've never done a WP:HISTMERGE. There is a discussion at WT:SHIPS#Duplicate article where it has been suggested that two articles need merging. Would someone please do the honours? Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: A history merge isn't necessary - they're duplicate articles that just need merging. History merges should only be used when cut & paste moves have happened. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. Number 57 12:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

The Wikipedia:NEWBLPBAN applies discretionary sanctions to WP:BLP articles. 1) does this apply at all to talk pages of WP:BLP articles? 2) Do discretionary sanctions apply to things like incivility or belligerent or WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc. made on BLP talk pages? (I know, don't be WP:UNCIVIL or have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, but my question isn't should you do that, but just do discretionary sanctions apply?) --Obsidi (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like NEWBLPBAN was struck by the Arbs, so that's no longer active. I note it was replaced by [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=606946990#Motion:_DS_.282014.29_housekeeping_provisions | this motion ]] which states that NEWBLPAN is replaced by (their words ) "Standard Discretionary sanctions ". As to what they apply to, it depends on how the sanction was handed down. If it's "Broadly Construed" then anything relating to that topic, whether on a talk page or not, is forbidden, no exceptions. Usually civility is not included with the discretionary sanctions, but if the Arbs believe that it should be included, it would be, so , not usually. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on Bigshowandkane64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on several articles pertaining to Disney, wrestling and children's television-related articles since his indef block back in 2013, and has also been adding unsourced information in several BLPs. More recently, he appeared as MickeyMouseTheCoolGuy46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has continued the same pattern of edits like the previous accounts ([48], [49], [50]). This editor has shown that, despite being given one last chance after another, he is a net negative to the project. This last round of sock puppetry is the final straw. I would like to propose that we should place an indefinite community ban on this individual.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban. VandVictory (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban. User has no desire to change which can easily be seen in his edit summaries of his most recent sock. AcidSnow (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Partial support. I support a ban of Bigshownandkane, but not an indefinite one. It's rather easy to tell that this individual is young and immature, so I propose that we issue a 1-2 year ban to allow him to gain some maturity and give him a chance to become a constructive contributor. However, if he violates the ban, perhaps we could look into extending it to indefinite. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WritingEnthusiast. Although after a read of their contributions, I would say a ban of no shorter than 5 years with no recourse to appealing the ban for at least 2 years. However, continued socking from the close of this proposal would receive my support for an indefinite ban. Blackmane (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Someone close this? VandVictory (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a few more editors to comment on this before closing. I understand that this has been open over a week now, but despite the unanimity 5 !votes is hardly a significant size. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I see no evidence that allowing him to edit is beneficial to this project. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to handle the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page

There seems to be a good faith disagreement about how to handle the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page. A recent example of which is 186.37.203.126 who has opened a discussion at User talk:Drmies#Seeking your opnion. The difference of opinion seems to revolve around whether or not the user is banned, and whether the edits should be reverted. I've been asked on my user talk page to intervene recently, and I've taken the view that the user is banned. However, the fact the user has started a discussion on an admin's user talk page is enough to give me pause. Anyway, hopefully we can clear this up, and either agree the user is banned or not. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a case of either a) the guy is banned, or b) he does exactly as he pleases on Wikipedia, where no rules applies to him whatsoever. He gets blocked for something, and he immediately comes back using a different IP. He currently has two blocks outstanding, yet is still editing. He freely claims that we "cannot prevent him from editing" [51]. His editing is (mostly) fine, until someone disagrees with him or reverts him, then there's reverting with no discussion and eventually, unacceptable levels of personal abuse. I don't believe Wikipedia benefits from his presence, and I only know of one editor who appreciates him, among the large number who find him to be disruptive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bretonbanquet, I'm getting kind of tired of seeing the same unhelpful argument rehashed. Their edits are improvements, pure and simple. If you revert them until abuse starts, then for all I know you're baiting them into using foul language. I'd be pissed too. Reverting these positive edits (there's a laundry list on my talk page, User_talk:Drmies#Seeking_your_opnion) makes no sense and only leads to frustration, admin involvement, LTA, cases, mass rollback--in short, needless drama. What do I care who makes this edit? It's a good edit. And now Zambelo (who's always on the look to get something on me) feels the need to join the fray, with this well-explained edit, in which a 2008 source which doesn't mention the subject is made to announce something in 2012 (go look for "Beta" in that article). Bravo. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I exist but for that very reason /s. Seriously, you need to stop with the personal attacks. But I'll be sure to bring this up when I bring your conduct to arbitration. Zambelo; talk 02:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, his editing is mostly fine – mostly. Not all of it. And immediately you assume that he is being reverted ad infinitum and goaded into using bad language. I really don't know why you would come to that conclusion. Do you have any proof of it? I have not reverted him on a systematic basis, only where I feel there is a problem with his edit. I do not necessarily advocate reversion of all of his edits. The point is that any reversion of his edits results in an edit war, refusal to discuss and eventual abuse. He effectively bullies others into accepting his edits. I have never been able to question a single edit of his, or even start a discussion, without a major struggle and being called names. And I'm far from being alone. I do not understand why you would support someone who makes a few minor improvements to the project when the trade-off is regular abuse and an open admission to gaming the system. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

He has been blocked repeatedly and feels no need to address the reasons for the blocks: vile personal attacks, edit warring, etc. So long as he is allowed to edit -- for whatever reason -- why would he do anything to conform to community standards? He won't, as his recent actions confirm[52][53] He then is shocked that anyone would dare to claim he is editing in defiance of a block[54] despite (as noted) repeatedly saying he is -- and will continue to -- evade all attempts to block him. Drmies asks to what end we would enforce a block. In this particular case, to get rid of an abusive editor. In a larger sense, so that we can meaningfully claim to block disruptive editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not reverted him on a systematic basis, only where I feel there is a problem with his edit.

[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66]

Why lie? 186.37.203.196 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Who's lying? Those are the edits I had a problem with. Some of your work I reinstated. Some of my reverts were reverted by other editors who thought your edits were OK, and I left them. Dozens and dozens of your edits I checked, and left as acceptable. Why don't you list those? I've already said that mostly your editing is fine, but it's not your editing that's in question here. You're evading two blocks by posting here. The fact is, you can do whatever you want here and you basically do, by your own admission. The rest of us are not free to challenge you without fear of edit wars and abuse. Right or wrong? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

More lies - no surprise. I guess you do it because you get away with it. That was just a small sample of the many edits that you have reverted on a systematic basis, without regard to the content. If you genuinely had some kind of problem with an edit such as moving a reference to a sensible place, you would a) have been wrong, b) been obliged by the conventions of the encyclopaedia to explain what your problem actually was, and c) not moved the reference again yourself. And why don't I list the edits of mine that you have personally approved? Either you're just trolling, again, or you seriously don't realise that no-one but you can possibly know which edits those might be. Either way, it's more cause for concern about you. 186.37.203.122 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you engage in a discussion at all without accusing someone of lying and trolling? I restored that part of your edit which I felt was acceptable, yet that's not good enough for you either? As for all the edits of yours that I felt were acceptable, how about all of those from your last two or three IPs that I didn't revert? I checked all of them. You have no need for concern about me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's possible we're getting off topic here. From my perspective, if we conclude the user is banned, then as far as I'm concerned, reverting his edits in accordance with WP:BAN would be permissible. PhilKnight (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never been banned. Once you acknowledge that, I'm sure you'll have words with User:SummerPhD about the idiocy of making false claims just for the purpose of destroying substantial amounts of hard work. 186.37.203.122 (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• In my view, the question of whether the person behind the various IP has been banned is moot. The edits in question improved the encyclopedia, and even though mass reversion of such edits might be permissible if s/he has been banned, I believe that even then, it's a textbook example for why WP:IAR exists. Are we here to enforce rules to the detriment of encyclopedic content? Or are we here to improve this encyclopedia? Those are the questions at the crux of this, in my opinion. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  A note on "best known for": while I don't agree with blind mass reversion of the IP's edits, his crusade against "best known for" seems wrong-headed to me. It's a common phrase, used even in scholarly works. Here is just one example of it being used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There are many more such examples. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Banning is an extreme measure. I've looked at the long-term abuse page and at some examples; I've reinstated one edit in the list the IP gives above, and compromised on another. This is a long-running case and I see some mellowing: for one thing, the IP is apparently focusing less narrowly on the particularly contentious issue of whether "best known for" is a legitimate formulation in the lede of an article, or a sloppy piece of OR; for another, they seem to be using fewer of the nasty edit summaries, and I do see them carefully describing their reasoning in the initial edits. On the other hand I'm seeing numerous cases where the first revert gave no specific reason. Maybe my sample is poor; I admit I am utterly unable to judge which particular actors are in fact best known for one or two roles, and inclined to think the IP's right: it's usually more neutral to omit that, and where it isn't, it should be specifically referenced in the article. Because people's careers evolve. I'm getting the feeling this IP's career has evolved a bit too. IP, can we get you to undertake to clean up your mouth, realising that people of all sorts of backgrounds read these edit summaries, and calling someone a moron or even a twat (which like the other word for the female pudenda has differential force in different parts of the world, and neither particularly endears someone to a female editor like me) is just going to get you treated like a hoodlum? More use of article talk pages would also help: it's a place to record your reasoning. Others: shall we have a formal ban discussion, or can anyone find one that has happened? Or can we step back and avoid that in this case - partly by endeavouring to give a reason for the revert, just in case one time it isn't a banned editor? Since the banning offences in this case are apparently the behaviour after the first revert, I believe we may have a way out of that situation if we can keep things on the level of AGF and reasoned disagreement. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would suggest two courses of action. First, a series of filters to make this editor go away. Second, systematically remove the phrase "best known for" from every Wikipedia article. As disruptive as this guy is, that doesn't forgive this chronic piece of original research. We generally have no idea what someone is "best known for", and I can't envision a source that could make reliable statements about that for us to rely upon.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Your first course of action will make our articles worse, so I disagree. I have a solution, but he doesn't want to play along: if he gets an account then, I have no doubt, all this will go away. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I think if he got an account then yes, largely it might go away. He would at least then be bound by the same rules as the rest of us, which currently he is not. Why does he not want to register? It would be a demonstration of good faith on his part. If he then actually discussed matters when challenged, in a civil way, then compromises could be reached. With regard to the "best known for" phrasing, I think in some cases he is right to remove it, but in others the subject only passes the notability criteria for one thing, and it's not really a stretch of OR to say that's what they're best known for. Including some small guidance on a subject's most notable achievements seems encyclopedic to me, particularly if reliably sourced (like any other statement). Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • You'll note above that in this very discussion, he has accused me of lying and trolling. The fact is that this guy appears incapable of being civil. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on my experience but I can't add much beyond what I've put at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Comments from Wee Curry Monster. The guy's edits are mostly constructive and a lot are reverted by named accounts who should know better. Its those occasions where the edit doesn't improve the article, which are most troubling, since he doesn't engage with editors he simply resorts to the same foul mouthed abuse. I don't believe he responds like that out of frustration, I think that is a fig leaf he is hiding behind as it was supplied by editors defending him. The truth is as he admits himself, he enjoys being abusive to other editors. He doesn't fundamentally add to the encyclopaedia, you'll not see him producing content, simply a few quick grammar tweaks. To be blunt about it, if this were a named account who labelled everyone who disagreed with them a dopey C**T, they'd have had a series of escalating blocks leading to a permanent site ban long. As he IP hops he has been able to evade such sanctions. WCM_email 18:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So far in this discussion, three edits from three IPs in defiance of a supposed block and the following: "Why lie?...More lies - no surprise. I guess you do it because you get away with it....Either you're just trolling, again,...I have never been banned.... the idiocy of making false claims just for the purpose of destroying substantial amounts of hard work." Is this editor blocked? In theory, yes. In practice, no. "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where personal attacks are just fine and blocks are meaningless." - SummerPhD (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've got a blocked editor, known for incivility, calling me a liar and a serial troll on an admin page with no admonishment whatsoever. Something he's done in countless other places to countless editors. And I'm actually starting to feel as if some people think I'm in the wrong here or making this stuff up. It'd be a joke if it were actually funny. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It is said that the editor is banned. Are they? If they're not, calling them "banned" is, well, a kind of untruth, call it what you will. But I don't think anything is going to come out of this. Tempers are going to get more inflamed, even though, WCM, the c-word hasn't fallen in a long time (as far as I know), nor does he say that to "everyone who disagrees with him". In fact, I restored one of their "known for"s since I was able to source that it was accurate. They didn't call me anything. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know if the guy is banned as it all started way before I encountered him. I haven't used the word "banned"; I use "blocked" because that much is demonstrably true. As for the c-word, I don't consider it much more problematic than being called a liar and a troll, something which doesn't seem to bother you. These are still flagrant personal attacks, right here on an admin page. At the risk of sounding petty, he's hardly likely to call you names as you have supported him in the past. You even called him one of your favourite editors on your talk page. If he were to stop calling people any kind of names, c-word, twat, moron, liar, troll, anything like that – that would be a hell of a start. But if he can call me a liar and a troll here and escape any kind of sanction, then what's to prevent him doing it anywhere else? If he is to be considered some kind of untouchable editor, to whom rules don't apply, then well let's just admit it so we know where we all stand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You even called him one of your favourite editors on your talk page

Yeah, I really, really doubt that was meant seriously.

Sorry, Drmies, it's a bit too simplistic to claim that "Their edits are improvements, pure and simple". While this may be the case in some/most of their edits, it certainly isn't correct to say they are all improvements. To suggest that this edit deals with "copyright infringement" shows a lack of understanding with what "copyright infringement" is. When this was reverted—on a good faith basis—the insults started, and the editor started edit warring against three other editors. The IP initially refused to go to the talk page when requested; when they finally started on the talk page, the editor edit warred there as well, deleting other people's comments (six times in all!), and referring to me as a "fucking retarded little cunt." When this was taken to ANI, the IP edit warred there – again and again and again. To then avoid all the possible censure by jumping to another IP (while leaving a "goodbye message of "rm all the lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers" if NOT improving the encyclopaedia in any way, shape or form.

This incident did not start because it was a problematic editor being harassed, or because they had been identified and their edits reverted as part of a WP:BAN action, but because the editor did not understand what they were talking about and did not improve the article. It was their reaction at that point that was the problem. It is pointless to dismiss this problem by blithely claiming that "They're improving articles" so their behaviour can be overlooked. It is not always the case, and even the slightest interaction—even with the poorest of edits—will lead to a ridiculous backlash and foul-mouthed tirade. That isn't helpful, isn't constructive, and doesn't do anything to improve the encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to pile on you Drmies but as SchroCat shows he was dropping the C Word recently. Can I just make one quick point though, if he didn't react as he did it would be a lot easier for admins to deal with the named accounts who revert constructive edits by IP editors. That is one aspect of wikipedia I think we can both agree on that does need to be addressed. However, remember that when I came across this guy I did explain myself to him, which has never stopped him falsely claiming I reverted him solely because he was an IP. WCM_email 22:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, you yourself dropped the c-bomb a couple of times (I suppose--some edit summaries were oversighted), quite recently: August of this year. No one, including me, is calling for you to be banned. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies you know that I did that on purpose to prove a point. This guy has done it hundreds of times and block evades, I did it once and immediately I'm warned, quite rightly, with an escalating series of blocks being the next step. A named account would be blocked but he has got away with it literally for years. BTW did you notice something, I haven't suggested that he is banned either and I also made a positive suggestion why the abusive responses need to stop. WCM_email 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I recommend reading the just published Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy/Proposed_decision#Proposed_principles. My understanding is, if the editor is banned any is entitled to revert the edits, but others can -- quoting the committee "rarely and with extreme caution" restore them if they feel it benefits the encyclopedia and take responsibility for the edit. And editors are generally given leeway to manage their talk pages themselves. NE Ent 23:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet, I called you a liar because you were lying. You claimed that you had never systematically reverted my edits; I posted diffs showing that that was exactly what you had been doing. I called you a troll because you appeared to be trolling; how do you think it looks when you ask me to post diffs of the edits of mine that you had decided you approved of?

As for "including some small guidance on a subject's most notable achievements", I recall that over a long period of time you have refused to understand that "X did Y" does exactly that, bizarrely preferring to edit war to force in a subjective, unverifiable and verbose claim that "X is best known for doing Y".

More falsehoods from "Wee Curry Monster", as has been his habit over the years. The first time I came across him, it was when he blanket reverted an edit I had made to Falklands War, an article on which he was subject to editing restrictions and clearly was trying to claim ownership of. He then stalked my edits to another article that he had shown no previous interest it, and reverted me there with the edit summary "rv IP edits". And now he has the gall to claim "I did explain myself to him", trying to pretend that he had a reason for that revert.

And SchroCat... Ah SchroCat. He of the famous "described in the UK press as being best known for starring". Enough said I think.

Here's the simple truth. I make edits to improve the encyclopaedia. They are utterly uncontroversial, and it's really not hard to see that they improve it, unless you're not very good with the English language. Indeed, back in the early days, no-one would have dreamt of kicking up a fuss about them. Until roughly 2006, I had never had any issue. Then the problem of people reverting without looking at edits began. Until about 2009 it gradually escalated, and people even began reverting with false accusations of vandalism. This began to get extremely offensive and irritating. In around 2009 this behaviour really began to take off, and ever since then I've found that you simply cannot edit with an IP address without being accused of vandalism. And indeed, you will get blocked for complaining about getting accused of vandalism. And then being extremely angry about such a ridiculous block is claimed as justification for the block.

These days it's just an endless Kafka-esque joke. Ever since the creation of the attack page, people have been using it as a reason in and of itself to block me. My efforts to improve the encyclopaedia are met with the likes of BretonBanquet, who runs off to admins requesting that I be blocked any time he sees edits that he suspects I have made. The admins are only too happy to oblige, presumably on the grounds that if an attack page against me exists, I must thoroughly deserve all the attacks.

To cut a long story short, don't revert for no good reason and we can all get along fine. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. That's really all there is to it. If you want an in depth explanation of why "best known for" is almost invariably wrong, that's a discussion for another place. If you really need it explaining to you that copying and pasting instead of writing your own words is not acceptable, even if you tell everyone where you copied and pasted from, again, that's for elsewhere. Don't revert for no good reason and we can all get along fine.

Question: Does the term "vandalism" apply if the edit is acceptable, but the edit summary is not - ie contains abuse, foul language and attacks on other editors? What is the accepted course of action in such a case? That seems to be an important consideration here - while many edits from the IP are acceptable, their tone and language in the edit summaries are a different topic of conversation. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks are unacceptable and lead to a block. Avoiding the block to come back with more personal attacks, though, seems to be up for debate. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, one of the problems I have here is summed up by what you've written. I have not come across a perfect editor on Wiki. ALL of us err at times, and when that is pointed out we react in different ways, but the majority of the time we take it on the chin and at least let the matter drop, if not apologise and put the matter right. You don't. You have a WP:BATTLE mentality on pretty much any disagreement with your edit – good or not. As soon as you are reverted, the red mist rolls in and you revert, edit war, insult and attempt to belittle or bully others. I read your post above and at no point have you expressed any sentiment that suggests you see any problem at all in what you have done. Quite the reverse, in fact: according to what you have written, everyone else is the problem and you are the victim. That's some way from the truth of the matter. You continually dismiss the valid complaints of others (and yes, there are some invalid complaints too) and act like you've never made a poor edit in your life. Although you may have modified your behaviour recently (a moot point) there is still evidence of that disruptive editor just below the surface: that's not helpful or constructive in any way, shape or form. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• SchroCat, if the IP has cleaned up his act recently, that is a far from moot point. Bretonbanquet, I don't see any good reason for this revert--that "years ago" was simply in the wrong place, and if you disagreed with the "verglas" thing you should have reverted only that part, and at the very least you should have explained. Yngvadottir's sample, of reverts without explanation, is highly representative. Perhaps the IP has a battleground mentality, but they're not the only one. Being reverted without explanation makes me angry too. Someone linked a diff about quotes and plagiarism--well, I disagree with the editor on that point, and one of the diffs in that long list on my talk page was one of those as well, and I didn't reinstate it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that all but a handful of those diffs were improvements. Of course I don't agree with their removal of a talk page post--but that was in March. I didn't see anything like that in recent edits (though I admit I do not look for or follow this editor), and I can't help but think that an invitation to discussion (on Talk:Ian Gow has something to do with it. Being taken seriously has surprising effects on someone's state of mind.

  Explanation is not necessarily justification. They got blocked for edit warring etc. on Wind wave, and for dropping some cusswords. It is not my job to defend every single one of the IP's edits, and I don't agree with all of them; one could say their actions led to the block. But these actions didn't come out of nowhere: it is worthwhile noting that all of that started when three of their productive edits, with laudable edit summaries, were reverted in one fell swoop, with no more justification than "Restore to version before editing by known edit warrior". But this by a user who has a user box saying "This user is against IP editing", so I suppose that makes it alright. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, if you notice, I subsequently restored that exact part of his edit that you describe. He admitted as much in one of his posts above. The "verglas" thing was a typically needless edit, and he made that part of the edit with no reasoning attached. It is extremely rare that I revert good faith edits without an explanation (check my 48,000+ edits), and in this case a) I was under the impression that this guy was already banned and blank reverts were allowed (I now understand that this guy was seemingly not banned, so fair enough), but b) in the past, when I reverted him with a full reason in the edit summary, all I got was a revert back, usually with abuse. I don't think you would find any other editor on Wikipedia who would happily call me a liar or a troll. In fact I know you wouldn't. Yet he repeats it every time he posts. I have disagreements sometimes, but who doesn't? Incidentally, I've never accused him of vandalism, if anyone's wondering. He's very uncivil and thoroughly disruptive, but he's not a vandal. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• It was the revert that was needless. Can you give me one good reason why the content of their edit warranted an unexplained revert? Is there any good reason to have a reference between "275,000" and "years ago"? Without such a reason, without an edit summary, with nothing but the apparently automated m, why would they assume any kind of good faith? At least Summer took the time to give an edit summary--I disagree with it, but it's something. I'm not calling you anything, I'm sure lots of others wouldn't call you anything. But anyone who gets reverted like this, apparently on sight, with no consideration at all for the content of the edit--what are they supposed to do, say "yes I'm just an IP who knows nothing" and move on? This has been going on for years. The frustration is theirs, not yours. Being called a troll or a liar is not nothing, but listed on my talk page are 44 edits which were all reverted, most of which were clear improvements, some of which we can discuss, but none of them were vandalism or personal attacks or whatever. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I reverted both edits in one go, which I shouldn't have done, I accept that. I should have undone the verglas edit and left the other one rather than revert both and restore one. But you're assuming that's how I've always treated this IP – not true. I've spent a lot of time in the past on talk pages trying to talk to this guy, and I've made a number of compromise edits instead of reverting him, like this recent example. My revert, with reasoning: [67], and then I made a compromise on my own initiative [68]. Any multiple reverting with no edit summary that you're seeing in the past week is the result of a long, drawn-out process, not the beginning or even the middle. I always treated this guy's edits with respect, despite the abuse, until I lost my patience with him. In no way whatsoever have I always treated this guy in an offhand way, and I resent the implication that I did. Yet I always received the same grief I am currently still receiving from him. The frustration is also mine, however much he may be frustrated too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• The liars just can't stop lying, can they?

• he made that part of the edit with no reasoning attached
• that part of the edit, with reasoning clearly stated in the edit summary 186.37.203.227 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Stricken. My mistake. A mistake, you understand, not a lie. How many times do you plan to call me a liar on this page? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You just accidentally said something that wasn't true in a way that appeared to be intended to discredit me? Sure. As for how many times I plan to call you a liar, well, just as many times as I see you saying blatantly untrue things about me. I'm not going to leave them uncorrected, am I? I find your insinuations regarding our edits to Thin Lizzy verging on dishonest as well. You said My revert, with reasoning: [69], but there was no reasoning at all there. rv to long-standing wording, please establish a consensus on the talk page if you want to change it does not explain anything, does it?. And then you "always received the same grief", you claim. But what happened after you made your edit? Tell it how you see it, please. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there is anything I could possibly do that you wouldn't consider dishonest in some warped way. There were no "insinuations" in my above post. You say there was no reasoning on my revert at Thin Lizzy, I say that was my reasoning. That was the long standing wording (not my wording) that nobody else had ever had a problem with, except you. My revert, my reasoning. Whether you liked it or not, that was the reasoning. I have noted that of all the times I asked you in an edit summary to use the talk page, you almost never did, preferring to edit war. I think that explains quite a lot, contrary to your claim. Yes, I always received the same grief. Generally, obviously, not there after I made the second edit to Thin Lizzy. I mean being called a liar, troll, stupid, and whatever else you called me over the years, in edit summaries, on talk pages. I am unable to tell it how I see it because I'd contravene civility guidelines, and that's something you've never been able to say. But this conversation is pointless here anyway. You have never had, and show no signs of ever having, any intention to collaborate civilly. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

[70] An edit I made in reply to the IP in November 2013, that explains why I reverted a few of many edits by this IP editor two years earlier in November 2011. Fast forward three years later and he is still falsely alleging I reverted him solely because he was an IP editor by taking one diff out of context. This demonstrates his love of confrontration for its own sake and his WP:BATTLE mentality with anyone who gets in his way. WCM_email 14:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary "rv IP edits" was, unfortunately for you, entirely unambiguous. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I used the word "may" deliberately here – I have not followed their edits and have no wish to: I prefer to create content rather than haunt the dramah boards or go looking for trouble. Reading through the threads I see the IP has accused others of lying and trolling, so my AGF in saying "may" could be misplaced. I also suspect that the red mist isn't far below the surface, and the next set of reverts—even justifiable ones—will be greeted with the same toxic response as the others. I'm stepping away from this now: I have no axe to grind and hate spending time on the boards, but if the IP manages to wriggle out of the situation and is equally disruptive in the future, I hope there's a big pile of bricks to drop on him somewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to ban the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page

It is proposed that we ban the user described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page due to long term disruption.

• Support site ban - I appreciate other approaches could be considered - requiring him to get an account, and not make logged out edits, but he seems unwilling to go along with this. Consequently, banning him, although perhaps somewhat harsh, is the simplest solution. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously unbelievable. Never did I think that anyone would take the bizarre crusade against article quality to such a level. 186.37.203.53 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban – I can and have worked with many troublesome editors on here, and many IPs, some of which were ultimately blocked indefinitely by admins, but I always found common ground and a way to compromise. Always. Except this guy. It's always been his way or the highway, and that can never work on Wikipedia. The whole 'all my edits are wonderful improvements, so any disagreement with that is harassment from idiots' vibe, as displayed above. If he refuses to show good faith and register, or work co-operatively with others, I see no other alternative. It's simply unworkable to have an editor who refuses to abide by the rules that the rest of us must follow. His decent edits can still be kept, as no doubt he will continue to edit regardless of what happens here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want to keep the guy's decent edits, don't revert them. Simple. "His way or the highway" is belied by the RfC on Talk:Ian Gow and the fact that he has abided by the community consensus there, which didn't go his way. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • See, that's a big part of the problem here. Any disagreement I might have with one of his edits cannot possibly be justified, in his eyes and also, apparently, yours. And you appear to have chosen one example that contrasts with many, many others. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Bretonbanquet, I don't get it. If you support a site ban for this editor, you are asking for any and all of his edits to be reverted on sight. They cannot be kept; as Arbcom just clarified, in rare cases another editor is permitted to reinstate an edit by a banned user. But banned precisely means blanket reverting; that's the basis on which some have been blanket reverting this guy. We can't have it both ways. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • • Yngvadottir, as usual, I probably missed something, but when did ArbCom clarify the policy (the policy itself has not changed and allows for not reverting at all and reinstating a banned user's edit - WP:BANREVERT)? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Not a change, but clarified as part of the decision that appears lower down this page: rarely, and with extreme caution, we can choose to reinstate an edit by a banned user. Whereas the option to keep it, or revert wholly or in part on the merits, is what we have now, after he's banned his edits should be reverted on sight, and will be by someone else even if one decides to let one stand. (Or at least that's how I read it when I clicked to see what I'd missed.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the link. Interesting procedural point, though. Do we comply with a decision by ArbCom or do we comply with policy? My understanding is that only the community makes policy, not ArbCom. Thus, to the extent the decision conflicts with policy, I'm not sure we have to follow it. Of course, the community can change the current policy to conform to the decision's language.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, if that is what has been decided, then so be it. I understood that his good edits could later be restored, but if that is not allowed, then it's worth it if such a uniquely disruptive, abusive and uncompromising editor is removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban - While I do understand and support the fact anyone can edit Wikipedia, this kind of behaviour shouldn't be allowed. It's the fact he is acting in an uncivil manner and the fact he is block evading. I've looked over things... the fact he has been doing this for years concerns me. I think it's time something was done, if he can't be trusted to work (and civilly) with other editors, it's time. I hope everyone understands. Updating, the users opposing have brought up good points. I just don't think insulting others should be tolerated this way. Either way, I hope this gets concluded soon. Kanashimi Hyoketsu 20:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It couldn't since he's not vandalizing anything. So no, I don't understand. On my talk page are 44 edits he made, all of which were reverted. Please go through the list, as I have, and identify any of them as vandalism. If you can't find any, please withdraw your second sentence. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • don't revert for no good reason and we can all get along fine. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. And in response to that, what do we have? A false accusation of vandalism. And from someone with whom, to the best of my recollection, I've never interacted with. striking out after the user clarified that their words had been misunderstood. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand. I realize he's not vandalizing anything, that's why it is written as 'vandalizing'. I am supporting based on his being uncivil and ban evasions. However, I have removed that sentence as requested as it is causing confusion. --Kanashimi Hyoketsu 20:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. For one thing, it's quite likely other copyeditors will decide to lop a few of the "best known for"s - they are low-hanging fruit. For another, the abuse has declined and to my mind never rose to the level of ban-worthiness; banning is the nuclear option and is and should be reserved for the few most incorrigible and disruptive editors. At worst, we should continue to block IPs that cross the line on edit warring and incivility; and as always, there's judgement involved in defining that line. At best, we keep a diligent and able copyeditor, one of many kinds of contributions the project has always valued, without requiring registration or any other kind of self-identification, which it's always been our policy not to require. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• No. User uses an IP. User makes positive edits. User gets routinely reverted for no good reason at all. User loses patience and uses cusswords. User gets blocked (does anyone even know when, or why, or how?), and this "originary block" initiates a cycle of supposed block evasion which is enough warranty for user's edits to be blindly reverted as if they were already a "banned" user. It is indeed a self-perpetuating process; the real surprise is that it took so long for this to find its way to AN. The amount of distrust here, the lack of desire to even attempt communication, the automated fashion of rolling back: I'm trying to bite my tongue, as the IP clearly didn't, though even his opponents seem to have noticed that he has been cussing much less--you see, it does not help to improve your behavior. Let's just say I don't have any good words for all of this. Anyone whose edits get reverted in this fashion, as a matter of routine, would lose their cool. I'm quite embarrassed, and the only bright spot is that Yngvadottir is against banning this editor; I hope there are more who study the matter carefully. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban After reading through this thread and the evidence presented over time, I just don't see how the IP's behavior warrants a site ban. I largely agree with the analyses of Yngvadottir and Drmies. I am One of Many (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Question. Forgive me if the answer is buried somewhere, but all this is new to me. Can anyone tell me what the first block of this person was for, its duration, and when? If I understand properly, the person was blocked at some point and then during the block edited using a different IP, thereby evading the block. This phenomenon then cascaded so the person could never escape their original "sin" (whatever that was). Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I'm obviously not seen as neutral here, but here goes, take it as you will. It's extremely hard to pinpoint the first block as the number of IPs he has used is probably over 100. He has been blocked several times over the past few years, but it's hard to know exactly how many times, for the same reason – we just don't know all the IPs he has used. As far as I can see, each time he is blocked, he simply switches IPs and keeps editing (he has admitted this), to the extent that blocks are essentially meaningless, whether they are for disruption or incivility, or simply for block evasion. I think all the blocks in the past month are for block evasion. Any of us here would have been indeffed years ago for this, with SPI cases coming out of our ears, but somehow this guy is still around. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban - User completely ignores that there is any problem with edit warring and personal attacks, both of which are supposedly blockable offenses, though we seem to be reluctant to actually have the blocks mean anything. Editing in defiance of a block typically leads to extension of the block. We've counted 38 deliberate switches and the editor claims we miss most of them. After 10 or more trips through AN/I, 3RR and Sock, we're still at the point where we started: "Dear IP editor ignoring blocks for personal attacks and edit warring, If you continue to edit war and make personal attacks, we'll make you restart your router to continue editing. Please stop. Sincerely, 'fucking retarded little cunt'." At some point, whether or not he has made constructive edits ceases to matter. He is deliberately disruptive and divisive. Then again, I'm just some "fucking cunt", so what do I know? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Summer, you are no C* of any kind, as far as I'm concerned: you're a level-headed, highly productive, and net-assety editor, and I have loved you dearly for many years now. If the IP called you that, they ought to apologize. (I know they called others that, and I don't agree with it.) And, of course, they're an asshole. But is it worth a ban? Drmies (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, a personal attack is not worth a ban. However, repeated personal attacks and edit warring leading to a block, editing in defiance of that block, being blocked again for personal attacks and edit warring and repeating the s.ame behavior while crying "Boo hoo, I'm only trying to make the encyclopedia better, you fucking retarded cunt"? Yeah, that's worth a ban. To repeat, he sees nothing wrong with his behavior and does not intend to stop. I don't particularly care what this twerp calls me. The editor is question, though, had no way of knowing that. Personal attacks drive editors away. No one is irreplaceable on Wikipedia, including this lout. You think he's softening up. I say you're putting a coat and tie on a boar, offering him a seat at the table and wonder why the china is in pieces on the floor. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that you already reverted hours of my work with the false claim that I was banned, it's no surprise that you support a ban to retrospectively justify your strange campaign. I think my favourite one of your destructive edits was this one. Not once, not twice, but three times, you restored the article to a severely, obviously deficient state. Not once did you bother to leave an edit summary. Certainly you were just trying to provoke me. In fact, my only recollection of interactions with you is when you've undone my work for no reason. If people get angry when their work is undone for no reason, do you think it's better to a) ban them for getting angry, or b) not revert for no reason? 186.37.203.227 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That you do not specifically remember attacking me is easily understood as a result of the number of times you've changed IPs to circumvent various blocks and the numerous editors you have attacked. I undid your work? Boo hoo. Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban vaguely based on the disparity between edits, edit summaries, and an unwillingness to accept that they may be incorrect, but also based on block evasion, which nobody else seems to consider important in this issue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Disruptive editor who blatantly sockpuppets. Not here to contribute collaboratively. -- Calidum 03:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

False claims, once again. By virtue of the fact that I've never had an account, it is obvious that I have never engaged in sock puppetry, blatant or otherwise. 186.37.203.227 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of your statements in this discussion are sympathetic. This one is not. I would have thought you were above wikilawyering.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is archived so I guess no-one will see this, but I really have to object to this. Sock puppetry is the use of multiple accounts. It implies that you are pretending to be more than one person. This is not "wikilawyering", this is the basic definition of the term. I have never used more than one account, never used even one account, and I have certainly never pretended to be more than one person, in any forum or location. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Drmies. I do not feel the user's behavior rises to the level of necessitating a ban. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban. I don't condone the conduct of the person behind all the IP addresses, but just because a person has violated policy doesn't mean they should be site-banned. In this instance, accepting what everyone on both sides says is true, I don't see the point of formally blessing the unconstructive reverts by other editors that are already taking place. Indeed, I'm not even sure that not site-banning the person will change much of the other editors' behavior. He may still be blocked when discovered, and he may still be reverted, if for no other reason than the sock puppetry (no matter what he says about the literal language of the policy). However, until and unless WP:REVERTBAN changes, it is still policy and permits other editors to reinstate the reverted edits if they feel they are constructive, and my understanding is many of them are. This is not easy for me because I am an SPI clerk and am not very forgiving of sock puppetry. However, I take comfort in the fact that King of Hearts, another SPI clerk, opposes the ban - and with remarkable concision. Hopefully, PhilKnight, a check user for whom I have enormous respect, will not take my oppose amiss.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do not edit from a static IP address. That does not imply sock puppetry, which is the act of pretending to be more than one person. I appreciate your opposition to this attempt to ban me but can't at all understand why you would accuse me of sock puppetry in the process. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban since the editor can and is willing to edit productively this should be encouraged. Rolling back good edits helps no one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Per summerPhd as well as the arguments made in the discussion above. We're too coddling of editors who make unfailingly good content edits but just happen to blow up at any provocation. Protonk (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• much better to prevent all those unfailingly good content edits than to be concerned about acts of provocation, eh? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for sanctions against disruptive users

False accusations of vandalism in response to obviously productive edits are extremely damaging to the project and yet are widespread. Due to the inherent extreme anti-IP prejudice which prevails in Wikipedia culture, a false accusation of vandalism against an IP normally leads to a block, no matter how obviously sensible the edit it. Anyone making an obviously false accusation of vandalism should be banned from editing for one week. 186.37.203.53 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, my question above has not been answered. Is an edit that is in itself acceptable, but contains an unacceptable edit summary classed as vandalism? If so, then regardless of the content of such edits, they're vandalism. If not, then can somebody please clarify what the response should actually be to such edits?

I note that reading through this section the IP editor has made no mention of his edit summaries - pray tell what was his justification for using such edit summaries - and then evading blocks by unplugging and resetting his router as a result?[71]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheel Riens (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Incivility is not vandalism. If the edit is valid but the comment is offensive or otherwise uncivil, the edit should remain and the editor should be warned. Diego (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely true. But I don't think anyone really believes this person responds to warnings, after dozens of them, or blocks either, after many of those. Plus all the edit warring. I wonder if some people have really looked at this case properly, or looked back prior to the past week. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking to nom for RfA

We have only had a single successful RFA since the 4th of July. That's 1 successful RFA in 3 months. I would like to nominate someone but the two noms I had in mind are either AWOL or no longer a suitable candidates. If anyone would like to receive a nom, or at least a review to see if they even stand a chance, feel free to email me. I would like to possibly help a female editor pass RfA if any are interested as part of fighting the gender gap, but I am willing to nominate anyone and multiple candidates if I feel they are ready. I will be around most of the day and can be contacted via IRC or email.--v/r - TP 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to add that I am not opposed to nominating male editors, happy to do so. I would like to encourage more females to run and am happy to support them as well. For inclusivity sake, I am willing to nom anyone of any gender.--v/r - TP 02:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:TParis, I am not a female editor, but I'd like to be nominated, see User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching too. I need to talk to MRG here. --Tito☸Dutta 21:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm too inexperienced right now, but I might be ready in a few months. I'm not really in a rush, though. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure I'm male, but wouldn't mind being able to deal with housekeeping matters (SPA, UAA, AIV) without filing reports. That said, it's entirely possible some of my behavior during content disputes could be a black mark on me (though I'll note that it's always the other guy who gets blocked, banned, or told to drop it). I am not confident that I'm qualified to officially handle disputes between users, but have little to no interest in doing so (as an admin), so that shouldn't be a problem on my end. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• After seeing some of the downright cruel and vicious character assassinations in recent RfAs, I don't think anyone in their right mind would put their hand up. The toxic atmosphere at RfA would need to clear up before I'd even consider it. Reyk _YO! 00:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'd be open to at least a review as to whether I'd stand a chance. A glance between my legs suggests that I'm not a female, alas. To be honest, I'm not sure how having spiffy Admin powers would necessarily enhance my or anyone else's Wikipedia experience...but if I had concrete ideas about that, and a suitable case of masochism, I likely would have nominated myself some time ago. DonIago (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am a female but I really don't think there's much to be garnered in preferring one gender; It's understandable why you're doing it, sure encouraging more females to run would be a good way to stop the gender gap. But female doesn't always equal a 'good' admin. RfA also doesn't simply dorn an easier crowd because of what you have between your legs. They'll still be as reckless and as strident as with any nominee. Nonetheless, glad that you're taking a stand against the lack of successful RfAs by offering to nominate someone. Tutelary (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Ever since I hit 5k edits and 1k undeleted mainspace edits (don't remember which came first), I've wanted to run a RfA just to see what people say - very little chance of passing, honestly, since most of those mainspace edits are either gnoming or adding/removing AfD tags (among other issues), so I wouldn't suggest nominating me unless you're either a sadist or masochist, depending on your point of view. As far as gender, since we seem to be making a big deal of that for no reason here (I remember a discussion on WT:RfA where it was established that there are proportionally more self-declared female admins in the admin corps than self-declared female editors on en-wiki), I prefer not to say on the internets (minus Facebook, where it's practically impossible), but given some comments I've made and the fact that I prefer to be referred to in the masculine, you can probably infer anyways. (Side note, I've been on IRC once, it's honestly quite boring. I expected something exciting and possibly scandalous considering how people talk about it here, but there was...nothing...) ansh666 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• While I would like to at some point, right now no because like Reyk says it's not worth the type of character assassination a typical RfA has for supposedly being "no big deal". Perhaps when it was coined in 2006 it wasn't because all you had to do was write enough GAs to gain the tools but now, it's a mess. Sometimes I think of it as an unbalanced beast priding itself on factors which admins don't require (why do you need to have a long history of content creation to use tools which don't require content creation skills?) and generally self-selecting based on a full cavity search of your history and deciding what blemishes to ignore or blow out of proportion, usually because one editor disliked it and many others just agreeing. To say I'm displeased with how RfA is run is an understatement, why anyone would bother with something more difficult and emotionally rigorous than a job interview for a few extra buttons baffles me. tutterMouse (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I completely agree with TutterMouse's sentiments. It's just not worth it. JMHamo (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• User:Doniago and User:Ian.thomson have both commented above and said they would think about adminship. The two of them have some experience and have never been blocked. I'd encourage both to think more about the possibility. You both have commented at ANI or other boards quite a bit, and if you run you'd expect to get some questions about your work there. Both of you should consider doing more content work. I'm less familiar with User:Titodutta but a nomination is possible there as well. The conversation at User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching is going in the right direction but your chances at RfA would be better if MRG agreed to support your candidacy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction: I've been blocked once, many years ago, for reverting once too often. I've held back since and have only received one unofficial reminder to my knowledge. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd make a good admin in my opinion, Ian. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

I agree with Bish. Also, having been on the receiving end of a block (albeit historical) is not necessarily a bad thing. It probably makes one more wary of using the right as an admin. Pedro :  Chat  12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be glad to make you even more wary, Pedro--after all, I need to get my quota for today or I don't get my check. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

We told you not to mention the money. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it true that admins who block 50 or more editors get a toaster oven? DonIago (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A great idea but unfortunately we do not. (Or, at least, I have not been sent one to me when I blocked my 50th editor. May be they only sent ovens inside the US, and I do not qualify).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never been blocked (unless it was so traumatizing that I blocked it out of my memory...ha ha). I don't know whether it could really be said that I've done "work" at ANI, unless opening cases, getting frustrated with the occasional perception that admins are less willing to step up to the plate than IMO they should be (not that I was in any way biased...) and providing a half-assed interpretation of events on rare occasion counts...does that count? :p As for content work...for better or worse, I've generally tried to limit my interactions with Wikipedia to "Wikipedia editing is what I do when it's slow at work". I'm both willing and able to check up on things otherwise, but I've resisted becoming much more involved, which I'll freely admit is a reason I may not be a good choice for an admin...though I imagine there are ways in which admins can be of use that don't necessarily require a heightened presence. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Ed! My apologies if I'm being overly-glib here...I think if I contemplated the possibility of WP adminship seriously at this stage rationality might get the best of me and I'd run screaming into the night (he said at 10 am). DonIago (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm with Reyk. I wouldn't advise anyone to go through a 2014-standard RfA. They're toxic, bitter, and pretty much random about who they promote.—S Marshall T/C 11:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Although not a regular participant in RFA, I have read a lot of them over the years and it basically boils down to 1) You're a saint to rival Mother Theresa (depending on your viewpoint) or 2.) You have skin thicker and harder than Emma Frost or Colossus. Blackmane (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, they made me one! Even though I violated at least one of Kudpung's rules. (I cracked jokes. Maybe it helps to have experience in either stand-up or teaching.) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would certainly consider accepting an RFA nomination. I understand that I may be an unsuitable candidate as well. In any regard, I appreciate this thread, and the opportunity it afforded me to say this aloud.—John Cline (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that you may be unsuitable?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Berean Hunter, thank you for caring to ask this of me. Firstly, I should have said "I understand that I may be considered as an unsuitable candidate". This because I never believed I was unsuitable, nor that I'd be less than a net-positive; ever. From RFA/1, when I knew everything one could possibly glean, through today with all my mistakes in between – I'd be disingenuous to avoid the reality of potentially harsh criticism. For example, I'm nearly ashamed to admit that it would be RFA/5 for me, and I already know that for some, that alone is a bright line "quick-fail". I also said this, in part, because TParis knows me well enough, to remember some of my blunders without ever needing a diff. While I'd be glad if TP entrusted his nom to me, I owe him understanding, upfront, if instead he declined. With esteem.—John Cline (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Our interactions have not always been the happiest, but I'd never hold that against you personally. Besides, I can't seem to recall your previous username so that might work in your favor ;) I really do try to forgot bad interactions with people and not allow things to get personal. I think there are likely only two or three people that I could not remain objective for on Wikipedia and I think one of them is blocked 24/7. The other has been polite and mature enough to stay away from me and I've stayed away from him.--v/r - TP 20:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've had someone suggest that I consider the position and am not adverse to being nominated. I realise that there would be pressure on the incumbent and that this is not to be taken lightly, therefore TParis is reviewing my credentials as to whether I am a suitable candidate. If anyone has valid objections as to my being a suitable candidate, or wishes to familiarise themselves with my contributions to Wikipedia to date, please feel free to ask questions or check my user history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad

I ask an admin to revert the non-admin close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad for procedural reasons:

1. The close violates the guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator."
2. Contentious deletion reviews are always closed by admins.
3. The closer does not have the technical ability to restore the edit history. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions says, "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome."

   Before reviewing the discussion, the closer would have been forbidden from closing as restore the article's history. It is not appropriate to close a contentious discussion in which from the beginning you are restricted to one outcome.

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions says, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought."

The close should be reverted also because it is factually incorrect.

The close should be reverted also because it is factually incorrect. The closer wrote (among other things): The pro-restoration reasons have treated the subject of "why would I want the history back" instead of "why the closing admin's verdict was not policy-compliant or not representative of the rough consensus". They elude answering the question of "why should something that had no business being on Wikipedia in the first place must come back at all." This is wrong. The pro-restoration reasons have addressed all these issues. "why would I want the history back" ...is exactly the wrong question to ask or answer in WP:DELREV. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) As argued at the DRV, we want the history back because its content (not merely the sources) is useful in: doing a selective merge to NCH Software#Software products and You already provided a link below that supplies that material. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) as the basis for an article if new sources surface. "If"? When they surface, WP:REFUND would be more than glad to give the article back. We were there to discuss Randykitty's closure. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185643/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoPad indicates that the article's content in October 2013 did not violate a policy that mandated its deletion. If you had said this is in the DELREV, I would have left it to an admin. Instead, I'd just called your statement lacking factual accuracy. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) "why the closing admin's verdict was not policy-compliant or not representative of the rough consensus" I don't see a single policy link the following discussions. Do you? Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) This was addressed by all the "restore history" participants: User:Unscintillating – "The key here is whether the closer deleted for wp:notability or for content. ... Based on the preponderance of evidence, this deletion was for wp:notability, which means there is no policy basis to keep the edit history deleted under the redirect." ...except User:Unscintillating forgot to say in which direction the key turns; i.e. which endorses deleting only the latest revision and which the article all its revisions! FYI, I have never seen a deletion discussion in which the notability was in question and only the latest revision is deleted. Otherwise, I dare you to show a precedent. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) User:Thincat – "A decision to delete an article on notability grounds is a decision that a topic should not be included as a stand-alone article. It is not a decision that a topic should not be covered at all. It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in the way of achieving this." Yes. And such articles are deleted entirely. I dare you to show a precedent to the contrary. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) User:Mkativerata – "is there a good reason to delete the history? Unless the article was inappropriately promotional -- I can't tell -- there is no good reason. Let's put it another way: what was the substance of the consensus? Was there a consensus to delete the article's history? Or was the consensus that the subject of the article does not merit a Wikipedia page? Surely it was the latter. That's why a redirect was the correct outcome, but the deletion of the page's history was not." Yes, there is: The consensus was Delete, not Redirect, keep the history. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) User:SmokeyJoe – analyzed in detail the AfD's arguments, noting that none of the participants said that "the content was unsuitable for any article and that history deletion was required". They said delete. So, they were just avoiding wordiness. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) User:S Marshall - "The business about meeting the GNG is a red herring. Whether or not something meets the GNG has no bearing on whether there should be a redirect. It also has no bearing on whether to delete the history under the redirect. On balance I think that there's a rough consensus that the redirect should continue to exist; and therefore, this being a wiki, there's a presumption that the history should be visible. If there's a particular revision that's problematic for some reason, it can be revdelled, but to remove the entire history is uncalled-for." Again, I dare you to show a single precedent. Articles that fail WP:GNG are deleted in whole. Period. Keeping the history needs additional reasons. Fleet Command (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC) "why should something that had no business being on Wikipedia in the first place must come back at all." The basis for this question contradicts policy. As I wrote at the DRV, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems says that "instead of removing text", consider Moving the information to another existing article or splitting the information to a new article Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge I know what you wrote. But I also know that three other people wrote Delete. So, your POV didn't gain any consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment  Just 33 minutes before this post I wrote (at [72]), "...Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28...was closed tonight by a non-admin who has posted 25 times on the talk page of the AfD nominator, so it is possible that this DRV close will be contested.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed the close, was not much impressed with parts of the explanation, and consider the result surprising. I have not had a chance to study it carefully, but I expected to want to lodge a protest. I had not noted that it was an undeclared WP:NAC. I now consider it a bad NAC close and suggest its immediate reversion. Further, NACs are particularly unwelcome at Deletion Review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Greetings.

A simple head count has 6 against restoring the history vs. 5 in favor of restoring, 1 neutral comment by Randykitty. As you can see, we have no clear majority and there is no way that the discussion could be closed as "overturn". Relisting was also out of question. (16 days already.) But again, per WP:NOTVOTE, a consensus in favor overturning was also non-existent.

In response to Cunard's objections:

1. It was not a close-call at all. Cunard says that because he is interested in undeletion of the article. But in reality, there were no two user who said the same thing except Sandstein and Codename Lisa. My decision was between Endorse and No consensus. Specifically, Administrator Randykitty ably defended himself.
2. Again, it wasn't contentious. It was a clear call. (It has become contentious with this thread. i.e. Cunard made it contentious as a way of bludgeoning the process. So, now, it is precedent and I will never again close a discussion in which Cunard is involved.)
3. Yes, but I didn't need that ability because the result of the closure was endorsing Randykitty's action.

Please note that I actually counted Thincat and S Marshall's argument as endorsing not overturning. Well, their argument are compelling that way.

In response to Unscintillating's objection:

This certain argument is repeated times and again ad nauseam. In the same deletion review page, there was an argument about an AfD that I closed against Codename Lisa. Sandstein agreed with CL in this discussion. CL and I were previously investigated for connection by administrator Atama. CL, according to herself, is so far accused six times of being the meatpuppet or sockpuppet of six different editors in the computing field. (I don't knwo exactly who these six are but one of them is I, one is Jeh and one is Mark Arsten. I remember the last because it was categorically ridiculous.) Basically, some people love to shout "The socks, the socks are calling!" when they run out of plausible arguments.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Picking out two saying the same thing as decisive is not how to weigh a discussion.

It was contentious, and your inability to read contention makes you particularly unsuitable to have done the close. Further, all moderately discussed DRVs are contentious. Admins do not take their closes overturned at DRV lightly.

Reading S Marshall as "endorse" is an appallingly bad read. S Marshall said the same thing as me. I

I suggest the best option is for you to accept this request for you to self-revert. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. I was just being polite. I found your statement in total inconsistency with the reality. Delete means what Randykitty did. Fleet Command (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't like my !vote and so your used your WP:Supervote to ignore it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Read below. Fleet Command (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you really referring to my comments in the DRV? Inconsistent with reality? Which statement in particular? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument, in short, says "There was not delete in AfD". I checked the AfD. There was three. Either you are wrong or lying. I assumed good faith and chose "wrong". The amount of decision-making for Randykitty was minimal. Fleet Command (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, please disregard my last. I was too harsh. You said "none of the participants said [...] history deletion was required". There are two ways of looking at it:

1. Yes, they did. "Delete" has always meant delete in whole, not just the latest revision. One of the participants, Msnicki troubled himself to participate in DELREV and reiterate that he meant exactly this.

2. Even if they said nothing, silence means consensus; they should have spoken when they were able to.

Look, just as an admin cannot read a discussion and issue a verdict of "Keep" when everyone say "Delete"/"Merge"/"Redirect"/etc. he cannot read a discussion in which the consensus is "Delete" and instead, issue a verdict of "Redirect, keep history". The amount of decision-making for Randykitty was minimal. Fleet Command (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is tempting me to reargue the DRV. In short, at AfD, Randykitty was wrong to ignore Cunard's clearly worded strong later argument for at least redirect with history preserved, given that it addressed all previous !votes, the not-meating-the-GNG part, and that there is no evidence that the earlier participants even read Cunard's 11:28, 28 September 2014 post. I guess that 5 minutes just wasn't long enough? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are in effect suggesting that closing admin should have ignored the other three, two of them very eminent editors: Rhododendrites (an admin famed for seeking alternatives to deletion) and The Banner. In addition, there is evidence that Rhododendrites did read Cunard's comment. (Did you even check before accusing?) Finally, The Banner cited WP:NOTADVERT, one of the WP:5P which may not be overridden by any other policy, even WP:GNG. All bets are off. Fleet Command (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• This close was procedurally and substantively wrong and should be reverted.

• First, it directly contradicted the instruction at WP:DRV that "After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists".
• Second, there's a good reason why non-admins shouldn't perform closes like this. There were two possible outcomes: a restoration of the article's history, or no restoration. FleetCommand could only perform the second outcome. It was by definition a biased close (whether conscious or not) because the person who closed it could only close it one way. That's why, for instance, WP:NAC says that non-admins should only close deletion discussions when deletion is clearly not on the cards.
• Third, it was just wrong. FleetCommand criticises one side of the debate for eluding the question of "why should something that had no business being on Wikipedia in the first place must come back at all." Plainly that is wrong the question to ask. No-one genuinely made the argument that the content had no business being on Wikipedia; the delete argument was, in substance, that the subject of the article is not notable. If the closer couldn't understand this fundamental point then the close was performed on the wrong basis.

This need not be a drawn out process. Either FleetCommand can revert the close and walk away quietly, or any administrator can quickly exercise his or her discretion to revert the close themselves. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reply to first: WP:NACD sanctions non-admin closure of discussion in the event of a backlog. 16 days had passed and this discussion was clearly a backlog.
• Reply to second: Closing a discussion as "Endorse" perfectly was well within my means and didn't need an account role that lack. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an anarchy and no amount of heated discussion can impact the fact that Randykitty interpreted the consensus correctly. That's the whole purpose of DRV.
• Reply to third: Wrong! Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, they must! In fact, the policy directly addresses your concern: "Deletion Review should not be used: 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment".

Fleet Command (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Technical comments  WP:NACD is the guideline, while WP:NAC is the essay.  The reopening of a NAC should follow WP:TPO...so "reverting" is used in neither WP:NAC nor WP:NACD.  Fleet Command had the tools for this closing, so had sufficient tools as per WP:NACD to make a non-admin closure.  Administrators with a COI should not reopen an NAC, which specifically includes participants.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Technical comment A simple head count has 6 against restoring the history vs. 5 in favor of restoring, 1 neutral comment by Randykitty. As you can see, we have no clear majority and there is no way that the discussion could be closed as Overturn. Relisting was also out of question. (16 days already.) But again, per WP:NOTVOTE, a consensus in favor overturning was also non-existent. Fleet Command (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Somehow, FleetCommand has totally misunderstood what I said in that debate; to read my comment as an "endorse" is to get it completely backwards. I was trying to express a complex and nuanced thought without being too verbose, and I've apparently somehow been unclear.

  My view is that FleetCommand's good faith attempt to close this DRV was flawed. It should be reverted and re-closed by someone else.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: Did you read above when I said 6 against restoration, 5 in favor? That mean I am counting you as "in favor of restoration"; otherwise, it would have been 7 to 4, not 6 to 5. But yes, your reasoning in fact worked against your verdict and showed why Randykitty was correct. Now, reverted and changed to what? Overturn? It hasn't gained neither the consensus nor even the majority votes. Fleet Command (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I did read all your vote-counting, and yes, I do realise that you stand by your close. I'm afraid my view remains unchanged. I'm sorry if that makes you unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unhappy? No. What's the worst that can happen? An admin will probably come along, block me, ban me from DELREV, ban from interacting with Cunard, and overturns my closure to "no consensus". None of these are exactly bad. Fleet Command (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have undone the close and reclosed it myself.--v/r - TP 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Following an excellent suggestion by TParis on my talk page, I have undeleted the article history and moved the article as it was just before deletion (minus the AfD notice) to draft space here. It should not be moved back to main article space without significant improvements in sourcing and without having been checked by an admin (not necessarily me). --Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Aggressive_and_abusive_editing.2C_excessive_abuse_etc_by_User:FleetCommand. As above suggested by Unscintillating , I smell an apparent tag teaming between the AfD nominator and the non-admin closer which spans entirely different topics. It certainly deserves a closer look. Cavarrone 06:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Alka_Seltzer_tablet.JPG - hide previous revision?

A cropped version of File:Alka_Seltzer_tablet.JPG has been uploaded to avoid any copyright issues with packaging that was shown in the previous revision. Would it please be possible to consider hiding or suppressing the previous revision(s) of this image? Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Request article move to previous title -- currently locked into a non-neutral title -- Ebola "outbreak" in U.S.

As I mention here, it seems obvious to me that some admin attention could be very beneficial because a national newspaper is saying this is all far from an outbreak. However, the current article title calls it an outbreak: Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. I've tagged the article now. Previously I started a move request discussion, but it seems some immediate attention is warranted to reverse the move that caused the article to call the cases an "outbreak". Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Biosthmors You should request here -> Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests Bladesmulti (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, but perhaps I did something wrong there. It's quite complex all these templates and categories for technical requests and such. It seems all so simple what needs to be fixed in my mind. Hopefully this will take care of it. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've now fixed the link in Template:Ebola which was generating a lot of references to the old article title. -- The Anome (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please close my RfC; it's been resolved satisfactorily

I opened an RfC that has since been resolved, and it can be closed: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Redrose64 Tinmanic (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done NE Ent 00:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

admin

It's a long way to adminship and being here for just a week is only the very beginning of the process. Learn how the English (sic!) Wikipedia works and how to create content. Then you may apply for adminship through the usual process. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

right to ask where I want to be adminis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levente 2 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In about 5,000 more edits, see WP:RFAADVICE then WP:RFA the panda ₯’ 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And without meaning to be rude, learn English first. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin to E-mail

Good afternoon all, I was hoping to find an admin I could e-mail. I have an account issue which needs to be forwarded privately. Anyone available? Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't much sysops can do for you related to account issues. A bug request to the WMF technies might be better.--v/r - TP 18:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a tricky situation, if its okay, can I e-mail the details? -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative, instead of email, you could connect to the IRC and ask to speak with an admin privately about a matter. There are generally a few lurking ones willing to help. Tutelary (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did so! -OberRanks (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting AWB access ( User: OccultZone )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following a complaint on ANI about 70 days ago, my AWB access was revoked by Nick after community consensus.(check [73])

Yesterday I had asked Nick if I should request for the AWB access based on my performance since the revocation.(check [74]) I hereby request access to AWB.

I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. I understand the concerns that were raised. During this period, I have made about 30,000 edits and avoided any mistakes. I have been involved with a few backlogs, [75] [76] [77] article creation, promotion to GA, [78] DYK.[79] [80] [81] [82]

Thanks -- OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give us a summary of what you did wrong, and what you intend to do differently if we decide to give you back your AWB access? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: I had changed dates on about 245 pages, and carried out delinking of wikilinks on articles, such edits violates rules of AWB.

I won't be doing that again. I will be mostly using AWB for working on the backlogs as usual, like I have done before. For a name, there is a category, Category:Infobox book image param needs updating. Used to have about 15,000 previously, I had fixed 5595.[83] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. You weren't stripped of AWB access for delinking and changing dates, and the link you provide above is rather disingenuous – this is the actual discussion that led to your being barred from AWB. Those were just two of a big stack of reasons, and the briefest glance at your recent contributions shows that the circumstances which led to it haven't been addressed. Among the things that led to your being stripped of the bit were making strings of trivial edits with no visible impact on an article – still going on as of today; and, more significantly, making rushed script assisted edits without bothering to check their edits, resulting in errors being introduced into the mainspace – [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] today alone. Yes, everybody makes mistakes and one mistake every thousand or so edits is understandable, but that's five obvious errors (in the sense that even the quickest of glances would have told you you were making a mistake) out of 28 mainspace edits today. An 18% error rate is atrocious, especially since in light of this appeal you were presumably being more careful than usual. In light of what happened to Rich Farmbrough, you're getting off lightly in that it's only AWB you're blocked from. Mogism (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mogism: I have not used any scripts. I started doing the persondata backlog from today, [89] [90] are not errors. I agree that there were more than 2 concerns and also that the edits were contrary to the rules of AWB. I assure that I won't be making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: This edit was an error. You then kindly fixed the error a few hours later. GoingBatty (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mogism and OccultZone: Cleaning up backlogs is a reasonable task, even when it doesn't have a visible impact on the page. (The benefit of using AWB to make such edits is that it can also make other general fixes and typo fixes at the same time. The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving.) It's great when OccultZone uses an edit summary to make it clear why the edit was being done, and suggest that OccultZone does so for every edit. I also suggest that OccultZone marks edits as minor edits when doing tasks such as adding {{Persondata}} short descriptions or {{WPBIO}} |listas= values. I wonder if this edit and this edit are correct. GoingBatty (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: About [91], check [92]. It was confirmed that Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean names are not same as the western, middle eastern and South Asian names. You can check the defaultsort, they are same. Check Hu Jintao's defaultsort for an example. [93] is also correct because "Melamparambil" is not included in his real name, many Indian names include the name of profession or region. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Although it is pretty obvious that I would be more careful than ever with that, it was indeed first time and I know that I wasn't perfect with it. When I used AWB, I had "Typo fixing" disabled, and later I had also disabled "auto tagging". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I happened to work on persondata for the first time ever, today. Well, no, you chose to work on it for the first time today. It's a subtle difference, but important. What made you choose it, and what research did you do concerning persondata before working on it? I'm asking not to be picky, but because I think your answer might be valuable in showing how you decide to do mass edits, and how you check the edits you have done. Begoon ^talk 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct and I looked on to the short descriptions that have been used by other similar articles, before I will add some. After these all edits, I have found that best way to check edit is to re-read before submitting it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is obvious that whenever you have the latest evidence of violation, you are prevented from the right. Few days ago, I had opposed the rollback right of Flyer22, however, I had to realize after seeing the closure that output is also measured by the experience, that the user has with the distinctive editing pattern. When there is almost 0 trouble, it can be appreciable. I liked [94], [95] After reading the users TP and archives I have found no issues which give me cause for concern. Noteswork (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Quoting GoingBatty: The down side is that it takes longer to check each edit before saving. Looking at the ANI discussion Mogism links, and reading Mogism's comments on recent errors even when editing manually, I think this is certainly one thing people will be concerned about. Editing at high speed needs good grasp of what is being done, and careful checking so that errors don't become a huge problem.

• The edit rates discussed at that ANI make checking edits next to impossible. Can Occultzone tell us what they will do about this issue, so that we can have confidence they will be actually checking edits?
• Additionally can they explain how they will deal with future concerns expressed by other editors with their automated editing? Again, reading that ANI, it seemed very difficult to get OZ to even admit they had made any errors at all. Communication, and possibly language, issues were a major stalling point in that discussion. Has there been progress there?
• Finally, will OZ make a firm commitment that, should errors, or a series of errors, be discovered in future automated edits, they will fix the errors themselves, immediately, before moving onto anything else?

I think answers to those questions might make folks more comfortable about this. Begoon ^talk 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• 12-17 edits every minute for hours may lead anyone to believe that I am not checking edits before clicking 'save' button. I don't deny that, I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. Rechecking is always best way to deal with.
• Like Nick had analyzed in the end, that I was speaking more for saving the access than recognizing the mistake, he seemed to be correct with that. It can be seen through the archives of my talk page. But since the next day(18 July), I have not tried anyone to give any chance that they would complain. Tried to improve my approach in dealing with the people. Talk page remains free of complaints.
• Obviously and it is one of the core concept of editing that whenever you make any errors, you have to fix each of them. I am sure that I wouldn't be making in fair amount, and I will try figuring out soon. During these many edits(since revocation), I had some instances where I would make an error but fix it quickly. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But you didn't answer the questions at all really - by point, here's what you ignored or missed:

• You didn't tell us how you would check edits, you just were concerned with whether it "looked like" you were checking them. This sentence worries me enormously: I have actually worked on that by giving more time into making edits look more manual than I used to do before. You've worked on making your edits "look more manual"? How about working on actually checking them?
• I asked you how you would deal with future concerns.
• You didn't firmly commit to fixing all of your future errors immediately, before moving on. You did say you are aware of this, and you want to improve, so that's encouraging.

I'm sorry if you think I'm picking on you, and it's quite possible I've misinterpreted your answers, because, and here's the other problem, your English is very hard to understand. In the previous ANI you breezed past concerns about communication, raised by BrownHairedGirl and others, basically ignoring them. That worries me. I think you think your communication is better than it really is. It's actually very difficult to follow lots of what you say. I don't think it's wise to let folks who can't answer basic English queries about their actions in an understandable way use mass editing tools. Sorry if that's harsh, but there are practicalities to consider here. Begoon ^talk 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had answered that above, I had said that I re-read every edit before submitting. If I wasn't checking before submitting, I guess I would be having many of the errors and complaints during these 30,000 edits.
• I would attempt to resolve the issue before making any other edit that is related with the issue. For example, when I had started doing the listas parameter, I had complaints on first day, but that was also the last day. It is usually better to resolve at first.
• Yes I agree that I would fix the current issue before moving on, knowing that small amount of mistakes can take bigger form if they haven't been resolved. Just like it happened before, and it should be avoided.

In fact, I had promoted articles to GA, DYK. It was pretty easy to collaborate other editors who were working along. There were numerous queries, but I don't see them repeating same question or concern again. I agree that it was one of the issue that I would ignore the concerns about the edits that I was making, because I thought that I was going by the policy of basic editing although it contradicted the rules of AWB about which I wasn't so aware, but that was my ignorance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers. I'm sorry if you feel I bombarded you, but automated tools have the power to do a lot of damage, very quickly, which is difficult to fix. I'm not going to !vote either way - I think you have very good intentions, but I worry that you tend to overestimate your own language and editing knowledge and skills, which can cause problems, so that leaves me undecided, at this point. Begoon ^talk 00:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Still oppose I see no reason to reinstate AWB here. The tasks described sound like something that should be raised at WP:BOTREQ too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• During these 4 days, and considering the above mentioned discussion, I have made about 2000+ edits, it includes 1000 edits[96] concerning with the living parameter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support I think we can give the access back. I revoked OccultZone's access once but I think they are more experienced after this time. We can always take the right back once again if more problems occur. The last time the problems were because they used a third-party script in a large scale. I also believe that it's better if they do any changes semi-automatically and slowly than with a bot. It's true they still make mistakes, most probably due to hight edit ratio, even without AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So access has been revoked more than once? I didn't realise that. I'm still concerned - I'd certainly like to see it stipulated as a condition of any return of access that they agree to immediately fix any errors pointed out to them, before moving on, as they seem to agree above. Begoon ^talk 08:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd like to AGF and presume that OccultZone has "really learned a lot from {the} incident" and would benefit the project with renewed AWB access. I find i am unable to do so, however, on a couple of counts. One, i'm still concerned about communication ability; i don't really see improvement in it versus the previous incident. Two, the answers to Begoon's questions are, at best, evasive and, possibly actually deceptive; i would like to see more clear explanation from OZ of what he has learned and how he is planning to modify his behaviour. Three, the point Magioladitis raises, that AWB access has been revoked at least twice, with apparently no learning taking place the first time, at least needs to be answered before it is regranted. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 22:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@LindsayH: I have answered every query, I know now better than what I used to do before that what users usually expect after they raise any concern about the mass editing, especially since the revocation I have tried giving them no chance as I have avoided objectionable edits. For the first time, like it was also noted in the ANI, it was revoked for a different reason. That time I had about 10k edits with AWB, but later, I had 85k, we can say that I had little better idea about not using AWB for the things that lead to revocation. For the 2nd time, it was due to the mass changes to wikilinks, and date/numbers. Although I realized that they are ultimately contradictory to the rules of AWB. I am also concerned with the backlogs that require attention. While most of them cannot be handled with semi-auto programs, some of them like I have named one among few others can be better handled with AWB. If we suppose that there would be similar circumstances like before, I will definitely seek consensus for the changes before making them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support .. Starting from the end of last year, after Sati (practice) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section, it was having many edit wars, I was informed by Mark Arsten on Indian noticeboard. My intervention was not a success, after a few days there were more doubts because one theory was not applying on other page or it's subsection that was actually relevant with the content of this page. I was kind of sure that this article would be brought to ARBcom.
  Occult has done enormous work on this article and adequately solved these disputes. It has been helpful for many other pages(e.g. Death by burning, Women in Hinduism). Bladesmulti (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's great. I'm not quite sure what it has to do with AWB access though, really. Seems to me if OZ has talents dealing with those Indian articles, something we desperately need, then he might be better off devoting more time to that, and less time to churning edits we could get bots to do, avoiding the risk of repeating the problems he's had with those. Just an idea, though, and obviously it's up to OZ how he wants to spend his time, in the end. Begoon ^talk 07:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. My comment was more about how Occult is capable of handling situations. IMO, Occult has provided just enough evidence of an explanation that may reasonably be correct, and it will be sufficient for giving 'em enough rope. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but read what you linked... I don't want to see a well-intentioned user like OZ "hang himself". OZ has a lot to offer, and I don't want to see him back in the same, problematic situations he has been in, since we can't afford to lose good users. Begoon ^talk 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was a problematic situation, I regret it. I used to think that what I could do to avoid, still do. I can affirm that I've learned, will continue to learn without causing any trouble. All in all, thanks for the kind words! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per Magioladitis and per commitment not to repeat the mistake in the future. VandVictory (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - If we are indeed a community that believes in second chances, and one that understands that sometimes we all err (sometimes egregiously), then it seems logical to allow access back. I see a lot of discussion of minutia and use and such, but to me, granting access is primarily based on around the individuals general understanding of policy, their willingness to accept responsibility for the actions and overall "clue". OccultZone is a good editor, and like the rest of us makes mistakes, but I'm confident he will move forward with caution after this. If not, bit stripping is free and it can be removed again. In the spirit of giving bit access to anyone willing and capable, I think we should not hoard the bits here. Dennis 2¢ 16:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE.--v/r - TP 21:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just unarchived this thread, it may require formal closure. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've basically retired, so didn't notice OZ had since unarchived this again, several times, until just now. The guy is obviously desperate for an answer, yet restrained and patient in that pursuit, and churning out productive edits meanwhile. This is a good thing, speaks well to his intentions, and makes me feel it would be unfair not to offer him that opportunity. I considered this unfinished business when I left, still do, and now urge someone to close it, in his favour. Do be careful, and responsive to concerns, though, OZ - use the WP:ROPE well - I doubt another "episode" concerning problems with mass editing would end well. Begoon ^talk 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sarah Brown

I'd appreciate it if an admin that has not previously been involved could pop over to Sarah Jane Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and educate the small cadre of people obsessed with moving the article. They seem to think there's a problem with the current title and that merely thinking so makes it so, even though many people (including Jimbo) disagree; they seem to think that they can arrange a vote with ad hoc weighting system rather than the usual process of consensus building; and they seem not to be too bothered about notifying the large number of people who have previously weighed in rejecting the many identically problematic solutions. Even if they are not actually engaged in trying to slip one past the goalie while he's looking the other way, that's how it looks.

Me, I think people obsessed with the titles of BLPs are almost certainly an inherently problematic class of editor, but what do I know? I'm obviously weird because I don't see anyhting wrong with the current title. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha! You haven't seen the participant list. This is going to be the biggest and bestest move discussion in the history of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there is plenty of attention on this at the article. If consensus is to use this method to determine a consensus, then so be it. I don't see the problem.--v/r - TP 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To my amazement, the dispute is merely between Sarah Jane Brown and Sarah Brown, and the argument is over the need to select a primary article for the name Sarah Brown. That so many people is involved is proof not of the importance of the question, but the inconclusiveness of some of our procedures, and the absurd problems caused by our disam policy. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this for me. I confess, I saw it pop up in my watchlist and my heart sank. As is probably obvious, I do not think there is a problem to fix, and the titanic waste of effort in fixing this non-problem is a source of frustration. I am now back from my singing week in Enkhuizen so can participate in person rather than asking for help. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for RfC closure/Update: closure reverted

Hello, could an admin here please close this here. I'd done it myself as it had gone stale, but it turns out that is not the proper form as I'd started the RfC. Would appreciate it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Sorry to bother, but the closure by LHM was reverted here after Zad68 visited the editor’s talk here. Still need that closure and, obviously, it must be an admin to save further disruption. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I restored the close. As a completely uninvolved editor, I looked at the discussion and judged where consensus lay. I will not restore it again, though, as if Floydian reverts again, it will then be a matter for administrator intervention. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, LHM. I agree it will require admin intervention if he reverts again. Appreciate your patience and help. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    He's reverted again, so it's now out of my hands. I've opened an ANI thread about it. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    • And I fully support LHM in his ANI complaint. There was no reason for this to need an admin, it's simply another example of disruption by this editor that has been present since the article was created. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    SW3 5DL I visited Floydian's User Talk to let him know he was incorrect when he made this comment indicating he thought the close was made by an admin.

    SW3 5DL I agree with your comment above in this thread where you say "Still need that closure and, obviously, it must be an admin to save further disruption". The editor who closed that RFC wasn't an admin and per your own statement you agree it should be done by an admin. I'm in 100% agreement with you there. Zad68 01:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    There is no requirement than an administrator close an RFC. Any uninvolved editor can do so. And I was uninvolved, and did so. Floydian was very out of line to revert the close twice. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could the administrator who reviews that RFC also carefully investigate the discussion located there regarding possible WP:CANVASSing by the editor who started the RFC. I didn't even notice that discussion regarding the possible canvassing until just now, and I wasn't involved in that RFC. Zad68 15:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • While an editor has closed the RFC, the possible canvassing issue still needs to be investigated. Zad68 15:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    Before closing that RFC, I briefly looked into the issue of canvassing, and saw no apparent problems in that regard. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No canvassing done at all. On the contrary, all RfC rules on publicizing the RfC whilst waiting on the bot were followed. The RfC was posted at the Village Pump here, on the talk pages of 10 editors chosen at random from the Feedback Service List, per the RfC rules/suggestions for publicizing, and editors from the immediately preceding AfD were notified, per the RfC page. Only two of the editors chosen at random responded, JBarta and Silvo 1973, and both voted "Merge." I voted "keep." I've not made that many RfC's in the 6 years I've been an editor. The RfC page was most helpful and I followed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Understand that's your take on it... The discussion there also includes comments from experienced editors who did express a concern regarding canvassing. If there's no canvassing issue, perfect, it'll get closed as such and it's settled and (likely) won't come back as an issue in the future. If there is, it'll be something you'll know to watch out for in the future. Either way, the project benefits. Zad68 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but No, it's not my "take on it" at all. It's a matter of what I actually did and offering diffs to show what I actually did. I used the RfC page, I followed the instructions and did not violate the policy. Forgive me, but you on the other hand, have shown up here, no diffs in hand to support your unfounded accusations. If there's to be anyone "watching out in future" it seems it will be you making false accusations for no apparent purpose other than casting aspersions. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is your take. Several very experienced editors with medical editors have expressed dismay at your editing style, your complete lack of awareness of proper policy and procedure, your seeming ignorance to your wrongdoings, and your continued steamrolling to get your way. You have completely dismayed the editor who has spent much of the past year building the ebola article to a good standard in regards to WP:MEDMOS. The completely blissful ignorance of LHM with regard to this matter is exactly why an admin should be closing the RfC. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are the diffs that show this? You and Zad68 make these claims but as a very respected Arb once said, "No diffs, no case." End of. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided them in the RfC. I'll also provide this one as well, and a quote from it to highlight this situation: "Really, you'd think that just one editor could not cause so much disruption and take so much of the joy out [of] editing" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How is that possibly related to me? SW3 5DL (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it was posted to my talk page in the context of your actions. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominees needed for Editor of the Week

Hey all, Editor of the Week has been going strong for almost two years now, but right now, our queue of accepted nominations is dwindling ... we could really use some more nominees. If you know of an editor (a non-administrator) who is underrecognized for fantastic contributions, regardless of the area of those contributions (articles, images, files, backlogs, noticeboards, etc. are all acceptable), please consider nominating them to receive some recognition. Please see the project page for more information. Thank you very much for your consideration ... this is a great tool for editor retention. Go Phightins! 17:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• *throws dollar bills at the crowd* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Can't believe I haven't seen this project - I've nominated someone :) *picks up dollar bills and scurries away* ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• It's all gone downhill since late July 2013. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Lugnuts -- What makes you say that? The project is still thriving, just has a current shortage of nominees, likely an anomaly. Go Phightins! 01:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Go Phightins!: Lugnuts was joking that the quality of candidates had reduced since he was featured on 21 July 2013. Graham87 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah. I had glanced at July 2013, and didn't notice. Sorry for my confusion, and thanks for the clarification. Go Phightins! 10:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect request - Mr Justice Mostyn

Please could searches and links for Mr Justice Mostyn be directed to the extant page for Nicholas Mostyn. Mostyn is a leading Judge of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales. Thanks.Mr Tangle (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Now done, I see. ThanksMr Tangle (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu should not be deleted!

It is well sourced and a fact from Lia Olguța Vasilescu appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 October 2014. It is against the spirit of wikipedia to remove a fine article like this. Osugiba (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The above message was brought to you by a self-confessed sock of User:Iaaasi, who is blocked. (I'm leaving the message here as the sockmaster clearly has enough energy to create yet another sock to repost it if deleted.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

See here in WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Norden1990

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to draw the attention of the administrators to the Norden1990 case. He has an indefinite block and he has made lots of illegal contributions since he was blocked. But unfortunately, administrators ignore his investigation page. The last investigation request was reviewed after 15 days and the closing message was "IP appears to be dynamic and the last edit made was over two weeks. Sockmaster has likely moved on to another IP, so I don't see how blocking would prevent anything. Closing. ". How can administrators be so sloppy here? They ignore his case and after 2 weeks they say "now it is too late" ? A reasonable administrators would have immediately have made a IP range block for the group of socks 84.236.42.94, 84.236.42.0, 84.236.7.157, 84.236.16.49.

I strongly suggest administrators to look at his case as soon as possible, before he "likely moves to another IP" again. Some range blocks could be shaped there (there are some clear favourite IP formats there). and maybe a site ban after so many months of continous socking. Osugiba (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The above message was brought to you by a self-confessed sock of User:Iaaasi, who is blocked. (I'm leaving the message here as the sockmaster clearly has enough energy to create yet another sock to repost it if deleted.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SNL episode list disruptions

Two years ago several editors and I instituted the Episode list template on SNL season pages, where previously an inconsistent Episodes wikitable and an unencyclopedic/redundant "Listings" section documented episodes. Since we instituted the uniform Episode list templates, which are transcluded to List of Saturday Night Live episodes, anonymous editors began reinserting the original format into the articles, starting with Saturday Night Live (season 38).

Even a year+ after the Episode list template had been in place, the disruptions continued in season 39, most followed by immediate self-reverts. Today, two years after this originally began as edit warring, another one of these edits reoccurred on the season 40 page.

Season 38

• [97] November 17, 2012‎
• [98] November 20, 2012
• [99] December 4, 2012‎
• [100] December 10, 2012‎
• [101] December 23, 2012‎
• [102] January 7, 2013
• [103] January 10, 2013 & immediate self-revert [104]
• [105] January 29, 2013
• [106] January 31, 2013 & immediate self-revert [107]
• [108] February 21, 2013
• [109] April 1, 2013 & immediate self-revert [110]
• [111] April 29, 2013 & immediate self-revert [112]
• [113] May 4, 2013 & immediate self-revert [114]
• [115] May 14, 2013
• [116] May 20, 2013
• [117] June 23, 2013
• [118] July 19, 2013
• [119] August 15, 2013
• [120] September 9, 2013 & immediate self-revert [121]

Season 39

• [122] September 18, 2013 & immediate self-revert [123]
• [124] October 17, 2013
• [125] November 2, 2013 & immediate self-revert [126]
• [127] November 24, 2013 & immediate self-revert [128]
• [129] January 8, 2014 & immediate self-revert [130]
• [131] January 18, 2014 & immediate self-revert [132]
• [133] February 6, 2014 & immediate self-revert [134]
• [135] March 21, 2014 & immediate self-revert [136]
• [137] April 25, 2014 & immediate self-revert [138]
• [139] June 7, 2014 & immediate self-revert [140]
• [141] August 4, 2014
• [142] September 21, 2014 & immediate self-revert [143]

Season 40

• [144] September 28, 2014 & immediate self-revert [145]
• [146] October 20, 2014 & immediate self-revert [147]

Is there anything to be done about these disruptions? I only ask because they affect the transclusions to the List of Episodes page as well as the season page's own stability. Should the season pages be semi-page protected or the anonymous editors warned/blocked? (though I did warn some of the individual anons previously Talk:List of Saturday Night Live episodes#'Listings' sections on Seasons pages / User talk:190.45.215.88 / User talk:24.73.197.194)

Thought I should ask for some feedback from objective administrators, since this is a unique situation. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I configured indfinite pending changes for Episode 40. Generally, I do not like an idea that pending changes should be indefinite, certainly not for the first time, but the maximum finite duration they can be set is one year, and here we have disruption which lasts longer than a year. In a couple of years, one can request the reduction of PC at WP:RFPP if needed. If for other episodes similar disruption continues, please ping me or post a RFPP request. I assume some of the regular editors of these articles are patrollers; if not they are invited to apply for the flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Ymblanter, all forms of protection can have the length of time customized by using the "other time" selection and specifying the length of time in the entry box. The drop down options are just commonly used durations and are included for their ease of use. Mike V • Talk 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I do not have any preferred duration here. I think we should look how often vandal edits appear and then decide. Everybody is welcome to change my protection though (I am going to bed and will not be active for the next 8 hours).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing and other functions disabled at Sankar Chakraborti

Resolved

I was trying to make changes to this article based on VRTS ticket # 2014102010006554. I discovered that not only does the "submit changes" button not result in any response, but that the Search function does not work as well. I'm using monobook, for those who are interested. The other matter is that there are a very high number of transcluded pages on this article, which might be messing around with this. I've posted this to WP:VPT, but I wanted to post it here as well for the sake of urgency. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: While I was writing this, it looks like an edit was made to the page, so perhaps not everyone will encounter this issue. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As it turned out, clearing my cache appears to cleared up these issues. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Cache Rules Everything Around Me :-) the panda ₯’ 11:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Geonotice requests

For the last year or two there's only been one or two admins (me and Redrose64) actively keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Geonotice, and it often happens that neither of us are around to respond to a request or able to pick it up for a day or two - and, as luck would have it, those are usually the very short-notice requests. Would anyone else be able to watchlist it, or (better yet) leave their name to be prodded about it when needed? Actually posting the notices is pretty lightweight - the most complicated part is usually figuring out suitable coordinates, and doesn't usually take more than a few minutes. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your broadly construed opinion please

Hi all. Antidiskriminator is asking for some geographical and chronological clarification of their topic ban: "A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed)". Peacemaker67 noted, and I agree, that Antidiskriminator's edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated that topic ban; now they wish to know if editing Ottoman Empire does. I am inclined to say that it does, but I am willing to become better educated. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically, I guess, it is not a violation, since the Ottoman Empire lost all Serbian territories in 1878.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the First Balkan War of 1912 included fighting between the Ottoman Empire and Serbia, and Serbian capture of Kosovo and some other territory from the Ottomans, but that is post–1900, and of course would obviously be included in the topic ban. So, with that proviso, it seems ok to me. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Accordijng to WP:TBAN, the ban should include any edit which involves anything related to the topic in question; this may include some parts of the Ottoman Empire article. However, as long as the user avoids those sections related to the topic of "Serbs and Serbia 1900-current", it should be fine. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I would say it very much depends on what aspect of the Ottoman Empire they are making edits regarding. If it's something related to relations or conflicts with Serbia, then it would fall under the ban. If it was about Ottoman domestic politics in Syria, then clearly not. Number 57 21:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. See the "weather" comments at WP:TBAN — the hypothetical ban affects weather-related chunks of tons of articles, but it doesn't affect all parts of all articles that happen to mention the weather. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon's topic ban

During a recent discussion on the GamerGate article talk page, @Titanium Dragon: made the following statement:

We really need to be careful about this death threat stuff; no one has been charged with anything as far as I know, there are concerns about their authenticity and seriousness, and in the past people have made them against themselves for various messed up reasons. Even beyond these issues, though, I'm seeing news articles which are reporting on these threats as if they were credible even days after they were dismissed by authorities; we should be very careful about this sort of thing, and try to make sure when the authorities are involved that they can confirm this stuff. Independent confirmation of this stuff would be nice, because many folks involved (on all sides) have reasons to lie about being the subject of persecution, or simply exaggerate in a play for sympathy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This concerns reports from police that recent threats of a shooting at Utah State University were not serious and posed no imminent threat that would warrant cancellation of a speech by feminist gaming critic Anita Sarkeesian. During the GamerGate controversy there have been allegations of fake threats or fake harassment that have been discussed by reliable sources. You can find sourced mentions of this in the article, although such allegations have been roundly criticized they are still a reliably-sourced part of the discussion. Other sources have noted that there is nothing clearly linking harassment with GamerGate. TD's statement above essentially notes all this, and points out that harassment and death threats have been faked in the past. He is raising this point because editors more sympathetic to opponents of GamerGate will feel inclined to treat the threats and harassment as fact and condemnations of GamerGate rather than as allegations with no proven connection to GamerGate.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: subsequently accused TD of claiming several people, such as Sarkeesian, had faked the threats and harassment by making these remarks. Baranof argued this was a BLP violation and reported it at ANI. Before any comments could be made, including a response from TD, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: imposed an indefinite topic ban on Titanium Dragon. I believe there was no BLP violation in his remarks and it was legitimate to raise at the talk page. The discussion itself was closed within four hours by Black Kite giving no real time for wider discussion about the action. Future closed all discussion of the ban on his talk page, so I am raising the issue here for further discussion. I believe the indefinite topic ban was unwarranted given the weak evidence and should be lifted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Titanium Dragon was directly alleging that people were lying about the threats leveraged at them in his postings, and not referring to any sources that may have stated that they did not believe the current threats were real or not related to #Gamergate. There is no reason to let him off on another technicality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see him directly alleging that people were lying about the threats? He said people have lied about such threats in the past and that people on both sides have reason to lie.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

He was using an old instance of alleged lies to current ones. He has been a drain in the topic area and there is no reason to unban him a second time for skirting BLP.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

He noted that people faking deaths threats is not unheard of as a reason for why we should be careful about how we describe threats in the GamerGate article. That is a legitimate point to raise on the talk page as Wikipedia should not present unverified allegations as fact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, (at least from the comment posted above) this was NOT saying that the current requests were fake, but only that people had made fake threats before so we should be careful. That is not a BLP violation. (I'll look through the old thread and see if there are other things to support it) --Obsidi (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying "let's not forget people have faked death threats in the past" in regards to contemporary instances where the FBI is actively investigating threats against three women and their families is a bit much.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

He isn't say we should include that in the article, he is just making an argument that we should make sure to have reliable sources and present it in a NPOV (such as such person said they got death threats, or "the police are investigating..", etc.). I also from a quick glance over the topic ban thread found this remarkable, that he was banned within 22 minutes of the case being filed before anyone else had even spoken (even the person accused!), and then the admin said "You are topic-banned, as of now. That means you are not allowed to continue fighting over this topic, including on this page." That's crazy, at least in such a close case let person defend themselves first! (or give them a reasonable amount of time to do so). --Obsidi (talk 23:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many, many ways to make an argument about the reliability of a source without the entirely-unfounded implication that the victims of internationally-reported death threats made them up for personal gain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I got to run to go to a meeting at the moment and when I get back I'll go through all the previous cases, maybe that will clear it up. But even if he was previously banned, that does not mean that this statement was in violation of any policy. His past behavior can be taken into account for what the punishment should be if he does something wrong, but not if he did something wrong. He seems, to me, to be suggesting that it is a possibility that they are (as in something that we don't know which is true), and saying that we should try to use WP:RS and make sure to present it in a WP:NPOV to only make claims in WP's voice that we know are really verified. --Obsidi (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The previous ban applied by Gamaliel was not applied properly, and as the admin who redacted them specifically noted at the time, it would not apply against me in the future, though I (and others) are under additional scrutiny over the subject matter. That aside:

One of the major problems we've faced is the lack of independent reliable sources on several incidents. As I noted previously elsewhere, both Zoe Quinn and Milo Yiannopoulos have had claims of death threats and harassment noted by the press, with the latter saying that they had a syringe mailed to their house, with a picture posted on Twitter of said syringe. The problem is that to the best of my knowledge, neither of them have gone to the police about these incidents. These are very serious allegations for obvious reasons, but it is also problematic because per WP:BLP, something like this isn't something which should be sourced to the individual in question, and should have secondary confirmation. There are plenty of secondary reports about these claims in the press, but the problem is that it seems that these come from the primary sources (Yiannopoulos, Quinn) rather than the police or other authorities who would be responsible for investigating crimes. Per WP:CRIME, we're supposed to be very careful about this sort of thing, and per WP:HARASS, we're supposed to be careful about adding stuff to Wikipedia which leads to real-life harassment of people. This is not a theoretical problem, and indeed has already happened.

Last December, The Escapist wrote an article about Zoe Quinn, saying that she had been harassed over her game being posted to Greenlight, which resulted in a flurry of press attention on it, as well as a great deal of harassment directed towards users of WizardChan, whom Quinn said harassed her. The problem was that there was never any independent verification of the harassment, as the only evidence of said harassment was Quinn's own statements; The Escapist was roundly condemned for failing to independently verify that she had been harassed or that, if she had been harassed, that users of WizardChan were, in fact, responsible for it. As a result of it, they added a disclaimer to the article and publicly apologized for the incident, as well as changed their standards as regards reporting harassment. No criminal charges were ever filed in regards to the incident.

This is in sharp contrast to the death threats against Sarkeesian, which have been reported to and investigated by the authorities, who have commented on them publicly. We know that she actually went to the police and FBI over them (though there was a brief snafu over that early on, because people who investigated and actually called the SFPD found that the police knew nothing about it - it later came out that it was being handled by the FBI). The authorities investigated and found that they pose no threat to the public and will not be carried out - they are hoaxes, though who sent them, and why, remains a mystery. Again, to the best of my knowledge, no criminal charges have been laid against anyone over them, and I don't think we even know who sent them. We don't even know if the incidents were the same person or multiple individuals.

There are plenty of other incidents which are also well-documented - the hacking and doxxing of Phil Fish's company, personal attacks on John Bain, the hacking of The Fine Young Capitalists, the hacking of Zoe Quinn's personal accounts, the DMCA takedown notice of MundaneMatt's video on YouTube, and a number of other incidents where we do have independent attestation of at the very least something bad happening. But again, don't know who perpetrated the hacking, and to the best of my knowledge, no criminal charges have been laid on anyone and no one has been arrested for anything in conjunction with any of these incidents.

It is a big mess, and we need to be careful in reporting about it, per WP:CRIME, WP:HARASS, and WP:HOAX, especially in light of previous incidents, but also just in general per WP:BLP policy. That's not to say that we shouldn't report on this stuff, but we need to be careful in how we word it, wait a few days for independent confirmation, and make sure we're actually sourcing stuff which can be verified in ways which are congruent with general WP:RS policy, as well as specific policies as relates to this stuff. If people are sending hoax death threats to people, that is very possibly notable, but we should be reporting them as they are - there's a difference between some angry nerd on the other end of the country saying "I'M GOING TO KILL EVERYONE" and someone actually intending to show up with an uzi and start blasting people, and we need to take care not to perpetuate hoaxes and thereby spread panic and fear (as in the Utah State University case, where the person claimed that they were going to perpetuate a school shooting), but to report on them as hoaxes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The implication of the statement is clear - Titanium Dragon was impugning the victims of the death threats and suggesting that they were, according to the links, "victim playing, under a "persecutory delusion" and intentionally "hoaxing." This user has *repeatedly* made comments that denigrate and attack people who have opposed GamerGate and people who have been subject to GamerGate attacks. An earlier topic ban by Gamaliel was undone only on a technicality, and in undoing that ban, @Callanecc: specifically warned Titanium Dragon that:

“ "I will give you an official discretionary sanctions alert shortly and note that anything and everything you do related the topic area may be considered. Past actions may also be used as background, so I'd suggest that there is a fairly low bar for tolerating misbehaviour. ”

How many times are we supposed to let a single person use Wikipedia talk pages as a place to attack, cast aspersions upon and denigrate their perceived enemies? There are many, many people on both sides of the argument who have managed to contribute to the sometimes-heated discussion without repeatedly making personal attacks against those they oppose. Titanium Dragon has shown themselves fundamentally incapable of doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what led to the final call the a topic ban was warranted, but looking at the comments Titanium Dragon posted around that time, there are issues with describing the threats as a "hoax". I get the impression from Titanium Dragon's general discussion that he has formed strong opinions and is trying to temper comments, but has a tendency to slip and make allegations that go beyond the sources or which are very much open to misinterpretation. Nothing deliberate, so much as someone who is having difficulties being sufficiently careful on a very sensitive topic. The problem being that it is a very sensitive topic, and we need to be careful. Most of the errors aren't sufficiently serious to warrant a topic ban in themselves, but at some point someone needs to make a call as to if the ongoing concerns add up to a topic ban. I'd assumed that the final decision was more due to an ongoing problem rather than any specific comment. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A look at Titanium Dragon's prior contributions in this area is instructive. There are literally dozens of edits to talk and articlespace related to GamerGate that have been revision-deleted for BLP concerns. On September 14, Gamaliel specifically warned Titanium Dragon that using talk pages to present unfounded allegations about living people was unacceptable. One week later, Titanium Dragon again presented unfounded allegations, again in such a flagrant manner that the material has been rev-deleted. Subsequently, they were topic-banned. That topic ban was reversed because Gamaliel had not properly warned Titanium Dragon of the discretionary sanctions; however, Callanecc saw fit to note that their prior conduct placed them on thin ice in the subject area. The user in question has proven themselves incapable of discussing this issue without making unfounded personal attacks and casting unsupported aspersions about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, among others. I say again, how many times are we going to let someone use Wikipedia as a platform to tell the world that they believe GamerGate's opponents are delusional, self-promotional liars? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See the response below; as was previously noted, NorthBySouthBaranof has an issue with casting aspersions on other editors, for which he was warned that he would be sanctioned if he continued to do so in a previous ANI about this same sort of thing from October 5th. As for the RevDels, as was specifically noted in a yet older ANI about my having been doxxed by Wikipediocracy for editing the article:

• • • It was a proposed section for the article entitled "Scandal", five paragraphs long, written by Titanium Dragon. It was mostly well sourced and mostly neutral, but, in my opinion, some of the key phrases about Quinn were not neutral, and some of the sources used were not reliable. I thought that the problems were enough that it should be removed from the talk page. It was not so problematic that I would consider it as a base for any sanctions proposed here, though. I did think that removing it would be seen as being heavy-handed - and I was right - but I thought that it should be removed anyway. The edit itself was revdelled, not oversighted, so I can still access it. I can email it to you so that you can look at it yourself, if you like. (I see that you haven't set email in your preferences, but if you email me, I can email you back with the section.)

The material in question was posted in good faith, and a yet previous ANI about the same article had noted that there had probably been more revdels than were necessary.

NorthBySouthBaranof was involved in this stuff, so he knows that this was the case. This is yet again a case where NorthBySouthBaranof is involved in casting aspersions on another user, about something that he already knows was dealt with and found to be not problematic in previous ANIs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You are willfully misreading that ANI thread. There is nothing remotely resembling a consensus that "there were more revdels than were necessary." The only two people besides you who made that argument are Tutelary and Diego, neither of whom can be said to be independent of the matter. None of the revdels were restored. So you might say a correct reading of that ANI thread is that that "three people argued that there were more revdels than were necessary, but their argument was rejected."

The fact that one of your posts was found not problematic does not mean that all of your subsequent posts are automatically unproblematic. I am not "casting aspersions" on you - I am flat-out stating that your contributions to this subject area have repeatedly violated BLP by making unsourced and unfounded attacks, statements and insinuations about living people related to GamerGate, and that this behavior is deserving of a topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No one asked that any of them be restored.

And of course you have cast aspersions on me - have claimed that I said that these people deserved to be harassed, something I neither have said nor believe. It was even in the ANI I linked to. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The topic ban should stand. There are a handful of related articles where a very small number of editors have to counter an unending stream of enthusiastic gamers who are keen to use Wikipedia to explain their point of view. However, no matter how beautifully expressed, it is not reasonable for there to be repeated suggestions that amount to saying "the victim is to blame" or "the victim made it up". Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The only person claiming anyone is advocating for that is user:NorthBySouthBaranof and company, who have been previously warned about this behavior. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Where was this warning?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Here, in the ANI about this from October 5th, which YOU participated in I might add, in the closing statement from @Callanecc::

• "This complaint, if it's still to be called that, has been light on evidence of violations of policy or guidelines since the second comment. If editors believe that there has been a violation of policies or guidelines then that needs to be presented either here or at WP:AE with evidence in the form of diffs and explanation of onwiki actions. If editors continue to cast aspersions of each other in violation of WP:NPA and discretionary sanctions procedures they will be sanctioned. I would suggest that if editors believe someone has violated policies or guidelines they report them at WP:AE (if related to BLP discretionary sanctions) as it is specially designed or this type of thing or here."

After NorthBySouthBaranof had said:

• "OK, so what you're saying is that the harassment of Quinn was justified because she had a dispute with TFYC? That she was "asking for it" and deserved it?"

And was chided for it, as I had, very obviously, said no such thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the ANI complaint in question, so I'm not sure why you think I've been "warned," and your quote is not of me, but of Diego (hardly an unbiased observer in this matter) responding to my statement, which I stand by. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I quoted Diego quoting you in that ANI; I have now changed it to remove the quote by Diego, so it is just you. And you were the only person in that ANI who was specifically warned about casting aspersions in the text of the ANI; the word aspersions only appears in relation to you there. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Really don't care, other than to note it's strange to see a topic ban on an editor for repeating reported things. Those things being reported by a RS are a separate matter. Arkon (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No reliable source has reported anything which even begins to suggest that the death threats in question were the result of "victim playing," "persecutory delusion" or "hoaxes" by the victims of the threats. Such claims are made up from whole cloth by the editor in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You must have missed my last sentence. That doesn't help your case. Arkon (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • One of the problems here, as I noted above, is that reporting on a previous incident resulted in The Escapist apologizing for reporting on it without validating their claims and adding a disclaimer to the original article, as well as apologizing for the harassment of the users of WizardChan, who had been accused of harassing Zoe Quinn, to themselves be subjected to harassment. No criminal charges were ever filed in that case, and there was never any independent verification of harassment of Zoe Quinn having actually occurred. This obviously impacts WP:HARASS, not to mention the fact that users on Wikipedia itself have been harassed for editing the Wikipedia article by outside groups; Ryulong locked his Twitter account after people complained about his behavior on the article via Twitter, and I was doxxed and Tutelary had pictures (supposedly of them, along with their location) distributed by Wikipediocracy for editing the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the way to appeal discretionary sanctions. If Titanium Dragon - not some other party - wants to start an appeal, he can follow these procedures he's been made aware of several times now. This thread won't have any effect besides stirring up drama, and should be closed before wasting any more of the community's time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh. I think WP:BUREAU applies here; I'm involved in this, this is the proper venue for it (the admin in question has stated that they are not going to reverse their decision on the matter, so this is the next step), and the fact that I didn't start this appeal is somewhat irrelevant to the fact that I did indeed plan on appealing it, I just had not been planning on doing so today. I'm fine with discussion of this matter continuing here, as this is the next step beyond "asking the administrator to change their mind", which they have stated that they will not, in fact, do. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Cuchullain is right because you were banned under something from WP:AE and not an exclusively administrative decision.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't filed under WP:AE as far as I know. There are exactly zero results for my name under AE. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Look harder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. I'm aware. It is a discretionary sanction. It is in the discretionary sanctions section; it ain't from the arbitration committee, which is what WP:AE is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Aren't BLP discretionary sanctions from ArbCom in the first place?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the link; according to said link, AN is the second step in appealing a discretionary ban. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure I understand the problem: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications says he can "request review at... the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN")" We are at the administrators’ noticeboard, and he appears to clearly be objecting to the discretionary sanction. Is your objection that Titanium Dragon has not said "I officially appeal this discretionary sanction"? If that's the objection then I would refer to the rules are principles. Lastly isn't this board also for review of administrative actions (which includes banning editors)? I don't see why a 3rd party cant object to an administrative action and seek review here. --Obsidi (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an appeal of any kind, it's just more back-and-forth generating all heat and no light. Titanium Dragon, if you want to make an appeal, you need to start it, and you need to be clear about what it is you're trying to do as per the procedures. Tying up the AN with more drama and using it as a way to discuss the very topics you're banned from is unlikely to gain you any sympathy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that Future took action within 20 minutes of the ANI posting. I sincerely doubt he had time to do a thorough review, as Bilby suggested, before taking action. Unfortunately, his involvement in this has been brief but unsettling. Titanium Dragon had earlier in the day filed a report against Ryulong and another editor for edit-warring on the GamerGate talk page. Within 20 minutes Future indeffed the other editor, while leaving Ryulong alone despite Ryulong having flagrantly violated 3RR. Future then goes and indefinitely topic bans Titanium Dragon within 20 minutes of the ANI discussion opening as well, before allowing discussion of the comment to take place. When concerns are raised on his talk page, he shuts off the discussion. No admin should behave this way. I do not believe what TD said warrants sanctions at all, let alone this kind of tyrannical behavior.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• So you'd like the topic ban to be removed, at which point TD's inevitably dubious POV will cause large amounts of wasted editor's time at talk pages and probably here as well, before he's topic banned again? How is that useful to anyone? This isn't a diffoicult issue to parse. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If he does something that he should be banned for then he should be topic banned. If he hasn't done something yet that he should be banned for then he shouldn't be topic banned yet. You can say that his dubious POV will waste people's time, but that isn't a reason to ban him (and banning people for having a "dubious POV" is using admin powers to win a content dispute). Maybe he will be banned for some future action, and if there is good reason to do so at that time I will support it, but that isn't a good reason to ban him before he has done something ban worthy (we aren't in the movie the "minority report" knowing that he will violate the rules in the future). --Obsidi (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

TD has done a great job of following policy since the previous topic ban was lifted and I do not believe his recent comments are a break from that. His problems before as far as I can tell were that he would say something sources allude to, but do not state explicitly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Greenacre School for Girls

Hi!

Could I have a sanity check on my deletion of Greenacre School for Girls for speedy deletion? The whole article was a near word-for-word copy of the sub pages from the school's own website, so I deleted it. I then realised that this article had been around for well over a year. Was I right to speedy delete it, or should I have tried to salvage it first? Stephen! ^Coming... 12:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You can always salvage it later; there's no hurry for that, but there should definitely be a hurry for trashing copyright infringements. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's necessary to quickly eliminate copyright infringements. However, I think you could have created a 1 or 2 sentence 'stub' article in the same length of time you spent posting this to AN - Greenacre School for Girls is a independent high school for girls from age 3 to 18, located in Surrey, England. <ref>their website, and a couple of news articles/books/gov listings, whatever. And a couple of links to articles about such schools, IDK, but it'd probably only take 5 mins to do - creating an appropriate stub might send new/potential editors the right message about how they can add to this project in an appropriate way. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that it's a school teaching up to 18 so likely to survive any "notability" challenge, it would have been more helpful to blank the copyright material with {{tl|copyvio}} and </div> (I think that's the way), but leave the lead sentence of the article and any categories, stub template, external links, etc - this also preserves the incoming links, dab page entry, etc which are likely to be deleted if the page is deleted, and will have to be re-created when, rather than if, the page is re-created. I'm in the process of assembling a quick stub for it now, before the dab page entry gets removed as a redlink. (I just noticed this in passing while looking at something else, and the name leaped off the page as a school some friends had attended when I was a child). PamD 15:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Abuja_Declaration_.281989.29

This discussion has been open for 16 days. Could somebody close it? I can't close it myself because I participated in the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nip Gamergate in the bud

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the above discussion illuminates, the Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is a hive of POV pushers and BLP violators. Its talk page has seen an abundance of brand new accounts and long dormant accounts arriving who have done nothing on the English Wikipedia except contribute solely to the article, its talk page, and several related articles and talk pages (Anita Sarkeesian, Video game journalism, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, etc.) in order to bring the external dispute onto Wikipedia under the guise of making sure the article isn't biased (or making sure that it stagnates and has a mark at the top saying it is biased). The following list of users contains editors who, again, have zero edits outside of this topic area in the past 2 months, either because they are a newly registered account or they are an editor who had an account and had not previously edited for months or even years at a time until the shit hit the fan.

[LIST DELETED]

All of these editors have solely used Wikipedia to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda, many have been chastised for violating WP:BLP for repeating the false allegations that the movement believes in, and may have edits that have been revdelled for those reasons. There are other established editors that have also been pushing the pro-Gamergate ideals, but they are not listed here (but they will very likely make themselves known in this discussion). If the article is going to overcome any issues users in good standing and in good faith see in the article, Wikipedia needs to follow the examples of other websites before it that have become centers of this controversy and remove the advocates and POV pushers from the equation, as Wikipedia has done in other topics before as well. These various users need to be blocked for violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• "All of these editors have solely used Wikipedia to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda...", that's a pretty serious accusation, Ryulong. You sure about every member of this list? Protonk (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yes. I am sure. Each editor on this list is a single purpose account that has been intensely involved on the talk page, after years of never using Wikipedia or being brand new accounts, all to make the same or similar statements about the state of the article as being biased against the Gamergate movement (mainly complaints that defining it as "misogynist" or even mentioning the documented death threats puts the movement in a negative light). Again, several have been blocked. Several have had their edits revdeled due to BLP. All of them have been making the same threads on the talk page or editing the article (while it was unprotected) to make it conform to a more positive view on the movement when that view is not supported by reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  You're not taking Protonk's hint. At least one of these names most definitely doesn't belong on this list (I stopped looking when I saw that; perhaps there are more?). If you aren't going to take the time to look at your own list, why do you expect others to? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Okay. I made a mistake with Overlord Q and Kaciemonster as below. I've been compiling this list over the last several weeks so don't hold those errors against me when these edits aren't exactly without fault. I am now positive that all of the members of this list comprise SPAs who are solely on Wikipedia or have solely returned to editing Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing a POV on the article as that is all that these editors have done since mid-August 2014. It's also extremely difficult for someone who is not an admin to easily point out that some sligthtly more established editors (such as Retartist) have had several edits of theirs revdelled for violating WP:BLP over the controversy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please remove me from this list. I've edited topics outside of gamergate, and have only posted on the talk page trying to start a discussion on restructuring the article to make it easier to understand. I've been nothing but respectful to everyone that I've interacted with. I honestly can't see how you can accuse me of pushing POV or a pro-gamergate agenda at all. Kaciemonster (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  How about "I'm sorry for accusing you of being a fucking gamergate SPA" without any actual evidence? Protonk (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  I was just about to add an apology when you edit conflicted me. I am sorry, Kaciemonster, for having included you in the whole of this list. The rest of this list has none of the other issues. Every member of this now final list is indeed a Gamergate SPA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  @Ryulong: I'd like to know why you put me on this list in the first place, especially considering how quickly you removed me from it when I brought it up. The note "To an extent" was next to my name, too. If you had been compiling this list for weeks there must have been something that caused you to add me to your list of people you believe to be SPAs and POV pushers. Kaciemonster (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps it was your comments like this one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps? You accused me of being an SPA and POV pushing "to an extent", and perhaps that comment I made is the reason? That comment was reason enough for you to put me on a list of people you wanted to have blocked from editing? The only POV I pushed was about the article being an overblown mess, and I don't think anyone can accuse me of anything different. Unless it was my tone that was the problem for you? In which case you should check yours. Kaciemonster (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  Because I clearly don't remember the exact reason I picked your account amongst the 3 dozen others above that I am much more certain on their behavior it was obviously a mistake to include you amongst them. You were removed. I apologized for having added you in the first place. What more do you want?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  I love the tone of "Oh, I can't be bothered to give a shit if I wrongfully accused someone". Protonk (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  What is wanted of me in this part of the situation? I was wrong. I admitted it. The user's not listed here anymore. What more is there to do?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  I told you what I wanted and you responded nonchalantly with a link to a comment I made about the structure and overabundance of content in the article. It was in no way block-worthy, and I don't understand how you can't see why I'd be upset about being collateral damage in your effort to get rid of the POV pushers. I'd appreciate your apology more if you didn't wedge it between comments to other people, considering the severity of the accusation and punishment you wanted for me. Kaciemonster (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  I wanted to modify my original response to you hours ago to have a proper apology for having included you in the list but I was hit with an edit conflict. It can't be helped now. I was wrong for including you in the list. And I am sorry for having done so in the first place, particularly without any recollection of any actual comment you posted that led me to decide you were one of the many probematic editors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you. Kaciemonster (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I revived this account, so what? I haven't broken the rules, I have remained civil, and admitted to being inexperienced. I also made some other edits. Halfhat (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all you've done since you've returned and your edits, while civil, are still advocating for a bias that cannot be covered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's most of but not everything I've done. I've done a couple other things like fix the redirect for Kooper (Paper Mario character). Halfhat (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Who pissed in your coffee?, Up until this point i've been completely civil and all i've done is point out the bias in ONE article on this site, And you think that i need to be banned?, YOU need to be banned for trying to start a witch hunt against other users. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pepsiwithcoke, you have been involved in repeatedly whitewashing the Brianna Wu article to remove the "allegations" that the death threats she received were related to Gamergate. The "Please keep your feminist agenda out of this article" is rich.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing?, None of the accusations that Gamergate people put the info out there has been proven, It was Wu herself that said that it was GG that posted the info, If it could be proven that GG supporters posted the info i would have no problem with that in the article. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have reported the information. Just because you personally believe that the content is not proven based on your own investigation into the matter does not mean the Wikipedia article must reflect your opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's been reported doesn't mean that it's proven, The BBC could come out today with an article that says the sky is purple, Does that automatically make the sky purple?, This entire argument is "Our Gamergate article is totally neutral, and here are these 50 people that belong to Gamergate and disagree. Can we ban them?" Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If the preponderance of reliable sources claim that it's proven, then Wikipedia can report that it is proven. And POV pushers are still POV pushers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, If you want to ban 50 people from editing a subject because of perceived "Bias" for a subject, <redacted> You should be banned for bias as well. for having a proven bias against the subject. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't fucking link to my private Twitter account.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Quit trying to cover your ass, I didn't link to a "Private twitter account", I linked to a PUBLIC tweet you made before you made your twitter private that has been archived, And how about you Calling GamerGate supporters "Mindless Zombies"? Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't link to my fucking Twitter, period. What I do off of Wikipedia does not have anything to do with what I do on Wikipedia. I should not have been contacted off site weeks ago for something I did on site because of this fucking controversy. I would not have developed this mindset if I had not been subject to this unnecessary scrutiny and harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It does when it's showing your hypocrisy in trying to start a witch hunt in the name of "Bias" when you yourself are the one with the most bias here, And for the record, Here's what the tweet he keeps deleting says "I Don't have time to deal with gamergate fags" Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never introduced anything biased into the article. And stop bringing up that god damn tweet. I signed into Twitter for the first time in weeks to look something up and I was being tweeted at by some Gamergater asking me if I "considered [myself] an academic" in some sort of entirely unnecessary way to push my buttons. I blocked him, used 4chan vernacular, and didn't think anything of it until I got bombarded with notifications going "Ryulong's homophobic" "@Jimmy_Wales do you let biased editors like @Ryulong to edit Wikipedia" for days on end until I shut my Twitter off from public view but that obviously hasn't stopped anyone from their goals of completely discrediting me because I said something off-color off of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let's face it, even if Ryulong has got a couple wrong here, the vast majority of these accounts are exactly as he describes. Blocking the vast majority of them would lose Wikipedia precisely nothing. I don't see the problem with that. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not against blocking accounts, but I think we'd want a closer look than one which netted us two false positives at least. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • And those false positives were removed. There is not another such false positive in this list. There are editors who have been off of Wikipedia for 6 years in one case returning for the sole purpose of editing the Gamergate article to favor the movement's POV and there are accounts registered recently doing the exact same thing. My mistakes have been noted and dealt with. The list as it stands as of this edit is perfect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I would argue they have not been. Allow me to go through the list and point out the accounts that aren't "SPAs".

Extended content

ArmyLine: Editing since 2012. Including articles like David Horowitz, Laboratory animal sources, and University of Toronot Students Center. Ranze: Editing since 2012. Including articles like ThunderCats (1985 TV series), Tokimeki High School, Roman Polanski, The Jim Henson Company, and others. Tupin: Editing since 2008. Only two edits on the Gamergate page. Other edits include GLaDOS and Galactic Empire. Thronedrei: Editing since December 2008. Edits include a whole bunch of Gundam stuff. Loganmac: Editing since 2008. Edits include a bunch of band stuff like As I Lay Dying and a TV show called My Life as Liz. Artman40: Editing since 2006. Wide variety of edits, including a lot of science articles and gaming articles. Kau-12: Editing since 2006. Edits about a game called Exteel. Snakebyte42 Editing since 2012. Lots of comic edits. Torga: Editing since 2008. Edits include topics like Prostitution in Europe, Suikoden, and the film Idiocracy. Retartist: Editing since 2013. Edits include various tech and political articles. Iamaom: Editing since 2009. Edits include lots of user pages and lingustics pages. Muscat Hoe: Editing since September 2014. Edits include Left 4 Dead 2, the Keratin 5 protein, the page on the Birdman film, and others. Bosstopher: Editing since 2011. Edits include various biographical pages and talk pages on historical events and biographies. Skrelk: Editing since 2006. Edits are widespread. Lasati: Editing since 2007. Edits on video game design and Gerhard Klopher. DavidHOzAu: Editing since February 2006. Edits include many gaming topics, android software development and engineering. Tabascoman77: Editing since 2007. Edits include various films, etc. Will McRoy: Editing since 2013. Edits include Council on Foreign Relations, Boreal forest of Canada, Are Your Smarter Than a 5th Grader?, Sri Chinmoy, Anita Sarkeesian, and others. Pepsiwithcoke: Editing since 2012. Edits include WWE, Madison Rising, Classic Game Room, Spencer Gifts, New York Knicks, and others. Javier2005: Editing since February 2014. Edits include Jack White, Fermatta Music Academy, Foxit Reader, clickbait, Anita Sarkeesian and others. Halfhat: Editing since April 2014. Edits include Phil mason, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and lots of user talk pages. SmoledMan: Editing since 2012. Edits include articles on Windows 8, Microsoft, energy, the Chicago Transit Authority, and others. Cs california: Editing since 2006. Edits include botanical articles, gaming articles, and food/cooking articles. Theawesome67: Editing since 2013. Mostly talk page edits, only one of which is on the GamerGate talk page. Ginnygog: Editing since October 2014. Only one edit on the *talk page* of Gamergate. Not controversial.

25/36 (nearly 70%) of these are not "single purpose accounts" made to push any agenda. Some of the rest may be, and perhaps those accounts should be topic blocked or something. But Ryulong is again trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with him. When is this going to end? When is he going to finally get reprimanded for his actions? He clearly should not be involved in this discussion or any like it due to his personal biases. DarknessSavior 20:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have pointed out that several of these editors have returned to Wikipedia after months or years of inactivity to solely begin contributing to Gamergate controversy and related pages. They became single purpose accounts. And where have you come from? What is this claim that I'm "again trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with [me]"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion unfold from the sidelines for a while, afraid to say anything because I feel like you'd basically do the same thing to me, despite me having a history of editing random Wikipedia articles on topics that I'm interested in. Every step of the way, I've seen you treat people like dirt. I've seen you yell and swear and curse and make false accusations in order to get your way. And thus far, you've basically gotten away with it all. Now you're taking a list of 35+ users and saying that Wikipedia should get rid of all of them because they don't agree with your point of view. Your claim that they are "mostly SPAs" has yet to be proven (that burden is on you), and I have already for the most part disproved it. I personally went through ALL of their contrib pages and saw that the group that I pointed out (aside from one account) has been just like me -- interested in Wikipedia enough to edit certain articles over time that interested them, but not interested enough to spend the majority of their free time on it. I feel that you're very much out of line and you need to be removed from this situation in favor of someone who isn't going to try and get admins to delete accounts of people who disagree with them. DarknessSavior — Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But every editor that you have pointed out has done nothing since Gamergate became a thing other than involve themselves in Gamergate and related topics here. Even if they had varied editing histories prior to August 2014, that doesn't change what they've done since then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It started in August, yes? So let's look for edits since August.

Extended content

Willhesucceed: Edited Mediabistro/Mecklermedia/TV Newser in October. Made edits about NHK in October. Edited Mariah Carey in October. Ranze: Edited David Benoit, Insert key, List of fallacies, Formal fallacy, Dora the Explorer, etc in October. Thronedrei: Edited Misaki Momose and Mayu Watanabe in September. Loganmac: On the talk page for Edge of Tomorrow in September, as well as the "Wikipedia: Non-free content review" page. Artman40: Edited Kepler (spacecraft), Plasmodium. Medusa, Binary star, etc in October. Snakebyte42: Edited Tales of Zestiria, Moon Knight and The Dark Knight (film) in September. Torga: Edited Alexander Dale Oen, Øygarden, John Alvheim, Stoltenberg, Idiocracy and Suikoden in September. Iamaom has only made three contributions to the Gamergate talk page, and isn't very controversial. Muscat Hoe: Edited Valerie Arem, Birdman(film), Inferno (Dan Brown novel) and others in October. Bosstopher: Edited Kaarle Krohn in October. Saints Cyril and Methodius, Gregorian mission and others in September. Skrelk: Edited Competition between Airbus and Boeing and Nuclear weapon in October. DavidHOzAu: Edited Engineering in October. Javier2005: Edited Clickbait in October and Fermatta Music Academy in August. AnyyVen: Edited Revenge porn in October. Halfhat: Edited Kooper, Goomba, and Net (device) in October. SmoledMan only has three posts on Gamergate, all in the talk page. Cs california: edited Passiflora antioquiensis in October, Pol Pot, Micropenis, Arisaema sazensoo and Arisaema yamatense in August. Theawesome67: On the talk page for Lego Ninjago and edited "Wikipedia:Sandbox" in October.

So again, we have a large amount of accounts making non-GamerGate edits in October, September, and August. But there's one common element in most of these. Your name. These people disagree with things you have to say and disagree with the current way the GamerGate article is behind handled. Regardless of their reasons, this isn't reason enough to call them "single purpose accounts" and try to have their accounts deleted. DarknessSavior 21:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As EvergreenFIr points out, they count as "zombie accounts".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This information of yours does not detract from the edits being made on the Gamergate related pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. But it sure does lay to rest your claim that "...every editor that [I] have pointed out has done nothing since Gamergate became a thing other than involve themselves in Gamergate and related topics here." Which defeats your original argument that they're "single purpose accounts".DarknessSavior 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the defense DarknessSavior, and may I add that I opted not to bring my old account out of the closet because it's too easy to link it to who I am in real life, and given the nature of this controversy, that's something I wanted to avoid. For the record, that account was created in 2005. AnyyVen (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

However, let me add as significantly involved: there is a problem with the bias of the article as Ryulong and a few other editors have pushed for which some of these "SPAs" (if we're calling them that) have tried to help resolve. (The nature of the bias is an essay undo itself but the tl;dr version is that while we cannot balance the coverage 50/50, we also should not be pushing one point of view as indisputably correct as the current state of the article does). Ryulong has been the target from offsite prodding from the main proGG areas (Which I've monitored just to get a feel for whats going on) and I know some of these editors are coming here and voicing valid concerns - some we can't act on but valid nevertheless, but at the same time, Ryulong's name is a major target by these offsite places. Ryulong has been rather short on temper with these editors for justifiable reasons but this is a sign to back away, not to try to silence the other side. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Masem, I have been sitting on this list for weeks and any off-site prodding I may have been subject to should not factor into my determination that all of these accounts are single purpose accounts here just to push for the "It's not about misogyny, it's about ethics and only ethics, stop calling us misogynists" POV that pervades the movement when the media is against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the same edits you have. Yes, it is annoying to deal with the nth user saying "it's not about misogyny". There's definitely signs of meatpuppetry to a degree to change things via other sites. But most of these editors have not crossed any line (for example, the most recent one, regarding their username, which I've warned them about) that requires silencing them. The lack of any attempt by you and a further others to even hear them out is why they keep coming and why you are getting ridiculed off site. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

They've been heard out weeks before the newest one has shown up to say the same thing. Every aspect of the article must be examined and explained over and over again when a new editor goes "it's not about misogny, that's what those fucking feminazis want you to think". Wikipedia can work on this article with editors who are pro-Gamergate but have been on the site longer and know how things should work, unless they cannot be adequately trusted to edit the project constructively as is the case with Titanium Dragon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm frustrated to having to re-explain why WP cannot cover the topic in the way they'd like to see. But new users coming in to offer input - even if it is "this article is biased, fix it" - is not a reason for admin action. WP does not block SPAs just by virtual of being SPAs but based on more critical evaluation of their actions related to their SPA. One adds something that is not-quite-a-BLP issue about a person involved after showing they are an SPA that is arguing the side against that person- yeah, that's going to put them on thin ice. But thats not the case for the majority of these people. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is the type of issue that Wikipedia is always going to be plagued with. When an editor always acts relatively civil and makes all their edits within the rules it is hard to do anything about them. But when an editor's sole purpose is to make edits in one POV direction, whether in this stupid issue, on political campaigns, ethnic conflicts, or whatever, it's very clear that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I would have no issue with any necessary actions being taken.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(And as I note, these users don't appear to have been notified of this AN. They might end up being SPAs but they have a right to be notified and participate.) --MASEM (t) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the "If your username is linked you're push notified" thing work?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It does. Q ^{T C} 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well more like asking if it counted as notification.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The instructions note that they still need the formal notice (per top of page). I believe this is to differ from when you just mention a user as an aside, and when a user is directly involved in the AN matter. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well other than the indefblocked users and those who have found the discussion through the push notifications, that's been taken care of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't really appreciate being called out as a part of some sort of blacklist, thanks. I only asked questions on the talk page and made no attempt to edit the article itself. Again, don't appreciate the hunt going on here.Tupin (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Despite a complete lack of interest in the actual subject on my part, I've been keeping an eye on the GG spectrum of articles, as there have been occasional egregious breaches of BLP in the articles and the talkpages, along with plain POV pushing, like the "Please keep your feminist agenda out of this article" noted above that was used as an edit summary to remove cites that included the New York Times. In general the participants have been civil, but this is an example of a situation where a host of narrowly-focused new contributors can overwhelm and exasperate more experienced, less-focused users. Wikipedia doesn't handle such situations well. More eyes would be welcome: most of the people I've had to warn have modified their approach. Nevertheless, I see a lot of contributors' patience being frayed, and a tendency to ignore WP:NOTNEWS in favor of of-the-moment analysis, and a tendency to try to dismiss mainstream media coverage in favor of non-RS sources. Attention from experienced editors would be valuable. Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is the last straw. It's blatantly false that I haven't contributed elsewhere. I've made major changes to Gawker Media, Totalbiscuit, MediaBistro (website), Milo Yiannopoulos. I've made lesser but still significant contributions to Shadow of Mordor, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, Breitbart, Gawker, Deadspin, and NHK. I've been participating in discussions all over through the Feedback Request Service and have been presenting new sources here in order to improve the Video Game Project. Soon I'll be helping to revamp the video games controversies page (see the discussion. And as you can see, I've been planning other contributions, too.

That aside, it doesn't matter whether others are here for only one purpose. The point of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute to anything they find of interest. Are we really going to punish people for not being interested in contributing to more than one topic? That's directly against the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, there are three editors on the Gamergate talk page that have opposed every single contribution I've made, even after I make concessions/compromises. They're actively obstructing any progress we can make on that page unless it's exactly what they want added to the page. I suggest that they are the ones to be kicked off the page for bad faith, lack of cooperation, incivility, and abuse. Ryulong is one of those people, and I'll be opening a case against him now. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

All of those other articles you cite are still related to the Gamergate controversy in one way or another.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A lot of those articles have been extensively revamped and improved by me. The admins are free to look through the edit history for the pages to see that I've already contributed significantly in my short time here. You are acting in bad faith, Ryulong. Shame on you. Willhesucceed (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not they were extensively revamped or improved does not change the fact that they are still peripheral to the controversy that is the issue here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And most of the changes made on most of those pages are primarily about things other than Gamergate. You're grasping. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc. are still articles related to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't matter if the changes have been primarily about other topics. Admins, ignore Ryulong's agenda and go look at all the articles I linked to above for yourself. You'll see I put a lot of time and effort into improving a lot of them in areas that have nothing to do with Gamergate. I'm confident you'll come to the right decision. Editors shouldn't be banned from topics or Wikipedia simply because they have a different perspective than others. That's not what Wikipedia is about.

I have nothing further to add.

Don't bother replying, Ryulong. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the definition of a witch hunt if I ever saw one on Wiki. You're just pointing out these apparent SPAs (but going into the history of them, they don't meet your strict definition of contributing nothing except to these articles) nor have you outlined the proof that these editors should be blocked or banned. Indeed, the person above, was making good faith questions on the talk page regarding the article, yet you included their name and recommended indefinite blocks saying 'nothing will be lost'. They apparently being an 'SPA', I don't care what you think, being an SPA does not mean that you automatically get freakin' blocked. They can contribute generously to one single topic area, and as long as they aren't being disruptive, violating civility, or doing any other nasty things, you can't stop them from doing so. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Tupin's edits have solely been steeped in the controversy, such as this discussion about whether or not GLaDOS from Portal counts as a woman or the usual cries of bias.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It didn't meet your definition of 'related articles' and your strict of nothing contributed except. Look at earlier contributions. The fact that this user did edit other articles. Even so, where is the diff that should grant an immediate indefinite block to this user? Being an SPA is not a crime. Tutelary (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The GLaDOS shit was on KotakuInAction and other Gamergate forums as some sort of "look at this feminist agenda being pushed on Wikipedia" thing a while ago. And earlier contributions come from years ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I get a feeling that if I were a SPA in that was adding "anti" arguments and removing/questioning "pro" ones that there would be no issue here.Tupin (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

For some strange reason there haven't been any such SPAs. Correction on this statement: there's been one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So are you going to add that one to your list? 128.122.24.41 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be part of the list in order to be considered.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Ryulong, you owe me an apology. Due to my work I leave and return to Wikipedia as I am able and as I research certain topics, including Gamergate. If you had only looked further into my history, you would not have made these false accusations. I know it's difficult for some of the more toxic personalities to stomach, but some of us do indeed have lives, schedules, and obligations outside of this website. I will be very disappointed in the administration if Ryulong is not at least investigated following these unfounded allegations.--ArmyLine (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your present actions on Wikipedia speak for themselves.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a list of every editor, sorted by number of edits, to the Gamergate controversy. Decide for yourselves which parties have the undue influence here.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality over quantity. People have yelled at me over those numbers before but no one has felt like going through the article's history to point out anything wrong myself or NorthBySouthBaranof have done wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. I've got a ream of links to your behaviour that I'm now going to ask the admins to address. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That behavior better not include anything off site because everyone's been complaining about my edits to the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And here's them for the talk page: [148] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So discussing edits before making them or trying to engage with other editors is a bad thing now?--ArmyLine (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. And neither is editing on the article itself a bad thing. But these two links to reveal some "heavy users". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So I looked through the contributions of a few people at the top of your list, can you explain what these articles have to do with the gamergamergate controversy? ArmyLine (Southern Poverty Law Center, Laboratory animal sources, University of Toronto Students' Union, Gynocentrism), Ranze(David Benoit, Benoît, Insert key, Blue Drop), Tupin (FaceBreaker, Galactic Empire (1980 video game), Generation NEX). As a completely uninvolved editor in this dispute (I have not made one edit on the gamergate page) it looks to me like you are just trying to get your opposition in a content dispute banned. --Obsidi (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You are picking edits from long before Gamergate happened or minimal edits outside of their edits to other articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here's an idea: how 'bout we topic-ban POV pushers instead of blocking them? It will have the same effect on SPAs, and allow non-SPAs to continue editing in non-Gamergate areas. The fact is that there has been some problematic editing on those pages. Those pages should probably be full-protected for awhile, have a hair trigger about POV pushing when they're un-protected (similar to Israeli-Palestinian issues), and people who are removing reliable sources or engaging in other forms of POV pushing should be topic-banned. pbp 21:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Whatever method is best to ensure that the article goes forward when it becomes unprotected and does not become protected again due to POV pushers edit warring on whatever content had been proposed over the last week and a half of protection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  I notice that you, Tarc, TRPoD, and NorthBySouthBaranof (basically every major non-admin editor to this article) seem to be the common denominators in every single edit war and subsequent lockdown thus far. Curious about the mental gymnastics you have been using to place the blame on the many unconnected parties who you have consistently shouted down and refused any form of engagement or discussion with. People will hear about Gamergate and come over to edit the article. Keep the sources of every single one of the lockdowns and there will only be more lockdowns. This isn't really rocket science.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  That's certainly because myself, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom, and NorthBySouthBaranof are the only other editors in question editing the page in the first place. We can and have disagreed with much of the content proposed for the article because it's pushing a POV that should not be pushed due to WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and other policies, but that does not stop every single editor from going to the page and making the same arguments that we have to again refute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which is the problem I see: experienced users are being exasperated and exhausted by the volume of argument from a large number of users who are either unfamiliar with WP policies, or who aren't concerned with policy. Ryulong is Exhibit A for "exasperated editor." This is a perennial issue on any controversial article, where new participants rehash the same discussions over and over. Acroterion (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Well at least someone is getting help in these matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I certainly see some WP:SPAs here... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Specifically, Lasati, Derpen, Nathan905RB, Javier2005, AnyyVen, YellowSandals, Halfhat, DownWIthSJWs Whose username is problematic, Racuce, Kau-12, Torga, Skeeveo, Willhesucceed, Loganmac, and Exefisher. Few others are zombie accounts that recently came to life just to edit on this topic as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  The "zombie account" issue is exactly the problem I'm trying to explain aside from the new accounts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Javier2005, AnyyVen, Halfhat, Torga, Willhesuceed and Loganmac do not deserve to be on that list as per my argument above. They have made other posts since GamerGate started and are not SPAs. DarknessSavior 23:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@DarknessSavior: all edits (or recent edits) are related to this controversy. That's SPA. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What a surprise that the person who disagreed with including Cathy Young's criticism of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, despite her being a notable, respected person in gender discussions, would want me banned. I can only ask the admins to recognise the bias of this person and ignore their opinion. {Edit: moved this paragraph from below to where it should have been.} Willhesucceed (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Except it's not. If you read the article on SPAs it specifically says that a user's recent edit history should not be used to determine whether or not they're an SPA. And I also point out above (if you even bothered to read that) that the majority of people Ryulong accuses of being SPAs have either had accounts for many years and/or have been posting in other articles recently. He also accuses several people for only making posts on the talk page alone, which shouldn't be an issue. DarknessSavior — Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's quite apparent. But I didn't look at the nature of their contributions, but that they resurrected for the sole purpose of editing on this topic is highly suspect. But some may legitimately have left wikipedia but been compelled, for better or worse, to edit because of this topic. But not sure how here they are even if that is true. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I only registered to HELP on this topic, yes I am pro GamerGate and yes I said that the news are biased. But because of MY bias I never tried to edit anything, I just wanted to get more neutral/pro GamerGate articles into the discussion. I thought that this was the idea of a talk page. If this is something you get banned for, well have a nice day.Racuce (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to post to advocate for user:YellowSandles he has only acted civilly and tried to help. He said he had help fix nonneutral articles on smaller wikis and wanted to share what he had learned. If I remember correctly he said he was busy at the moment. So that's why I am posting this. Halfhat (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

YellowSandals' definition of neutrality resulted in one of his edits being revdelled by Acroterion and his others as being vague attempts to downplay the aspect of misogyny by complaining that the article doesn't explain what misogyny is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But I think he acted in good faith. He admitted to be inexperienced on Wikipedia, so errors are understandable. You can't ban for inexperience. Halfhat (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

He may have claimed to act in good faith, but the bulk of his edits were attempts to skew the POV in the favor of the gamergate movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The revdel'd edit was something that made me consider an immediate block. It wasn't an error, it was straight-up defamation. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I missed it then. I never saw him do anything bad, but I didn't read everything on the talk article, only bits.Halfhat (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

To quote the article on SPAs

"the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include

Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA.

An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs)

They're still zombies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked through thirty of the accounts listed in the OP and would guess that around 80% aren't single-purpose users by any stretch of the definition. The dishonesty only begins here, it's pretty laughable to say that an article like Breitbart (website) is related to Gamergate (no mentions in the article or talkpage) and to use that as evidence for blocking someone. I feel that this thread is a transparent attempt by Ryulong to get people who disagree with him blocked/topic banned, and I see that I'm not the only person commenting who has that opinion. — east718 | talk | 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following the subject knows that Breitbart is a related entity and there are plenty of mentions in the archives. It's not on our article presently because of BLP violations inherent to its original involvement and because no one can quite decide how it should be incorporated. And again this is an issue of zombie accounts that have become SPAs, much like you have become yourself by inserting your opinion here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a single-purpose account now, despite being an admin who's been editing for 9+ years, lol. — east718 | talk | 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well like everyone else you've appeared out of nowhere to pile onto this attempt at a boomerang. I apologize.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

My only edits to that page have been to replace the POV tag that User:Ryulong and others saw fit to remove despite clear instruction to not remove it until the dispute was resolved. Oh and I called out Ryulong for being uncivil on the talk page, so there's that. Muscat Hoe (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The POV tag was disputed and the dispute was the reason it was added. Doesn't that sound suspect?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If the POV tag is under dispute you don't remove it, which is what you did. Please read WP:NPOVD. Muscat Hoe (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out multiple times in the past on the article, the POV tag is solely there to serve as a crimson letter because there are no real issues with POV that can be solved due to the nature of the controversy. There was no consensus to add the POV tag in the first place, and that lack of consensus to add the tag was taken as a consensus to add the tag after all. That's what's the issue with it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOVD you need consensus to remove, not add, the POV tag. Regardless, I would like an explanation for how my 3 edits to the page make me a SPA and warrant a ban considering the majority of my contributions have been to other pages, despite your claim of zero edits in the past 2 months. Muscat Hoe (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a whole requested edit discussion to add the tag that did not have a consensus to do so and there was no discussion at the time as to the article not fitting WP:NPOV.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion at the time and clearly no consensus was reached. Maybe something was agreed on earlier but consensus can change WP:CCC . Nevertheless you accused me of being a SPA that had "zero edits outside of this topic area in the past 2 months". My contribution history shows this to be demonstrably false. Muscat Hoe (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I object, and take offense to being placed on Mr. McCarthy's, I'm sorry, I mean Ryulong's list. I am not an SPA, and in fact most of my edits pertain to aviation. I feel that this list violates WP's prohibition on personal attacks, and is uncivil. Skrelk (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is a violation of WP:NPA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the McCarthy reference was inappropriate, and I apologize. I do feel that your accusations of people being SPAs and/or sock/meatpuppets does also violate NPA, as does the compilation of this list. I would also point out that my sole argument/contribution in that article is that it is biased to the anti-gamergate side, and that that is a valid dispute. You have been arguing that it is a one-sided issue, and that is inaccurate. Skrelk (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have only claimed that people are SPAs and "zombie accounts" on this matter and it is making editing the article or discussing anything a pain in the ass, not to mention that the only claims for me being "anti-GG" are my off-site comments and the fact I keep telling people "you can't add that because of BLP" or "you can't remove that because it's sourced even if you do disagree with it".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also someone must have linked to this on KotakuInAction because this shit is getting out of hand.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me make this simple. Your accusation on me is flat out false and I demand to be removed from the list. I made the following edit this month which is totally unrelated to GamerGate https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kooper&diff=prev&oldid=629121848. I haven't made many other edits but for another recent one I also added a correction on the page about Goombas. Note 2 is not 0. Halfhat (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So one out of how many edits are not Gamergate related then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring userpages and in your time period I counted 6. Halfhat (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) User:Ryūlóng Just to notify you Halfhat (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)prove

Oh and further the claim I'm just there to make the article more Pro-GG is trivial to disprove. I have suggested using multiple Anti-GG articles as sources for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=630642325 Halfhat (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's go down the current list:

• ArmyLine - Edited in June and February of this year, many edits from December of last year. Clearly not an SPA. Was a fairly low-activity account, but clearly not a dead account.
• Ranze - Not even close. Large number of edits every month of this year up until September that had nothing to do with GamerGate.
• Thronedrei - Edited a lot in July and June of this year. Made edits in September of this year unrelated to GamerGate, including one several days before any edits about GamerGate.
• Artman40 - Not even close. Large number of edits each month of this year unrelated to GamerGate. Even in months when there was editing related to GamerGate, a lot of editing was unrelated.
• Retartist - Lots of edits every month of this year.
• Skrelk - Edited as recently as June of this year on subjects that have no relation to GamerGate. August edits this year related to Anita Sarkeesian, but no apparent connection to GamerGate.
• Pepsiwithcoke - Edits from September and October of this year before any GamerGate-related edits.
• Javier2005 - Edits every month of this year save January, June, and September.
• SmoledMan - Made exactly one comment on GamerGate talk page in the course of three revisions. Had several edits from earlier this year.
• Cs california - Edits from every month of this year save June and April.
• Theawesome67 - Has made exactly one comment on the GamerGate talk page.

Ryulong really needs to stop pulling this crap. There are undoubtedly some editors who have popped up solely to make edits regarding this topic or some who dusted off old accounts to get involved, but a very large number of editors he has named here are not SPAs or zombie accounts. A number of these editors have had minimal involvement in the article as well. His suggestion to block all of them is purely disruptive given his lack of effort in reviewing the contributions of the editors he is naming and even just sussing out who in his long list can even be accurately described as an SPA or "zombie account" is imposing an unreasonable burden on other editors, not to mention constituting a wide-ranging personal attack.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So, i am on this list because i'm a spa? Let me state here why i am not a spa or zombie. First, i have edited other topics all the time before this started. The reason i am only editing gamer gate is because it interests me ATM. Also because of school and short attention span i can't edit much so i lurk around every day on multiple boards, this means i am here all the time but i don't have the time to edit. Retartist (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What Admin Action Is Requested?

What admin action is User:Ryulong requesting? Is he requesting that all of the users in his list be indeffed? If so, Strong Oppose for multiple reasons. First, there were mistakes in his original list, and the community does not have proof that all of the mistakes have been corrected. Second, is the issue sufficiently urgent to warrant the draconian action of banning a long list of users based on one editor's statement? Third, procedurally, the users haven't been properly notified. Is he requesting all of the users in his list be topic-banned? If so, Oppose as not quite as bad as indeffing them. Is he requesting further review of the history of each of the editors? That is fine to request, but is asking a lot of time from the community? Is he requesting full protection for the article while moderated dispute resolution or formal mediation is pursued? Full protection may be necessary, but there are too many parties to expect the full agreement needed for either style of dispute resolution.

Is Ryulong requesting WP:General Sanctions in order to streamline action by uninvolved administrators against the SPAs? If so, Support that.

The ArbCom recently declined a filing on GamerGate, but noted that it might be necessary to revisit it later.

What admin action is being requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"These various users need to be blocked for violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE." - yes, that's exactly what's being requested. — east718 | talk | 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Any admin action to deal with the plethora of accounts solely here to push an explicit POV on the article. General sanctions, topic bans, full out blocks. However it can be settled. And any mistakes I made in the original list have been fixed to the list as it stands now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to request that some sort of sanction be imposed upon Ryulong for composing this accusatory list in violation of WP:NPA, and for his numerous attacks and accusations on the article talk page, and for repeatedly removing the POV tag despite the existence of a valid dispute. Skrelk (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And, I'm still on the list. Skrelk (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a violation of WP:NPA and you still belong on the list.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And this is what we need to deal with. A brand spanking new account diving head first into the dispute using the same old "these are totally not biased sources" links to Breitbart.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is just... hilarious, I have no words. Ryulong seems to have a personal mission to own the article, he said he had quit the article and for those two days the talk page was peaceful. Your SPA claim against me is ridiculous. I barely even have edits on the GamerGate article since most of them were reversed by you bare seconds after I saved them (seriously, the last time I wrote two entire sentences, and I counted, he reverted them in 6 seconds. Faster than it took me to refresh the edits list. This is just sad Ryulong. Do what you want, want to ban me and everyone else so you can have your article, go ahead, I personally prefer not to spend my entire days on Wikipedia. Ryulong has contacted me on my personal twitter and told me to "learn to fucking read" and referred to my reddit username yet never did I link them. He has called out user Torga for allegedly asnwering "the clarion call" on reddit to edit the article in a pseudo doxxing incident. He constantly insults and uses rude words (go ahead, search the word "fuck" and all the hits are his) and thinks of fellow editors as lesser than him, all just because he seems to have a personal mission against what he calls "gamergate fags". He has admitted to being biased. And to admins, please remember the time he was an admin, he hasn't changed a bit Loganmac (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal twitter was linked to by another editor because you took their thread directly to KotakuInAction and Twitter to be sent to the Gamergate wolves. My comment at the time was dealt with as well because you should have learned to read the thread properly. There was no "pseudo doxxing". I made a blanket statement about the state of the new editors and "zombie" editors who came to the article for one express purpose and that was to push the pro-GG POV. And god forbid I happened to load up the page the minute you reinstated the edit I reverted. This retaliatory character assassination is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think I care Loganmac (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's strange Ryulong, I thought there was no pro or anti-GG? AnyyVen (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-GG" is just shorthand for "supporters of Gamergate".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping I'm putting this in the right place. Sorry for the delay in responding, but my work prevents me from being more active on Wikipedia than I'd like. I have been using wikipedia for years - something I'm sure many people could say - but only recently registered an account. Normally most of my edits I do anonymously, but admittedly I do very few by comparison. I did indeed register an account so that I could participate in the ongoing creation and editting of the Gamergate controversy page, and did so for the reason I expressed on the talk page: " I came here first looking for a definition of Gamergate, and failed to get one, let alone a coherent one." I don't know if my actions qualify me as an "SPA," but I don't have the time to produce a lot of edits across Wikipedia, especially when doing anything with such an involved topic as GG has become. I have not edited the article itself, and regardless am not able to since it's been locked since I even first read it. Therefore, my only involvement has been on the talk page, where I have conducted myself as civilly as possible, regardless of the response and despite often not being given the same respect. In fact, my first edit, to that page, ever, was a question regarding the summary of a source, to which the complainant here responding that my "head must be deeply buried somewhere." I also question the logic behind the accusation that I am "pro-Gamergate" as my by far largest contribution to that talk page was an elongated debate with another editor, defending the fact that the introductory sentence should indeed maintain mention of issues of misogyny and that the implication of Gamergate as being misogynistic is valid based on valid secondary sources, and that these claims should not be whitewashed because that would reflect bias. Ironically perhaps, Ryulong was on the same side of the discussion. Regardless, the bigger issue seems to be that any editor who is sympathetic to GG and even those who do not vehemently detest the movement are very quickly labelled by Ryulong and certain other editors, which I will not give by name, and often responded to in a way I believe is easily contradictory of WP:CIVIL if nothing else. He seems to think that a bias against supporters of Gamergate constitutes neutrality. I think that this behaviour is easily visible by reviewing the talk page in question and I would suggest if any action is taken, it would be to review the behaviour of all involved editors as a whole. My activity has been strictly limited to discussing composition of the article in the talk page, I have formally admitted to my inexperience, and even requested advice and direction following a rather aggressive response from one editor, to no avail. I came here, and am operating, in good faith and would hope that my inexperience does not exclude me from participating considering that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." [edit] In light of everything that has gone on including the manner in which he has conducted himself, I would like to put forward that I feel Ryulong is gaming the system. Please feel free to address me or contact me if any further questions, comments or concerns arise. AnyyVen (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The action requested

To Robert McClenon, I would like to propose a topic ban for all single purpose accounts and "zombie editors" who have primarily been editing Wikipedia in the past two months to articles regarding or related to #Gamergate in any way. Any and all editors I have listed above are free to edit Wikipedia so long it is not on any article related to #Gamergate, broadly construed. This would obviously include any article that may be about someone who has made themselves part of Gamergate or any other entity that Gamergate has attacked or incorporated into themselves, ranging from Breitbart (website) and Time (magazine) to Zoe Quinn or Leigh Alexander (journalist). This would obviously allow editors like Skrelk to continue editing articles on aerospace engineering or anyone else to pick up any other topic they would like to edit and stick to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So because I have few edits on my newly registered account, posted on the latest of 10 incarnations of the talk page for the Gamergate controversy article, I should be suspended from editing articles including Time (magazine)? I feel that's at least "a bit" of a logical jump and "somewhat" excessive. AnyyVen (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because #gamergate has attacked Time due to their publication of Leigh Alexander's piece, then yes, it would restrict edits to that article just as much it would restrict edits to say Gawker or Kotaku. Such a restriction would not prevent you from editing articles on mycology, astronomy, the Cold War, etc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

...and how about Video games, feminism and Twitter? Because this seems like a slippery slope right here. AnyyVen (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what "broadly construed" means.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, a ban wouldn't extend to all video games. Just whatever indie stuff Gamergate has actually set its sights on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

another potentially useful action would be to ban the creating of a new section to drop a new "source" without providing any specific actionable article change. this would help reduce the chat forum of simply discussing the subject . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. There is seriously a debate here about blacklisting people simply because you disagree with them? An actual list of names of people who subscribe to the "wrong" viewpoint?! Is that what Wikipedia is doing now? I hope I'm not alone in seeing a problem with this sort of thinking.

Furthermore,, let me just ad that it really doesn't matter if that's their "only" edits. Their contributions either are appropriate or not appropriate, and the rules of Wikipedia regarding submissions will bear that out. Restricting the editing of an article on Wikipedia only to "approved" people (read: people with the "Correct" views) is not particularly likely to combat any bias within the articles in question. Let each submission stand on its own, and deal with spammers, vandalizers, and abusers on a case-by-case basis, just like the rest of Wikipedia.Ironlion45 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And, as a side note: "As the above discussion illuminates, the Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) article is a hive of POV pushers and BLP violators." I hope the user who proposed this idea can appreciate the irony of that statement, considering his/her fairly transparent motivations and viewpoints in the very act of proposing this. Ironlion45 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that the case here? No. This is a discussion to restrict editors who are solely on Wikipedia to edit articles concerning #Gamergate, either those with brand new accounts or those who have had dormant accounts that they have since exclusively used to push a POV on the article or its talk page. Editors such as myself who are painted as biased by these other users have become exhausted in having to deal with editors like yourself who have come to the English Wikipedia push an agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, Ironlion45 (talk · contribs) has been an editor for 9 years and has never made a Gamergate-related edit, they're clearly not a single-purpose account. Earlier in this thread you accused me and OverlordQ (talk · contribs), who you requested a block for, of being single-purpose accounts despite the fact that we have some 13 years of adminship between us and have never edited a GG-related article either. You're clearly grasping at straws to get anybody who you think disagrees with your viewpoint blocked, your accusations are bordering on personal attacks, and you should drop the issue before it backfires on you. — east718 | talk | 02:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to identify good faith and bad faith when there are people who have not been editing for months or years at a time coming to this thread to say "this is bad" and when Overlord Q is coaching people on basically how to get me banned and how to get their way on Wikipedia on a thread on Reddit that contains post hoping that I get killed for crossing someone else online. There needs to be something done to stem the constant stream of new users and "zombie accounts" to the Gamergate articles going "this needs to be changed because it's not about this" contra to all reliable sources as much as people coming here because they read about it on the two separate threads on KotakuInAction coming here to discredit me. The bulk of the people here complaining about the list are those on the list or the handful of established editors who share their point of view on this topic external to Wikipedia. There are just as many uninvolved editors who recognize that there is an issue with many of the users I reported. All I know is that the more I respond to these criticisms or questions, the deeper the hole I dig.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Utterly oppose any such action as a topic ban on people one editor has declared "zombie editors". The list given was clearly inaccurate as posted. Assurances were given it wasn't. It was proven to be inaccurate. It was then amended. Now it really is accurate ~ and we're to believe that because...? No. This smacks too much of an attempt to silence an opposition, perhaps an incredibly wrong and POV and unhelpful and largely single-minded opposition, but that act of silencing is not justified simply by the fact of opposition. I have no opinion at all on Gamergate, largely because i don't understand it (our article, which i tried reading and confess to giving up), though i think i did edit Time (magazine) once; if that makes me involved, so be it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Quick observation

I would just like to casually note here that Ryulong has seen fit to use profanity repeatedly here, on the "Administrators' Noticeboard", while everyone else arguing with him has been WP:CIVIL. I would also like to highlight that he has demanded that others not cite his Twitter for evidence of his bias, even though he personally cited Reddit discussion of the Twitter incident in question in a previous arbcom case, in order to complain about "harassment". Further, he asserts that certain allegations are false, without evidence, when he has not even demonstrated an understanding of them. He continues to call other people "POV pushers" and deny introducing bias into the article, straining all credulity in the face of the attitude he has demonstrated not only on Twitter but on the Gamergate controversy talk page. Case in point: another editor had made comments on the talk page describing Gamergate supporters as "sexually repressed basement dwellers" who were "childishly lashing out"; when I called out the POV demonstrated by these comments, Ryulong revdelled my edit as "trolling", and let the other comments stand.

(Arbcom, please tell me that is not acceptable conduct on talk pages. If that's supported, what's next? Shall we allow people to write things like "Liberals are scum" on article talk pages, and remove the call-outs? How about flat-out racism?)

I also have absolutely no idea how this argument that accounts can "become SPA", after years-long histories of meaningful contributions, can possibly be given any consideration. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

My personal and private Twitter account is of no import to anyone on Wikipedia. No one has bothered to put forth any evidence or any bias they think I introduced to the article itself. The edit history can attest for that all. I cannot revdel anything because I have no deletion capabilities. And the fact that editors with old accounts have suddenly and solely decided to edit Wikipedia for one express purpose makes them single purpose accounts now, particularly when they haven't been editing Wikipedia for years at a time in some cases.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This IP has also solely been used for editing things relating to Gamergate, including an edit that was indeed revdelled (again, I don't know how to link to it without admin bits) and other questionable edits.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; you made an edit - i.e. revision - that deleted several separate comments I had made. Forgive me for thinking that's what "revdel" meant. There is nothing questionable about any of the edits I made; I have simply been calling out bias and hypocrisy, WRT the POV that's allowed to be expressed on the talk page, and WRT what is or isn't allowed to be said on the basis of it being "true", and WRT what is or is not considered a "reliable source" for the article. Just a reminder that BuzzFeed is currently sourced for the article, but WhatCulture is being disallowed as "clickbait"; that Quinn is allowed to present her primary-source side of the story via a Cracked article, but nothing whatsoever from Gjoni has been allowed, even though he has had plenty to say that does not involve her; and that sites like Kotaku and Polygon are being treated as impartial, reliable sources for an article that is explicitly about allegations made against them. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing on the Gamergate controversy article linking to Zoe Quinn's Cracked article or anything on Buzzfeed. It never has included anything of the sort. And every reliable source has pointed out that the allegations against Kotaku and Polygon have been disproven so there's nothing wrong with using them as sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation 18. " Bernstein, Joseph (September 2, 2014). "Why The Gamer Rebellion Won’t Last Very Long". BuzzFeed. Retrieved September 22, 2014." I very distinctly remember the discussion on the talk page from a while ago complaining about the inclusion of the Cracked content. As for "the allegations against Kotaku and Polygon", there are vastly more of these than the reliable sources have even deigned to mention. Everyone points to one specific case from the very beginning and acts like it disproves everything. It's absurd.

Okay, so there are Buzzfeed refs. However, they are articles by a staff member and not the aptly described clickbaity lists by a WhatCulture "contributor" and not a paid staff member who is subject to editorial oversight. And the Cracked article was argued for use but it was ultimately decided against it as far as I am aware. And if they're not in reliable sources then they are of no import to the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

2 Proposals

I have two proposals, I’ll split them out so people can vote on them separately. I should also note, that I have not made one edit to the gamergate controversy articles or talk pages.

Topic ban the clearly SPA from Gamergate

Topic Ban from Gamergate broadly construed for 1 month those that are clearly SPA’s created only to talk about this: Lasati, Derpen, Nathan905RB, AnyyVen, YellowSandals, DownWIthSJWs, Racuce, Kau-12, Torga, Skeeveo, Willhesucceed, Exefisher. Hopefully during that month they will be able to edit other pages and can continue the conversation at that point, if they wait a month and just start back up again we can reconsider. Loganmac seems to be an account that just woke up after a 3 year hiatus to talk about this subject, given the account existed longer and did deal with other issues a long time ago, I suggest a topic ban of Gamergate for 1 week (hopefully Loganmac can edit a few other things in that time). --Obsidi (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This still does not address the issue of the "zombie editors" of which Loganmac is one of them. There was another editor who had all of 2 edits in 2008 and then made a series of edits to be autoconfirmed to contribute in the article and talk page beyond semi-protection.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I added a 1 week topic ban for Loganmac, after 1 week hopefully there will be a few more edits on other topics, and it will all work out. --Obsidi (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I was going to argue that there are other editors that fit the same mold as Loganmac, but I'm clearly thinking of Torga who made one edit in November 2008 and then a series of minor edits in September 2014.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi I suggest you read my findings above. Many of the accounts you listed are not SPAs by any definition of the word. Many of those accounts have been on-and-off active for many years. There are a few (like six or seven, IIRC) accounts that were only created about a month ago and have only posted about GamerGate, and they deserve to be banned. The rest do not. DarknessSavior (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why does Ryulong get the more lenient penalty here? He has been more disruptive than those editors combined!--ArmyLine (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Because I've consistently been here for 8 years and spend time on other articles and away from the dispute that is highly problematic and has resulted in several edits from these editors that have had to be removed from the page histories. And also these are proposals are not dependent on each other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I proposed what I felt was appropriate from looking through User:Ryulong history. If you wish to post diffs and make the case for a longer ban for User:Ryulong, please do so. The accounts I am proposing topic banning mostly didn't even exist before this story started, it seems likely they are WP:NOTHERE and here to Wikipedia:Advocacy (and maybe to get around the previous semi-protection). If you feel that there are other WP:SPA's on the other side of the controversy, please post them. --Obsidi (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban of Ryulong on Gamergate broadly construed for 48 hours

In addition to coming on here and proposing we topic ban as SPA many clearly not SPA accounts, what I see is a lot of battleground and edit warring going on by Ryulong. You really feel the need to revert other users talk page comments? ([149], [150], [151], [152], [153]). And then edit warring in a close a discussion in a talk page conversation ([154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161]). If people still want to speak, you shouldn’t be blocking them like that in a talk page. This is in addition to other comments that suggest battleground editing (for instance [162], [163]) And I see this thread as an extension of that trying to WP:WIN accusing anyone on the other side of the issue. So I propose we topic ban Ryulong from Gamergate broadly construed for 48 hours. This kind of behavior is not appropriate, and hopefully won’t continue happening after the topic ban is lifted. --Obsidi (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WRT the reversion of talk page comments, I notice that one frequent theme is an insistence on people "not replying to old threads" after less than a week. Strange; I could have sworn that it's normally permissible to respond to years-old comments on talk pages. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nathan095RB is one of the SPAs pushing a POV who was responding to old threads, when they were in dire need of archiving. Butter and Cream has since been blocked for the exact reasons I made this thread in the first place. And this shouldn't be a WP:BOOMERANG situation. And those other comments you're linking to are not WP:BATTLEGROUND vios. And if it solves anything, I will gladly abide by this restriction so long as the SPA topic ban takes place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This should absolutely be a WP:Boomerang situation, you've been throwing accusations left and right, and came to ANI with a veritable enemies list. Skrelk (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There are uninvolved editors who seem to agree that the problem I reported exists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There are certainly some SPAs who came here with bad faith, but that doesn't justify coming up with a list demanding sanctions on many innocent editors.Skrelk (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You came on here and reported an administrator as a SPA... think about that. That is in addition to lots of other accounts that were clearly not SPA's. I would hardly say that any uninvolved editors agree a problem exists with those accounts. --Obsidi (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the administrator. I removed accounts that did not fit the criteria I put forward. And all of these other accounts have been identified as problematic but not SPAs. EvergreenFir has seen the "zombie account" issue and Acroterion has identified that editors like myself are at our wits end in dealing with editors who come to these controversial articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this solution, though I believe 48 hours is too brief. As for the first, I don't think we should reward Ryulong's bad behavior nor should we ban a wide swath of "SPAs" who may very well have been brought to Wikipedia due to an interest in Gamergate but have also edited unrelated articles. Such a metric would need to be capable of universal applicability, which would mean that if, say, an evolutionary biologist starts editing a bunch of articles on (disputably) controversial books disputing creationism over a few months then out he goes. However, a metric of constant edit warring, profanity, obtuseness, and general incivility is something which should and often is enforced on Wikipedia. I am still surprised no disciplinary action has been taken against Ryulong as of now.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

These unrelated articles edited by anyone I've brought up were months or years prior to diving headfirst into the Gamergate dispute. And I don't see how being banned from anything is a reward for anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how do you explain the fact that I have taken longer breaks before this? I'd like a straight answer from you, please, not some "your present actions speak for themselves" hand-waving.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot explain that. I can only see a current pattern with several accounts that have had hiatuses that have ended with a sudden decision to edit Wikipedia in favor of the Gamergate movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made two edits to your precious Gamergate article. Two edits. I have work which makes it logistically impossible to edit Wikipedia for months at a time. I'd appreciate it if you could just admit you were wrong on this one and put as much effort into clearing my name as you put into defaming it. Thanks.--ArmyLine (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The last thing I will say for this for now is that in the month and a half you've been back to editing Wikipedia, you've spent zero time outside of Gamergate, and even a year ago you were adding material that violated policy to a related topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So pretty much because of an edit to an article which would, by some very tenuous logic, to have been related to Gamergate if Gamergate was a thing at that time, you're keeping me on that list and not apologizing. But I guess you aren't responding anymore so I guess I'll never grasp the greater meaning of what you were trying to say here.--ArmyLine (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It shows you have a pre-existing bias and POV. And you still haven't touched anything that wasn't Gamergate since you began editing again in September of this year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean those two edits I made to your precious article? Or are you upset that I've used the talk page to voice my concerns? I edit articles as the subjects interest me. I'm curious, though, why your demonstrated off-site and on-site bias should not earn you a topic ban but this extremely disingenuous datamining should earn me, and the other unrelated parties, such a ban. You seem to demand every benefit of the doubt but be extremely liberal in assuming bad faith and others quite eager to write off your bad behavior and bias as "frustration". Well, for the record let me say that you and your buddies are not the only ones exasperated here.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no offsite bias. I was contacted offsite for my actions onsite, dismissed it flippantly, and then was subject to the usual pestering and harassment anyone who dares to defy Gamergate on social media gets subjected to. And despite every single claim of bias, there has not been one instance of any of that alleged bias entering the article itself. Just complaints of my behavior on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is when you removed a neutrality dispute tag without consensus, repeatedly. Because the dispute only came from SPAs (see a pattern here?). Let's see, also the majority of your edits happen to paint Gamergate in a bad light. You removed Adam Baldwin from the page because it was "giving him too much credit", despite the actor being the first person to use the tag (didn't have enough of a neckbeard?). You happened to word Intel's decision to remove advertising from Gamasutra in an... interesting light. Should I go on?--ArmyLine (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tag was disputed. That's one edit that was based on a source proposed by someone on the talk page and its presented as an op/ed piece. Adam Baldwin has one parenthetical statement dedicated to him on the whole page so he's not wholly relevant at this stage, not to mention I'm the one who added the photo to the page in the first place. And that Intel stuff was still under discussion and unconfirmed at the time, and it's also a revert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There clearly is a problem with single purpose accounts on this subject. There is sock puppetry and meat puppetry going on to an extreme degree. However Ryulong's solution is more extreme and is poorly aimed.

Ryulong's idea should be opposed and refused but I don't think we need to break out the boomerang just yet. When you are facing dozens of sock puppets pushing a POV it is easy to see enemies in the shadows. While he may be lashing out at some people incorrectly I don't think he is acting in bad faith.

I recommend a long walk near a beach or a river. Chillum 03:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally agree with Chillum. Although the poor judgement shown here by Ryulong makes me think he is too invested in the topic to be a constructive force right now. I would urge him to step back and avoid the topic until after the holidays. The work will still be there, the policies won't really change, and the flood of SPAs should (hopefully) be down to a trickle by then. aprock (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no doubt my opinion is of lower value being new here, and I accept that as well as any topic ban I may receive. I am sure the article regardless of my involvement is in capable hands. Regardless, I do feel there is a failure to properly address Ryulong's language, incivility, namecalling and overall bad manners. This is well documented in the complaints here as well as his responses, encapsulated in specific regards to this issue in the associated talk page, and has much past precedence. When an editor and former admin has a noted, long history of complaints regarding verbal abuse, I don't think it should be overlooked. AnyyVen (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a severe issue with SPAs in these related articles and while Ryulong's request here may have been ill-formed or poorly-argued, it is not bad faith but the result of pure frustration at the flood tide of SPAs attempting to reject or weaken the reliably-sourced consensus view of GamerGate and attempting to insert poorly-sourced conspiracy theories, innuendo or outright personal attacks on the movement's enemies. Very few experienced, long-term editors have been willing to deal with this issue — and not without good reason, as those of us who have done so have found ourselves targeted for harassment of all manner including multiple death threats. The fact of the matter is, there are lots of people attempting to use Wikipedia as a platform for telling the story of GamerGate as they want it to be told, not as the reliable sources are telling it, and there are very few of us who began editing this article without an ideological purpose. I have no doubt that this will end up in a fiery mess at ArbCom's door at some point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please ban Ryulong from contributing to Gamergate controversy or its talk page

I provide a link and a quote for each.

Incivility
[164] It's just you two who are anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian who keep parroting the same bullshit

[165] Please see my previous comment. Provide the sources right here, right now.

[166] The majority of people on this page are fucking sick and tired of listening to Titanium Dragon and other editors constantly whinge

[167] you kept making new threads on the exact same shit in the same day

[168] Stop bitching about neutrality You two should get off of your high horse that defecates in real time.

[169] Enough of this bullshit.—Ryūlóng

[170] Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ.

[171] Will you shut up about your and the movement's perception that anything Leigh Alexander writes is biased and unusable on this page? It's just the same shit repeated every other day.

[172] Revert it ASAP. {There are several instances where they presume to speak for people, and even tell people what to do.}

[173] would you stop fucking saying

[174] No one has any fucking time to review games because of all the bullshit that's going on in Gamergate

[175] go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light

[176] stop drinking the koolaid

[177] Sign your fucking posts.

[178] Your head has to be deeply buried somewhere

Bad faith
[179] It's just you two who are anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian who keep parroting the same bullshit

[180] you're obviously in the gamer camp on this issue

[181] So it's nighttime in the United States so all the anti-Quinn people come out of hiding?

[182] {After my posting an article which does exactly the opposite:} Is there a reason you need to keep maing new threads on each bunk source that you find that will assist your case into changing the topic of this article to not include the issues of sexism and misogyny?

[183] There have been constant calls that the article is biased, but it has been demonstrated that these claims are coming exclusively from members of the movement

[184] We do not need to cave in to any external pressure (which all these single purpose accounts are).

[185] there is no issue with neutrality on this page, just gaters whining about not having a beneficial bias.

[186] go through every single fucking archive of this article and see the same thing get rehashed every other thread by a brand new voice bitching about the same exact things as every other voice that came before. This article is beseiged by single purpose accounts seeking to push a pro-Gamergate point of view on the page by removing everything that they consider is anti-gamergate because of some conspiracy they have in their minds that everyone in the media is out to get them and that only people who are as vindictive and pro-gamergate as they are are the unbiased voices in the crowd. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos is being touted as their savior right now because he acts just like they do and wrote something that put them in a positive light and put everyone they've been attacking in a negative light

[187] Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ.

[188] So per the usual gater logic

[189] It's clear you're trying to discredit her word here, and the word of anyone that has voiced opposition to Gamergate.

[190] you single purpose accounts, Twitter gaters, or Redditors

Bias
[191] Maybe I'd be neutral if people didn't go out of their way to harass me because I edit this page. Now back to Romero's with you.

Ryulong has long been generally disruptive, abusive, and uncooperative. They are a great hindrance to getting anything at all done there. PLEASE remove them. Thanks. Willhesucceed (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive is unfounded. Abusive, unfounded as there's no swear directed at anyone. Uncooperative, only with the SPAs, who are again the only people I could theoretically be a "hindrance" to getting anything done. This is all retaliatory and unfounded.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Abusive, unfounded as there's no swear directed at anyone." That's a very narrow definition of abuse/incivility, and not even what WP:CIVIL states. This list is also by no means comprehensive, to this topic nor in general. Whether I'm earmarked an SPA or new editor, I, nor anyone else deserves what Ryulong is chronically serving. AnyyVen (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between the proposals put forward by the neutral voices in this thread and the ones put forward by the invested parties. As per Chillum and Aprock, I definitely need to take another break from the article. They among other neutral editors here have also recognized the issue with the single purpose accounts and other non-neutral editors and that should still be examined regardless of my behavior towards anyone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that a proposal for an WP:INDEF topic ban? (You didn't specify how long you are proposing the ban should be). --Obsidi (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this. I suggest a year's ban, or at least 6 months. From what I gather, this is not the first place or time that they have behaved like this. Ryulong has a reputation for this sort of behaviour. Hopefully a significant ban will help foster a more cooperative, cool-headed attitude. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2014

That's all way too much. This controversy will be long forgotten by then to matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So there you have it, without any intervention he'll be back to bullying and pushing his narrative on the article again. His last voluntary break lasted how long, exactly? Two days?--ArmyLine (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I also remember when people said it'd be over when Destiny was released Loganmac (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on boomerang and extensive topic ban for Ryulong per being uncivil, extremely biased, owning the article, battleground, off-wiki behaviour and biting noobs. Loganmac (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I should not be punished for off-wiki behavior when I was directly harassed offsite by other people. The one tweet you were sent is still plastered for everyone to see on your user talk page and my tweet to you was previously dismissed. I am not biased. I have not expressed any ownership of the article. Again, I will agree to a voluntary break as per Chillum's suggestion, but this is not a situation where complaints of my behavior by heavily involved users who are themselves not innocent of anything should be acted on. Anything beyond that or Obsidi's proposal is far too excessive.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Like that time you said you were quitting and you came back to insult everyone less than 48 hours later? So the fact that random people "harassed" you gives you the right to insult me on my twitter account? Why don't you lay off the Internet for a while instead, you seem to piss people off everywhere you go and made it seem like it's just "gamergate fags" doing it, while you proudly say there's several fandoms you've pissed off. Do you actually like doing this? Loganmac (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Trying to get me topic banned or from Wikipedia altogether is the last in a long line of harassment I've experienced from you and other editors simply for holding a contrary view. The same goes for other editors who've disagreed with you, as your scattershot ban request goes to show. You've been requested several times on that talk page to observe rules of civility, and—those times you've decided not to ignore the requests—you've backslid into your behaviour within days. You make little to no attempt to cooperate with those with whom you disagree, even on very simple requests/submissions that can be easily addressed. You deserve a longer break. Willhesucceed (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop bringing up that god damn tweet I made on my account long before any of this was a thing. God damn it. I'm allowed to say what I want on Twitter when it's not affecting anyone but myself. I am not colluding with anyone offsite as was the complaints with IRC when the arbitration case took place. And fandoms are mad at me because of the exact reason you are. Because I am upholding the rules and regulations of this website and they do not like how that works. Again, I will remove myself from the article. I will keep away more than the 48 hours it took for me to get bored sitting in Hong Kong airport with nothing to do for 5 hours. I will spend my time on this website as I normally do, not bothering with that article. But anything you and Willhesucceed have drug out to try to pin the blame of everything on me is still miniscule to the recognized disruption that has happened from the parties I did list above. You two are still not free from blame, no matter how much you play the victim.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact I think this is the first time he hasn't included the word fuck on a reply to me, hey that's progress Loganmac (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Ryulong needs to be away from this topic. From what I've seen he does his best to control the article, including throwing innocent editors (including an admin) under the bus. He makes blanket statements about how accounts are SPAs when they clearly are not. He says that certain editors have only made edits on particular articles, when I have proven they have made edits in others. He is trying to get these accounts outright banned from the topic, if not banned from Wikipedia in general. There are other, more neutral editors on that page that can take care of any potential problems. Ryulong needs to be removed. One month topic ban or more please, three months preferred. DarknessSavior (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is not about "punishment for off-wiki behaviour"; this is about how off-wiki behaviour demonstrates bias that is (a) inappropriate for an editor of the article and (b) repeatedly denied, minimized or deemed irrelevant by the person in question. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no god damn bias. And even if I did have one I am allowed to hold opinions on something so long as those opinions do not negatively affect any Wikipedia article that may involve those opinions. Anything I've done on Gamergate controversy was supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. Just because you and every other gater out there disagrees with it does not mean jack squat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

See, this would be the whole "journalistic ethics" thing in action. Other people believe your opinions do negatively affect the article. And you are not an impartial judge in that matter. BTW, WRT the tweet in question, I don't see a link to it on Loganmac's talk page as claimed. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And just like in Gamergate, those people don't have any proof that they're right. Also, Loganmac's Twitter account is indeed linked on his user talk page so the tweet was readily available 3 weeks ago from that link, but Bosstopher also linked to the tweet and Reddit thread here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't sure where to edit this mile-long article where this can be seen, but here goes (cut-and-pasting from above):Lasati (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Would like to point out I edited the talk page, and never touched the main article page. I merely wanted to give my input into what I perceived as non-neutral language from other editors. I felt a few maintained double-standards with respect to sources (and were using in my opinion, illogical rationales). I also suspected this stemmed from bias towards the subject material based on things that were said. I said my piece and left. I think the fact I edited a talk page on an article as it was being written qualifies me for a ban proves my point about subject-matter bias. My account has been active since 2007, and I don't edit articles a lot (because I don't want that responsibility, just sometimes to add to the discussion). But I *have* edited other articles, check my history and see. (Edited for tone to remove my initial outrage that I'm even on here) Lasati (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here I want to expound on my outrage. Talk pages exist specifically for discussion of a topic. You're publicly calling out wikipedia editors for expressing an opinion you disagree with on the appropriate talk page for that article? And now I have to defend my account from a ban? Maybe Wikipedia should have a sixth pillar to not create a chilling effect. Lasati (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm here because of a note Ryulong left on my talk page yesterday. Do I still need to defend myself from a ban, have I been judged in absentia, etc? What's going on with that? Lasati (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's happened. Nothing's been acted upon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to explain something I hope you'll understand. I rarely bother logging in to Wikipedia. I specifically use my account on the referenced topic's talk page because of the harassment and doxxing going on. I didn't want my IP to visible, I didn't want to be a target. Now you have called me out in a rather short list that's publicly available to everyone, making accusations against me without even talking to me first. I am now a target, as is everyone on that list. I want to express that whatever differing opinions we may have on the finer points of NPOV, I find this incredibly irresponsible. Lasati (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you should read much of this thread to see that people agree with you. My proposals were apparently ill timed and poorly implimented. I can't take anything else back at this stage. It is highly unlikely that anyone at this stage other than myself will be sanctioned for anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we please remove the list of names, myself included? It probably won't do much good at this point, but my name is still on a list that says "All of these editors have solely used Wikipedia to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda, many have been chastised for violating WP:BLP for repeating the false allegations that the movement believes in, and may have edits that have been revdelled for those reasons." This puts a target on those users, and as I said there has been a great deal of doxxing and harassment going on regarding this subject. Lasati (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no target. And there's no doxxing on Wikipedia, despite the claims above.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making claims that Wikipedia doxxes people. I'm saying that trolls and harassers who do doxx people need very little information to get started. A careless username used somewhere else (twitter, blogging site, etc), distinct writing styles, and so forth. If GamerGate has proven anything, it's how hard it is to hide yourself from a determined attacker. So I'm saying that having a very small list of usernames and claiming they are "pushing a pro-gamergate agenda on Wikipedia" while calling them out at the very top of this section paints a target on those usernames. And if indeed they're *not* being banned or those allegations have been insufficiently demonstrated, I'm asking you to please do them (and myself) the courtesy of removing that section before North America wakes up in a few hours. If the bans are still being discussed, by all means leave it there. Lasati (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2014

(UTC)

Basically, you say you can't "take back anything at this stage" but removing that section with the names would certainly help in my mind. Just my opinion, as someone on that list who feels falsely accused. Lasati (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And anyone reading this should take a look at the people commenting because I am almost sure that the thread I was alerted to as existing on Reddit is drawing editors here to pile on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself? You irresponsibly accuse dozens of people of allegations X, Y, and Z, and you're amazed when there's a backlash? Really? Instead of reflecting on your behaviour, here you are, blaming everyone but yourself. All the more evidence you need a long, enforced break. Willhesucceed (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ryulong is guilty of one thing: attempting to engage with a series of editors suffering from serious cases of IDHT. Perhaps Ryulong should have walked away when upset (as I have done), but certain editors have considered a lack of immediate response as approval to add their opinions into these articles. The last month has a been an assault of belligerent new (and returning) editors with demands to be spoon-fed policy, demands to defend policy, demands to explain why this or that tell-all blog isn't a reliable source, many of them leading with pointed accusations and insults. Anyone who hasn't taken the bait is a saint and deserves to be showered in barnstars. Woodroar (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe full protection for, say, 1-2 days would help cool everyone's heads down. Then again, it probably wouldn't. ansh666 06:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  The article's been fully protected for 2 weeks. This is all based on rumblings on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  I know. I meant the talk page. But, that's so unorthodox that it would probably 1) never happen and 2) make for some interesting publicity that the WMF would have to deal with... ansh666 07:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  It was semiprotected for a bit, but that probably only caused more problems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

My prior experience is with less formal fan wikis, like stuff for video games or so on that have much lower, niche traffic. They're a lot less stringent with the rules, so I did get knocked once for remarking on an unsubstantiated claim about a living person, but after the warning I took a break from editing then came back later to read through the policies regarding that sort of thing. I actually took an interest in the Gamer Gate article because of an alleged DMCA abuse involved, but when I found the article it was a mess and had the "biased" tag. I don't know if I would be a regular editor for Wikipedia since I usually just like to write for fun, but I thought I'd try something from whatever angle one introduces themselves to a locked article with the "biased" tag because I've fixed biased articles before.

If you do decide to ban me I will just peacefully go away like an appeased ghost. However, I don't think that's going to reduce the number of new people trying to fix the Gamer Gate article. It opens by stating the controversy is about "misogyny", which I've argued is kind of insulting to one side of the debate when more neutral phrasing like "identity politics" or "cultural conflict" or virtually anything would convey the same meaning without the negative connotation. People will feel inclined to pop in as long as the page insinuates a stance like that. YellowSandals (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a new venue to discuss the content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Point is, you can't ban everyone who disagrees with you. As long as people come to the page and think Wikipedia is directly insulting them, they'll say something. If you're feeling cornered and surrounded enough to show up with a list of people you want axed, it's not because anyone's out to get you. It's because the article is absurdly biased and they think Wikipedia a reasonable place that will listen to them. YellowSandals (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you bothered to actually listen to any of the responses NorthBySouthBaranof has been giving you to your constant complaints of bias or insults and the like, you would understand you are reading too far into it. Describing the movement as having misogynistic aspects is not an "insult".

Everyone who has never looked at the article before, YellowSandals is exactly the kind of person that myself and every other regular editor to the page is tired of dealing with. Refusal to listen to the other editors. An insistence that his point of view is not being adequately represented. An insistence that Wikipedia is somehow perpetrating some wrong that slights the group he represents. This is why I initially made this thread. Because there are people who just will not listen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of the people you've included on that list cannot be said to fall under this category. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet many do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The disputes go like this. "We have to change the wording."

"Why?"

"It's biased."

"No it isn't. I don't think the periodicals we quote are biased so it's not biased."

"But the periodicals are involved in the controversy and they're on a side. They're using insulting language."

"Well most of them are on the same side so it's okay."

"But they're hostile and insulting their readers and they're losing their advertisers."

"So? They're mostly on the same side so if we don't repeat them in Wikipedia's voice then it's undue weight."

And I keep pursuing it, but this is basically the solitary argument I have about the whole stupid article. Why are the accusations of misogyny written in Wikipedia's voice instead of saying the periodicals think it? The article needs a lot of restructuring, but this is why you keep seeing the same arguments over, and over again. It's not because they're POV pushers - it's because the page takes a side and it's kind of insulting about it. It doesn't have to be, but you act like it's exhausting and unreasonable to be hearing from dozens of people who press this for a while only to get exhausted themselves before they give up. YellowSandals (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not another venue to continue the content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remove me off this list. I want to know why am I on this list since I only the only info I added was on EA not disclosing their hacks because of a reporter and Kotaku checking the data. I added NOTHING on any anti-feminism or pro-feminism or pro/anti-gamer gate. I have been on wikipedia since 2007 and I never had ANY pages going and doing a WITCH HUNT to ban users from editing and NOT respecting wikipedia's NPOV . None of the information I added had no sources or a biased source. Wikipedia should really consider banning whoever started this witch hunt on users since I only added 2 sentences and was automatically assigned an alignment to a certain side. -Cs california (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all gone now. I withdraw my initial proposal. Let the single purpose accounts and POV pushers take over the god damn article. I am done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ban of Ryūlóng per witch hunting of editors of page:gamergate for POV purposes. See my edits with source and the accusations above. Claims I users who do not regularly edit must be banned. Accusations of POV pushing without proof.--Cs california (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what this was about and it's over. You all get your way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What is my way? I am still branded as pro-gamer gate since I am in the "Extended content" section --Cs california (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted my "Extended content" section nearly an hour ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with ban of Ryūlóng for attempts to eliminate opposing points of view, ownership of the article, and general incivility. I have been included in this list despite receiving an apology from Ryulong for the accusation of being an 'SPA' and find my name still being dragged through the mud despite having clearly debunked these accusations over a week ago. I made one neutral comment on the talk page and was attacked for POV-pushing by Ryulong and one of his cohorts, which turned into a significant altercation unrelated to the content of the article. Additionally, Ryulong has clearly stated his bias [192] (located [193]) and has no business in this article. He claimed to be 'taking a break' to avoid a ban last time and wound up editing the article when less than two days had passed. This editor is toxic and needs to be removed from this article so that new voices stop being attacked and some semblance of neutrality can emerge. Please note that I am currently banned from Gamergate-related topics, but as my name was dropped directly by Ryulong, I am assuming I am entitled to comment regardless. Out of respect for that ban I will limit my involvement to this singular edit. Snakebyte42 (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing I've written in that attempt at posting a dif is a "bias" by any means.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree per Snakebyte42 with a reminder that Ryūlóng is not the only one behaving uncivilly. Tarc and TRPoD have also been to this noticeboard for similar issues before. Retartist (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

All of these editors advocating for my ban are heavily involved in the article and content dispute, actively topic banned, or simply calling for my ban out of retaliation for my now entirely redacted list. This needs to stop and it needs to stop now because Retartist is now trying to turn this against Tarc and TheRedPenOfDoom because they, along with NorthBySouthBaranof, are the only vocal editors opposing the proposed changes from everyone I had reported.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I do think something needs to happen to User:Ryūlóng for this slander against me and others, even if it is basically just a slap on the wrist. Halfhat (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Future Perfect, do not close an active topic ban proposal because apparently, there's 'no consensus' to do so. That's the freakin' point, get consensus to sanction editors, and if they fail when closed by an admin after a reasonable amount of time (not one freakin day), then that's fine, but not early. Tutelary (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  Fut Perf is an administrator who did not weigh in at all in this and closed it. You don't get to reopen it because you want me gone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Like he said though if someone cam up with a proposal with a realistic chance of census, you can start a new topic, I'd be very surprised if anyone came up with one though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfhat (talk • contribs) 11:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Halfhat: did you mean 'chance of success' ? Ranze (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I meant "consensus". I can't believe I did that. Halfhat (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems noteworthy to me that during the above discussion, User:Ryulong said that he "was done" with the article, and indicated that he would voluntarily stay away for "more than 48 hours". The edit log indicates, however, that he has not stayed away at all. 70.24.5.250 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Let this die FFS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to bring to everyone's attention that there is an ongoing dispute on the procedure of warning and logging of warnings in case of Syrian Civil War and ISIL topic sanctions WP:GS/SCW. The dispute is whether non-administrator editors can issue official warnings and log them into WP:GS/SCW, with no WP:ANI procedure and/or violation required. The dispute comes after a number of users began issuing multiple warnings for other editors and logging those warnings as official warnings in line with administrators (user:Bbb23,user:EdJohnston,user:Darkwind,user:Callanecc,user:Monty845,user:Dougweller,user:Ks0stm ,user:PBS). I have to emphasize that from August 2013 and until October 2014, only administrators had issued official warnings using Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement and logged them at WP:SCWGS, whereas regular users could utilize the template:uw-1rrSCW (with no logging). Official warnings had been used to justify further sanctions against editors, thus being logged there had constituted a kind of "stain" in regard to Syrian Civil War area articles.

Logging of warnings by non-administrators in the past two weeks was done at Syrian Civil War & ISIL topic log by user:RGloucester, user:97.117.183.196 and user:Technophant and as a result five users have been logged as "warned". At least in some of those 5 cases, the logging and warning template were put for no clear reason. As far as i could check, there was no WP:ANI procedure in those cases and apparently even no violation of 1RR (at least in some of them). The logging of warnings at Syrian Civil War & ISIL sanctions log actually has taken place in parallel with the standard logging of administrator user:Dougweller (logging on October 19), for which i requested his observation and notified him of reverting logging of warning by IP user, who made it with no WP:ANI procedure and in fact no 1RR violation. Re-interpretation that any user can warn and log those warnings any time brings a lot of confusion into the community as i put this discussion - see discussion initiated by me on Dougweller's page, discussion initiated by User:RGloucester and user:Gregkaye on Technophant's talk page, etc.

As pointed out by one of the editors, the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts guidelines may bring some confusion to some readers, as the guideline reads as following:

Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted.

The guideline implies that any editor may notify others on sanctions (in case of WP:GS/SCW, it is template:uw-1rrSCW notification, which is not logged as official warning), however formal notifications are using Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement template, usually as a result of WP:ANI complaint on 1RR violation, and are indeed logged into the warnings log by administrators. Unless there is indeed a new interpretation to ARBCOM guideline and indeed from October 9th non-administrator users are eligible to issue official warnings and log them as sanction warnings with no limitation (and apparently no specific cause), i suggest to clarify this and remove non-administrative warnings of the past two weeks at once.GreyShark (dibra) 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to bring an example, that in 2013, i was mistakenly warned and logged in warnings section by administrator user:Bbb23, but upon clarifying him that no violation occurred on my behalf, the warning and the log was cleared. It is a good example against the proposed interpretation, that warnings can be issued by anyone and for no specific reason.GreyShark (dibra) 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Greyshark, you've got it all wrong. We've tried to tell you this at Dougweller's talk page, but you haven't listened. Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement is merely a notification template. There are similar templates for all other discretionary and general sanctions. Notifications are most patently NOT "warnings". They are merely intended to make editors aware of the fact that the general exist in topic area mentioned. The template you mention, Template:uw-1rrSCW, is in fact a warning that implies bad behaviour. This is entirely separate from Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement, which does not imply bad behaviour on the part of the editor receiving it. No "AN/I" procedure is necessary, as this does not imply bad behaviour on the part of the editor receiving it. It merely is a notification, for informational purposes. By the way, there is no such thing as an "official warning" as we don't have anything "official" here. There is no reinterpretation. It has always been the case with discretionary sanctions, that any editor can issue a notification, provided that he follows the proper procedure. That means one notification per editor per year, not using the template to threaten someone, and only using the bare template with no accompanying text. You need to listen. We've tried to tell you this about ten times, at this point. Instead, you refuse to hear what others are telling you. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester , Can I ask about User talk:Technophant#SCW&ISIL sanctions? What was it that you recommended be removed? to what extent was the request valid? and was there a removal as claimed? Having read your edit I have felt significantly wronged. Clarification would be appreciated. You quoted: "Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very simple. You were already notified of the Syrian Civil War sanctions by PBS, as is recorded in the log. Technophant forced a new notification template on your page, along with an associated warning. Of course, he didn't bother to look at the log and see that you'd already been notified. It was clear that he was doing this as bad faith badgering. It was highly inappropriate of him to do that, and I removed the notification from the log as such. RGloucester — ☎ 00:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I was the subject of one of these warning by a non-admin for no obvious reason other than apparently the warner did not like my opinion on something. Since sanctions are not (usually) applied unless a user has been warned, the warning puts me a significant step closer to sanctions in the event some editor wants to push for sanctions. If ANY user can warn ANY user and log it for ANY reason including NO reason, I propose to take the defensive measure of going forth to warn and log every user that might dislike my edits or opinions on ISIL/Syria Civil War or seems even a little lame brained. That way if they complain later against me, we are on the same footing and same risk of sanctions. Let me know so I can act accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's battleground behaviour, Legacypac. These are not "warnings". As I've said, they are notifications. Anyone that edits in this topic area can be notified, and most likely should be. You won't be sanctioned for anything unless you edit disruptively. If you follow good editing practices, you won't have a problem. General sanctions are meant to encourage good editing, not battleground behaviour. Remember, you can only receive one notification of the general sanctions. You've already been notified. Anyway, you are demonstrating that you are aware of these sanctions merely by commenting here, so it wouldn't matter if the notification were logged or not. You could still be sanctioned, if you edited disruptively. RGloucester — ☎ 03:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you reread my post substituting "notify" for "warn" the point is the same and there is little practical difference in the words. We all know that some editors get pretty invested in these topics and that an active editor can easily trip the 1RR during normal editing, so a notified editor is a more risk. Either an editor is justified in notifying editors willy nilly - and therefore I should really follow through on my defensive plan since "Anyone that edits in this topic area can be notified, and most likely should be") or uncalled for non-Admin notifications like user:Technophant's are BATTLEGROUND and inappropriate. Please clarify. Legacypac (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A notification is called for if one has edited articles within the scope of the sanctions. There is nothing "willy-nilly" about it. If you'd like, you can choose to edit in other areas. There is a practical difference, because the notification does not imply bad behaviour on the part of the receiver. "A notified editor is more at risk", you say? Only if they decide to edit disruptively, which is the point of the notification. If an editor is clearly aware that general sanctions are in effect, he should be extra careful when editing these topics. He should follow good practices, as he should on all articles. If he does not, that says something about his character and about his behaviour. Phrasing such as "defensive plan" shows that you have a battleground attitude. Even if another editor has such an attitude, that does not excuse you having one. All it seems that you'd like to do is skirt around these sanctions. That's unacceptable. Accept that you need to edit carefully, and that if you don't, you may be sanctioned. It is that simple. Do not focus on "combatting" other editors with sanctions notifications. Such use of the notifications could be construed of as disruptive editing in of itself. RGloucester — ☎ 04:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not gone forth and notified a list of editors, I only lay the scenario out for illustration. Since you have now called that plan battleground, you will agree that the editors who have done just that are engaged in disruptive editing. I'd appreciate the disruptive notification against me and others be reverted now. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think someone is being disruptive, go to ANI. I don't see any way of 'un-alerting' you. You've been told about the sanctions now. It would be against the principal of the whole thing to say you can be 'un-alerted' and therefore can't be sanctioned by an independent Admin. Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

user:Technophant who is not an Admin seems to have used a template well labeled "This template should only be used by administrators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:SCW%26ISIL_enforcement on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALegacypac&diff=629967195&oldid=629918338#Hello and logged the notification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant I want that reversed as it is correctly pointed out at the top a scarlet letter on my editing and puts me a step closer to sanctions if someone does not like my editing. And Dougweller why go to ANi when this is already the AN? Either the template is wrong when it says it should only be used by Admins, or open season everyone can use it on anyone to level the field in the case of a future dispute. Legacypac (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting thread. I received a sanctions notice about editing in Syrian War-related articles and went on the 2014 list as having been notified. I asked the admin who did this for an explanation, as I had never been found guilty of any infraction in editing, and received a vague and irritable answer. I have never found out why it happened, and am understandably annoyed about being on that list when co-editors, also free from rule infraction, are not. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "explanation", which is what the template does (did you read it?). It is pure notification, and you can notify people just as well as anyone else, if you think they're not aware of the sanctions. Everyone is subject to sanctions regardless (if they are truly disruptive), so it doesn't matter as much as you say. You're not supposed to use the notifications to threaten or combat editors. It is entirely neutral. Please read the WP:Discretionary sanctions guidelines on "alerts". RGloucester — ☎ 13:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Unless it was coincidence I think my posts acted as catalyst. I am still trying to get my head around the content of this thread. I later asked for help here and made enquiry here. I personally want to know the validity of various interventions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've figured out what happened. User:Callanecc, User:Bbb23 and I had a discussion[194] about the problem that this template was not yet in line with the new ArbCom alert system, which as has been said doesn't require an Administrator to place the alert notice. Bbb23 made one edit[195] which removed one bit about an uninvolved Administrator required to place the notice, but missed the rest. I'm now going to fix the rest per our earlier agreement. I'm sorry that this has led to so much confusion. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This actually implies that indeed i'm correct and up until recently (August 2014) only administrators could do the warnings using the warning template. Apparently, three of you agreed in August 2014 that anyone can use the template for notification, however i don't see that there was also an agreement that the warnings can be logged by non-administrators and that in fact there would be no control over such warnings and logs (until October 2014, most of those warnings went through WP:ANI as 1RR violations). I hope you understand that if anyone can log warnings at WP:SCWGS for anyone, there would be no control over the number of such logs as potentially ALL editors of the Syrian Civil War and ISIL topic may be warned and logged (by any editor). As a result this warning log would swell to an incredible size (thousands?), as there will be an interest to justify future sanctions complaints in every single edit-dispute. This doesn't make sense and completely changes the purpose from preventing edit-warring to promoting "warning-warring".GreyShark (dibra) 16:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you Dougweller for digging and explaining that you were on a different page than the rest of us. Grayshark explained the next problem very well. If this gets opened up, and everyone gets notified/warned and logged, then we will all be on the same footing and being "notified" will be meaningless. That would be a big waste of time and remove any value there is to the current system. Also, if anyone can notify and log, then surely anyone can remove the notification and log. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm on a different page it's because I agree with the decision on ArbCom alerts & that this should be treated the same. An editor can remove these alerts from their talk pages, but no one can remove a log arbitrarily - if you do, you are likely to be blocked. User:Greyshark09, User:Legacypac, how is this different from ArbCom alerts which anyone can add? All that's happened is that this notification has been brought into line with others. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So is it ok if I notify and log Dougweller first? Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't need to be notified, because it is clear that he is aware of existence of the sanctions (he is contributing here). I really see a lot of bad faith here on the part of editors who are editing in the area under the scope of the sanctions. I feel like the WP:BOOMERANG needs to be deployed. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read every word of the above. I've been asked to comment here by several editors. I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Any editor may alert another editor to the existence of discretionary sanctions in this area as long as they use the prescribed template and log it appropriately. Any confusion on this score was resolved in this disscussion. Alerts, just like ArbCom alerts, are not considered a sanction and generally may not be objected to by any editor. (I suppose if someone thinks that a particular editor is disruptively issuing alerts with an ulterior motive, they could take that editor to ANI.) The template does not require an uninvolved administrator to be issued. It doesn't even require an uninvolved editor (using the term "uninvolved" in its English sense). Therefore, any editor who complains about receiving such an alert or about "selective enforcement" is out of line and should just let it go. For clarity, I would propose the following changes to WP:GS/SCW:

• Currently it says: "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors can be notified of these sanctions with the {{SCW&ISIL enforcement}} template." The first sentence should be removed because an alert is a prerequisite to issuing discretionary sanctions. The second sentence should read: "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{SCW&ISIL enforcement}} template." (change bolded) I don't think editors should be using any language other than the template.

Similarly, the following sentence should be changed lower down:

• "For consistency, the template {{subst:SCW&ISIL enforcement}} should be used." should be changed to "For consistency, the template {{subst:SCW&ISIL enforcement}} must be used." (change bolded)

Unless there are objections to these changes, I'll make them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see input from Admins who are not involved in creating this confusing situation. Legacypac (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, there is nothing confusing about it. The guidelines for DS say what they say. No "administrators" created this situation. It has been in place from August 2013. Accept the reality, and get on with it. If you don't want to be sanctioned, don't do anything sanctionable. It is that simple. You're not supposed to try and get around the sanctions. You're supposed to follow the rules and edit properly. RGloucester — ☎ 02:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. I of course agree with the changes. Legacypac, once again, this is in line with the rest of the discretionary sanctions alert. Read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts. If you are unhappy, complain to ArbCom, but I doubt you will make them change their mind. I am curious though as to why you thin this particular issue should be handled in a way very different to the other discretionary sanctions alert, as both make it quite clear that any editor can add the alert notice. Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The original AN discussion that imposed the community sanctions was closed by me in August 2013. As I stated in my close, "The sanctions themselves will be precisely the same as they are for WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based." In other words, the sanctions were intended to mimic ArbCom sanctions. At the time, the warning (now alert) system had not been revised, along with the rest of the discretionary sanctions, but the imposition of discretionary sanctions by the community, by all logic and given the history of these sanctions, should be handled in line with those revisions.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to get around the sanctions, I am trying to understand why a non-admin can use a template clearly labeled as for Admins only. If you are saying that is fine, so be it. If you are saying the template contains an error, please fix it. Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Are you reading this thread? If it isn't fixed, please show me where it still says that. And as I said, an alert is an alert, you can't be unalerted, but if you really object then I'm sure one of us will alert you. Again, if you have a problem with a specific editor, start a new thread at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Without objection, I made the changes I proposed above except I did not remove "The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned" as I realized belatedly it is not talking about the alert template but the talk page template.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rfcu deletion review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves was created, seconded, and commented on by multiple editors before being deleted based on a good faith but incorrect emphasis on the wording of the RFCU guidelines. This is disruptive to the collaboration process. Discussion with deleting admin is at User_talk:Jehochman. Could someone please undelete? NE Ent 08:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Go do something else. Facepalm. Doc talk 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Seconded. Already raised at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Blanking_of_RFC.2FU.3F

The backstory for this is at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves
• User_talk:Jehochman#Rfcu
• User:Jehochman/Draft

This blanked RfC/U has a bunch of problems. The main ones are that a number of GF editors took part in it as a valid RFC. Their contributions (yes, I'm one) have now been deleted and hidden from the public record. Why? Why does Jehochman get to single-handedly disenfranchise a number of editors?

Secondly, this RFC wasn't merely closed / hatted / struck through, it was deleted and hidden. Only admins can see it, lowly editors cannot. WP has a problem already with admin privilege, this is playing further into that.

Since the draft, a situation has also developed where the panda is no longer having to face a public RFC, they're facing a series of brushfire talk page decisions, each of which is framed on the basis of being a de-admin request! We do not put admins through this sort of kangaroo court, even the worst of them. We have an RFC/U process and if anyone wants to de-admin someone, that's where they have to start - even if they don't like the clear consensus response they were getting. We do not work in this way outside of process.

Yes, I raised this with Jehochman already and was patronisingly dismissed with "sigh". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I am sorry but you are just not telling the truth. What I said several times is that I would happily supply any editor their deleted contents. As the page stood, it was an attack page containing both valid criticism and invalid material imported from a variety of sources such as ArbCom voter guides. I have explained very thoroughly that an RFCU needs to be properly certified by two users who discussed THE SAME issue with the subject. That did not happen here. NE Ent proffered a discussion from 2012, which is stale any any case, and Msnicki showed one from 2014. At this point I think we need to look at warning NE Ent for headhunting, and WP:BATTLE (which though not his intentions, may be the effective result if he's not careful). I've explained over and over how to file a valid RFCU but he (and you) are refusing to listen. The reason I said "sigh" is that I was repeating the same answer to the same question for the third time in the same thread. If you don't want to make people feel exasperated, read what they've already written and join the conversation in an informed way. Jehochman ^Talk 11:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether that page was started as a valid RFC or not, it was treated as one by many other editors. Two editors certified it, or believed they had certified it and would probably have re-certified in in any necessary manner if they had known your plans. Several editors, myself included, then expressed opinions towards this RFC.

Yet Jehochman over-ruled all this. Others have no voice in the matter, only your opinion is to be seen. Your offer to send contributors copies of their own text is farcical - the point is that you've removed it from the public record. Why do you think that it is acceptable for you, acting alone, to disenfranchise other editors like this?

The clear consensus expressed in the RFC views was that the RFC had no merit, certainly not as it was phrased. If the RFC had thus been closed, I don't think there would have been any complaint. This deletion wasn't closure though, merely a tactical retreat to have another go at it again, despite this rejection.

You are deeply involved in this RFC - you've now taken control of all of it, unofficially and away from sight, and have re-drafted it in your own image. You are clearly intending to persist with this, despite consensus of other editors having once rejected it. Will others again choose to reject it? Maybe, maybe not. But if you persist with this long enough, I'm sure your patience will wear them down in the end. After all, what's the point in pretending that non-admin editors have a voice here when they are blanked at the whim of one?

You're happy to interject little homilies like this into your thoroughly patronising 'advice' to Panda. Did you read them? Particularly the advice to avoid ad hominems? I will thus thank you not to call me a liar. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

N E Ent, I looked on your user talk page and I see Jehochman speaking to you about the RFCU calmly and rationaly, explaining why it was removed, and I agree with him. Follow his advice if you're serious. I would recommend this report be closed down as a bad faith attempt to force an admin's hand KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that Wikipedia has flexible rules, but not when we are talking about people. If you want to create a page giving somebody critical feedback, you need to make sure it doesn't become an attack page. Yes, you can criticize somebody as part of a valid dispute resolution attempt; you can't criticize somebody to settle scores--that's called a personal attack. NE Ent, the RFCU you created contained elements of both. The main problem with it was the the certifications didn't relate to the same dispute, which calls into question whether the page is valid dispute resolution, rather than score-settling. Because of that, the page needed to be deleted. A secondary problem is that the page contained a lot of hearsay evidence, such as ArbCom Voter Guides. Evidence in the form of "These other editors don't like the subject" isn't valid. You have to let each editor speak for themselves; you can't import criticism from elsewhere because that's prejudicial. These could be honest mistakes, so I am hopeful you'll listen to what I'm saying. I told you how to fix the problems and said you were welcome to re-file. I offered to give any editor a copy of their comments so they could add it to a new RFCU. Msnicki accepted my offer and I created User:Jehochman/Draft. At this point, several other editors have picked up on the main (and good) evidence that you presented and are discussing the matter with Dangerous Panda. I think you should be patient and let those discussions wrap up, and then decide what to do. There's no point in running parallel dispute resolution over the same matters; that's stressful to the subject and inefficient. Jehochman ^Talk 11:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think that closing the RFC/U was done within policy. I didn't care either way as I had already stated that much of that material didn't belong within the RFC itself, but an uninvolved admin made the call. At the time, I do think my statement of fact was the most supported anyway. It caught me off guard, but it makes sense. There were significant problems, including using two year old discussion as proof an attempt to resolve had taken place, and of course, the whole "running for Arb" statements, which was completely improper to include. More importantly, the idea behind the RFC/U has continued on the editor's talk page and a number of people have participated in a more neutral fashion. Unquestionably, there are valid questions to be asked, but closing down an RFC/U that wasn't certified properly, combined tons of irrelevant material, and was confrontational from the start didn't prevent those questions from being answered, and arguably, made it more likely they will get answered. Ent, I've known you a long time and agree with you more often than not, but I think you've climbed on a high horse on this one and it isn't bringing out the best in you. Dennis 2¢ 14:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• I understand NE Ent's frustration, but there were some problems with the RFC/U. The Arbcom voter guides were unhelpful and Msnicki's somewhat meandering complaint really didn't make a strong case for a long term conduct issue. Currently, three users including myself are attempting to constructively dialog with DangerousPanda on his talk page. If those discussions are not fruitful, then some of the evidence from the aborted RFC/U can easily be copied to a new one. I think it is important that we give DangerousPanda every possible opportunity to understand and act on the concerns about his conduct in the context of his role as an admin. I would like to add that the comment made by Doc is completely unhelpful, and does nothing more than fuel hostility. Perhaps it was intended as irony? - MrX 17:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  The comment appears to violate rule 3 of the The Four-Way Test. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• "I think it is important that we give DangerousPanda every possible opportunity to understand and act on the concerns about his conduct in the context of his role as an admin. "

So he's guilty already, even before the next RFC is filed (and ignoring that the first RFC was so "invalid" it had to be removed altogether). Why don't we all get our Little Red Books, put our Chairman Mao suits on and hold a public self-criticism session?

Just to re-state it for those who didn't get to see the one and only RFC that has been raised, consensus of multiple editors was that it was a worthless RFC and there was no case to answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. I've been clear in stating my opinion that his past conduct is inconsistent with adminship. Some agree with this; some don't. I'm not sure what you mean with the Chairman Mao comment, but please don't feel obliged to explain it.- MrX 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am concerned that wikipedia admins see fit to 'close' a discussion by deleting from view of non-admins. It's rare that is necessary, and it's a very worrying trend. Can some admin please take the time to remove anything innapropriate and restore it? I dislike cover-ups.88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that we have always deleted uncertified RFCs. We also delete many SPI investigations where there isn't enough evidence to justify the complaint. Even at Arb, if a case is declined, they don't create and keep a page for it, it is simply deleted. You can argue against that policy in general, but in this particular case, the admin did exactly what all others have done before him, ie: standard operating procedure. Basically, "it never happened", as it wasn't properly certified to start. Dennis 2¢ 22:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It is hard for me to argue whether or not it is necessary to delete a page when I cannot see it. It might be appropriate due to slander, legal threats, outing, copyright concerns, etc. - and if that's the case, tell me, and I'll be content to let it go. Otherwise, at least let's see what is under discussion. 88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• "It never happened". It did. Other editors happened to it.

What indication is there that this could not be certified? The two editors who certified it clearly thought they had done so! If they'd had the slightest hint it wasn't certified, I have no doubt they'd have then done so.

I contend that a valid RFC was opened and certified, then rejected by consensus. It thus existed, but has no implication for Panda.

Jehochman contends instead that somehow it didn't happen the first time, yet despite not even being valid enough to exist, it now has to be re-opened again until it gives the right answer. If it didn't even get so far as to be validly certified before, why the need now to bring it back? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness Andy, Jehochman didn't just delete and walk away, nor say the complaints were unfounded, and a number of people have spent a fair amount of time trying to accomplish the same thing. The majority of endorsements in that RFC/U were from people agreeing that the RFC/U was majorly defective. That doesn't take away from the claims or concerns, but the method of which they were filed was defective. Dragging all the comments from his run for Arb, for example. That is a huge no go. You are implying they are commenting in that RFC/U. It wasn't quite bothersome enough for me to close the RFC (although it was bothersome enough that I commented about the defects), but closing it was certainly within the discretion given admin. Regardless, it is here now at WP:AN, I'm confident the community can decide if that was within discretion or not. Dennis 2¢ 23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• By all means, close the RfC. This is what consensus on it was obviously pushing for: the RfC was without merit.

This is not what Jehochman did. Instead he took an RfC heading for no-issue closure and instead he hid the first copy, so that he could immediately re-open it and then it could then give the "right" answer. To do so he also had to exclude the views of a number of GF editors. Look at the furore to even change indentation on a talk: page thread. Yet it's OK for Jehochman to crash and burn a whole RfC? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, and frankly, I expected it would crash as well. Not because there were zero merits, but because of the way it was framed. I said as much there in that discussion. If I'm not taking sides (and I am really not), then I think what Jehochman did was neutral in spirit as there really were procedural issues with the age of the complaints, and the continuity between complaints. And again, the Arb issue poisoned the well. It might be frustrating to some, but I saw the close as an attempt to be fair and neutral, even if it wasn't convenient, and I can't help but to support something if I think it was neutral and within policy. If the community wants to review DP's actions, fine, let them do so properly in a fair and balanced way. I think MrX's efforts on DP's talk page are exactly the right way to do it. Applauding his efforts doesn't require agreeing with his conclusions. Dennis 2¢ 01:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I keep seeing phrases like "poisoning the well" and "double jeopardy". This is not a US courtroom drama. Principles of US jurisprudence aren't applicable here. The Arbcom issue might have been irrelevant (How can we even see now? It has been hidden from the plebs) but WP practice is to close such issues by an admin, not a naive jury, and so they are expected to exclude such matters for themselves.

I am concerned now though about the number of separate places where this interrogation of Panda has kicked off again simultaneously. We do not work this way, that is why we have a centralised RfC: so all can see it, so the inquisitee only has to face their inquisitors in one place. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't watch much US TV, so I have no idea what they say. But an RFC/U is a place that requires a minimum number of witnesses and "victims" to certify, you must present evidence, and there is a set of rules about evidence, so saying it is completely unlike a trial might be a bit naive. And poisoning the well DOES matter, it is a matter of good or bad faith, no different than intentionally presenting any other evidence knowing it is out of context. You get close to breaching policy there. And anyone can restart the RFC now if they want. There is no bar. Jehochman has offered to copy the test to anyone. I think I have as well. The closing and deleting wasn't a determination on the merits, it was nothing more than a technical/administrative function. I do think waiting a couple of days to see how DP reacts to the questions is smart, but it isn't required. Honestly, what has slowed down restarting it more than anything is this very request. Dennis 2¢ 01:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC needs to be restored and allowed to run its course. If there are any violations of OUTING or BLP in the RfC, then those can be selectively removed without deleting the whole thing. I swear, everyday WP's administration comes up with new ways to reduce itself to a farce. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done

WP:RFC/U has a firm requirement that an RFC be certified by multiple parties within 48 hours of creation, and that any such pages be deleted should such certification not appear. After examining the deleted content, I can assure you that the page was deleted approximately 60 hours after creation, and that it was not certified by anyone except for Msnicki. You are free to create a new RFC/U, but policy absolutely mandates the deletion of insufficiently certified RFC/Us. If you wish to object to this provision, propose changes at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment or the Village Pump. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gamergate controversy proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the cesspool of the talk page and its 10 pages of archives, and the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Nip_Gamergate_in_the_bud closing comments of Fut Perf, here is a new proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

“ 1) That a new section be opened on the Gamergate talk page for "potential sources" where any new source may be listed in a citation form with a brief description of its contents.
2) That no new section be opened on the talk page that does not consist of a specific proposed change to the article.
3) That each user may only make a statement citing policies and reliable sources supporting or opposing the change and is limited to a total of 500 words per proposal (plus links to reliable sources)
4) That after 5 days a non-involved admin determine if a policy-based consensus exists to make the proposed change.
6) That a non-involved admin may close at any time a proposed edit that is substantially similar to a proposal that has failed to establish a policy-based consensus within the past 3 weeks. ”

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Gamergate controversy proposal

As this proposal and the proposal in the following section seem quite different (though possibly complementary), I have separated them again so each has its own section for discussion and support and oppose votes. Otherwise things will be too confusing. I would ask Bobby Tables, p, Robert McClenon and MASEM to revisit here to make sure their votes are in the correct section(s). Andreas JN466 16:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that this proposal, which does not appear to have consensus, has to do with the specific draconian restrictions proposed by TPROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Gamergate controversy proposal

• Support Andreas JN466 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This is a draconian restriction, but is better than full protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per notaforum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, and prefer this to the standard discretionary-sanctions form of resolution proposed below (or would support both together). I think in a situation like this it may be more helpful for all users involved if they are given clear, concrete guidance as to what they should or should not do on that page, rather than just a necessarily vague and all-encompassing threat that admins will ban them if they do something bad – in somebody's eyes, according to some non-specified set of criteria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Gamergate controversy proposal

• Strong Oppose I'm much rather see a talk page get 100ks of discussion handled in a civil manner than edit warring on the article over a few character bytes. There is no evidence that the talk page has been mis-used (save for the claims that adding new sections with no actionable steps is a "problem" which it is not as long as they are pointing out potential references) to warrant this type of managed lockdown of it. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. If there are BLP issues with the talk, then the users who posted them, not the talk page process, are at fault. KonveyorBelt 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You don't get to invent new policies to control dissent Loganmac (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• No thanks We don't need more sources or a triage team for sources or whatever. We need a more clear article and a good way for disruptive SPAs to be shown the door. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Opppose because Wikipedia is supposed to be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". When we start adding selective restrictions on certain articles or topics, it violates WP's basic premise. I'm aware that ArbCom places discretionary sanctions on certain topic areas, but they should be the only ones with authority to do so since WP doesn't currently have a configuration control board. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This proposal fails. Please see the one below which has passed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Gamergate solution by Hasteur

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I freely assert that I am a gamer, that I do read various news outlets, that I have not edited the Gamergate nexus of articles. I have some experience with disruptive subsections of the encyclopedia. Therefore I propose the following as Community endorsed General Sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy looselybroadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, page banning, topic banning, semi protection, Pending Changes enabling, or blocking any editor with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee

The idea is to give administrators a shorter path through our sanctions system for topics that are attracting a particular level of disruptive elements. This does not discriminate between the pro/anti camps but is designed to try and restore the air of civil debate back to the system.

Discussion of Proposed Gamergate solution

• Subborned below @TheRedPenOfDoom:'s proposal (and yes I know the page is a redlink) Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Subborned"? (Sorry, not meaning to just pick on typos, I'm genuinely asking in what relation to RedPen's idea this is meant to stand. As an alternative? As an addition to it?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: TRPOD and I proposed our solutions at almost the same time, so I took the action of moving my proposal under theirs. Hasteur (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposal in spirit, but I think a few tweaks for clarity and specific wording would be in order. I was thinking of suggesting something that is similar to the Men's Rights Movement Probationary Sanctions.[[196]] --Kyohyi (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: I cribbed the wording from the GS/MMA authorization (Just above Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Superseded_sanctions) Hasteur (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

They are clearly similar in intent, though I think the MRM probationary sanctions are a little more specific on actions. My reading of your proposal suggests that editors be warned before being sanctioned is this correct? --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: the MRM GS has a very perscriptive and tied set of rules. IIRC, we evolved there after a nebolus form of GS didn't resolve the issue. The implication in the proposed statement is they get one warning then on the next failure they can be sanctioned using whatever means the admin feels is necessary to prevent disruption. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Changed loosely construed to broadly construed per wording of RGloucester. I intended broadly construed much the same way that other sanctions use the "target article and articles that are reasonalby involved near the target" Hasteur (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that this proposal, which appears to be passing, has to do with general sanctions as usually defined rather than the more specific restrictions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that there is little need to challenge every oppose. Particularly those taking the position that this idea is to broad have a valid position even if I don't agree with it. Chillum 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Proposed Gamergate solution

• Support This is basically DS, except proposed by the community instead of ArbCom, and if used properly, will quickly cut down the disruption. Wikipedia, unlike most of the internet, has already acknowledged that GamerGaters don't have a legitimate point of view, so admins just need a shortcut to get rid of problematic editors on both sides. Bobby Tables (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support though I'd specify that gold-locking (full-protection) is also an option. pbp 13:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Purplebackpack89Full Protection is included in the list implicitly (this may include, but is not limited to). I didn't want to make it too verbose, but indicate both the user side options and page side options available to the uninvolved administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I noted in the now archived chaotic discussion that I would support general sanctions. I would prefer that the ArbCom take this case and impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, whose rules, while rigid, are more clearly defined, but this is close enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Oppose full protection (gold-locking) except as a very short-term remedy in extreme cases. It is better to allow questionable edits that can be reverted, with the remedy of blocking or topic-banning the editors making the questionable edits. This will permit us to remove the gold-lock. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What are we voting on here? The proposal by TRPOD, or that by Hasteur? Andreas JN466 15:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Now clear. Andreas JN466 16:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support on the Hasteur proposal, as seems reasonable to deal with SPAs that are just here to stir the pot, as opposed to those that are here to try to actually help (even if they offer solutions that WP cannot realistically offer). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support --Andreas JN466 16:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support in conjunction with existing BLP sanctions. KonveyorBelt 16:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - reasonable step in the right direction to keep it clean, especially with regard to BLP-issues. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - This is a clear plan and should resolve the ongoing concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Though I think the wording should be revised, and that "loosely construed" should be replaced with "broadly construed". RGloucester — ☎ 17:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support That should cut down on any problems. --Obsidi (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Anything to stem the tide.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Something approximating DS is what this topic area needs. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though it sounds like is effectively just a more streamlined version of the tools admins already have under DS. We really need more uninvolved admins coming in and handling disruption when it starts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am up for this. I am not involved in any way, the whole "gamergate" thing is one big WTF for me. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support and I seriously hope that more experienced editors will take a look at the issues presented and become active on the pages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Given the scale of the problem I think this is a good solution. Chillum 20:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)\
• Support -- too much overheated involvement and not enough reasoned detachment is occurring for encyclopedic process to function. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's either this, or the topic continues banging along until it ends up under formal discretionary sanctions (and a bunch of blocks and topic bans) applied by ArbCom. I admit that I don't find the "involved admins will run amok!" "this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit!" shouting below particularly persuasive—and you would still have the same hypothetical problem with a formal DS ruling. For a topic like this one that involves a great deal of short-attention-span blogospheric noise, I might have been tempted to include a sunset clause (6 months, say) but there's nothing to prevent someone from starting a new discussion six months from now (or whenever seems sensible) to review this remedy.
  Speaking generally, there is a history on Wikipedia of sanctions being 'beta-tested' by ArbCom; once the community gets a handle on how particular remedies work (and, for that matter, where the bugs in the process are) then it becomes possible to impose ArbCom-developed remedies through community discussion. Back around the time I first started editing, the only way to ban an editor was through full ArbCom proceedings. Topic bans and their associated boilerplate phrases ("broadly construed") were first generated as ArbCom remedies. It looks like we're now seeing the first steps of the same evolution for discretionary sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Proposed Gamergate solution

• Oppose There have been far too many one-sided abusive and WP:INVOLVED admin actions for me to have any trust in this as an effective solution. Until we clean up the admin corps acting in this area, this "solution" will only invite further disruption.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The amount of admin action in regards to this has been actually small for the amount of conflict there is - a few fully prots of the main page, and a few clear users blocked, Titanium Dragon's involvement notwithstanding. Editors just need to be reminded that we should behave like this is entirely a BLP issue, keeping the same level of behavior and civility as should be expected in those cases. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can only surmise The Devil's Advocate from your complaint that you didn't read even the first line. Any uninvolved administrator. If an involved administrator is using this to bludgen the opposition, then in short order the sanctions can be reviewed (Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee) and overturned by the will of the community. If an administrator repeatedly misuses the sanctions, direct action can be taken against them (warning them not to use it, RFC/Admin Action, ArbCom). There's plenty of chances to prevent against "admin corps" from being corrupt. Hasteur (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Do you not get the part where I said involved admins are not respecting the fact that they are involved? Not to mention admins who are "uninvolved" in a strictly technical sense, but have all the same been abusing their tools. This has been a recurring problem and involved admins continue to act as though they are uninvolved. Only an ArbCom case can truly address these problems.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think you may be misunderstanding. The proposal specifically excludes involved editors. aprock (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• If admins are involved and taking administrator action call them out (privately via their talk page, here at AN, etc). That isn't a valid reason to assume the 99% of the admin corps is unable to use this method to tamp down some of the more disruptive elements. All I hear from you is nebulous numbers, no hard facts. I'm inclined to think your entire opposition is AdminFUD. Hasteur (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm certainly no longer in a position where I'd use the tools on Gamergate. I closed some discussions early and warned some participants but once I started to comment more on the talk page I've tried to never mention my admin status or the tools. I'd welcome someone having the authority to step in who is also a relative outsider. Where in my case I stuck around long enough and had enough of an opinion that I became a (somewhat limited) participant in the discussion. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as far too broad. Tighten this up and add some sanctions for administrators that overstep their bounds and I can support. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thargor Orlando: If administrators overstep their bounds there's the appeal back to the community and appeal to ArbCom to restore the sanctioned user and censure,restriction, and ArbCom for the Adminstrators who systematically abuse this tool. Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That's really not good enough for me for this type of proposal that has a lot of heat and a lot of entrenched interests on multiple sides. There really needs to be some sort of failsafe in place that will make an administrator take a moment and think before acting; as currently proposed there's no such mechanism. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • If that's the argument you want to use then we should summarily desysop all administrators as there's just as much protection around blocks, revdel, rollbacking, etc. Every administrative action is reviewable. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
        • "The idea is to give administrators a shorter path through our sanctions system for topics that are attracting a particular level of disruptive elements." With as much heat as this is generating, maybe a "shorter path" isn't going to help matters. It seems much of the problem beyond the behavior of some new (and in some cases newish) editors is the heavy-handed response, and I don't see how encouraging that without some sort of specific, clear failsafe in place will solve the problem. The proposal assumes the only badly-behaving parties are on one side of the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It's too broad and singles out editors that don't adhere to the party line, Unless clearly biased editors like Ryūlóng are also banned from editing related subjects, This is a bad idea. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Pepsiwithcoke: This does not discriminate between the pro/anti camps but is designed to try and restore the air of civil debate back to the system. If Ryulong misbehaves he's equally as subject to sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Admin do not need a shorter path. They have the tools and the right to do much of what was proposed but this seems like something that needs to go through arb com.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to go through ArbCom. This strikes me as very similar to the Syrian Civil War situation. General sanctions there, established by a discussion here, have significantly helped in containing edit-warring and bad behaviour in what is an extremely contentious area. The same should be applied here, in an area that seems even more contentious. If there is one thing I've learned in editing contentious topics, it is that general/discretionary sanctions really do make a difference in how people behave, depending on whether there are any administrators around to enforce them. They never have a negative impact. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There may not be a need to go to arb com over this yet. That much I do agree with, however...if we take these steps it is almost as if we are asking for admin to have the same powers...so why do we even have arb com. No...admin have all the tools needed for this at the moment and nothing Hastuer has proposed seems needed yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester. Admins have quite enough powers to deal with this and other issues, without asking for super-powers.88.104.22.153 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  He's not opposing it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  No...I am and RGloucester just responded to my comment.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is what we have ArbCom for. If it's bad enough to warrant sanctions then follow process and submit a request for Arbitration. Using a snap shot of consensus from a pool of often frustrated editors displaying several layers of selection bias in order to ad-hoc discretionary sanctions is not just a bad idea here, it also sets an alarming precedent. GraniteSand (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  This doesn't need to escalate to that level yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Functionally, that's what's already being asked for. If this situation is half as out of control as you've presented it as being, right here at AN, then this is something that requires the sort of systemic and sustained response that is pursued through ArbCom. If it's not really all that after all, and this is simply a particularly ugly and magnetic content dispute in a pop culture article, then there are host of tools available to all users to deal with it, without attempting to usurp the prerogatives of ArbCom. If sanctions are needed then take it to the rigorously vetted committee of people that we entrust with such things. GraniteSand (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Bravo GraniteSand! An excellent response!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose because Wikipedia is supposed to be the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". When we start adding selective restrictions on certain articles or topics, it violates WP's basic premise. I'm aware that ArbCom places discretionary sanctions on certain topic areas, but they should be the only ones with authority to do so since WP doesn't currently have a configuration control board. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  The restriction is "continued" problems, after being warned once. Anyone can edit, and they can make an honest mistake (per AGF), but subsequent disruption in the same line is not accepted. This still allows anyone to edit, just that we become less tolerant of people who aren't here in WP's best interests. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  Wikipedia needs more tolerance...not less and this seems akin to censorship in my opinion and/or stopping a conflict that we, as editors have no control over off Wikipedia. We should deal with the dispruption in a case by case manner as this is not so out of control that these steps are needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  Mark, the issue is that this off-wiki conflict has been dragged onto Wikipedia due to every other community out there already cordoning off and kicking out anyone who has been causing disruption in this topic area. The article is plagued with single purpose accounts and POV pushers who are accusing anyone of disagreeing with them as being the POV pusher and they are the bastion of neutrality while being the ones constantly subject to revdels and the like.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  That sounds remarkably similar to the Historicity of Jesus issue...which went to Arb Com and was accepted.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  Do you really think it's a wise idea to send anything on a current and developing event to ArbCom?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because, as others have said, we have ArbCom for a reason. Look, just being neutral, this strikes me as quite prone to abuse. I know that there is a way to appeal the actions taken but on an ideological level I don't agree with this "shoot first, ask questions later" style of administrating. Less neutrally, I also don't like Ryulong's championing of this solution. I can sort of understand his/her perspective on the issue, but I have to agree with others who said previously that he/she seems to be trying to "own" the article. I'm aware that Ryulong is equally subject to this rule, but given the way things are right now I can't see it being equally enforced. Furthermore, if administrators started handing out sanctions ipso facto and the only recourse was to bring your case up on the public noticeboard or the ArbCom (which should have been the one sanctioning you anyway), I could only imagine that leading to more drama. What's wrong with a WP:NPOV warning on the article, anyway? Since when have encyclopedias seriously attempted to neutrally document events as they happen? That sounds like a Sisyphean effort to me, so I can definitely understand Ryulong's frustration if that is indeed what he/she is attempting to do. --Echemmon (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, I think I have a counter-proposal that doesn't hand out almost unrestricted power and unchecked sanctions like candy, but I've never proposed a solution before. Is it as simple as adding another section to this talk page? --Echemmon (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. Add the new section as a subsection to this one using level three headings ===Title of subsection===--Mark Miller (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you think you have a solution to offer, make a new section with similar heading breakouts like this one, with the first section outlining the proposal. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to say any of this when this is your third edit under this name and the last edit from the IP you claim to be was 2 months ago? Why should my agreement to this detract from its usefulness? And I can't be "owning" the article. I was just too ballsy to suggest something be done about a problem that no one has adequately deatl with at the time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That was more than just uncivil that was a personal attack. Who are you to question any editor input just because they have just begun an account? If you can't remain civil...just don't comment please. As far as your "ownership" of the article, I don't know if it is true or not...but it is certainly possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

He is accusing me of things without actually being able to demonstrate any knowledge of what happened. The only people who have consistently accused me of WP:OWN violations are the same people who have had to have their edits removed from public view due to their inability to adhere to policies and have brought the external dispute over this article subject onto Wikipedia in the process. The only thing I am guilty of is not having any patience for these editors appearing on the article's talk page to rehash arguments that are already on the talk page to begin with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

He/she is NOT accussing you of anything but agreeing with others who have. It was actually an attempt to relate to your position, but you seem to want a tit for tat here when it is not needed. And...you do need more patience. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to have any palpable patience in this area when long before I posted what has been called by the detractors a "witch hunt" that blocking one person harassing me on Twitter led to weeks of harassment offsite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well...you need to try. The stuff that is off Wiki is not something I will discuss, but I have had the same issues before and that is indeed where patience is needed...that or report those issues to the site admin where the harassment took place...and then have patience.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Twitter doesn't have the best track record.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Just as a note of procedure, I've added the {{sanctions}} template to the talk page of the gamergate article to make sure it is clear there. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)