Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 20 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 89 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 49 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 40 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 30 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 4 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fianna Fáil#RfC on 'centrist' vs. 'conservative'

(Initiated 30 days ago on 8 October 2024) - Discussion ceased a week ago. RfC has lasted a month. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	28	0	28
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 40 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 295 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 35 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 12 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Ivy Wolk

(Initiated 11 days ago on 27 October 2024) Requesting an admin to formally close this discussion. Thank you I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 7 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles

I propose a community-discussion with regards to implementing a topic ban on User:Thor Lives that would prohibit them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of Heathenry. This is to deal with the fact that they are responsible for disruptive editing on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by their self-professed adherence to Odinism (a typically right-wing, ethnic-oriented form of Heathenry). More specifically they have a) carried out a range of disruptive edits to the Heathenry article entailing damage to the article and attacks on other editors, b) usurped the GA process to further their aims, and c) created a coat rack article.

During August and September they were particularly active on the Heathenry page, where they engaged in repeated edit warring,[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] acted against two consensus decisions (by both renaming the article to their chosen title [7] [8] [9] and adding disputed material [10]), deleted text that was sourced to (academic) reliable-references because they didn't like what it had to say [11] [12] [13], and repeatedly added citations to non-reliable references in order to push possibly fringe views, meanwhile erroneously insisting that primary sources should be used [14] [15]. On the talk page and elsewhere they engaged in personal attacks against other editors [16] [17], made false allegations of sock puppetry [18], actively misrepresented the actions and arguments of their critics [19] [20] [21] [22] and engaged in "outing", a serious form of Harassment [23] [24]. Throughout, I was forced to resort to RfCs and temporary blocks on editing the article to prevent the disruptive behaviour.

After their disruptive editing on the Heathenry page was thwarted by myself and other editors, Thor Lives focused his attentions on the Odinism page, which, as User:Snowded has pointed out, has basically been formed into a coatrack article in which Thor Lives has repeated many of the problems that were raised over at Heathenry (adding non-reliable references, pursuing an 'insider' Odinist agenda etc).

Most recently, when I nominated the Heathenry article at GAN earlier this week, Thor Lives nominated himself as reviewer (despite having never reviewed a GAN before) and from his comments it was apparent that he simply wanted to use this process as a platform to try and force his (previously rejected) ideas onto the article. Pointing this out to him, I terminated the GAN and re-nominated it. However, at this second GAN he again presented himself as a reviewer, at which I had to terminate yet again, and re-nominate for a third time. This pattern of disruptive editing has been going on for at least four months now, and is having a real detrimental effect on these Paganism-themed articles and a draining impact on the constructive editors working to improve them. Accordingly, I think that we need to have a community discussion about how to deal with this problem, with my suggestion being that a topic ban might be needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Initial discussion

Two comments, and I'll ignore everything else. (1) All GA reviewers have to start somewhere, but GA reviewers must be "unaffiliated" with the article; if you've previously been active in the article and/or its talk page, you have no business reviewing it for GA. If you keep it up, you need to be sanctioned. (2) The two outing diffs aren't outing; he's saying basically "From your editing, it looks like you're this guy". If he were outing you, he would say "Hello, name", not "Hello, name (or one of his acolytes)". Looking at a user's contributions and guessing thereby at the identity of its owner isn't fundamentally different from identifying sockpuppets by behavioral evidence (both are WP:DUCK), although of course it can be done in a harassing manner. No comment on whether it's non-outing harassment. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything about outing? Am I missing something? Otherwise I think it is time for a sanction, three attempts to usurp the GA process following a history of edit warring should be enough. The coat rack article really needs to be nominated for deletion. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you see no evidence of outing in Midnightblueowl's links, or you're confused about my comments? If the former, I agree. If the latter, look for the word "serious" (it only appears once in this section, as of now) and follow the diffs immediately after it. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' opened a conversation with me starting with "Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes)", and continued with "you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers". That seems like a clear attempt to establish my 'real world' identity (correctly or not, it doesn't matter) and thus a breach of our anti-Outing policy. As our policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment... Personal information includes legal name... Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts". ThorLives tried to identify my 'real life' identity and make it public here on Wikipedia. That seems like a contravention of the Outing policy to me, but I appreciate that other editors here might disagree with me on that. Either way, it is merely one component of a much wider campaign of disruptive editing, the evidence for which is abundant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur that it's a clear example of attempted outing. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec). I stand to be corrected if it was more than just a wild accusation. Thor seems to throw out accusations based on assumptions about people who oppose his view. I didn't take that too seriously. So no evidence of outing (the former Nyttend). The overall point is that we have a very disruptive editor here - there is the need for some sanction of restriction ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to our outing policy, I'm not sure that it really matters whether it was a wild accusation or a more concerted and deliberate attempt; either way, it was a contravention of the policy. The intent behind it is not of particular importance, imo. However, I certainly concur with your latter point, Snowded; the issue of outing is not the main issue here but merely one aspect of a wider problem which needs to be dealt with through sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where Thor got the idea that you're Stinson; your times-of-editing patterns are in line with your claim to be in western Europe, and they're quite bizarre for someone who lives in Kansas City, Missouri. Acolyte isn't made impossible by geography, but it's a stretch unless you've declared such a thing. Either way, it's obviously not some private information; he's guessing from your editing patterns. Meanwhile, if I'd looked at the GA reviewing more carefully before commenting, I may well have blocked for that alone, although (by itself) intentionally messing up the GA process is no grounds for an informal topic ban (e.g. "Make more edits in this field and you'll be blocked") or an outright indefinite block; you'd have to have a discussion like this one. No support because I don't feel like investigating enough to support, but definitely no opposition. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: would you therefore perhaps support separate action to deal specifically with the GA disruption issue that is independent to the wider debate surrounding a topic ban to deal with the persistent disruptive editing problem? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends. If your proposal passes, there's no need for separate action. However, sanctions are definitely needed somehow, so definitely supporting sanctions for the GA only, if the same thing isn't accomplished for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may, I shall divide this section into two then; one to deal specifically with the GAN issues, and one to deal with the possible topic ban. That way editors such as yourself can contribute to the former without having to commit themselves to the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GAN specific sanctions

As per the discussion above involving User:Nyttend and User:Snowded, this section is being established to deal with the proposal that ThorLives face sanctions specifically for their actions over at the GANs for Heathenry (new religious movement). It is not a place to debate the response to their wider pattern of disruptive editing, which will be dealt with separately in a different section below. Any editor may contribute to either section or both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hesitant to do this, as it's a potential distraction from the potentially bigger issue. I was suggesting GA-related sanctions basically as a backup to the other: if sanctions are warranted for the heathenism issue, the GA-related issue will be trivial, while if they aren't, we can deal with the GA after that. Let's just stick with the side suggestions that Snowded and I have made, along with others' similar suggestions if they get made. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I am happy to put this discussion on ice for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• Support Topic Ban from Heathenry, religion and anything remotely related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as nominator: My recommendation would be a topic ban on Heathenry, all forms of modern Paganism, and ancient/medieval Germanic society (three subjects closely interlinked with Odinism). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose check the talk page completely, Odin has made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page, not all of them , to be sure, but some of his contributions were positive. Also, he seems to be having the same problem a lot of researchers have when they first come to Wikipedia, I'd hate to seem him T-Banned over it, rather, if he'll accept a mentor, he could learn and become a positive contributor.KoshVorlon 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• With respect Kosh, I disagree. It was not claimed that ThorLives' edits were 100% negative, because they aren't: he is not a vandal and no doubt wants to "improve" the encyclopedia as he sees fit. However, the patterns of constant, recurring disruptive editing are very clear, and surely that cancels out any meager positive contribution that he has made? At what point does some small positive contribution redeem both the damage to the articles themselves and all the stress and annoyance caused to constructive editors who have to make repairs and put up with abusive remarks as they do so? (You note that he has "made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page" but from what I can see the only time this happened was when he recommended in passing that we add more information about Ragnarok into the article, which I myself endorsed. Everything else has been non-constructive at best, often disruptive, and sometimes abusive). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Moreover, I disagree with your presentation of him as a newcomer who just needs a bit more gentle guidance in how to use Wikipedia. He has been an active user since at least November 2011, which is more than enough time to learn the ropes and gain an understanding of policy. Further, if you read through that talk page, related user talk pages, and the page edit summaries, you will see that he has been made aware of how his actions contravene policy again and again and again (by myself and others). We keep linking him to the specific policies and explaining what he has done wrong and how to avoid it next time, but we're just being ignored; this can be seen for instance in his repeated attempts to incorporate primary sources by Odinist authors into both this article and related ones (namely his coatrack at Odinism), despite the fact that we have repeatedly explained how and why this is against our reliable sourcing policy. I could cite multiple other examples, but I don't want to bore you. He just doesn't appear to care about adhering to Wikipedia's policies, as is reflected in such statements as "Wikipedia jargon does not interest me." Frankly, I don't see how someone who has no interest in learning how Wikipedia operates and who is repeatedly disruptive is going to change their tune all of a sudden and become constructive and civil. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair, it is okay to use primary sources in an article on the primary source if they are being used appropriately to reflect what it is the primary source believes. However from taking a quick look at the talk page Thor is not doing that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as an infrequent contributor to the article, and a witness to ThorLives' repeated efforts to impose his personal views on the article. Stormkith (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per nom and recommend mentorship. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban unless editor agrees to mentorship ----Snowded ^TALK 03:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I've been musing over this for a couple of days, and the more I have looked at this, the more sure I have become that ThorLives is a problem editor. His claims to be an academic in this field are (I am around 90% sure) a lie, which strikes me as exceedingly bad form and a clumsy attempt to have others protect him and help him push his view. His battlefield mentality, disrespectful behaviour (insisting on calling MBO "he" despite her frequent polite requests to the contrary is, alone, problematic), wikilawyering (see the "outing" discussion below, for example), continual refusal to get the point and abuse of Wikipedia processes (edit warring, GA nominations) are typical of POV-pushers. He does not seem to be here to improve Wikipedia, which is regrettable, as he does have at least some knowledge of the subject matter to which he is contributing; with a clearer understanding of Wikipedia policies and, most importantly, a more respectful attitude towards other Wikipedians, he could have been in a position to make very valuable contributions to this area. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a regrettable but necessary topic ban on the editor in question. I've looked into this and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, I've seen enough. The editor in question is exhibiting all the typical characteristics of a POV editor pushing their own personal non-neutral, non-academic, and in this case, right-wing views. The fact that they are averse to the policies of Wikipedia is particularly disturbing. Their disruptive edits speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am familiar with the nominator Midnightblueowl, whom I have worked with off an on here on Wikipedia over a period of many years (we have written a few Featured Articles together) and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, am reassured of her usual high-quality ethics and expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been four days since this debate opened (and two since anyone new cast a vote), and we now have eight votes in support of a topic ban and one in opposition. That seems pretty conclusive, and accordingly I think that we should administer a topic ban on ThorLives, preventing him from editing articles on Heathenry and broadly related topics (which would include articles on contemporary Paganism, related forms of religion, and Germanic society more widely). As I understand it, that would include banning him from changing redirects or posting on talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs related to those subjects (particularly as ThorLives has used GANs and talk pages as a place to edit disruptively). However, is it premature to bring this to an end and enforce the sanction after so few days? If not, it there an administrator who might bring this about (or can any editor do it)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You could request a closure here, perhaps. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have just done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose/Alternate restriction The editor has made some useful contributions. I suggest they be page-banned from Heathenry (new religious movement) but not its talk page, and topic banned from the subject of Midnightblueowl. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect Rhoark, what are those useful contributions? The only example that I can see is a single comment recommending that we could expand our coverage of Heathen beliefs about Ragnarok in the article. And even if you believe that there are a few more, how do these outweigh the constant disruptiveness? Does 5% constructive behaviour counterbalance 95% disruptive behaviour? Further, I don't see how a page ban would help at all; the editor has shown that they are also disruptively editing on other related articles (such as their coatrack at Odinism) as well as on related Talk Pages and GANs. A page ban that purely protects one particular article would offer little benefit and would not deal with the fundamental problem at all. It would be like trying to deal with a freshly severed limb by applying a band aid. A topic ban is completely necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support The Heathenry article is quite good. The Odinist coatrack borders on being unreadable. The Heathenry talk page also displays an editor that simply doesn't get RS or consensus and seems unwilling to learn it. One also has to question the claimed expertise of a supposed academic that is unaware that Germanic refers to historic peoples who shared Germanic languages and a certain commonality in culture as opposed to modern day Germany. Capeo (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Update as of 18 November: A week has now passed, and we now have nine votes in support of a topic ban and two in opposition. At the risk of being accused of launching an ad hominem attack, it may be pertinent and of interest to users here that ThorLives is also currently being investigated for sock puppetry here, including the use of a sock puppet to continue their edits to Odinism and thus avoid further scrutiny of the ThorLives account. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Holtj has been dormant since 2008, magically reappears the day after ThorLives' last edit, and carries on right where ThorLives left off, even mentioning him by name on the talkpage: "CHECK THE EDITS OF THORLIVES. HE IS A PHD WHO LEFT WIKIPEDIA BECUASE OF THE ENDLESS ATTACKS OF THE PERSON ABOVE".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' response

If I am violating some wikipdia policy, I send my regrets. Frankly, as a sixty-five year university professor, I am rather confused by all of the various rules and regulations.

I do know academic content, however, and at various times I have tried to prevent wholesale changes that one person was making to articles connected to Germanic neopaganism. All of my attempted edits to Germanic neopaganism have been reversed by (talk) Midnightblueowl. Also, when I attempt to act in defense, he repeatedly tries to have me banned or blocked. (I believe this is the fourth time he has attacked me. )

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article and then nominated the piece as a "good article."

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) I have also complained when the article was renamed Heathenry. The neutral term is Germanic neopaganism. Stephen McNallen, an American Asatru leader, avoids "heathen" because in the "public mind" it means an "ignorant, superstitious, or uncouth person." Stephen A. McNallen. Asatru: A Native European Spirituality. Runestone Press. 2015. p. 2 ISBN 0972029257.

Likewise, Dr. Michael Strmiska, a pagan who studies the subject, [25] made this observation: "I prefer Norse-Germanic Paganism as a catch-all term that covers all relevant bases and slights none."

Regarding banning me from the topic, I am a professor who lectures and writes on the topic. Indeed, Midnightblueowl even uses me as a source in her edits! I would identify myself, but Midnightblueowl seems to be a belligerent person.

For the record, I have never tried to block or ban him. --ThorLives (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

--ThorLives (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made it quite clear to you that I use female gender pronouns, ThorLives. You can convince yourself that I'm a man and that my profile is a total ruse all you want, but at least show me the respect of using the pronouns that I ask you to use. It is basic courtesy. Further, while your statement that you have "never tried to block or ban" me might be quite correct, it also brings up an important point: I have not done anything to warrant being blocked or banned. Conversely, you have.

As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one. This, coupled with several observations made by both myself and Bloodofox here, cast strong doubt as to the claimed academic credentials of ThorLives. An academic with a specialism in the subject matter would not make the basic errors of fact that ThorLives has made. They would be accustomed to structuring their argument in a logical and well-thought out manner, which is quite the opposite of ThorLives' rambling, disjointed, and poorly written style of commenting. They would be intelligent enough to master the comparatively simple rules and regulations of Wikipedia in a short period of time. If well acquainted with the field of religious studies, they would not make such an erroneous claim as "When studying a religion... an academic would rather talk to a pope than someone sitting in a pew in Philadelphia" (ever heard of the anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, or psychology of religion?). They would surely be more likely to refer to colleagues like Michael Strmiska and Jennifer Snook as "a religious studies scholar" or "sociologist of religion" respectively, rather than as "a pagan who studies the subject" and a "left-wing Norse pagan". Further, I very much doubt that they would condemn the citation of some of their colleague's publications simply because these individuals were "left-wing".

All in all, ThorLives has not exhibited any trait that I would associate with an established, older academic and university professor; instead, they have exhibited many traits that I would associate with a (possibly quite young) individual who has little or no familiarity with academia beyond perhaps reading a few scholarly books or, at best, a basic undergraduate course. It would certainly not be stretching the imagination to suggest that the "I'm an older university professor with a PhD" claim which ThorLives has repeatedly employed is simply a ruse to gain recognition as an intellectual authority from other Wikipedia editors. I can't help but suspect that there might be some relevance to a comment that they made on my talk page in which they declared that they admired editors who used "cunning" and "disinformation trick[s]" on Wikipedia. After all, what better way to try and gain kudos on an encyclopedia than to declare "Trust me. I am a published academic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's be fair. A PhD isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless the person holding the degree gets to beat you on the head with it like a weapon in every discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, every edit that I ever made to Heathenry (new religious movement) was deleted by Midnightblueowl. Usually, the deletions were immediate. (Normally, I was simply adding references.) Because I had no edits to the page, I thought I could comment on his nomination of the article as a "good article." --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: So a person (Midnightblueowl) can hijack and article, rename it (the neutral term is Germanic Neopaganism, not heathenry), delete the edits of everyone else, and nominate his own article as a good article, and then ban someone who complains about the quality of the article?

If that is the rule, I can respect it, but it looks rather unfair. --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits are being totally misrepresented here. Similarly, ThorLives has omitted key details regarding these events in order to present their own actions as innocent and constructive, which they demonstrably weren't. All of the information that I deleted on the Heathenry article was either a) un-referenced, b) referenced using non-reliable primary sources, or c) otherwise referenced inappropriately (for instance using sources about pre-Christian belief systems to support claims being made about new religious movements). As policy dictates, it therefore required removal. Further, I did not unilaterally change the page name from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry" but rather (at the suggestion of another editor) initiated an RfC discussion on the subject, which resulted in a group consensus to move the article name to that most commonly used in academic reliable sources. Thor Lives then embarked on an edit war to restore his favoured title until multiple un-involved editors stopped him.

Hence, claiming that I have "hijacked" the article and am somehow a problematic editor is frankly preposterous and is simply a tactic to divert attention from Thor Lives' own disruptive actions and total disregard for policy and consensus building. Similarly, his claim that he is being threatened with a ban simply for "complain[ing] about the quality of the article" is again flagrantly (and, I believe, deliberately) ignoring the real reason why sanctions are being sought against him, which have been laid out ever so clearly. Once again, he is knowingly playing the innocent, presumably in the hope that this well help him to evade sanctions so that he can go right back to his disruptive editing ways. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Several new points (before I leave.)

This is quickly becoming a wiki version of "Gresham's Law," that the bad will always drive out the good. (In other words, it appears I will be forced out.)

After Midnightblueowl hijacked Germanic Neopaganism, I started to make extensive edits on Odinism. Notice the wide variety of sources used. Notice also the neutrality of the aricle. Midnightblueowl in his Heathenry article mentions Odinists only to discredit them as "racists,"(the word Americans use), but not all Odinists are white separatists.

Midnightblueowl claims he used neutral academic sources only. Again, because he is not widely read in the field, he seems not to know that virtually ALL of his sources are pagan professors (including me.) Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, Blain, and so forth are pagans. Because professors tend to be liberal, they are all leftist. For proper balance, he must use other sources.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've asked that you please use female pronouns when referring to me; in doing the precise opposite, you are quite clearly setting out to annoy and offend, once again reflecting a total lack of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Of course I am aware that many of the academics operating within Pagan studies are practicing Pagans (including Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, and Blain) as all make that clear within their publications, and the fact that I have included virtually every academic study on Heathenry ever published in the sources of the Heathenry article testifies to the fact that I am fairly well read within that field (it should be noted that in no way, shape, or form has ThorLives demonstrated anywhere near the same level of academic reading). Similarly, if you check my edits, you will see that in no way did I mention Odinists merely to call them "racists"; your claim to that effect is demonstrably false.

Moreover, if you want editors to compare the articles on Heathenry (new religious movement) and Odinism for themselves, then I would be happy for them to do so. They will see that the former is informative and well constructed; the latter poorly written and messy. The former is based on an exhaustive use of almost all academic publications on the subject; the latter has been put together using whatever unreliable references ThorLives happens to favour. The former is a useful article that will benefit those interested in the subject; the latter is simply a coatrack. Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the former will be recognised as a Good Article for its adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; the latter makes a total mockery of those, serving simply as a platform for ThorLives' own perspective on the religious movement to which he belongs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl wrote: As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one

Trying to "out me" here? Is that not a violation of the wiki rules you are always citing?

As for the "65-year old [sic] male Odinist who works as a university professor," I confess I altered some details to protect myself. (Age, gender, or both?) Midnightblueowl has engaged in threatening behavior, so I cannot chance that he would use information about my identity to attack my books or my reputation.

I have never tried to have him banned. I have never threatened him. His behavior (as this banning attempt demonstrates) has been belligerent.

Indeed, perhaps the prudent thing would be for me to leave wikipedia.

Cheers! --ThorLives (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm... no, I'm not trying to out you nor threaten you. At no point did I state that "You are Mr X", "I think that you are Mrs Y", or "all signs point to you being Mr P" and I most certainly didn't say that "I'm going to find you off-Wikipedia and harass you there by tarnishing your reputation". All I stated was that the claims that you made – that you were a 65 year old university professor with a PhD whose publications were cited in the Heathenry article – were demonstrably not true because none of the cited authors fitted that description, and that moreover your wider actions have cast strong doubt on your claims to having any substantial academic background at all. In effect, you were making false claims in order to bolster your credibility in the eyes of other Wikipedia editors, and I called you out on it. That's not outing. Maybe in the 'real world' you really are an author, perhaps writing Odinist books and articles in non-academic contexts, and perhaps even being something of a notable within the Odinist community. If so, good for you. I have absolutely no interest in harassing or upsetting you as a fellow human being in any way, shape or form; my sole focus has been in preventing you from disruptive editing here at Wikipedia so that the encyclopedia can progress and improve under the care of constructive contributors. Outside of the encyclopedia, it's a different ballpark, and a different game. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request backlog

The list of conflict-of-interest requested edits is at an all-time high of 130 requests; also, the list of semi-protected edit requests is also abnormally high, currently at 101. Any assistance in clearing the backlog is highly appreciated. There's another reason for urgency: while some PR editors initially comply with Wikipedia's COI editing protocol by making a talk page request, after weeks of silence they assume that their edits must meet our guidelines owing to the lack of objections, and make the edit themselves. Closer scrutiny by the community would probably have disallowed such changes. Many of the articles with pending COI edit requests are already littered with promotional material, and in the wake of the Orangemoody scandal, we should be doing all we can to clean up. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenging ISIL community sanction

I motion to challenge WP:GS/SCW&ISIL with respect to ISIL in general, and the November 2015 Paris attacks article and directly related articles in particular. These community-imposed sanctions were progressively expanded starting from, if I understand things correctly, arguably-related ArbCom-imposed Israel-Palestinian sanctions, first [Syria] and then to ISIL, by allowing the "broadly construed" specification to let discussions with little participation ratify the broadening of scope.

I am not sure this really qualifies as "community consensus" for community-authorized sanctions, or even if community-authorized discretionary sanctions are a reasonable thing, but even if it does and they are, I believe this claimed consensus can be challenged on the grounds that less than a dozen editors formed it, while on Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks a comparable number of editors impugned it or objected to the application of the sanctions.

In fact, this sequence of events happened on the article's talk page:

• the original proponent of the Syria sanctions placed a notice that they were in effect
• I objected on the ground that keeping the recent high-traffic article under a strict WP:1RR policy would discourage editors such as myself
• An administrator removed the sanctions template under a multi-facted rationale
• There was support for this action, as well denouncing that the "broad construction" of these sanctions makes their scope indefinite
• I complained about receiving an 1RR warning notice shortly after I had newly objected to the sanctions, as a perceived act of intimidation fro mediting (the sender later assured me it was not, but I still think that's the practical effect, especially given the notice allows subsequent blocking without further warning)
• Proponents of the sanctions pointed out they still applied, regardless of the presence or absence of any template
• Fuzheado again removed the sanctions template with an explanation, although it was again pointed out that sanctions would apply anyway; but Fuzheado explained that the most important immediate outcome was to stop scaring editors away

Although the various points against the sanctions (at least on the particular article) were repeatedly stated in some of the above-linked diffs, I will make a summary:

• The community had created a decent working dynamic on the article without 1RR enforcement
• This is a current-events article with issues that are not primarily Syria and ISIL-related
• The potential for block with two reverts may have a chilling effect, when it's hard to follow the fast and often spurious edits
• Almost all editors involved at this point would be unable to revert without risking an immediate block, except for drive-by editors
• It's not an article among the ones in contention from the original and subsequently widely expanded ArbCom case

It is certainly due to my bias, but the points for the sanctions I could read basically amounted to:

• They were approved before

Therefore, I ask you to consider the following two questions:

1. Shall WP:GS/SCW&ISIL continue to apply unchanged on articles like November 2015 Paris attacks where there are arguably exceptional circumstances and a locally shared opposition to actively applying them?
2. Shall the current "broadly constructed" scope of these sanctions undergo new scrutiny and possible narrowing, considering it was previously expanded with little community input?
3. Shall the sanctions continue to exist at all?

My use of emphasis above is to underline the salient points of this motion as I recognize it is a relatively long read. LjL (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions ARE NOT related with WP:ARBPIA. There is similarity in concept, but that is it.GreyShark (dibra) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought, by reading the archived discussion, that the Syrian sanctions were created because there was uncertainty as to whether the ARBPIA sanctions applied to the Syrian war (they were applied in that way, but then successfully challenged). If I'm mistaken, can you clarify? LjL (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that to be correct. What it seems happened was gradual de facto broadening of scope, caused by the slippery "broadly construed"-type language that is often used. Some administrators originally applied the ARBPIA sanctions to Syrian Civil War stuff, thinking that stuff related in a "broadly construed" manner. This became confusing, so ArbCom established a temporary 30 day sanctions regime specifically for the Syrian Civil War, which was then replaced with community sanctions that mirrored the ARBPIA remedy. Following this, with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and their entry into other fields, administrators began applying the SCW community sanctions to all ISIL-related articles, on the basis of a "broadly construed" connection to the Syrian Civil War. For this reason, I requested a clarification at AN, whereby the relevant administrators confirmed that they believed that this linkage was correct. RGloucester — ☎ 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That is my understanding, too. I read that the first community discussion was started "to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions", the restrictions in effect being the impromptu 30-day ones made by ArbCom after the ARBPIA sanctions were deemed to have been incorrectly applied as the disputes did not "fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes", so it seems to me the restrictions are very directly related. LjL (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm one of the people behind the installations of Syrian Civil War sanctions. Originally, the community demanded a sanctioned regime for Syrian Civil War articles and some administrator incorrectly applied ARBPIA, even though there is no direct relation. Then i asked to clarify this and answer the demand of the community by creating SCW sanctions and not trying to bend other sanctions. Syrian Civil War sanctions were then initiated following a community motion, with a wide consensus. Later, without my involvement another group of users expanded the SCW sanctions also to ISIL with the intervention of ArbCom. This is how SCW&ISIL sanction regime was created. If you ask me - it works great: much less edit-warring as a result.GreyShark (dibra) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But possibly also much less editing, at least on articles like the one in question where sanctions can have a chilling effect. This is my greatest concern. LjL (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A similar problem is happening on Metrojet_Flight_9268. There is less and less controversy over ISIL, with pretty much everyone saying they are bad. The exceptions are punk trouble maker editors and/or johadists who come along and put pro-ISIL propaganda in. Any post I've made saying the sanctions apply should only be interpreted as affirming their existence, not as necessarily my support for them continuing. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support pulling back on over-application of the "discretionary sanctions" that are "broadly constructed," as prescribed in the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL guidelines. With no disrespect to the original folks who implemented them – the fact that we cannot even agree on whether it is an Arbcom or WP:AN edict should give us a clue that the entire situation is not very well understood or constructed. Also, only a small number of users were involved with that discussion that has massive impact across EN.WP's 5 million articles. We should open up the discussion for better context.

A summary of the main conflict as described above:

• For breaking news articles, it is extremely problematic to have the pall of the discretionary sanctions hanging over the page, which amounts to a one revert rule (1RR) being imposed on an article in flux. Whether it is intended or not, it creates a low tolerance, "assume bad faith" climate where it is very easy to accidentally run afoul of the guidelines, and wind up as a user block.
• If we consider the November 2015 Paris attacks page, which was the #2 most visited page last week, you get lots of visitors and even returning editors. You also have a number of admins monitoring the page. The vast majority of the article is not about the Islamic State per se, and instead hosts a lot of experienced Wikipedians trying to sift fact from fiction in the news cycle. Things were going fine, until the discretionary sanctions template was put at the top, and then a flurry of accusations about 1RR started to fly. It turned into a wiki circular firing squad.
• Out of WP:COMMONSENSE, I removed the template and proposed that we do away with the hair-trigger application of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. There was generally positive response from the editors on that page that it was removed. There was another exchange of adding the template to Talk, and subsequent removal by me.
• That's we are now. I offer that it's a very bad mismatch to try to impose remedies suited for long form historical articles onto fast-moving, obliquely-related current events articles. I'm assuming good faith by believing that there was a decent rationale (with limited scope) for the discretionary sanctions, but I think this is a classic example of Hard cases make bad law, and we should have a chance to fix the overly broad application of this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Two points. First of all, there is no question of "agreement". These are community sanctions, not ArbCom sanctions, even though ArbCom was briefly involved at the start. That's crystal clear. Secondly, you must understand that we are not a newspaper. Our job here is not to write articles as if we were covering breaking news. All of our articles should be in a "long form historical" style. Slowing down editing on a controversial current events article is something to be applauded, not rejected. Finally, I wonder whether you oppose the 1RR or the discretionary sanctions, or both? Perhaps the 1RR could be pulled back, whilst maintaining the discretionary sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It's broadly construed, not constructed. That's the extent of my competence in this area, and of my contribution to this discussion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removing the sanctions. Yes, the presence of discretionary sanctions and the 1RR restriction might slow down editing. That's a good thing. Per RGloucester's comment we are not a news wire service, we're an encyclopedia. We can approach the subject calmly and thoughtfully. And the restrictions will prevent the usual nonsense that occurs with high traffic, current event articles. Volunteer Marek  06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And, uh, to try and argue that this article is NOT Syria or ISIS related is... um.... disingenuous, to put it nicely. Volunteer Marek  06:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As per VM. The argument that it is preventing rapid updates on current events is not a bad thing. Likewise arguing that this is not Syria/ISIS related is... interesting to say the least. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Having thought about it more, I have to oppose any proposal to pull back the community sanctions (1RR and DS) in this area. Frankly, this topic area is one of the most fraught on Wikipedia. The sanctions have shown to be effective in preventing disruption across SCW and ISIL articles for years. We should thank the administrators who have worked to quicly enforce these sanctions, as well. There is no reason to provide an exception for this one article, which is ISIL-related, and attracts the same kind of controversy as at all the SCW & ISIL pages. Pulling back the sanctions across all SCW and ISIL pages would undoubtedly be detrimental. I imagine that if the sanctions were pulled back, we'd end up with an ArbCom case for this topic area in future, and that's something we want to avoid, no? I have worked on plenty of articles under DS and 1RR, and have never had any problems contributing. As I said above, we are not a newspaper, and have no need to be rapidly updating content as if we were. Encouraging talk page discussion, encouraging editors to think about what they add to such an article, that's a good thing. We want verifiable historical analysis, not every little bit of yellow press. For all these reasons, I must certainly oppose any revocation of the authorisation of these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – it's been working fine as-is. Don't reinvent the wheel. 98.67.1.155 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: here are a couple of examples of these sanctions being directly used to have a chilling effect: "I will report anyone that exceeds 1RR", "In any case, i will issue a personal warning and/or file a case for any violation of the sanctions". These imply that there won't be, at least from the part of those editors, any discerning on whether there is an actual edit war in progress or just any technical violation of 1RR (coming from partial or unrelated reverts, for example), something which had been used as "common sense" explanation that the sanctions would only be applied when really deserved. I'm not sure I want to risk my editing privileges over people trying to make a WP:POINT by reporting every possible thing... LjL (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

These can't be "chilling effects" since "chilling effects" refer to ... effects. What you are linking to is just reminders to editors not to edit war. Since you've been reverting and edit warring on that article like crazy I can see how you'd find that objectionable. Volunteer Marek  07:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Report me then. I am the third most prolific contributor to the article and I strongly suspect most editors respect the work I have done there. I'm not sure the same can be said about you, sending people more chilling notices because (sorry, I mean "shortly after", who am I to imply causal links?) they removed the sanctions template again with the agreement of many other editors (even though you promptly re-added it). You have previously accused me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, but I'm not entirely sure how you can affirm that while keeping a straight face. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Fuzheado and User:LjL. There is no evidence that these sanctions are needed or have any beneficial effect. Considering the emotive nature of the subject, editing there has been remarkably collegial over the past week. On general principles, the idea of accepting this sort of mission creep from a body with such a poor reputation as ArbCom has, is a terrible one. Wikipedia is not a police state, and should not be encouraged to become one. --John (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the motion. The SCW&ISIL sanctions are an excellent tool to reduce edit-warring and stabilize articles, as already proven in the past.GreyShark (dibra) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Stale request to help with related matter concerning myself

Requesting help with this matter, as User:Volunteer Marek is "totally not causing chilling effects" on me by sending me this sort of notice about an article that didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere, in a totally WP:POINTY fashion (I did self-revert as requested, by the way, but I cannot accept this bullying - I'm doing nothing wrong). Further explanation at this talk page section. LjL (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) What exactly is anyone suppose to "help" you with? The fact that I'm warning you - which is doing you a favor because I could just report you - again for reverting repeatedly on the article? On both the Paris-attacks related articles you have been reverting people left and right, in flagrant breach of 1RR in order to basically enforce your WP:OWN version. Also saying that the article "didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere" is disingenuous (i.e. its an attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAME, almost as silly as the claims that these articles have nothing to do with Syria and ISIS (when the text under dispute is specifically about Syrian refugees) - you are perfectly aware that discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on these articles because... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it: You filed this freakin' motion!. Are you really trying to pretend that you did not know that 1RR applies to an article for which you're challenging the existence of the 1RR restriction? Seriously?  Volunteer Marek  21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Marek, in that particular instance you are most definitely gaming the system. Drop it, please: consensus was well against you for inclusion of that material before you began lawyering to get your way. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) What are you talking about? How am I "gaming the system"? I am disagreeing with LjL. Disagreeing with someone is NOT "gaming the system". Volunteer Marek  22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Umpteen people have disagreed with you about the Polish issue in umpteen threads. Certainly, it is true that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote but it seems to me that after several "losses", you then opted to lawyer towards your goal. The thread here appears to be the pertinent one. Dammit, even you acknowledge that you got the articles mixed up - many of us have done that, no problem, but to then lawyer about it as a means to remove the material just seems weird. You said initially that the material was more useful in the very article where you have subsequently invoked these sanctions to remove it after failing to achieve that aim by other means. I can understand you getting the two mixed up, and you acknowledged it, but to then try to lawyer it in your favour just seems like gaming to me. Maybe it isn't, but that's how it looks. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC) I did not "invoke the sanction" to remove it. The presence of the sanction and my opinions about the content are not related. Also, if by "umpteen" you mean ONE then yes. And obviously the issue here is that this is a recent events article which means that what was relevant at one point in time may not be relevant a few days later. But really, content issues are not the topic here. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) You have been doing this removal at two articles, even though you thought it was valid at one per my diff. Numerous people have opposed you, which means more than ONE. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This is what the consensus actually looks like (though I've selected some statements by the people involved but there were many more, as this has spanned several sections). Not wanting to bring the content dispute here, but third parties looking at this need to know how things stand in term of WP:IDHT, WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:GAMING: Volunteer Marek removes statements against staggering consensus, and when I reinstate them (without even removing his further integrations at all), he asks me to self-revert because of claimed 1RR violation. LjL (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC) You filed this motion to remove the 1RR restriction on the article. You then hijacked your own thread by asking for "help" (not sure what that is, looks like either a canvassing for reverts or a request for a spurious block) in a specific situation. This sort of makes it clear that you really don't care about the 1RR restriction per se but are rather trying to find a way to circumvent it in this particular instance so that you can enforce your WP:OWN version of the article through edit warring. Which makes this motion a textbook example in making proposals in bad faith. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC) 1) No, the motion was about the other article, not the "Reactions" article, which is even less tied to ISIL 2) WP:CANVASSING isn't a thing when reporting thing on the general forum for the relevant topic 3) I made it already clear in this motion that application of the sanctions on the particular article is in contention, so you're not discovering anything new 4) as to WP:OWN, you're the one still insisting to have it your way against clear consensus against you 5) I'm at my wits' end with you because you seem like a textbook example of hard-to-deal-with bad faith. LjL (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. If edit warring is still going on, then it is way too early to vacate these sanctions. The MMA topics are an excellent example of how sanctions can quiet down editors and really push them to discuss. There wasn't a time back in 2012-13 where not a week went by without a MMA complaing on AN or ANI. Regulars at those boards have barely heard a peep from them once sanctions were enforced. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note - I don't know why I have made this motion given most of the people who were of the same opinion as me (and I know there were several) have steered very clear of it, but, for the record, this report is an example of the sort of non-constructive application of these overly strict rules that I'm worried about. The editor being reported is, quite obviously to anybody who has followed the evolution of the article involved, one of the top contributors and most constructive editors on it. Now he risks a block for reverting three unrelated, stupid edits. LjL (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP of an article does not provide exemption from 1RR, and is in fact harmful to the development of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of WP:OWNERSHIP is completely unsubstantiated, unless by "ownership" you mean "having made many positive contribution to an article". LjL (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support = Revoke an overreach of the sanction system and restore commonsense because a few editors have used this to push their own agendas. Bod (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I object to the imposition of the 1RR at November 2015 Paris attacks. In the talk page discussion about this, we had been assured by RGloucester, who I foolishly thought was an administrator (it turns out he's just an editor who has been blocked seven times) that, "Administrators are not stupid. Common sense applies, as always, in the application of any policy", implying there was nothing to worry about as long as we didn't edit war over ISIL or the Syrian Civil War. In practice, I received a warning for three unrelated non-SCW/ISIL good faith reverts. I feel that the policy has been abused and therefore support LjL's motion. Firebrace (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd read the sanctions page, you'd understand that 1RR is not on imposed on the basis of the content of edits, but on the basis of whether the page is related to the topic under sanctions, broadly construed. You received a notice of the existence of the sanctions some days before that explained this, and yet broke 1RR. 1RR is a bright line, and you should not've made more than one revert in twenty-four hours on that page. That's on you. I never claimed to be administrator. Anyone can issue the DS notices, as I mentioned on the talk page. RGloucester — ☎ 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There needs to be clarity on when a page is under the restrictions. When you have a "Syrian Civil War" sanction that can kick in on any shooting, anywhere in the world, the moment information starts coming back the shooter was linked with ISIS, there is going to be a long period for each of those highly controversial articles when people are debating whether the restrictions apply or not. That is a sabotage we shouldn't put up with. Either roll back the restriction to include only articles about ISIS itself and battles in Syria, not articles about ISIS actions outside Syria, or else figure out a mechanism by which there is clear and undisputed guidance about whether an article is subject to the restrictions or not. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. However, I think that there is clarity on the scope of the sanctions. The sanctions page says: "All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed". That makes it clear that any page that has some relation to ISIL is under sanctions. There isn't any room for argument on that matter. The real question, here, is whether the community wants that to be the scope. Does the community want to limit the scope to ISIL actions in the Near East? That would seem absurd, in many respects. Does the community want to limit the scope to matters directly carried out by or involving the organisation of ISIL, as opposed to things inspired by it? It isn't clear. I tend to think that, given the nature of the topic, the GS scope should remain. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: There is clarity now, more or less, at 2015 San Bernardino shooting, after multiple sources published about an oath of fealty to ISIS. However, for several days the issue was in doubt; as the evidence started coming in, some editors were extremely resistant to even allow the religion of the shooters to be mentioned, let alone to permit discussion of motive. Even recently there was still debate going on whether the shooting is "really" ISIS related rather than a "lone wolf" admiring ISIS. I still think some of the obvious categories are being kept off. So the classification of the article can end up as a political football. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wnt is correct. If there is this much disagreement and conflict, the guidance is unclear by definition. "Broadly construed" can be interpreted in multiple ways, and is. This situation was entirely predictable; if you give vague guidance, you simply create new battleground, something Wikipedia has yet to learn in general. But, even if this guidance were crystal clear, the problem would still exist that bright lines (1RR) don't work, as I said in my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The 2015 San Bernardino shooting article has been tagged as falling within these discretionary sanctions [26], on the basis of a Facebook post reportedly made by one of the perpetrators, in which she pledged allegiance to the caliph of ISIS. The relation to ISIS is as tenuous as that Facebook post. Note that the article is already covered by general sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - For same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any easing or weakening of the sanctions, if that is the purpose of this proposal. The sanctions are a necessary tool to deal with disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As well as to issue edit warring reports over non-disruptive (and actually useful) edits, like User:Firebrace had to experience from User:RGloucester who (see above) appears to believe that just because someone is a "broadly construed" "bright line", you seemingly have a moral duty to report the perpetrator of the heinous crime against humanity of improving the encyclopedia, regardless of any WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:NOTBURO. LjL (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Bright lines work about as well as mandatory sentencing laws. Actually not that well, when there is no clear statement of where the bright line is (see Potter Stewart; how do you define obscenity?). Any such simplistic lazy thinking should be abandoned and replaced by these questions: Who is collaborating? Who is discussing? Who is respecting consensus? And who is not? It's not hard at all to discern the difference. These sanctions hinder at least as much as they help. Full disclosure: I commented previously in this discussion, as 72.198.26.61, without !voting. I am now editing logged in again. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The template is being arbitrarily applied by lone editors to articles that merely mention ISIL, who then expect contributors to adhere to 1RR. There must be better guidelines developed that clearly differentiate those article types that require the sanction. WWGB (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and "lone editors" are not imposing the sanctions, they automatically flow to articles - especially ones that cover an event where POTUS goes on TV and links to ISIL, a perp pledges to ISIL and the father of the other one says he was into supporting ISIL. ISIL is an evolving topic and keeps generating new articles. Some of the people voting Support here are the ones edit warring to keep out Muslim or ISIL from the article. It's a little cute. Legacypac (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Complete non-starter. If the organization that caused the expansion of the GS is called out in the lead paragraph, it's no stretch of the imagination that the sanctions with respect to the organization should apply under the widely construed argument. It appears the main complaint is that the 1RR is slowing down getting to a consensus version (by restricting reverts). I don't consider that a hinderance but a feature of the GS. If you have already used your freebie permitted revert and you think that something is wrong, you open a discussion on the talk page to establish consensus for it's removal. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please close the TP discussion

Much of the above results from Talk:Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Consensus_about_Polish_reactions and a similar discussion elsewhere. Volunteer Marek is still reinstating the POV tag. I have just reverted. Can someone please review that talk page section and close as they see fit, otherwise this could ping-pong in perpetuity. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit filter RfC

Just a heads up that an RfC is now underway regarding an addition to the edit filter guideline, taking on board some feedback from the RfC for the recently updated page. Opinions welcomed. Sam Walton (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Resolved by motion of the Arbitration Committee, that: Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Google Relying on Wikipedia

Google has, for the first time in two years, published their Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/11/updating-our-search-quality-rating.html

The guidelines mention Wikipedia repeatedly (52 times) as a source of useful information. Those trying to maneuver to the top of Google will be here trying to engineer the right kind of content. Please consider familiarizing yourself with the above document, and watching for such activity. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This document talks about Wikipedia being used to help determine the reputation of websites and companies. It also talks about assessment of authority of Wikipedia articles based on the number of references included. Updated Wikipedia articles are more likely to have a better reputation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to lift the topic ban of DrChrissy

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

---

It is 6 months since my indefinite topic ban was imposed on the 20th May 2015.[27] I am now seeking a lifting of this ban.@Awilley:

Although the subject-area of my ban was initially confused, the locus relates to three subjects (1) alternative medicine, (2) WP:MEDRS and (3) human medicine articles. I have not edited any pages in these subjects or entered into discussions about them during the last 6 months. However, there was initially some confusion on my part whether the topic ban included my sandbox. It was subsequently pointed out how it did, which I accepted. At that time, it was unclear from the WP:Banning policy that personal sandboxes were included. Therefore, after realising the omission, I edited the policy article to specify this to improve the project and give more accessible and accurate future guidance for editors and administrators.[28]

Throughout the last 6 months, I have been highly motivated to remain a responsible Wikipedian and contribute positively to the project whilst avoiding violating my topic ban. To ensure this, I have on several occasions contacted the (final) closing admin, User:Awilley, e.g. here[29] and another admin, User:Slimvirgin, to discuss my potential edits.

During the last 6 months, I have remained a highly productive editor, focusing primarily on animal behaviour and animal welfare articles.[30] For example, I recently substantially re-wrote Pain in fish and started the article Pain in amphibians. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as the science reference desk e.g. here[31]

I believe the fundamental reason for my attracting a topic ban was my lack of understanding WP:MEDRS as applied to alternative medicine. This meant I challenged the guidelines in what became a very pointy and tangential approach to editing Talk pages. I was trying to make the point that it seemed to me at the time, there was inconsistency in the way that sources were being considered as reliable or not. I have now fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:POINTY. I recognise and accept my actions leading to the topic ban were disruptive to the project. I apologise and I pledge it will not happen again.

Briefly, I believe my topic ban has prevented the topic area from being disrupted by myself for the last 6 months. During this time, I have reflected upon and learned why I caused this disruption in the topic area. I will adjust my future editing in the topic area to ensure I cause no further disruption. The topic ban has achieved its objective and I request it now be lifted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: I consider myself a Wiki-friend of DrChrissy, and I have conflicted feelings about this request. I have some questions for DrChrissy that I would be interested in having answered. First, do you really want to be able to edit in that topic area? If you can be productive editing in other areas, as I believe that you are, what good would come from you returning to edit about alt med etc? Second, there is a significant possibility that the GMO arbitration case, now in the proposed decision stage, will end up issuing a new topic ban, in the GMO topic area. How can you reassure the community, in that context, that it is really true that you have taken on board the lessons of the ban that you now ask to be lifted? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Brief non-admin comment: This editor has violated their topic ban as recently as late August. Yobol (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought when I read this was much like Tryptofish's. If your behavior outside the area of your first topic ban leads to a second topic ban, how can we believe that removing the first ban would be a good idea? Deli nk (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)Comment by proposer Thanks for the format change Trypto. You raise an extremely good point. I actually do not want to make editing in-roads into the subjects covered by my topic ban. I have no plans to edit human medicine articles (the irony here is that I cannot recollect ever having substantially edited a human medicine page before - although I may have at some point). I also have very little motivation to edit alt.med articles, except where these relate to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. I feel, however, I will become involved in WP:MEDRS, but again as this relates to animals. I have not looked at the MEDRS/Talk page for many months. The last time I did, there were discussions to extend MEDRS guidelines to animals and perhaps other science pages. I feel I have something to contribute to these discussions, but please be assured, these will not be disruptive contributions.

So, why do I want the topic ban lifted? It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing. There are several editors out there playing "gotcha" with me. Some editors have argued that because I have included content on the environmental toxicity of a substance to rats, this means I am making a comment on human health and therefore I have violated my topic ban. In reality, my reason for entering the content was that rats are often used as a model for the toxicity of a substance to other mammals in general. Other editors have effectively suggested that if I am using a source, I should count the words and if more of the words relate to human health rather than animal health, I am in violation of my topic ban if I use the source! Working under this extremely negative, microscopic surveillance has been totally exasperating for me and I wish to return to editing articles without such scruitiny of my editing.

Regarding the current ArbCom case, I would like admins here to look at this diff, please.[32] Note the first diff of apparent evidence at the PD relates to my behaviour well before the imposition of my topic ban and shows only a single reversion by me. The 2nd-4th diff in the PD also indicate just a single reversion on my part. I would argue this is not disruptive behaviour, but rather, indicates the topic ban I received here has helped me understand and develop a more balanced approach to engaging in such disputes.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not-a-votes

• Strong oppose - DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems. I see absolutely no benefit to the project in releasing him from any sanction they are currently under. Further, the reason given for wanting out from the ban "It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing." Well, that's too bad, they shouldn't have edited in such a fashion as to be topic-banned - and the attitudes expressed 'All these editors are picking on me and looking over my shoulder monitoring my edits' does not bode well for non-combative editing should the ban be lifted. NO, just... no. BMK (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I obviously do not see it in such absolute terms as you do. One possibility I am wondering about would be basically to leave the topic ban in place, but to carefully amend it, by revising it to decrease the ambiguities over where the boundaries are. Perhaps some veterinary topics could be designated as permitted within the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support for editing pages related to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the TB handcuffs DrChrissy from being the productive editor he could be in his area of expertise. It has become more like a punishment than a deflector of potential disputes and that hurts rather than helps the project. Atsme^📞📧 06:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I agree with Atsme that unshackling DrChrissy is more likely to help the project than hurt it. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - I have to note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision a current case before Arbcom. Though it's possible they can change their positions before the close, right now it looks a whole lot like she's treading towards a topic ban in another area. I note the finding of facts here. This does not present much confidence to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support DrChrissy did not violate his topic ban as Yobol suggests, DrChrissy was in fact banned
  User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)
  His post didn't cross that line. I'd say lift it. KoshVorlon 12:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• I continue to think that the wisest course of action here is to better define the boundaries. Personally, I am very sensitive to the fact that it is unfair to DrChrissy to always have to look over one's shoulder. There is a difference between a user being required to be careful in adhering to a sanction, which is appropriate, and a user always having to worry about getting caught in a "gotcha", which should never deliberately be part of a sanction. If there are "gotchas", that doesn't constitute appropriate "punishment", but rather it reflects excessively vague writing of the sanction.

So, @DrChrissy: Would lifting the prohibition on alternative veterinary medicine, while retaining the restriction on alternative human medicine, be helpful to you? If so, would you be willing not to get involved in MEDRS? How would you like to define the boundary with respect to things like animal studies such as that study about toxicity in rats? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply from OP Trypto, thank you very much for this. I know you are trying to help. I could argue for or against your proposal, however, I feel this ultimately comes down to the question, if the alternative veterinary medicine area no longer needs protection, why does alternative medicine and MEDRS need further protection from me? Where are the edits to suggest these latter 2 of the 3 areas of the locus still need protection from me? I feel very strongly that accusations here such as "DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released [sic] fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems." by BMK above should be supported by diffs or other evidence. Otherwise this may deteriorate into a drive-by shooting.

Just to indicate the difficulty of working with a topic ban on MEDRS, try explaining to a new editor mistakenly imposing MEDRS on an animal behaviour article with respect to primary and secondary sources without mentioning MEDRS! How can my inability to even point the editor in the correct direction possibly be beneficial to the project?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's useful to discuss the boundaries in this way, rather than just jumping prematurely to a concrete proposal. I see better now what you are saying about MEDRS. Perhaps you should be able to refer to MEDRS and to cite its proper or improper use in veterinary or animal-related discussions, without actually editing the MEDRS page or its talk page, or making or discussing proposals about how to revise MEDRS. As for alternative human medicine, I too would like to see specifics. From both "sides". I'd like you to indicate specifically what kinds of edits you would like to be able to make there, and I'd like other editors to indicate specifically what edits you have made that they think have been disruptive. Then, let's see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I have never edited WP:MEDRS and I see no reason why I would want to edit the main article in the foreseeable future. I have edited the talk page. At the time of my topic ban being imposed, there were discussions there about extensions of the MEDRS guidelines to include animals and veterinary science. I would contribute to these discussions - however, after having just looked at the Talk page, it appears these discussions are no longer ongoing. I would perhaps like to contribute positively in discussions where animals are used as models, particularly in behavioural studies and perhaps in zoonoses. Regarding alt.med articles, again I would like to edit where my knowledge of animal physiology, behaviour, and adequate design/controls for animal studies will benefit the article and the project. As I indicated in my OP, I have fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS and I would make edits fully compliant with these guidelines.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm pursuing this because I think it is becoming pretty clear that, no matter what, there will not be a consensus for a complete and unconditional lifting of the ban, so I'm trying to pin down something that would be better than nothing. I'm friendly to lifting the ban with respect to veterinary and animal-related topics. I think that, given what you just said, there may no longer be much reason for you to really be involved in the MEDRS talk page. Perhaps we can examine lifting the ban with respect to veterinary alt med (but not human alt med), and animal testing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not share your belief there will be no consensus for an unconditional lifting, unless contributors are allowed to make unfounded accusations against me without providing evidence. What is your evidence that MEDRS needs further protection from me? (Please note that animal testing is not part of my topic ban and never has been.)DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have that kind of evidence myself, and I'm not claiming to. I'm just trying to discuss things, keeping in mind that this is not a vote. At this point, I'm going to step back and watch what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tryptofish, Yobol, and BMK. I see nothing that indicates the ban should be lifted at this time. That the editor wants such a ban lifted only 6 months later tells me they are chomping at the bit to start editing the topic banned articles immediately. And that tells me lesson not learned and disruption will once again likely be the result. If such is the case, what will the response be? An indef ban for the account rather than a topic ban alone? I don't see this request as a wise move on the requesting editor's part nor do I see that there won't be more problems for the editor down the road. The evidence just isn't there. More time has to pass, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not my intention to reply to each and every posting here - I have learned from experience that such an approach is not looked favourably upon at WP. However, Winkelvi (who I believe I have never interacted with before) misinterprets my keenness to have the topic ban lifted. I have already indicated above my future editing intentions if the ban is lifted - I will not re-hash these, but will re-iterate there is no desire on my part whatsoever to rush into editing any of the areas I am banned from. Winkelvi, please AGF. My chomping at the bit is to allow me to edit more positively and comprehensively (note the example regarding MEDRS I gave above - this is just one example where the project is actually suffering from my topic ban). You say "The evidence just isn't there." - could you please tell me what evidence you would like to see?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up - Tryptofish has not voted Oppose. He has actually made some very reasonable suggestions about a modified topic ban which are under discussion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I confirm that I have not yet really "voted" either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per Supports above, and DrChrissy's statement just above. Opposers are utterly unconvincing and appear to be grasping at straws. This is a noted content provider that has served their time, and is not intimidated by the experience. Bravo! Jusdafax 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor is up for an ArbCom topic ban due to the same behavior that resulted in the current topic ban and people want to lift it? Makes no sense. Though I see a lot of the same names supporting here that are involved in said GMO case.Capeo (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Capeo: I have just left a message for User:Edgar181 below, but as you have posted a similar assertion, I will pose the same question to you. To help the closing admin understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What is my evidence? Seriously? There's plenty over on the case pages themselves for those who want to peruse it. The same behavior would POV pushing and some edit-warring as well. Capeo (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. You have still not provided evidence; you have simply said where evidence might be found. The case pages are enormous! You are proposing a huge time-sink for the closing admin to determine if your statement is legitimate and worthy of taking into account.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick follow up - the PD presented only 4 diffs, all of which were related to only 2 interactions but clearly showed goading of me by one very notorious editor. The diffs contained only 2 reversions by myself, one in each interaction presented as "evidence".DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(Whipsers): Psst, DrChrissy, placing blame on another editor isn't helping you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Typto - heard and understood.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I will indeed leave it to the closing admin to decide if my oppose is legitimate. Your history of conflicts in fringe areas is evident enough for them to see just from what lead to your current topic ban and the one soon to be imposed by ArbCom. Capeo (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of which "fringe" pages I have edited since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Since your topic ban? Not much, if any. Which was the point of the topic ban. If it ain't broken don't fix is my thought. Capeo (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The point of the topic ban was to protect MEDRS, human medical and alt.med articles - "fringe" articles (an absolutely enormous topic area) were not even mentioned by the closing admin. I am making this point because you and several other "opposing" editors have accused me of editing "fringe" articles since my ban. I have challenged each and every one of you to produce evidence of this. None of you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. This makes your opposition unfounded and repeats of this accusation are misleading the community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Let me start by saying I do believe DrChrissy is a good faith editor who genuinely has the best interest of Wikipedia's readers at heart. I would add that there were some problems with the original topic ban, namely that users agreed to a ban on "biomedical topics" without really defining what that term means, leading to some messiness when trying to impose and define the scope of the ban, which in turn led to far more after-discussion than should have been necessary for a simple topic ban. Because of these factors I am inclined towards leniency/AGF here.

I'm not sure if the edit cited from August really constitutes a violation of the ban, but if it does I believe this was not intentional, and frankly I don't really feel like reviewing an entire arbcom case to see what's going on there. If arbcom feels a new, different sanction is warranted they are perfectly able to implement it, but I dislike the idea of denying this request because of an accusation there. As a former arb I am painfully aware of how many such accusations are made during cases, many if not most of which don't lead anywhere. I think we should give DrChrissy another chance, per WP:ROPE, which of course implies tht they also should understand that if they cause similar problems int he future the bar to re-imposing this ban will be quite low and there will be very little chance of getting it lifted again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic here: the initial ban was not precise and had to be restated in more precise terms. That happened a long time before the edit in question, plenty of time for DrC to unserstand the boundaries of the ban; but even if we wanted to show DC some leniency because of the initial ban wording snafu, we've already done that: DrC was not blocked because of that edit. There's is absolutely no logical reason why an garble at the beginning of the ban, and a posssible boundary-pushing edit for which there was no sanction equals a lifting of the topic ban because the subject of the ban is tired of it. I will lay odds that the subject of every topic ban gets tired of it at one time or another.

Also, I do not agree that DrC has "the best interests of Wikipedia at heart." I think their editing shows that they have the best interests of their fringe POV at heart, and what they want for WIkipedia is to skew it in that direction. BMK (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I am someone who would, if anything, would be pegged as having a POV opposite to what you ascribe to DrChrissy (not that I really do, but it is how I appear to be perceived), but I do not see DrChrissy the way that you do. And Beeblebrox, there are two separate topic bans involved here, and the one that is under discussion here at AN is not an ArbCom decision, but rather, a community sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Will somebody please tell me what my POV is in relation to this topic ban because I have no idea!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have worded that inelegantly, but I wasn't trying to say that you have a POV. I was saying that the editors who want the ban to remain, full stop, seem to think that you have fringey views or something like that. But I don't think the issue here is really about POV, so I'm sorry if that's become a distraction. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, my reply was not really aimed at you. It was more aimed at BMK. His accusations are a mixture of vague, wishy-washy statements without providing any solid evidence. @Beyond My Ken: What Fringe articles have I edited? How are my edits on those articles indicating I am pushing a POV? What is this POV? I think your reply needs to be very careful because as far as I know, it is not inappropriate to have a POV, but it is inappropriate to push a POV. Please provide evidence that I have been doing this since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I was also not sufficiently clear in my remarks.

@Beyond My Ken:Note the seperate paragraphs. I was not intending to say that the ppossible topic ban violation was due to the earlier vagueries about it scope, just that it looks like a bit of a stretch and I do not believe it was intentional violation.

@Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you originally said, to be referring to Arbs reviewing this topic ban. Never mind. But I think you are right about ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support Topic bans are silly and 6-month or more topic bans are ridiculous. DrChrissy is a good editor and he will either edit constructively or not in these areas. If not, there will be blocks and possibly a ban in the future. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional support with alternate proposal I'm the admin who refined the wording of the current topic ban to what it is now, and I've been a point of contact when DrChrissy had questions or skirted the edges of the ban. I am encouraged that DrChrissy recognizes what the problem was with their editing 6 months ago, and though they have (in my view) been skirting the edges of the ban, I can also understand how it would be difficult to edit articles about animal medicine (their profession) without ever touching human medicine. Anyway, I think the topic ban has been a good thing overall for reducing drama so I'm hesitant to eliminate it completely. I would support, however, converting it to a voluntary "on your honor" topic ban, where DrChrissy promises to do their best to stay away from human medicine and MEDRS, but doesn't have to worry about being blocked if they mess up. ~Awilley (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Awilley, thanks for your input here. As ever, your words are well considered and very helpful. First, I don't think I have ever edited a human medicine article (I may be wrong here and other editors should feel free to indicate this if I am) and I have no desire to begin doing this now. However, although I have absolutely no motivation to start posting to the MEDRS Talk page at the moment, I feel that I may have something to contribute if animal-related matters arise in the future. I have worked extremely hard to build my reputation and integrity here on wikipedia. If I was to promise to do my best to stay away from MEDRS Talk and then edited there at some time in the future, there is no doubt in my mind there would be postings along the lines of "DrChrissy - you broke your promise. You have little integrity". In your proposal, I would not be blocked for the edit, but I feel it would leave me open to abusive and inflammatory posts. One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors).DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about this? You agree to stay off articles specifically about human medicine and human alt-med, and away from MEDRS for 3 months. This is more narrow than your current ban, so you won't have to count words, scrutinize sources, or look over your shoulder. Just don't edit certain articles. This would be kind of the test period to see if drama increases again, and it ends automatically without appeal, after which you can edit anywhere on the site. ~Awilley (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed in principle to negotiating bans with the subject of the ban. Discussion can take place between uninvolved editors, but to put it on a one-to-one basis between the banning admin and the subject leaves it open to abuse. BMK (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Abuse? Who should bans be negotiated with if not the subject of the ban? And what's wrong with giving editors some control over where they can edit? The way I see it if somebody has enough input where they can agree to follow a topic ban, that is a very good thing, and they are more likely to abide by that sanction than if it was unilaterally imposed on them by forces completely outside of their control. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your words. I would be amenable to considering this if the wording was very specific to articles rather than topics or discussion. For example, it was very recently announced that GM salmon has now been licensed in the US. I was editing the Genetically modified fish article to reflect this. The RS I was using stated that the fish would not be labelled as GM because it was "nutritionally equivalent to non-GM salmon" (I think those were the words). I felt this fact should be included, however, I did not include it because it probably relates to human health which is a part of human medicine. I think your proposal would deal with this type of problem. However, it is probably worth noting that the "count the words relating to humans and the number of words relating to animals" and "rats are used in studies for human health results therefore you have breached your topic ban" both occurred on the Glyphosate article - a herbicide, for goodness sake. I can see the distinct advantages of what you have suggested. But, I am mindful that many people have already supported an unconditional lifting of my topic ban now that 6 months has expired, rather than my having to experience a further 3-month test-period. I'm sure the closing admin will take all these points of view into consideration.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this would only apply to articles only. I too am aware of the supports piling up below, so you will likely be unbanned without needing my support. I think it's a good idea anyway, even if you just make the commitment to yourself and don't write it down on-Wiki. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting of the topic ban. It has led to several "gotcha" situations, and no-one being clear where the boundaries lay. DrC makes clear above that his understanding of MEDRS has improved. Lifting the ban will mean that he can work unimpeded, particularly on non-human animal health. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support unconditional lifting of the ban, with an accompanying understanding of WP:ROPE. I've seen enough discussion now, and I have made up my mind. I think that Beeblebrox makes good points, both about ROPE and about the non-dependence on whatever happens at ArbCom. I've waited for evidence of harmful edits around the boundaries of the topic, and nobody has really presented any. Lift the ban entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban given DrC's recognition of what caused the problems in the first place. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support I would feel very comfortable using DrChrissy's suggestion from his response to Awilley above: One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors) I maintain that he should be able to edit this site without question, and would especially hate to loose his voice at MEDRS-related discussions. petrarchan47คุก 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The community will do what the community will do, but if the ban is lifted, I see a significant probability that we'll see DrC's name on the noticeboards again. Remember, you read it here first! BMK (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. DrChrissy - straightforward, cooperative, professional. The Tban implementation - poorly-defined, "gotcha", dysfunctional. (How does WP attract/keep expert editors? By draining them of morale?! DrChrissy is a stronger editor from this muddy experience. That deserves recognition not bad faith.) IHTS (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• support a valuable editor, Wikipedia should be stronger, "knowledge-wise" with such an editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I do not recognise the editor described in many of the support comments here as the one who has been topic banned by the community. The editing environment has been improved in the topic areas covered by the ban. The fact that ARBCOM is examining those very same behaviours that led DrC to be sanctioned by the community suggests to me that this appeal is premature. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's also interesting to note that I recognize many of the "support" voters as being other editors who generally support the fringe side of things (QuackGuru being the obviously blatant exception). BMK (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Although it's true that there are some editors who predictably line up to vote (not !vote) for the fringey "side" every time, and it's also true that the decision here is not going to end up as a vote, but rather as an administrative assessment of the strengths or weaknesses of arguments, I really do not think that DrChrissy is someone who advocates for fringe material. Nor, may I say, am I (and I hope that my pointing that out will not be portrayed as "whiney"). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I was not including you in the group of editors I mentioned, nor would I characterize your participation here as "whining", as opposed to your ongoing disproportionate response to your 24-hour ArbCom block over a month ago, which I advised you to put behind you ("Get over it"), instead of dwelling on it unnecessarily. Other editors have been the recipients of unwarranted blocks for any number of reasons, and you don't see them making it their life's work to rectify the injustice. (That's assuming that your block was unwarranted, which we cannot know because we are not privy to the information that ArbCom was.) BMK (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I repeat: I see no evidence that DrChrissy will add fringey content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Then I would say that your evaluation of their editing is suspect, and advise you to re-read the community discussion which lead to the topic ban in the first place. You'll find it here. BMK (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Roxy, thank-you very much for that first sentence. I could not have asked for a more eloquent piece of writing to indicate how much my editing behaviour has changed over the past 6 months, and how the topic ban has achieved its objective within the time indicated by the closing admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Are you deliberately misreading what Roxy wrote, or are you simply being disingenuous? What he said was nothing like your summary of it. He's saying that the subject area you've been topic banned from has improved significantly by your not being there, and that the description of your editing promoted by your supporters is unrecognizable to him when compared to your actual editing behavior. (Hint: It was bad for you, not good.) BMK (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oh dear BMK. Lots of bold and underlining, but Roxy does not even bother to defend his own posting. Are you able to read his mind? He correctly identified that the community have recognised I have changed my editing behaviour subsequent to the topic ban and that is completely valid evidence for it to be lifted. I simply thanked him for that observation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, I can't read Roxy's mind, but, fortunately, I don't have to, since I can read their words, in which they expressed quite clearly what is on their mind. I suggest you try doing the same, since he said nothing whatsoever about the community recognizing a change in your editing behavior. It probably would be a good idea to read it again, this time without reading into it what you want it to say, instead of what he actually says. While it's often the point of snarky remarks, reading comprehension really is necessary to edit Wikipedia properly, if one is to, for instance, represent accurately what reliable sources say rather than what one wishes them to say. BMK (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry. Real life, and it was bedtime. I dreamed about leopards and spots. Perhaps I should get a vetinary to interpret ... Oh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it is a very bad idea to lift an existing topic ban on an editor who is currently facing another topic ban for the same type of behavior that led to the first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  Edgar181, to help the closing admin. understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same type of behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Not an admin, but an editor who has worked with DrChrissy on articles such as glyphosate. DrChrissy is a valuable and hard-working editor. I think that judgments above that refer to DrChrissy having a "fringy" point of view are troublesome, for two reasons. (1) Having a POV is not against guidelines, but rather encouraged, actually, and i think DrChrissy's POV is valuable in editing here, as it's somewhat underrepresented. (2) The decision of what is "fringy" is rather relative. All judgment should be based on behavior, and relate to whether DrChrissy works well with other editors, uses appropriate sources, and represents them accurately. Any judgment that is based on an assumed "standard POV" for Wikipedia is creating a "party line" of sorts. I support DrChrissy's request for a full lift of the ban, and then future behavior being judged based on behavior in regard to the guidelines. SageRad (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Another member of the crew. BMK (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: What is that supposed to mean? Looks a lot like poisoning the well and attempting to cast me as a gang-like POV editor. If that is the implication, then i ask you to either say that explicitly, or to strike the insinuating remark. Let's be explicit and honest about what we mean. I have indeed worked alongside DrChrissy on a few articles, very productively in general. A few times i've urged DrChrissy to slow down and to listen to other editors more, but on the whole i have found DrChrissy a generally good and conscientious editor. Now would you please explain your brief drive-by remark here? Thank you. SageRad (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• SageRad, considering your situation, you're hardly in a position to pass judgement on other editor's comments or to demand anything, nor can you be considered as a non-partisan voice in this discussion. I suggest that the closer of this discussion would be best advised to ignore your comment entirely as yet another one of the fringy crew. BMK (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• You repeat the same behavior that i've stated is problematic, attempting to poison the well against my input and framing me as a POV pushing gang editor and thereby trying to negate my ability to provide input here. That's wrong. I ask you to strike it. I've got editing experience with DrChrissy and can provide input. I'm generally in favor of the sorts of edits that DrChrissy makes though not always, and my input is quite as valid as anyone else's. What you're trying to do here is not ok. It's battleground behavior. I've stated my concerns. This section is about DrChrissy, not you and i, and I gave my input. SageRad (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and you certainly can do that. I also gave my input, which is that your input would best be ignored by anyone who closes this thread. I see nothing wrong with that. BMK (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what is wrong with it. SageRad (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to !vote (others have lined up to do that from the GMO ArbCom case), but myself and others have voiced concern many times on their talk page when DrChrissy has tested the edges their current topic ban(s).[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] If someone actually is going to consider removing the ban they should consider those diffs and talk page sections and that DrChrissy is up for another topic ban at ArbCom for the same behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you not !voting? It seems a little odd to me to contribute something like you have and than actually refuse to !vote. Perhaps you are not convinced by your own arguments? I feel you really should clarify which behaviours in the admin's closing statement for my topic ban are also being considered at ArbCom. You are stating it is the "same" behaviour, but I fail to see what behaviour you are referring to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mostly because "votes" mean nothing here. The evidence should speak for itself. That and there's already a block of editors associated with the GMO case doling out supports, and I usually give those kinds of votes doubly less weight (whether support or oppose). Tossing a bold word or two in front of my post would carry just as little weight. What less involved editors determine from evidence presented in examples like mine is what matters, not vote counts. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see more of the same aspersions that we've been seeing at ArbCom which includes providing diffs that don't support the allegations (and what makes them aspersions). The diffs I reviewed were simply explanations of the TB, not actual violations of it. Claims that DrChrissy has been "testing the edges of his TB" are part of the reason for his request to lift it - it was never done intentionally rather the TB is thoroughly confusing and extremely restrictive in places where it shouldn't be so it seems quite odd that anyone with a lick of common sense would condemn him to many more months in purgatory because of the flaws surrounding the TB. Ironically, the diffs used to support the unwarranted allegations (and I actually investigated them) also included comments by admins, SlimVirgin and Beeblebrox, who support lifting this ban, so how on earth could those diffs support keeping the ban in place? I will also mention that the long list of diffs look impressive but they don't support any of the reasons given to keep the ban in place. Thank goodness we don't have an overabundance of admins working under time constraints who will simply look at such a large number of diffs and ass-u-me they support the allegations. I find such a practice to be extremely disruptive and potentially harmful to both the editor being unjustly accused as well as to the project overall....but of course, that's just my POV. Atsme^📞📧 20:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As shown by Kingofaces43, DrChrissy seems intent on skirting their topic ban, by trying to edit articles which can be summed up "scientific consensus versus fringe unscientific POV / conspiracy theorists / Daily Mail health articles etc." with articles areas such as GM food, glycophosphate, acupuncture, high fructose corn syrup etc.. This does not suggest good faith. Why the heck can't they stay away from these areas and concentrate on uncontentious areas for a while? Their editing is not suited to WP:FRINGE areas whatsoever. It will just end up with future ANI and ArbCom actions. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an outrageous posting! I have never edited high fructose corn syrup or its Talk page!DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What about [42]? If you havent edited the article you've certainly discussed it. I have changed artcles to areas.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

E/C That is a diff to my Talk page in which I was discussing with a well respected admin whether a posting to the page would be a violation of my topic ban. They explained it would, so I did not make the edit/s. Are you suggesting that my seeking advice from an admin means I am in breach of my topic ban?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OK it's not clear what happened. I shall redact it. But why even ask? Of course it would violate your ban. see WP:CIR --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to also redact your accusation about me editing the acupuncture page and its associate Talk page. My last edit of that page was on May 17th - 3 days before my topic ban was imposed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You had a community ban dated the 16th. See [43]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture is considered to be alt.med, not biomedical. Alt.med was not added until the close by User:Awilley to clarify the situation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

More quibbling? It does not inspire me to reconsider...--Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. This little exchange is typical of the Doc's behaviour with regard to his community imposed topic ban from the beginning. I see nothing to persuade me to change my opinion, expressed above. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC) -

I reviewed our PAGs and couldn't find "quibbling" mentioned as a violation, much less worthy of a TB. What I do know is that casting aspersions is highly frowned upon as is baiting, harranguing and so forth. Wrongful criticism falls under that same category and may be considered a PA. DrChrissy is void of any such conduct and has simply defended himself against unwarranted allegations. Perhaps its time to more closely examine the allegations made against him to see what might be causing what some consider quibbling but is beginning to appear more like ill-will toward a GF editor's integrity rather than an attempt to resolve a real issue. Atsme^📞📧 13:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's where you're wrong, this is an attempt to resolve a real issue, that issue bring DrChrissys' problematic editing of WP:FRINGE topics. I've just noticed that ArbCom have just voted to topic ban DrChrissy from GM plants and agrichemicals [44]. To reverse their topic ban at this time would be ludicrous. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

On the above dialogue, i do not think it's fair to represent the subject's clarification of scope of topic ban as "quibbling" and then to use that as more fuel against them, for that is a silencing sort of tactic. It must be permissible for the person in question to clarify as much as needed, until we are on the same page. I do not like phrasings and tactics that create the impression that any new words from the defendant are, in themself, further evidence against the person. It's a silencing tactic and not fair. It feels very bad to the defendant. They have a right to speak in their defense even if it's to clarify a detail. There is no limit to the amount of dialogue, as long as it's not a filibuster. Secondly, i fail to see how the GM ArbCom case's result is relevant here. Let's keep issues separate. I'm also part of the ArbCom case, and it's very complex and has its own many issues. SageRad (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The recent ArbCom ban of DrChrissy is highly relevant, as it indicates problematic editing in WP:FRINGE topics since the community ban was enacted. It shows DrChrissy has learned little from their community ban, and has continued editing with little regard for earlier criticism. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd I believe you are again inaccurately misrepresenting the situation. First, there is no recent Arbcom ban of me. There is a vote in process, but no ban has been imposed and I feel it is misleading for you to state this has been done. Second, you state that the ArbCom vote "...indicates problematic editing in WP:FRINGE topics since the community ban was enacted". The evidence in the PD relates to Foie gras and Glyphosate edits. Are these "Fringe" topics? If they are not, which fringe topics are you referring to?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to discuss this further here, there is too much crap already in this thread. But if you're really curious you can ask me on my talk page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a matter of curiosity. You have made an accusation against me and I am asking for evidence to support that. What is your evidence for my editing "fringe" articles since my topic ban, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please take some time off from hammering DrChrissy and give an uninvolved admin a chance to carefully review the SUPPORT vs OPPOSE consensus before this discussion turns into 17 pages of meritless accusations and relentless repetition? Imagine being an admin having to wade through this stuff. Jiminy Cricket. We've already explained the pros and cons, and why the ban should be lifted (which has prevailing support) or not lifted (minority view based on the initial confusion as explained by Beeblebrox above). Try walking in DrChrissy's shoes for a week while trying to be a productive editor. It's frustrating to say the least. I will repeat what Beeblebrox stated above as it defines part of the problem regarding the oppose comments: @Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 November 2015‎ (UTC)

You seem to assume that the discussion hasn't been closed because people (yourself and myself included) continue to comment, but I believe you're overlooking several possibilities:

1. The discussion hasn't been closed because no uninvolved admin who's looked at it has seen a consensus to lift the topic ban. Remember, the ban is in place, there does not need to be a consensus to keep it in place, only one to remove it, and since it's a community ban, that consensus needs to be at least as strong as the consensus was to impose the ban in the first place.
2. Some admins have looked at the thread but, considering the likely outcome of the GMO case, are waiting for a formal closure there to guide them here.
3. This is Thanksgiving weekend in the US, which means that many American admins are probably occupied with RL activities (such as family gatherings and Black Friday Christmas shopping), reducing the number of admins who might be interested in evaluating the discussion.

I'm sure there are probably other factors as well. BMK (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Not really involved, but there are some signs that the editor improved editing. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. DrChrissy's input was profoundly unhelpful in this contentious area, consistently supporting fringe views over the mainstream, and I see no evidence that he has gained any ability to accept that he might be wrong, which was a core part of the problem. I also believe that the ban has been flouted, or at least the boundaries pushed, with edits to the GMO topic area, where an explicit ban currently seems likely. The behaviours at issue were the exact same behaviours addressed in the GMO case, for which a topic ban is currently passing unanimously - the are is also a long-standing interest of Jytdog so edits in this area will also likely fall foul of the IBAN which is currently passing nem. con. If this topic ban is lifted it is my firm opinion that it will need to be reimposed in short order in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia in an area of healthcare where there is a major collision between quasi-religious belief and empirical scientific fact. And as a point of information, there is no "confusion" about whether topic bans apply to the sandbox. They do. They always have. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose based on wide support from Arbcom of evidence that DrChrissy has engaged in edit warring and is facing an imminent topic ban by Arbcom from GMO topics: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Proposed_decision#DrChrissy_topic_banned. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose My recent interactions here and edit warring [45] [46] today at Glyphosate demonstrate that DrChrissy is unable to distinguish (or see the problem with citing) primary research studies. I can't see how relaxing this topic ban would be of benefit to the project. SmartSE (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

• Awilley, since you have been overseeing DrChrissy's TB, would you be so kind as to evaluate and close this discussion? It has turned to an ugly direction and what appears to be baiting. Atsme^📞📧 13:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be poor form for Awilley to close a community discussion in which they have voted. It is also poor form of you, as a supporter of lifting the topic ban, to pick a like-minded adminstrator to close this discussion, rather than just ask for someone uninvolved to close it.--Atlan (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I simply thought the admin who imposed the TB had to remove it. My mistake if that isn't the case. AGF, Atlan. Atsme^📞📧 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
      • You don't seem to practice what you preach, as you make a point of questioning the motives of oppose voters here.--Atlan (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
        • It isn't nice to cast aspersions, and it isn't wise to jump to conclusions. Please AGF and stop trying to make this discussion about me. You're being disruptive. Atsme^📞📧 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Cry me a river.--Atlan (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I never got a ping; I don't think it works with the {{u}} template. No, I won't be closing this discussion. As Atlan pointed out I did vote above. Also, it would be incorrect to say that I support lifting the topic ban. Mine was a conditional support with conditions that DrChrissy has chosen not to meet. My experience has been that closing admins tend to ignore extremely long threads full of bickering between partisans. It's possible to say your piece without creating several level-1 bullets and multiple section headings, and then challenging all the opposing comments. (I'm talking primarily to BMK and DrC.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Awilley: I think I might have been unclear in my postings regarding your suggestion of a conditional lifting. I did not say that I chose not to meet the conditions. Rather, I was pointing out that at the time, and still now, there is a community consensus for unconditional lifting of the ban. I was waiting for further discussion of your proposed conditional lifting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Will an admin please evaluate and close this discussion? Atsme^📞📧 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• And in doing so, please look at the hatted material. Most of it is frivolous, but there is also substantive argumentation in there.
  (BTW DrC and Tryptofish, the edit conflicts came about because DrC initially put his comment inside the hat, but at the top of it, and I moved it to the bottom of the hat, where it belonged to preserve chronology. Meanwhile DrC was apparantly deciding that their comment should be outside the hat entirely and reposted it, so we ended up with one comment inside the hat and one outside.) BMK (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The bottom line I think the bottom line here is that at the moment when a proposed remedy to ArbCom's GMO case is a topic ban for DrChrissy, based on a finding that DrC may have violated their current restrictions, has edit warred, and has been engaged in a long time "oft personalized dispute" with Jytdog, and that topic ban has already been supported by all 8 of the Arbitrators necessary for it to pass, meaning that barring any change in the voting, once the case is closed, there will be another topic ban on DrC, this one ArbCom-imposed; it is hardly wise at that moment it to remove DrC's previous sanction. BMK (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) The bottom, bottom line I urge anyone reading the ArbCom case in relation to this lifting of a topic ban to do so very, very critically. There is an ever-growing plethora of concerns about how this case has been, and is being handled. Many of these concerns are coming from greatly experienced editors and are so fundamental to the case that some have called for the case to be withdrawn or restarted from a neutral point of view.[47]DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC The subjects of ArbCom cases, and philosophically like-minded editors, always have "concerns about how the case is handled" when it goes against them. It never fails, and it almost never amounts to a hill of beans. BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind the bottom line - this case has bottomed out and needs to be closed, probably by the admin who originally imposed the TB. Two admins have weighed in and supported removal of the TB, while admin Awilly who has kept a close eye on DrChrissy's compliance and has offered a suggestion. The TB should not extend into this expert's area of editing which has nothing to do with human health other than guilt by association; i.e., humans consume animals, and some of the same alternative therapies are used. Interesting to see how the placebo effect works in veterinary medicine. *sigh* There's no reason to not allow an expert in his field to work unencumbered in his voluntary position on WP. The project might even consider expressing a little gratitude that we have volunteers like DrChrissy generously giving of their time and sharing their knowledge instead of inundating us with the negativity I've been reading. Atsme📞📧 16:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC) As I mentioned below, this is a community-placed topic ban, not an admin-placed ban, and the opinions of admins carry exactly as much weight as that of any other community member. Even Awilly, who was good enough to straighten out the terms of the ban, is not in any way specially endowed to influence the removal of the ban, which is entirely a community concern. The role of an admin is simply to evaluate the consensus of the community when closing the discussion, not to override it, or to count admin !votes as more significant than the votes of you or I. BMK (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Forgive me, BMK, but I don't understand what you're suggesting. Was it not an admin who imposed the TB? Are you saying that a group of editors without authoritative tools can impose TBs on other editors, which pretty much makes this a numbers game? When did consensus become a !vote count? If that is the case, why do we need admins? Forgive my skepticism, but that's a scary thought because it could place editors at the hands of potential lynch mobs. It's bad enough that we have to deal with WP:POV_railroad but it appears to me that the procedure you describe may result in a kangaroo court. A call to Judge Roy Bean, and we've rid ourselves of opposition. For example, (purely hypothetical), let's say an editor claims that you (generalization) are a disruptive editor, and files against you at AN/I, then posts notices of the case on the TP of the WP project to which they are members and also at various other venues where they know they have support. You're saying that the sheer numbers of a "community" of editors casting votes can get you site banned or topic banned - do I have that right? If so, when did that happen and where can I read up on the policy? Jiminy Cricket, how is that not the makings of a kangaroo court, the latter of which should actually be what raises community concern. Doesn't the actual decision rest with the closing admin who then evaluates the merits of the case, reviews the evidence and comes to a conclusion based on those merits as presented by the community (which does not trump PAGs) rather than simply counting votes? Atsme📞📧 14:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC) The seemingly bottomless pit I rather think that whoever closes this request will determine the consensus, and whatever that is, will be the "bottom line" for purposes of this discussion. I think that DrChrissy has every right to respond to criticisms here, but I do not find it helpful for anyone else to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Absolutely, Tryptofish. And I hope that happens soon because the discussion has become less than helpful. Atsme📞📧 14:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Bottom's line "Enough; hold or cut bow-strings." [Exeunt] (Act 1, Scene 2) BMK (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I am rather reluctant to even comment on a posting which is so clearly off-topic, but it worries me that BMK also realises his posting and perhaps those below are totally inappropriate for the Admin's Noticeboard and yet chooses to joke about it on another editor's talk page.[48]DrChrissy (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Visible Pantie Line I'd pay good money for a Punch Line right now. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "That's the way to do it!" [49][50] BMK (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Punch lines do tend to work better than bottom lines in some cases. Who shall we punch (data punch)? Atsme📞📧 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC) The Bottom line "Poor blighter! All he needed was the love of a good woman. Well not even a good one, any old one would have done; slap a wig on a 'Speak your Weight' machine, he'd have been happy. And now he's gone and done himself in!" (series 1, episode 3) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC) The Northern line Mornington Crescent -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Regarding the Hatted content User:Beyond My Ken The fact you have made these edits which you describe yourself as humorous (rather than being topic related) on the Admin's Noticeboard, and you have joked about these elsewhere, shows a great disrespect to myself, the wikipedia process/community, and particularly the closing admin. I feel an apology to the community is well-advised.DrChrissy (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Since you've seen fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat, I've unhatted it so everyone can see it. As for apologies, none is warranted, and none will be forthcoming. I do, however, thank you for your comment, which well displays why the glowing descriptions of your behavior posted by your friends are so superficial and unconvincing. BMK (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC) See WP:BAITING Atsme📞📧 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) I would like to point out that I previously attempted to hat the entire set of sub-threads about bottom lines and the like, on two grounds: that humor is unhelpful to an editor who is making a very serious request for the lifting of a topic ban, and that it is similarly unhelpful for one editor to self-appoint as the determiner of the "bottom line" of a discussion in which the emerging consensus may be quite contrary to that claim of a bottom line. That same editor, first, reverted me to only hat the humorous sections, and then later unhatted everything in order to argue further with DrChrissy. I think that Atsme's point about baiting has some merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC) For the record, while I was trying to make the posting, there were some very unusual edit conflicts which appeared to be due to BMK moving my comment in and out of the hatted content - all without my consent. For BKM's benefit, the reason I saw "...fit to comment on the hatted material outside of the hat" was very simple - the hat carries with it a warning that the discussion should not be modified. I was simply following instructions. And a third point BMK, please read WP:Hatting - this states "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors". You were clearly involved.DrChrissy (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Commenting only about template use, I was the first to apply the hat, so I apologize that I had failed to see what DrChrissy just pointed out about involved editors, although I also think that IAR applies to my use of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Trypto, I was assuming "involved" meant "has contributed to the material being hatted". You had not, so I consider you were non-involved.DrChrissy (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC) The Thin Red Line I have no idea how the title of this section is relevant other than illustrating how this entire discussion has degenerated into absurdity. Let's just lift the topic ban on DrChrissy. I find it hard to believe that editorial actions by DrChrissy have or will in the future waste as much time as this discussion has. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Wastage of time is not the issue, disruption of the editing of the encyclopedia and the skewing of its contents is. And, of course, this discussion -- a large part of which is garbage, I agree with you there -- has done nothing whatsoever to disrupt anyone's editing of content, has it? Nor has it done anything to skew our desired NPOV. Mostly, it's been a bunch of DrC's friends saying what a good person he or she is, so the topic ban should be lifted, and a bunch of other people saying that she or he a combative edit-warrior pushing a fringe POV, so the topic ban should stay in place. That's pretty much what pages like this are for. Oh, and yeah, there's some levity thrown in which apparently is a gross insult to DrC, Wikipedia and the Declaration of the Rights of Man ... apparently. BMK (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC) BMK, I understand where you are coming from, but my overall view of DrChrissy's contributions to Wikipedia are extremely positive. I really don't see quite the same fringe POV as you do. I may be wrong, but I like error on the side of forgiveness. It fails sometimes, but I'll bet that in the long run it maximizes constructive building of Wikipedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC) I forgive DrC, I just don't want them to edit in an subject area the community has decided she's disruptive in. But, you know, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree about the tenor of her editing -- unfortuanately, lifting a topic ban requires a strong positive consensus to do so, and that's not here, and will not be here. (@Atmse: In determining whether to lift a community-placed topic ban, an admin's vote carries exactly the same weight as any other editor's vote.) BMK (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC) FYI, DrChrissy is a he. With all due respect, BMK, I agree with the consensus here which appears to be that DrChrissy should have the TB lifted or at least modified per Awilley. Atsme📞📧 14:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Close out Consensus exists to lift the ban on Dr. Chrissy, can we have admin close this out noting conensus to lift the ban ? KoshVorlon 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC) No such consensus exists, although a bare majority may (I haven't counted). BMK (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Informal poll

Comments are welcome at User talk:Tryptofish#Informal advisory poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mishae

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

---

I've just declined an unblock request here from Mishae (talk · contribs). By a strict reading, I could theoretically be considered WP:INVOLVED as I once had quite a snappy exchange with Mishae after I proposed an article he'd written for deletion; per my comment on his talk, I explicitly abrogate the wheel-warring clause regarding my decline, if anyone feels this is an unblock request that ought to be accepted. ‑ iridescent 10:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good decline. --John (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Horrible decline. You were involved and you had no business declining. Caden ^cool 10:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Good decline. Mishae is fond of mouthing pretty words and sweeping generalizations and then after being unblocked going off and doing whatever the hell he pleases, including disruption, incivility, general incompetence, and outright deception. His last edit summary before TPA was revoked was so vile it had to be revdelled. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I had to deal with some of Mishae's behavior in insect articles and finally got a large number of vandalism-like edits fixed (removing Wikiproject tags from thousands of articles even when the project said they should remain). Coupled with attacking editors who disagree with their edits and overall demeanor described above, the unblock decline is very appropriate considering the history of going right back to the problem behaviors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ah Mishae. I wondered why this name was so familiar especially after a quick refresher from the ANI back in April. I had made a comment at the time with the intention of joining the discussion but a job and city move prevented me. Reading back over his unblock requests, I get the sense that he never has truly understood what it was he was blocked for. While we should give all editors regardless of race, religion, creed, or ability the benefit of the doubt when it comes to contributing, there comes a time when we have to say enough disruption is enough especially when it's impacting the editing health of other editors. The needs of one cannot be placed above those of the many. @Mishae: your inability to fully understand the circumstances that led to your block are the reason why many, including myself, will endorse your continued block. This has never been about your disability, just your inability. Blackmane (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• I didnt realise being racist was a disability... While technically having a past disagreement with an editor might fall foul of the involved (as you dealt with them in a negative manner on a content issue) I would hardly say it disqualifies you completely. Otherwise, decline is fine given their patten of behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Good decline. I can't see that INVOLVED is part of the equation. That said, at the risk of being INVOLVED I've just warned Mishae that he's verging on TPA withdrawal again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

New essay

Wikipedia:Administrators' best practices.

I wrote this essay with hopes in exploring in essay-form how certain admin practices look and feel to non-admins with advice offered to admins on how to handle certain controversial interactions.

jps (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it had occurred to you that administrators edited here without the tools before they became administrators? Tiderolls 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Not all experience the full range of possibilities of what it's like to interact with an administrator as a non-administrator, though. Many administrators have never experienced what it's like to be blocked, for example. And many after becoming administrators forget what it's like not to be an administrator. jps (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that's generally because they haven't done something necessitating a block. It's amusing when these essays come up for two reasons. Firstly, blocks aren't common for regular editors, and it's hypothetically it's quite hard to get multiple blocks; getting more than 10 blocks is a pretty major feat which, I'd say, demonstrates more about the editor in question than the trail of admins. The second point is, yes, blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It does seem to be rather WP:PUNISHing, I'd argue. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. The point isn't to make you feel bad because you made a mistake. The point is to put an effective barrier in the way to stop whatever problematic activity is happening. The fact that that barrier is unpleasant has no bearing on whether it is punishment or not (real world example; mother tells daughter she must stop editing wikipedia until she finishes her homework (unpleasant, preventative). After finishing homework daughter is still barred from editing because she didn't do her homework first. (unpleasant, punitive). To cast it in like-for-like; someone causing disruption on Wikipedia is being unpleasant and will not stop, they are served with an unpleasant situation which forces them to stop. Of course, it should be used in modicum, but then it most always is.... --Errant ^(chat!) 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The point of the block is then not to be unpleasant to the blocked user but rather the unpleasantness is a side-effect which cannot be avoided. That's rather a different sense than saying: "blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point". One could imagine a hypothetical utopian sci-fi vision of a wiki-based encyclopedia where instead of blocking problematic users administrators were somehow able to refer the problematic useraccounts to a simulacrum where the problematic behaviors would only be acted out against a simulated community and the "blocked" user would never realize their isolation from the actual encyclopedia. In such an example, the "blocked" user would not feel unpleasantness but the point of the block would still be achieved. jps (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The essay presumes (accurately) that any action an administrator does will be perceived wrongly (which is accurate, just not the way intended I'm certain) so I'm not sure what the lesson there is. The issue is WP:INVOLVED actions, not all actions (unless you're dealing with jerks). For example, page protection will result in a WP:WRONGVERSION complaining only if the editors involved want it to be that way. Else, most editors with sense may not agree with the version protected but will actually then focus on the talk page discussion rather than fighting with the admin who protected the page as if the admin did it out of personal spite or whatever. It's nice but I'm not sure what's new with it. The bigger problem we have is with admins who shy away from doing anything (and I've fallen into that habit) due to the absolute antagonism you get no matter what you do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ADMINANTAGONISM might be another useful essay. I think that this one speaks at least a little bit to why such things occur. The most adroit administrators might find ways around being viewed that way while still helping to solve problems. I don't know, I don't have the bit. I am attempting to describe how certain admin actions may be negatively perceived by those who don't have the bit and are on the receiving end of such actions. It isn't really meant to be an admonition not to do such actions (the whole point of becoming an admin is that you are trusted to do such actions, after all). It's merely to explain how doing certain actions in certain ways can lead to certain problems and to offer certain alternatives that I've seen work. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that most admin actions are not based on some prior interactions with the editors. While there is a drop in admins, there are still far many admins than regular editors here (especially since admins aren't supposed to be using their tools when involved). For example, if I review WP:RFPP, there's a request for page protection. As I said above, no matter what version I chose to protect, someone could be angry about that. If your solution is that admins should, instead of actually using the tools, try to "help solve the problem" without it, you're suggesting what, I post on the talk page that the people there shouldn't edit war? If I don't use the tools, all I've done is remove the report, post (possibly again) on the talk page and then we'll wait and see what happens. The person who reported it to RFPP is now angry at the admin for not acting. If they stop, no one really needed an admin in the first place. If they don't, there really may be no solution other than protecting the page and forcing them to discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There may be no solution to the problem you describe, and the essay does not say, "don't use page protection tools". Instead, the essay tries to describe the very problem you are outlining. It tries to identify, as you are doing, what the consequences are and how page protection can set up a kind of power dynamic for better or worse. We can all name examples where administrators protected pages after editing the pages and the edge cases of what makes someone "involved" or not constitute megabytes worth of textual analysis on this site. This history necessarily causes problems between administrators and non-administrators. Who knows? Maybe someone smarter than you or I will come up with solutions to the problems, and it is my hope that this essay can serve as a place where these problems are described in clear terms. jps (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Like teachers who are branded as villains by the errant school children they are obliged to admonish, admins invariably come under attack from editors they warn or block - and then also from some they don't (loosely described as the uncoordinated and non cohesive architypes of the anti-admin brigade - only those who self-identify with this group need to feel addressed). I'm not so enthralled by the bit about handing out punishments. All sanctions are supposed to be preventative and this rule is respected by most admins although the very reason I became interested in what adminship is all about all those years ago is because I was team bullied by two teenage admins (since fortunately either desysoped or grown up and found a new hobby away from the Wiki).

Written by a non-admin, and as such by an editor who cannot possibly know what it is like to be a sysop, this essay has a very clear spin against admins and comes across as a patronising piece of finger wagging by someone who has an axe to grind; it will be taken with a pinch of cynicism by its target audience even if they bother to read it.

I will add a link to it on WP:RFAADVICE but even there, I think it will be regarded with a certain scepsis by most of the mature candidates. My advice to the author is to run for adminship; if he fails it would be no big deal, if he suceeds it would be no big deal either, but unlike a leopard, he would almost certainly change his spots. The essay is TL;DR anyway and really belongs in user space; kudos nevertheless for its excellent style and use of English - something that is sadly generally lacking on the en.Wiki.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Request topic ban for CheckersBoard

CheckersBoard has combined agenda-based editing along with making inept edits on André Marin. Request that any topic ban include Ontario Ombudsman. Highlights from this post:

• In addition the speedy deletion tag was removed against wiki rules.
• article relies too heavily on primary and secondary sourcing
• Currently stands as more of a hagiography and job application than a topic worthy of encyclopaedic entry
• topic might be better as a blog elsewhere

All this about a version far from flattering. [51]

Editing ineptness: [52], [53], [54] (note edit summaries) [55], [56] (caused by own doing)

Content ineptness: [57], [58], [59] (material is already in relatively short article)

Lack of awareness of good content practices despite discussion: [60], [61], [62]

Agenda based editing: [63], [64], [65], [66] Note the wiping out of Marin's name. This series of edits is like removing all the policy content from Presidency of Barack Obama (leaving the criticism), moving it to President of the United States, and wiping Obama's name.

Plenty of warnings on user's talk page [67] including a block from me before I got involved with trying to prevent content damage. Edit summaries here are indicative of responses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support I first became involved on the Marin page last month when I expanded the article with sourcing and better layout. It looks like CheckersBoard has been involved with the page for around a year, and there has been some suggestion about CB having a COI on the topic: [68]. A look at the page history for Andre Marin shows the repeated COI/unproductive editing, and frequent reverts by a number of different editors. CB has received over a dozen warnings on his talk page about editing on Marin and Ontario Ombudsman and has made no efforts to improve his edits or try to discuss these issues on the talk page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support based on apparent lack of reading comprehension alone. After being reverted by NeilN, CheckersBoard posted about it on the talk page, apparently under the impression that the information was being removed for being undue. I replied that the information was already present, yet minutes later, they re-added the information to the article without any acknowledgement of the talk page discussion. The agenda-based edits posted by NeilN are also quite concerning. Unless CheckersBoard acknowledges that they are causing problems with this sort of editing, they should stay away from the topic entirely. clpo13_(talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is a long-term problem, and multiple editors (including myself) have tried in vain to get Checkersboard to understand (and edit within) wikipedia guidelines. It's unfortunate, but there has just been too much disruption caused by this editor. Reluctantly support the proposed topic ban. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy question: is it permissible to edit for pay from an IP address?

WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY says "Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions, on their main user page, the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (articles, drafts etc), or, if the talk page can not be used, in edit summaries." IP editors usually don't have a user page, and if they have a shared IP address, it's not really meaningful to have one. So what's policy when an paid editor edits from an IP address, and discloses their affiliation in edit comments or the article talk page?

This has come up twice recently in two independent cases, WP:COIN#William_Morris_IP_editor_or_editors and WP:AN/I#PAYTALK. It's thus a real policy question. In both cases, paid editing was disclosed on talk pages or edit summaries, but multiple IP addresses were involved.

On the one hand, Wikipedia does try to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and while IP editors do face some restrictions, they're allowed to do most things. On the other hand, paid editing from IP addresses is hard to monitor, and makes checking for COI problems more difficult. It is to some extent gaming the system in the WP:GAME sense.

So, what's the consensus on this? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the practicality of enforcing this, the wording is "editors who..." not "accounts who...", so I don't see why this wouldn't apply. Sam Walton (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If the policy explicitly states that disclosure in edit summaries is appropriate when other systems fail (which they easily do for changing/shared IP addresses), then what's wrong with doing exactly that? LjL (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My feeling would be "Yes, provided they disclose in their edit summary or on any relevant talk pages". I only really see a problem if the editing is being done through an IP in an attempt to deceive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC).

Balkans issue

The Boka Star article was recently nominated for deletion by Loesorion with the rationale This article was created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk. I'm not interested in the original shape of the article or any dispute that there may be between Loesorion and Bobrayner. The article has been improved by a number of editors (including myself) and the fact that the ship was involved in arms running is borne out by sources. With this edit, Loesorion claimed he had Deleted and corrected false information from article. This is not the case. The reference "nca" does indeed verify fuel for SCUDS and also parts for the Orkan rocket. The seebiz webpage that was deleted as a reference verifies the sale of the ship to Splitska Plovibda. I reverted the edit and raised the issue on the article's talk page. It seems to me that Loesorion is trying to push his particular POV in this dispute, despite sources verifying a situation opposite to his view. I have warned him via the article's talk page not to do so. As the vessel served with Balkan countries, are there any discretionary sanctions that can be applied to the article? Advice would be appreciated please. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

For inof, Loesorion has reverted me. I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over this, but have explained my position at talk:Boka Star. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Block of Thewolfchild

I blocked Thewolfchild earlier along with Cassianto after I saw them still at it. TWC's edit summary contained a petty attack and it was clear that both were trying to bait each other. Later, after going back and looking further in TWC's history, I see that he had criticized me on Liz's talk page. I want to report that here because otherwise that could look like that had something to do with his block. I'm not sure why I was mentioned there as I only reformatted the thread originally at ANI and mentioned that but otherwise wasn't involved in that case. The criticism had nothing to do with the block but in all fairness to TWC and for the sake of prudence, I would like others to review the situation and remedy if necessary. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Legitimate block. I saw the baiting and general IDHT on Liz's talkpage and was preparing to do the same thing if it continued. ‑ iridescent 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I got flack for simply closing an ANI discussion that was clearly over when all parties received 48 hour blocks. But MSGJ got the brunt of the IDHT treatment despite their patient explanation on why the three editors received blocks for edit warring. At a certain point, you find yourself just repeating yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Looks fine. Legit block, they absolutely don't seem to be able to disengage and move on. Lots of rage flying around. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• A sensible response. Being criticized does not make you involved, if it did then it would be pretty simple for a user to make any admin they wanted to "involved". HighInBC 20:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Legitimate block - and even rather lenient all things considered. I'm also surprised that Cassianto hasn't already been blocked a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• I saw this and thought of this - should Cassianto bring his duelling pistols, or his swords? Anyway, this is okay as a cool down block, but for a week? Can we please shorten it to 24 hours? They're making themselves hot and bothered but not actually disrupting any other bit of the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• We generally don't block to let someone "cool down". Given that the dispute between the two users has been going on for weeks now I don't think 24 hours is going to be significant. HighInBC 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think we're just going to have to accept we have different views on blocks and that's just the way of the world. I guess my stance comes from stopping my kids from quarrelling with each other, I can't "block" them! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well when I was a kid and being a little shit I was sent to my room. If I was really bad I was sent to my parents room(no toys there). HighInBC 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Good block. And you only got sent to your room? You got it light. I used to get a thrashing with a bamboo switch, or a feather duster, or a ruler or even an open hand. Nothing teaches a rowdy consequences as fast as a thrashing. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully my parents took a more modern approach. HighInBC 00:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I got whupped with a piece of rebar while I was walking 5 miles to school through the snow. And when I asked to have the Rolling Stones play at my 16th birthday party, my parents just sneered and booked Herman's Hermits instead. BMK (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at 6:00 in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, work 20 hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed talk page access from Thewolfchild as they were using their talk page to further provoke Cassianto. As always my actions are open to review. HighInBC 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Given my and MSGJ's experiences, HighInBC, I'm pretty sure you will face questions once this block expires. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at my talk page you will see I am no stranger to that sort of thing. I am always happy to answer questions. HighInBC 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw this brewing on your talk page, Liz and the sad thing is that there is a long history of this sort of thing from this editor. See the last block review discussion for reference. I do not understand how the mentoring that this user was supposed to be receiving from TParis has been allowed to be twisted into such a mockery of itself without comment. Obviously both parties to this particular set of blocks are in the wrong, and the blocks are warranted, but I think this situation needs to be monitored. It's only possible to look the other way and kick the can down the road spooling out more and more WP:ROPE for so long. Severely anti-collegial behavior doesn't only make the perpetrator look like a fool, it drives away good editors who have to suffer the abuse. -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: It has been brought to my attention by Thewolfchild that my comment about severely anti-collegial behavior can be interpreted as a veiled suggestion that his behavior is to blame for the retirement of Cassianto. For the record I wanted to note that I was unaware that Cassianto had retired when I made my above comments. I was not thinking of Cassianto as a victim but as a party equally as anti-collegial as Thewolfchild. The victims I had in mind were new editors who are likely to be driven away by caustic aggression of the sort we have witnessed here. Of course it's also a shame whenever an experienced editor is provoked into retirement over something as trivial as the matter these two editors have been squabbling over. -Thibbs (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, if they do their IDHT thing again, they'll be blocked again. BTW, I also advocate some leniency for Cassianto here, who is much more of a net positive and (Redacted). Drmies (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Drmies: advocate leniency for one party by all means, but probably better not to insult the other party ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• If we're going to redact that we got a long way to go. And if we're going to be picky, I think blocking someone and removing talk page access is a much bigger "insult" than a few mild words. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• An indignity perhaps, but not an insult. The thing to keep in mind is that people are perfectly capable of being insulted at something that was not an insult. HighInBC 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me. For the most part it is largely a useless exercise, as your block log is permanent and regardless of how questionable, or just plain bad a block may be, it will always be there to be thrown in your face, or even used to support further (and lengthier) bad blocks. Further, I now also see that questioning an admin per WP:ADMINACCT is now apparently a blockable offence per WP:IDHT. Lastly, I'm not interested in conflict, I'm really not, nor am I here to disrupt. I am here to contribute, in my own way. I may not churn out dozens of FA/GA articles, but I do contribute. I'm not trying to build a resume for adminship, I just look to improve articles of interest to me or fix small errors that I come across anywhere in the project. Sorry if some of you don't see any value in that. Anyway, I come away from this bearing no ill will nor carrying any grudges. This whole experience has certainly been... enlightening. - ^theWOLFchild 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  Just be a bit nicer and you won't get personal attack blocks. It is directly connected to how you choose to act. HighInBC 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  That's certainly one of the more positive comments you have made in recent days. I think it may be time now to move forward and leave the past behind? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• We apparently can't ever take him at his word. When he wrote, "For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me.", he lied. Would it be considered disruptive that he responds like that here but turns around and does just the opposite? He just keeps on trolling...
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why I posted those comments. I did not challenge or question your block. I simply requested that we go our separate ways and that in the future you refer any admin actions towards me to another admin. I also listed my reasons for this. I did this is a respectful fashion on your talk page, instead of here in the open. The fact that you, again failed to respond to me, (or respect my request) and instead come racing back here to call me a "liar" and "troll" in front of everyone, underscores the fact that that you still carry a grudge and are biased, and certainly supports my wp:involved concerns. This clearly shows that in the future, you have no business taking any admin action against my edits or my account. I will ask that you remove these highly insulting and very un-admin-like personal attacks and disengage from any further behaviour like this. I can assure you, and the community I will also be disengaging, as I want nothing further to do with you. - ^theWOLFchild 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

TWC, you posted falsehoods in that and I do not accept that garbage. Trying to get in the last word as if you were correct and make like it is a cordial post...please. I'm not getting into it with you because you have such a bad case of IDHT that I won't waste my time with you. No one believes your twisted logic...not even you. I don't accept your attempts to buy yourself insurance with the involved ploy. I reserve the right to block you if you do something wrong again which it sounds like you are planning since you are so concerned about it. Truth is that if you could behave yourself, you wouldn't need to worry. You tend to be all heat and well, no light. You bring these blocks upon yourself but don't seem to be able acknowledge that you are the one in the wrong. That lengthy block log of yours is one of your own making.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• OK, well the question that kicked off this thread appears to have been thoroughly answered now. Thewolfchild is to be commended for attempting to drop the stick and to step away from this obvious sore spot, however it might also be worth his while considering that a lengthy 3-bullet-point outline of why he believes Berean Hunter's block to have been biased might easily be understood to constitute a "challenge or question" to the validity of the block. No doubt it would be putting too fine a point on it to recommend that Thewolfchild could look to Steelpillow or even SchroCat and Betty Logan for examples of how to step away from the sore spot gracefully, so in lieu of that perhaps a kindly admin could just close this tar baby of a discussion to forestall any accidental resumption of the flogging? -Thibbs (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The "3-bullet-point outline" was simply reasoning to support my request that we go our separate ways and that he refer off any future admin actions. The persistent hostility and personal attacks in his two replies above also clearly support this measure. That's all I was asking for, some distance to avoid any future issues. I don't see how that merits such bitterness and rancor, from an admin no less. But, I certainly agree with closing of this... section. There's really nothing left to be said. - ^theWOLFchild 05:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To me that post looked like you were asking to stop further conflict with one side of your mouth while continuing to engage in it with the other side of your mouth. Like you were trying to get the last word in while stopping the conversation at the same time. It did not look like an honest attempt to de-escalate. HighInBC 05:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor vandalism on webisode episode listings

We seem to have a problem with very minor vandalism. Over the last few years, I seem to be in a constant struggle with someone with a changing IP address. This person seems to have a particular pleasure in changing the release date for the episodes of webseries a few days different here and there. The vandalism is small enough some of these changes have taken years, if ever to fix all of the damage. Yes, as seen in my recent edits of List of The Guild episodes and List of Mortal Kombat: Legacy episodes, the vandal didn't even take the time to change the List of seasons section dates. Here are a few of the IP addresses that have made these changes.

• 2602:306:CD51:9170:8419:466:565C:544C
• 2602:306:CD8F:9060:54B3:E942:F8E6:9AF0
• 2602:306:cd51:ab70:e944:9afb:5cb9:4142
• 2602:306:CD8F:8C70:14BE:366D:EA26:EA36
• 2602:306:cd51:8c10:3581:95e1:da38:5b65
• 2602:306:cdc2:3930:51c4:5933:e564:919a

Most of the edits seem to be coming from Raleigh, North Carolina. I don't know if we can shut this person down. This person seems patient enough to wait editors out on these backwater pages. In the end, I know there used to be some sort of verify edit type of system that used to be on wikipedia. Maybe pages like these need to be under that banner. I am not as active as I used to be. It is just sad to see factual errors on wikipedia that aren't fixed for several years. Oldag07 (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the addresses you've provided above the CIDR range seems to be 2602:0306:CD00/40. We could consider blocking this range if it is a big problem. Have you any examples of recent vandalism from these addresses? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. Here are a few more.

• 2602:306:c59c:5f80:ecad:897b:5c44:b306
• 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:E436:3CD0:6759:2A34
• 2602:306:CD8F:BDF0:FC78:2634:D91C:D34F
• 2602:306:CD51:BDA0:75C2:A162:1855:123D
• 2602:306:c59c:5080:f1df:cb9b:c34a:470f
• 2602:306:CD51:A100:614D:A52:CF31:B105

• 2602:306:35FB:2EC0:584A:8ECE:39AF:E2FC - seems to be non vandalism address

Maybe the right answer is to just ignore it. There has just got to be a better way to catch vandalism like that. Oldag07 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Added bullet points for ease of readingOldag07 (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't block such a large range unless there is significant ongoing vandalism from these addresses. If it is specific articles that are targeted then we could look at semi-protection or pending changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the "non-vandalism address" is unrelated, these are all within the equivalent of 3,072 IPv4 addresses (in between /20 and /21): 108.89.196.0/23, 108.213.24.0/22, 108.216.248.0/22 and 108.220.34.0/23. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume pending changes are for the very minor articles. Yes, I would prefer that we use pending changes for the webisode episode pages. Oldag07 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I put PC protection on List of Mortal Kombat: Legacy episodes, but not the other article. I was having a hard time justifying it because the vandalism was so old and there appeared to be an IP that was making productive edits. Blocking the IPs won't do anything because the person behind them has probably moved on to (hopefully) more productive pursuits. I think WP:Huggle and WP:STiki are supposed to catch subtle stuff like this, but it's certainly not a perfect system. ~Awilley (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Oldag07: - You may be interested in this. What you are describing in this thread is sadly textbook behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom remedies.

Where's the proper place to go, to have a Arbcom case's remedy revoked? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, is thanking someone for their edit or post (via the 'thank' button), considered a breach of one's Arb restricton, if it's a edit or post related to that restricted topic? GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Case remedies can be revoked at WP:ARCA. And it depends re "thanking" - might be a technical violation, but as a one-off it might also be too trivial to worry about. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I do want to point out -- without implying that it's the case here -- that there have been incidents where using the "thanks" button excessively to an editor one is in a dispute with or whom one is under an IBAN with or who has claimed harassment, etc. has led to a block of the "thanking" editor, as the excessive use was determined to be a means of annoyance. So while a quick "thanks" may slip by (which depends to a certain extent on the reaction of the other editor), I wouldn't make a habit of it. BMK (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As long editor-A is allowed to 'thank' editor-B for making an edit or post in a area that editor-A is restricted from, there shouldn't be any problems. Certaintly know way that editor-A could be accused of influencing editor-B. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about "influencing"? If there's an interaction ban, for instance, then the "thank you" is, as Euryalus mentioned, a technical violation of it, albeit (perhaps) a trivial one. The ban is not on "influencing" the other editor, it's on "interacting" with them.

But, now that you mention it, when Editor-A thanks Editor-B for something done in a subject that Editor-A is restricted from, I think that could easily be considered as trying to influence Editor-B, and by doing so being involved in the restricted subject. It's generally best not to test the boundaries of one's sanction, admins and arbitrators tend to look on it with disfavor - so I wouldn't do it, especially since you've now brought it up. BMK (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure. I'm under a 3+ year restriction, which was (of course) put in place before the 'Thank' option was added :) GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IBAN, which specifically mentions the Thank extension, although the WP:TBAN section (immediately above it) doesn't make any references to it. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I was the one that added this mention to the IBAN section, and remember clearly the discussion that led up to it -- everyone agreed it should already have been covered under the umbrella of "interaction" but since at least one person had abused it, there was no harm in clarifying explicitly that the "thanks" extension was included in a standard IBAN. See my diff and the discussion diff'ed in the edit summary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on possible change to administrative policy

Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RFA2015 Phase II RfC

Hello. Anyone who reads this message is invited to voice their opinions on the Phase II RfC for the RFA2015 reform project. The purpose of this RfC is to find implementable solutions for the problems identified in Phase I of the project. Thank you. Biblioworm 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI

Some SPI cases which are CU completed and CU declined (An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behaviour investigation.) needs attention of administrators. --The Avengers 02:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A request to review the close at Talk:Allegiance (musical)

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Allegiance (musical) to determine if the discussion was closed appropriately. The heading of the particular section originally was “Should all content be sourced?”, but after it was closed, an editor changed the heading to “Should plot summaries be sourced … ?” I discussed this close with the closer on his talk page, User talk:SchroCat. I believe the close was inappropriate because the closer was not an uninvolved editor, instead he was a part of the discussion. This is in spite of the fact that the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Closing discussions page indicate that the closing editor should be someone who is “uninvolved”. There are important reasons it should be someone who is not involved, for example: so that it won’t seem as if the discussion was closed only in order to get the last word, or to limit the ability of an opposing view to be expressed, etc. The discussion had been a good exchange of ideas between very active editors about “verifiability” and what the guidelines say about handing citations in articles. I think discussions on talk pages have value, and should be respected. Editors should indeed ask each other questions, and discuss Wikipedia policy, and discuss how it should be edited. Discussions should not be closed unnaturally by an editor who is involved and might want to make a point. It violates the WP policy (cited above). I think it’s important, and the discussion should reopen, and hopefully come to a conclusion, or fall silent, or what ever it might naturally do. Thanks. DagTruffle (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In short, yes. And likely for your own good as SchroCat stated due to you heading nose down into IDHT territory. You opened a discussion with a non-neutral heading to start with and informal discussions rarely require a formal closure by an uninvolved party unless it is a formal advertised RFC or consensus is not clear. The discussion was very clear, and without rehashing it here, you are unlikely to find many (if any) who disagree. Secondly - this was explained to you repeatedly by multiple editors. You continued to argue, but you need to learn that there comes a point in a discussion like that where you either accept you are wrong, or that the other participants just dont agree with you. As wikipedia works by consensus, either option almost always means you should drop it or end up at a drama board. I suggest Dropping it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

As has been pointed out numerous times in many places, current guidance states that discussions can be closed by the participants where consensus is clear. As this was essentially DagTruffle not listening to everyone else, demanding an uninvolved person to close (what barely qualifies as) a discussion is just buro-wonkery and a waste of everyone's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

If an outside view is wanted, I have to say that I am in agreement with Caden. DagTruffle appeared to be making some quite reasonable points about referencing (with examples), and the insistence that the references should be removed seems very strange and contrary to most Wikipedia principles. They are certainly doing no harm, and are actually adding to the veracity of the text. If IDHT applied in that discussion, it looks more like it was those opposing DagTruffle who were guilty of failing to listen. The attempt at pulling rank was really rather depressing to see. I would recommend that the RFC is reopened, allowed to run for longer, and not closed by an involved party. Number 57 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What RfC? - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I assumed this had been an RfC. Nevertheless, I would still recommend that the closure is reversed, and hopefully some more consideration is given to the valid points raised, rather than a new editor being brushed off. Number 57 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Equally or more valid points have been put in opposition; there is no consensus and it's a fairly pointless argument to drag on any further. I'm also not sure this is a new user. (Not necessarily accusing anyone of underhand behaviour with that). There is too much knowledge of procedures, wikilawyering to class them as "new". - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The most serious problem, as I see it, is that some editors think it is justified to strip entire article sections of inline citations. And citations are the way content can be verified. The best argument they give for for removing citations, is that something similar is done in articles on movies. But Broadway musicals and movies are different. For example, the only way an editor can use a “primary source” to verify the plot summary for the musical Allegiance, would be to travel to New York City, buy a ticket for $306.00 or less, and report back. That is until the script is published, if that happens. But since plots of musicals are often described in books and articles why not cite them? Especially since verification is one of the Seven Pillars of Wikipedia. (By the way, I did indeed have a previous Wikipedia account — Dagtorfleson — until my computer died, and took some passwords to the grave with it.) DagTruffle (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is rather disappointing. On the relevant page I congratulated both the protagonists on their courtesy and consensual approach, but I seem have been premature in that judgement so far as Dag Truffle is concerned. Whatever the merits of the arguments (rather caricatured here by Mr/Ms Truffle, in my view, as neither the Carmen, Carousel nor Romeo and Juliet articles refer to films) there was only one editor urging the Truffle line, viz Mr/Ms Truffle. There being no consensus for his/her point of view it was entirely within the normal WP rules to bring the one-sided debate to a conclusion. I am glad to note Dag Truffle's statement that he/she is not a new editor: not only was I too a touch surprised at such slickness in Wiki procedural lore but I feel that an experienced editor, albeit under earlier names, should recognise the need for consensus. Unhelpful comment removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC). Tim riley talk 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

Unhelpful comment removed. Indentation may be affected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

• Next revert in this section gets a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure should definitely not have been closed by an involved user. DagTruffle had understandable concerns, even if others disagree with his views. I would have waited for an uninvolved user to close the discussion regardless of the overall consensus (or lack thereof). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know that there's much to be done here about the close. It wasn't a formal process discussion but let's take on that the fact that involved people closing discussions is poor form; an appearance of bias; a drama magnet. I do not have the time to start an RfC but the "three experienced editors" here got it very wrong in my opinion; a basic failure of logic. The fact that plots don't require sources does not imply that plots should not have sources, nor that it is okay to remove reliable sources once added where they weren't mandated. To be fair, the original post may have started with the notion that plots do require sources, which is incorrect by current policy and guidelines, but the underlying issue was removal of sources, and the very clear notion expressed by the opposition was that because sources weren't required, that warranted their removal. I would go to bat against that notion—one I think of as pernicious. DagTruffle was later arguing that much more fundamental issue, and the idea this was just a new user with some zany notion clearly on the other side of policy and guideline to be brushed off as an IDHT malcontent is troubling. Had I come upon that discussion in the ordinary course, I would have attempted to shift the focus to what I see as the real issue. This is all to highlight that, yes, I don't think the close directly violated any policy, but that nevertheless it was a very bad idea.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to move archives of Talk:List of YouTubers

A few months ago, the page at List of YouTube personalities was moved to List of YouTubers; the main talk page was moved along with the article, but its archives stayed at their original titles, and they can all be accessed from here. Could an admin move all the archives and the archive index to the new title? I could technically do this myself, but since I can't move more than one page at a time nor suppress any redirects, it would make for a messy process. I originally posted this request at WP:Editor assistance/Requests but it hasn't gotten any attention. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

All done. I didn't see the point of suppressing any redirects, so I didn't. Graham87 07:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Too be fair, there's nothing non-admins from mass moving pages via a script, just as admins do. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Admins don't have any mass-move scripts granted as part of the admin package. It's just that we get an additional check box when moving pages: "Move subpages (up to 100), if applicable". That's the only reason (as far as I can imagine) why this request makes sense. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC

Anyone have a mop and bucket for the backlog there? Several discussions are over a month old. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Rescinding unused community sanctions: WP:GS/BI

The "British Isles" community-authorised probation has not been enforced for more than three years, the last enforcement action having taken place on the 27th of May 2012. It is quite clear that these sanctions are not needed, and I believe that most in the community would agree that sanctions such as these should only remain in place if they are needed. Therefore, I propose that the authorisation for these sanctions be revoked by the community. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd be taking away the sanctions on an area that is still quietly simmering, on the grounds that it hasn't exploded lately. Note the intensity of the arguments in Talk:British Isles/Archive 39. A typical comment there was "Is there still an article on Wiki called "British Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it." And see the current discussion at Talk:British Isles which is reminiscent of many that have occurred in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"British Isles", like many other topic areas, will never stop being controversial. That doesn't mean that a sanctions regime that hasn't been used in more than three years should remain in place. Plenty of controversial topic areas survive without such systems. If a volcano does truly "erupt", sanctions can be reauthorised. There has been no indication as such, however. Keeping unused sanctions regimes around merely because a topic area is controversial is byzantine. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Remove/revoke/whatever you want to call it. Support RGloucester's suggestion. Long-unenforced sanctions shouldn't be in place, if nothing else because they're not friendly to the uninitiated. Imagine that several new-ish editors engage in a good-faith content dispute on this topic: a longtime editor familiar with the sanctions can come in, play the sanctions as a trump card, and win the dispute. This flies in the face of standards such as WP:NOTBURO; we have too many rules, and getting rid of never-used rules is a good way to simplify things. As already noted, they can be reactivated if truly needed, but merely responding to intense arguments such as "Is there still...believe it" is no reason to have broad sanctions in place. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, leave in place It's rather silly to remove a sanction because it's working. The fact that it hasn't needed to be invoked doesn't mean that the problem has magically disappeared, it means that the sanction is doing what it's supposed to do, discourage people from editing in a way that invites invoking the sanction. BMK (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is hard to believe, given that there are no notices in place on any related pages that inform users of these sanctions (not even on Talk:British Isles). No notices regarding their existence have been given to users in more than three years, either. The purpose of general sanctions is to curtail disruption. If there is no disruption worth curtailing in more than three years, it is hard to believe that these sanctions should continue to exist. How can users be discouraged from editing in such a way if no one even knows that the sanctions exist? The only way one would find out is by visiting WP:GS, and that page is not a frequently viewed page. All in all, there is no evidence that an extraordinary regime is presently necessary in this topic area. General sanctions exist for extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the standard manner in which disruption is dealt with, and I do not see how an unenforced, unknown sanctions regime is aiding the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So ... if a public swimming pool posts prominent signs about no diving in the shallow end, and the number of injuries from diving at the shallow end drops down to nothing, your advice would be to remove the signage as it's clearly no longer necessary? If reducing the posted speed limit on a dangerous curve cuts down the number of accidents significantly, you'd tell the authorities to put the speed limit back up to where it was, since it's no longer needed? BMK (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a similar circumstance. First of all, there are no prominent signs indicating the existence of these sanctions. That's what I just wrote above. Furthermore, if it were a similar circumstance, we would have general sanctions by default in all topic areas. We do not. We only use them as extraordinary measures. If they are not used (or useful), we remove them. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The comparison to posting a sign would be to put a notice on related articles, whether by an ordinary template or an editnotice or something similar. Here, we're just pulling over drivers who infringe an unposted speed limit, giving them a warning, and arresting the ones who re-infringe...except for the fact that we're not doing this, because there's been no enforcement in three years. We don't need to maintain this policy of pulling them over, because infringing the unposted limit is a lesser included offense to dangerous driving, and we can still arrest people for that: editwarring over the inclusion of "British Isles" on pages, or willynilly removing "British Isles" from lots of pages, is outright disruptive and obviously nationalistic, and we don't need the sanctions in order to block someone who does that. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose removal per BMK - sanction warnings appear to be working —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support If we're not using them and haven't been using them for three years, by all means lift them! KoshVorlon 11:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per BMK. Sanctions exist both as a measure to take afterwards against problem editing, and to deter future problem editing. I am not persuaded that removing a sanction that is performing its job in preventing problem editing is a good thing. I would support say a 3-month suspension to see how it goes, if it kicks off again, it should be able to be reinstated without need for another long discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, how can these sanctions deter disruption editing ("preform their job") if no one even knows they exist? There are no posted notices of these sanctions anywhere, and no one has been notified of their existence in more than three years. However, the three month suspension is acceptable to me. If there hasn't been a use for these sanctions in more than three years, I hardly doubt that there will be in three months. RGloucester — ☎ 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike some other areas where disputes can be settled through extensive discussion and guideline building, like the MMA sanctions that were recently lifted, this is not one of them. Editors will continue to hold differing views about the concept of the British Isles. The ever present threat of general sanctions being levied forces editors to go do something better with their time than to chew over old soup. Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per BMK and Blackmane. Whether it is three months or three more years before and editor has to be informed about them is immaterial. They need to be there so they can be enforced when needed. MarnetteD|Talk 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - As a witness to the many back-and-forth edit spats over usage of British Isles in articles, I recall how it was before the enactment of GS/BI. That there hasn't been any spats since then, is proof that it works. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser data followup

In reference to a recent discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive276#Awaiting_statement involving apparent retention of checkuser beyond WMF guidelines, as written at the time, I asked WMF about it and they've clarified the guidelines [69] to make it explicit CU data may be retained long term. NE Ent 10:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It really wasn't necessary to inquire, a straight-forward reading of the policy shows that to be the case, as I pointed out at the time. BMK (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, I am glad that WMF stepped up and clarified the that usage of CUWiki to retain CU data of LTAers is permitted by policy. Props to NE Ent for making this happen. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Review of topic ban - Armenian genocide denial

I issued a topic ban earlier and logged it here. As I have never placed a topic ban before, I would like to make sure that I have done this properly.

Background: I became aware of frequent problems with sockpuppets and paid meatpuppets in relation to trying to deny the Armenian genocide after working numerous related SPI cases this year. There is a concerted effort by PR firms hired by the nation of Turkey to promote the denial. There are actually more PR firms than mentioned there being paid whopping sums of money to conduct this campaign. See this web search. I blocked numerous socks/meats and had to protect pages including talk pages due to the disruption of these meats which took to IP hopping (see this history as an example). After suppressing puppet activity the disruption subsided for the last few months. The editor above is attempting to take up their baton and run with it. Quite frankly, I see the patience of the Wikipedia community growing thin on this perennial issue. Because that editor has constructive edits in other areas, I chose to place a topic ban in order to prevent further disruption when he filed a DR case earlier today. His bias is clear in this edit where he changes the wikilink to deny the title of our stable article. He has clarified that he is Turkish-American.

Named parties to that DR filing were EtienneDolet, Tiptoethrutheminefield and Dr.K.. I have not notified the above user because his involvement here would be against the topic ban and I want to deescalate the disruption not encourage it.

In addition to making sure that I have done this correctly, I would like to know if the community supports or opposes this TBAN.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I responded to a query made by the user here. My comment was restrained—what I actually saw was that the user was enthusiastically pushing a fringe view. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Give the guy another chance Changed to Neutral please see my comment below I already talked to Berean about this. I think Dominator is not as bad as the typical POV-pusher in this area. I am not going to second-guess Berean's admin discretion but I think he should have been warned more strongly under AA2 before the topic ban was enacted. Dr. K. 04:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose Don't get me wrong, I vehemently oppose the fringe POV Dominator1453 is trying to push. However, intellectual honesty and fair play compel me to oppose a ban at this stage. First, instead of edit-warring over the content, he sought WP:DR. We are sending the wrong message if we ban people who seek DR instead of edit-warring. Second, in order for such a ban to be applied, Dominator would have to have been formally warned of WP:AA2 sanctions. To my knowledge this is not the case, so the ban is premature on procedural grounds. And lastly, being biased is not enough to warrant a ban. We all have out biases. It is when an editor causes disruption as a result of these biases that a ban is warranted. In my opinion, the disruption caused by Dominator at this stage is minimal. That may of course change in the future, but at this stage, I feel a ban is premature. Athenean (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Following the further clarification by Berean Hunter below, I have reconsidered. It seems he was warned, and I find the canvassing attempts particularly disruptive. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dr.K. has asked politely on my talk page if I would reconsider the TBAN. In my eyes that is what this thread is trying to gauge and yes, I put this here for reconsideration by the community. So I am open to the idea of lifting it if that is the outcome here. Because it is here, I would ask for about three days to allow for more input before making the decision. For some reason though, Dr. K. and Athenean seem to think that he had not been warned about WP:AA2 and that is not correct. He was warned right here on his talk page on Nov. 13. I should also point out that yesterday he tried to canvass another editor that appears to be Turkish with "Hello, I am trying to add the fact that some scholars and historians deny the alleged Armenian Genocide but fear that too many aggressive users of Armenian and Greek origin are reverting my edits. Please have a look." and I see that as escalation of disruption especially in view of the fact that he filed a DR as well before that. Unlike his adversaries above, he doesn't seem to have a problem trying to have WP:AA2 enforced on others in the conflict as he also tried to file for Arbcom enforcement after filing the DR and trying to canvass. This may be taken as a given that he understood AA2 and didn't need more warnings about it. I have serious doubts that anything fruitful will result if the TBAN is lifted as it looks like he is trying to beat a dead horse. I also do believe that since his non-neutral POV and bias has been revealed that he has compromised his position and shouldn't be editing there.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification After Berean Hunter's explanation just above, I can see that the usual signs of disruptive editing in this area clearly exist. My comments above were based mainly on my personal interactions with this user, a few times on my talkpage, where he was unfailingly polite and even friendly. The one time s/he got me worried was when he mentioned the ethnicity of his opponents at the talkpage of Turkey. But I see now that he used the ethnicity of his opponents during the canvassing incident of which I was unaware. My mention of "adequate warning under AA2" simply meant that I thought the user should have been given a topic ban perhaps as part of an AE report or a final warning before any topic ban was enacted if an AE report were not filed against him/her. But I realise that Berian Hunter did his/her due diligence and the matter falls squarely under his/her admin discretion, which I respect. Again, although this user seems to be following the exact same path as previous users in this area, there was a certain respect shown to me during our interactions which caused me to extend AGF and stretch it to its breaking point. Given Berean's additional comments, I can see that he exercised his admin discretion well. Does that change my mind? I have to investigate a little bit more. Thank you all. Dr. K. 16:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I find articles where nationalist disruption persists need to be dealt with swiftly and decisively without wiggle room or mercy. When nationalism starts to come into play, AGF goes out the window. Nationalist disruption is like a spark in dry bush. If ignored, it becomes a bushfire that sucks in vast amounts of editor time and resources to deal with it. I mean, there have been 3(!) arbcom cases involving the Israeli Palestine articles and 2 involveing Azerbaijain / Armenia articles. Stamp it out, douse it and suffocate it with sand before it spreads. Endorse the topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Looked this over yesterday but didn't have time to respond here. Not being as bad as the typical POV-pusher still leaves him as a POV-pusher. I'm losing all kinds of patience with ARBPIA/ARBEURO/ARBAA stuff lately. Katie^talk 02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Upon further investigation, I note these edits replacing the memorial of the victims of the Armenian genocide with another of a Muslim massacre and this edit calling the subsequent revert of his/her edit vandalism. In addition to the other incidents such as the canvassing and the attempt at reporting Tiptoe at AE, a rather clear pattern of disruption emerges. The only remaining question, at least for me, is if Dominator can improve his/her editing behaviour. Realistically, the chances for that to happen appear slim. But I will stretch AGF to its ultimate tensile strength and I will remain neutral. Dr. K. 03:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I am still astounded how a country can have any historical integrity and deny the Armenian Genocide, even with blatant political motives. If an organization such as Wikipedia which aspires to be an encyclopedia even entertains such a notion, it would lose credibility on all topics and open itself up to further (undeniable) charges of historical revisionism. Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely for violation of his topic ban. With this, he precisely showed his colors. "...you cannot judge me on my convictions on the lie called the "Armenian Genocide"."
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Block review

As I have stated on his talk page, this is now a block review for the community to decide.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else here aware that this user's name is referencing the fall of Constantinople at the hand of the Turks? I feel like we're staring at the face of evil here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How so? Dr. K. 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Constantinople fell in 1453. Not sure I'd go so far as to say we're staring at the face of evil, though. Katie^talk 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you KrakatoaKatie. Believe it or not I am aware of the fact that Constantinople fell in 1453. However I am at a loss understanding how looking at a username making that connection is "staring at the face of evil". Dr. K. 02:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

While it might not be the face of evil, a triumphalist sig like that does not announce an intent to edit neutrally or dispassionately, it suggests the exact opposite. The suggestion becomes a clear announcement on his user page: "Once again, an age will end and a new age will begin after 570 years"; he has also said that he "loves Erdogan". However, I think it is unlikely that such a wide remit of a topic ban, extending it to an editor's own talk page, would have been envisaged by Dominator1453 - so I think, in the absence of an explicit warning in advance, it is a bit too harsh to extend a topic ban to an indef site ban because of his "the lie called the Armenian Genocide" comment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that I explained to him why he got indef blocked. I explained how he was not supposed to even mention a topic that he was banned from, and the most likely path back. His response was to again engage in the same arguments covered by the topic ban. It is at that point I removed talk page access. I don't think a lack of warning is the issue here. HighInBC 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The T-ban was appropriate and so was the indeff. I can't see any need for a community block review here. Why not just put a blocking template on the use's tp and let them make a block appeal in the usual way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Closure review at Talk:Martha Jefferson

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

---

Purplebackpack89, and involved user of a discussion on whether subject warranted a separate article, decided to close the thread despite having an obvious bias. I stated on my talk page that closures to such discussions are inappropriate for involved users to make, but he insisted on taking this to a noticeboard rather than retract his closure. I am also concerned that WP:Notability (people) was being erroneously overlooked and/or disregarded. Whether the article is retained or redirected, I do not feel an involved user's closure should be allowed to stand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang: Fine, somebody can confirm that it was appropriate to close a discussion that was FIVE-TO-ONE in favor of retaining Martha Jefferson, with only Snuggums dissenting and nobody making any comments in two days. The discussion was also closed because Snuggums was shouting everybody else down, often by repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Snuggums needs to just let it go! Surprise, surprise, most people want the wife of a VERY prominent American who became President of the United States kept! BTW, Snuggums was so adamant that this be merged or deleted, he even went around removing all the links to Martha Jefferson, which is going to cause the community a great deal of trouble since Martha Jefferson is being retained. Frankly, Snuggums needs to disengage himself from Martha Jefferson, as he is too adamantly fighting clear consensus and is making too much work for everybody else. pbp 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a boomerang at all. I wasn't exactly "shouting", either, only stating and emphasizing points. Five-to-one isn't necessarily consensus per WP:NOTVOTE. WP:Notability (people) is against having pages on people solely noted for family connections. Even if consensus was against me, closing such discussions when you were WP:INVOLVED is not at all appropriate and frankly no better than anything I've done regarding the article. See WP:BADNAC for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that BADNAC is about deletion discussions and INVOLVED is about administrative actions, right? Things aren't as stringently enforced when it's a general discussion. Also, you've mentioned the notability guidelines dozens of times, first at the talk page and now here, and it's clear that nobody else agrees with your interpretation of them in Martha Jefferson's case. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean you get to override five editors. pbp 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said I got to override five, only that five-to-one isn't necessarily WP:Consensus, which is not solely determined by votes. My point in citing those pages and their premises is that involved users have obvious biases and therefore should not close discussions when they've already given input as a clear conflict of interest. Best to wait for uninvolved users to come along and make closures even if it takes a while. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The argument against a stand alone article based on WP:Notability (people) appears to have been rejected by everyone on the sound basis that in accord with that guideline, there is significant coverage of this woman's life. Thus, the bio supported 5 to 1 appears to be a WP:SNOW. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times

Back in May I nominated Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times for deletion, and it was kept. While I don't have a problem with that, the issue is the category is not removed when the AfD is closed, there was some talk of close AfD scripts doing it, although I don't think that is always the case. I was going through the category using AWB for a while, and removing it from the discussions manually, but I haven't done that since mid October (you can see that it is still in this now closed discussion from 21 October). So my request is that when people are closing AfDs that have been relisted 3+ times, they check to make sure the category is removed, and if not remove it manually. Much thanks, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Was there a bot that used to do this? I'm sure there was a bot that used to remove Category:Relisted AfD debates from closed AfDs, but it doesn't seem like that happens anymore. Assuming this wasn't deliberately stopped, might be worth cross-posting at WP:BOTREQ to see if anyone is interested in taking it on again. Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• As an AFD closer I simply go through the log and close them so with the greatest of respect I'm not going to flaff about manually removing categories and potentially screwing something else up in the process, If we delete the (IMHO useless) category then we won't have a backlog. –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there was a bot that used to do it, there was talk of getting one to do it, but at least one that I checked yesterday was from late October. Jenks24, I will swing by BOTREQ and check, thank you. Davey2010, I get where you are coming from regarding not wanting to put another step into closing discussions, and I agree that the category is largely useless, which is why I had nominated it for deletion. Originally it was set up to appear in the backlog when 3 or more items were listed, but that meant a perpetual backlog (I have since arbitrarily increased it to 20), as the category also includes every page the discussion was transcluded on (including delsort pages). There is (to my knowledge) no way to suppress the category on transcluded pages as well, which would at least be helpful. As a bit of background as to how this category came to be, it was created (and added to the Admin Backlog) by Technical 13, he added to the relist script a function that checks to see how many relists the discussion has, and if it was two times, the category was added by the script. The category can be removed using HotCat, so it's not like one has to search for it. More just remembering to do it (or knowing to do it, I am sure that most people don't even know this category exists). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think we can add it to the AFD closing instructions to review the page and if they have hotcat, to remove it. Otherwise, we can have a bot request to make a table of all pages in those categories that include both the Afd closing template and the category if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• This is a great task for a bot. Should be very simple. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• For those of you interested, a BRFA has been filed. Also, it seems some of the pages within the category are actually listed as a result of the AfD being included, so the backlog isn't as bad as it seems (only 7 pages currently, if I accounted for all possibilities at least).  Hazard SJ  06:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ... and it's been approved, so I'll set it up for a daily run (maybe that's overkill?).  Hazard SJ  06:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Much thanks. Once a day is probably overkill. Once or twice a week would probably be sufficient. The multiple inclusion of the same discussion is a categorization issue, I don't know the solution to that. Thanks again. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
      • @Kelapstick: Shouldn't it be <noinclude>d on the main AfD pages? — Earwig ^talk 18:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Would that fix the issue with all the delsort and individual day AfDs showing up in the category? I am not familiar with how the <include> tags work. If so that should be added to the relist script(s). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think so. It would prevent the category from showing up in any page that transcludes the AfD, but the category would still be included in the main AfD itself. No script change should be required, as the cat is added by {{relist}} directly. — Earwig ^talk 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. This should work. — Earwig ^talk 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Earwig, I will check back on it once the existing discussions are closed (since {{relist}} is substituted, it won't have any effect on the existing pages). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, <noinclude>...</noinclude> should be the solution. I'm going to update my source code to remove that tag if it's present (via regular expressions), so that we don't have empty tags lying around.  Hazard SJ  02:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Relisted AfD debates

It was brought to my attention by Ricky81682 that Category:Relisted AfD debates, which is actually a parent category of Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, also exists, and is pretty crowded. I'd just like to get confirmation that this category should also be removed as well before I file a BRFA for that (there would be a total of 8848 removals initially, so I definitely want to make sure first).  Hazard SJ  02:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend on if that category is supposed to track active relisted AfDs, or all relisted AfDs. I would think that there would be more than 8800 since 2009 (when the category was created) if it were all relisted AfDs, so it's probably only for the active ones, just the category never gets removed. The CFD discussion suggests that as well (I think). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would care for a list of all AFDs that were relisted. You could get that from following the template or other ways. A list of active AFDs makes sense as a way to see which discussions could use more votes of any type and then 3 times makes even more sense from there. I've manually removed a number and I don't see how anyone would be hindered by that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering it's a subcat of Category:AfD debates, which is "unclosed AfDs", I'd be inclined to believe it should be active relisted AfDs. I suspect it's simply been ignored. Don't see the use of having a category for closed relisted AfDs. — Earwig ^talk 05:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that decision. There could definitely be someone looking for a list of relisted AFDs (we sometimes see PhD dissertations about Wikipedia, and I can imagine one studying article deletions, with plenty of emphasis on relistings), but as noted, that can come from WhatLinksHere for the template. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

All this energy going into deletion, while adding/fixing content is suffering? Ottawahitech (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Would you rather no energy go into deletion? clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is triage though. If we can get a proper handle on only the outstanding relisted AFD discussions, it'll make it easier to see which discussions aren't settled and which can be tipped over with some work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Experienced LTA clerk needed

There's about a dozen proposed LTA (Long Term Abuse) cases pending approval at Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval. If there is any admin who is experienced with working with LTA cases, and could either approve or decline these, it'd really help clear a backlog which is pretty short on numbers (only 12) and pretty long on time (many of these have been awaiting approval for months). Thanks! --Jayron32 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I nominated two of them for speedy deletion, as they are misplaced vandalism reports that should have gone to AIV. I've left the others alone, as I'm not an admin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Query new method of adding spam links

In the last couple of days I have come across two users adding spam links in a similar fashion:

• User:Obalabi adds a .gov ref followed by the same link here [70] and [71] etc

• User:Alvb adds a American Academy of Dermatology ref followed by a ref to spam [72]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Albv because it looks highly likely she is engaging in undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

There's a backlog (54 subcategories and 124 pages) at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion if anyone is awake and bored. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 10:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Delisting of skyscrapercity

Per the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#skyscrapercity.com and elsewhere, including this noticeboard, as of late last month there were over 1,900 links referring back to the internet forums at SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM. When these links appear in the main article space, they are most-often presented in the form of an embedded reference, meaning that there are upwards of over 1,000 links in Wikipedia articles where an internet discussion board is presented as a cited source.

With the assistance of other editors, this has since been pruned back by approximately 20% but there is still much work left to be done. Removing these links from the affected articles requires identifying the links as well as the arbitrary referenced tags attributed to them. It is my understanding that these links need to be removed from all talk pages as well, as our bots are unable to process talk pages containing links which have been blacklisted.

To facilitate this removal I am requesting the assistance of the community to review and remove these remaining links. Please let me know if there are any other considerations that we should be aware of going forward with this process. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• skyscrapercity.com (*|search current)

• The above link will help.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Apparently there is a bot reverting the removal of (some of) these: see diff. - Nabla (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) PS: calling the bot owner: @Anomie: - Nabla (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• No what happened is the bot reinserted the reference into the article! This is because the "ref name='"Opens Today"'" is spammed multiple times in the article, so when that ref was deleted it left lots of orphaned entries. So the bot repaired this by reinserting the reference. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• I have now removed all references to skyscrapercity.com from that article. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• That bot won't be able to revert them again because I have added the link to the blacklist. This does now mean that talk page archive bots won't be able to archive the specific threads that contain that link until they are removed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not particularly relevant but this will make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyscraperCity (4th nomination) more interesting at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Mainspace should be clean now. Should all namespaces have links removed? — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't. There's no reason to cut the links from talk pages and their archives, for example. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• You should deactivate the links on talk pages where necessary to prevent problems with archiving (nowiki is fine). Otherwise you should leave them alone. MER-C 13:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a good point; make as few changes as necessary (and don't make any when possible), but workarounds like MER-C suggests are necessary, of course. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Removed was a poor word choice. <nowiki> tags would be applied to unarchived pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Will all forums and links to them be purged from Wikipedia? Buffaboy ^talk 20:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just almost all of them; see the tenth point of WP:ELNO. But it's not as big of an issue as it was when I first became really active here, eight or nine years ago; the rise of Facebook and other Web 2.0 sites has really caused a big decline in significance for traditional forum sites. At one time, I was routinely removing forum links from EL sections, and it's been quite a while since I saw any. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 San Bernardino shooting

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

---

... could really use some neutral eyes. Seriously. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As noted here, the article has already been placed under semi-protection; a wise choice. Given the number of admins. who have either contributed to the article proper, and/or the talk page, I suspect that there are quite a few eyes on this. I appreciate you bringing this here; but personally, I'm not seeing anything actionable beyond the protection, so I'm not sure there's anything we can, or should, be doing at the moment. If something specific that you're concerned about arises, a new thread can be opened at that time. — Ched :  ?  11:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding note: Admins. alone, nor this notice board, determine content; although admins are free to contribute to it. — Ched :  ?  11:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I urge any admin. to close this upon passing. There is discussion on the talk page. — Ched :  ?  12:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver:, I recommend posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism and any other content or NPOV noticeboard whose interest may intersect with the article. As Ched says, admins are already aware. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• OMG, imagine if we didn't have NOTNEWS! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

3RR backlog

Would any Admin like to action the WP:AN3 backlog? :) JMHamo (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo lovin' troll

I'm not familiar with range blocks, but if it applies in this situation, will someone take a look at 182.239.98.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 182.239.98.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 182.239.66.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 15:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I saw one of these at AIV this morning. It's 182.239.64.0/18, more than 16K IP addresses. Since December 3 there's been no non-vandal activity from that range, and given the extent of the disruption, I've rangeblocked for 72 hours. Katie^talk 16:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 16:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie:, I'm not sure if another range block is in order, but I thought I'd let you know the same person is back: 182.239.71.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 182.239.103.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 182.239.66.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). APK whisper in my ear 19:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenting shootings

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

---

User:Muboshgu and User:George Ho are blocking the move of 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting from 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per talk page consensus[[73]], can an admin intervene? Cheers. Artw (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell is already there, suggesting it stay open for a couple more days, which sounds like good advice to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Also, singling out these two editors is odd as there are more editors opposing the move. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Out of Scope for the Administrator noticeboard All I see is an ordinary editing dispute. The editors mentioned by name have done nothing improper at all. They have merely taken a contrary position in a move debate. They have not been disruptive in any way. There is no reason for this discussion, unless and until an editor breaks policy. This is not the place to complain about ordinary editing disputes. I support the move, but respect their right as Wikipedia editors to stridently voice their opposition. Safiel (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Self-defense I'm not blocking a move. The RM that I saw was ongoing and hadn't been closed. No admin or non-admin had presented a closing rationale determining the consensus or lack thereof. You might notice I didn't post in the RM discussion because I don't have a particular opinion on what should be the article title. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Block review

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

---

Moved from ANI NE Ent 09:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This block appears to be punitive and not preventative. Can it please be reviewed? It has been imposed on an editor who has contributed much valuable content over a long period of time with a clean block log. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought WP:AN was better for these things. Can you please provide some context as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good block to me. SagaciousPhil violated WP:NPA pretty clearly and deliberately: [74], [75], [76]. As far as I know, people who violate NPA are blocked and it's always punitive. I said someone was crazy in an AfD, and like three days later an admin found it and blocked me for a day. That was clearly punitive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The context is as follows. The situation developed in this thread. The blocked editor took the wrong meaning from this ambiguous statement by another editor. Earlier (much earlier) these two editors had conflicted with each other. Wrongly assuming the comment was inflammatory, the blocked editor responded immoderately in her following comments. The blocking administrator pointed out her error in interpreting the ambiguous statement in this comment, and then promptly blocked her. I queried the blocking admin on the unreasonableness of this here, but he is not really responsive. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see SagaciousPhil made this comment: "Ched, it is the likes of you and I who will be sanctioned/blocked for not following the "group think" of the WMF groupies, none of whom are capable of producing any content." That's a pretty unambiguous slam on whoever she thinks is a "WMF groupie." Liz asks what is a WMF groupie, looks at the definition of groupie, and says "I don't think there are many editors who aspire to "seek intimacy" with the WMF. I don't even know what it means to seek intimacy with an nonprofit organization." Eric says "Where were you when CMDC called me a "Manchester gangbanger"?" Eric Iridscent describes people who post on Jimbo's talk page as a "clique of wannabees, weirdos and sycophants." Liz says: "That is a terrible comment to make, Eric, I think that remark is out of line." That's not directed at Phil. "And then she says "And Iridescent, I can understand what is meant by "Jimbo Wales' groupies" (although I doubt that they exist these days) but not WMF groupies. I don't many editors who even have any contact with the WMF besides checking the Meta website once in a while." How was that taken as inflammatory in any way toward SagaciousPhil? You can see Liz not retaliating in any way but trying to be gracious to Phil, who continued to insult her. Good block. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are confused and off target Wikimandia. For example, you claim falsely that Eric describes people who post on Jimbo's talk page as a "clique of wannabees, weirdos and sycophants". That comment was made by an admin. Liz's ambiguous reply was to Eric's question, Where were you when CMDC called me a "Manchester gangbanger". A comment can be inflammatory without being personal. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who took offense at what, personal attacks are never acceptable, no matter if they're made in response to perceived or even real slights. A block was perfectly in order. clpo13_(talk) 09:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just getting the air cleared, so yeah it's Eric related. It's a 48-hour block but I don't see any attempt at discussion with User:Berean Hunter first nor any warnings either. Aren't those personal attacks anyways? Do you think it should be reduced to time served? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If admins are now blocking content builders without warning to punish them, even hard working long term editors with clean block logs, then this needs to be clearly stated. Otherwise, the block should be lifted and the blocking admin should apologise. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Being a "content builder" isn't an exemption from WP:NPA. If you think there is such an exemption, you should have that clearly stated. I'd prefer a warning but I don't see any particular issues with the block right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about content builders being exempt from anything. I merely asked if "admins are now blocking content builders without warning to punish them". Does your reply amount to a "yes"? Do you put "content builder" in quotes to indicate that content builders are rather peculiar and no longer really belong on Wikipedia? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. I was trying to follow what was going on and have corrected above. You still have not shown how Liz's reply was inflammatory in any way to Phil. I have no idea what happened with CMDC calling him a "Manchester gangbanger," but if he is insinuating that Liz failed to do anything about it, and she was also not aware of it, I agree that is remark is out of line. And still don't see how it is inflammatory to Phil, who went off the rails with three consecutive, unambiguous, blatantly inflammatory insults aimed directly at Liz. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The three diffs are pretty unpleasant and clearly directed at Liz. It's definitely not necessary or encouraged (going way beyond using naughty words or being a bit grumpy). It would be useful to hear from Berean Hunter about it. But I think I've followed through a similar path to him. A few months ago Sagaciousphil and Liz ran into each other and fell out... for whatever reason (it looks like over Liz's RFA). This has escalated quite a bit and the comments from Sagaciousphil in the last round are going too far. I wouldn't call it harassment, at least not as it stands, Sagaciousphil does need drop the issue (FWIW; as an admin I feel I should still try ot keep 50% of my contributions article creation as it keeps you in touch with our purpose of being here, but others quite naturally differ). Casting this as an admin vs content creator issue is misdirection and damaging to that point. It's fairly clear that Sagaciousphil crossed a line in getting personal about this dispute and she needs to wind that back. There are lots of cases where I see disproportionate action against content editors vs. cleanup focus editors vs admins but this is not a good example of that. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks preventative and not punitive. I had already warned him that he was out of line. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

When did you warn "him"? And how did you manage to divine the block was preventative and not punitive in the absence of an admin warning? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

One could argue that the talk post asking for an apology might have been sufficient to de-escalate the situation, We'll never know now, as the block occurred 3 minutes later. On the other hand, those are three harsh comments over a 2-hour time span. I'd imagine an unblock request directly by the blocked editor would likely be accepted with some simple acknowledgements and a tiny bit of contrition, but they seem resigned to not pursue it. I don't really see anything blatant to overturn in the absence of a formal unblock request.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just speculation. The real issue is whether it is now accepted on Wikipedia that long term committed editors with clean block logs can be blocked with no warning and without any negotiation. In other words, is the principle now accepted that blocks can be imposed as punishments. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A warning, with a block following three minutes later, doesn't look like a sincere attempt at "prevention". pablo 11:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by the term "content creators" as well and thus also put it in quotes. Please tell me about this special group of editors and how they need to be separated from people who do anything else at WP, such as new page patrollers, those who patrol for vandalism and copyright vios, those who do basic copy editing, those who translate articles, those who do unrewarding tasks such as contributed to AfD and RfD, those who welcome people at TeaHouse, and general editors who do everything. Are these people the same as article creators? I think I've made more articles in the last year than Phil has in the past three years. I would like to apply for content creator benefits please and immunity from blocking when I lose my shit and start telling someone "you are truly pathetic" and someone "who wouldn't know integrity or content if it hit her in the face" and "You are an insidious POV "editor" - I use quotation marks as personally I consider you very far from a competent content editor. Get a live, learn some integrity and as far as I'm concerned move on. You are not worth the dirt on my shoes ... take a hike ... do I need to make my thoughts about you any clearer?" I eagerly await instructions how I can do this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is off topic, but all the things you mention, apart from losing your shit, are part of building and maintaining good content. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Epipelagic: Likewise, it's speculation that the block hasn't been preventative. Only the blocked editor would know, and can address it in an appeal. FWIW, WP:BEFOREBLOCK advises to "note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking." Repeated NPA violations leads to a gray area of what is "reasonable opportunity to adjust". Obviously, it's best to avoid the attacks altogether; otherwise, one is at the mercy of a given admin's judgement, and blocks will always get some support from those who have no tolerance for NPA transgressions, while a pass will be supported by those who prefer to bend over to let people cool off.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish there had been this much protesting, during the times I got blocked ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As I said below, it is all moot now. It is arguable that the block and/or unblock was a bit hasty, but based on the information I received, I would have unblocked if I had arrived first. Were both the block and unblock a bit hasty? I think there is an argument to be made supporting that conclusion. Were they abusive or violate policy? No. Best practice? Not really. This is one of those borderline cases open to interpretation, and since Phil sees that she did cross the line, freely admitted it to me, perhaps we should just let this close and move on. We know the facts, we know the players, we have our opinions, all we can do is argue for days with no one changing their minds. It is pointless drama and we are better off to just move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  Dennis it is pointless drama that is going to repeat its-self the next time an admin unblocks a user based on little to no consensus (not yet formed) on ANI/AN. How do you propose that this be avoided in the future? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Unblocked

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

---

@Berean Hunter: I have tried to follow events leading to the block and it makes my head hurt, but basically I can see it being a cool down block designed to de-escalate the conversation. Since there appears to be no obvious consensus that the block was good, and that I think cooler heads are now prevailing, I am unblocking now. If consensus later turns out it was a good block, please accept my apologies in advance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

So much for WP:RAAA: "Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without ... a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged"—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a more than brief discussion (RAAA doesn't say who has to have the discussion), a thread here and an apology in advance. As Grace Hopper put it, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RAAA is addressed to you as an administrator, it says you should have to have the discussion with the blocking admin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite true. It says only if it is likely to be objected to and where the administrator is presently available (in this case the admin is not presently available). --Epipelagic (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As for "objected to" that is patently obvious. As for "available", they seem quite available. The point of RAAA is so admins just don't do this - 'no, I know better' act with tools, instead of having the actual (not proxy) discussion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

LMAO, what a crock. Ritchie333, looking at her talk page, Phil is still fuming and thinks she's done nothing wrong. Also, there's been no evidence that Liz did the least thing wrong to provoke this attack in any way, shape or form. Liz twice tried to calm her down and got a third nasty insult directed her way. There's been no policy cited as to why it was not a good block. Can I go off on people I dislike with insult after insult and only get a five-hour block? I'll take a nap and come back refreshed. I'm a content creator and I deserve the same special treatment. I can think of some editors who are incompetent, insidious, pathetic and wouldn't know integrity if it hit them in the face and deserve to hear me extrapolate on why. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia, don't turn yourself into a martyr. But I agree. This is a bad unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I second the comment about LMAOing and crock.Brustopher (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a very bad unblock. There is no "committment to change" or even an understanding from Sagaciousphil that her actions were wrong, in fact it looks to me like the opposite. While I would have tried to avoid warning then blocking without intervening misconduct, Berean's actions are easily justifiable (for example, if Berean looked deeper into recent contribs). A lack of consensus in favour of an admin action (as opposed to consensus against), no comment whether there is or not, does not mean it should be unilaterally reversed. However the unblock policy allows admins discretion in unblocking, which is what there should be. If using that discretion an admin needs to be absolutely sure that the reversal is needed immediately (WP:RAAA) rather than allowing for a discussion either with the admin who performed the action or with the community (especially when there is already a discussion ongoing). An admin saying that it's better to act without permission (in this case policy backing / consensus) and ask for forgiveness rather than let the discussion happen (collaborative project) strikes me as very worrying attitude to have. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There are three ways to undo this block, which on its face is within reason: 1) appeal, 2) persuade the blocking admin with your reason to unblock, and 3) get it overturned here at a close. Instead, the unblocking admin abused the tools, taking a minority position in this discussion as cover for his abuse of tools. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, and admin actions like this are why the civility policy/pillar is a joke. Straightforward personal attacks and the block is lifted without even a promise from the user not to do it again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Callanecc this was a very bad unblock, again since when does creating content outweigh personal attacks or Wikipedia policy? Ritchie you really see a consensus to un-block here, and if so from what policy standpoint? She pretty much clearly violated WP:NPA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• If I may, as a non-admin—trouts all round. Liz's comment was deeply ambiguous; multiple people took it the way Sagaciousphil did; and Liz failed to ask herself why it was being taken badly. Sagaciousphil was roundly rude and did not stop to consider that she might be misinterpreting. Berean Hunter assumed there was only one way to take the remark, and three minutes after a stern piece of advice blocked an editor with a clean block log. Ritchie333 noted that Berean Hunter had announced he was going to bed, assumed this discussion would go his way and unblocked hastily, and without any note about the attacks that were the reason for the block. Now that we're here, the four of them should host a fry-up. That beats wheel-warring and vendettas any day. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Um this was after Dennis asked both involved to tone it down.[77] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I still don't know, as it still has not been explained, exactly why Liz's comment was ambiguous and "multiple people" took it the wrong way. We are talking about the one where she says she doubts there are many Jimbo groupies and WMF groupies, right? She states there are not many active editors who interact at the WMF project except for visiting the meta website. Who is possibly offended by his? People who pride themselves on being Jimbo/WMF groupies and are thus outraged this status is being challenged? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It was the bit referring to Eric. Its meaning could be (although not in my opinion) ambiguous because the way the sentence is constructed it can be taken to mean she thought Eric's comment was out of line, or that the comment *referring* to Eric (by CMDC) was out of line. In context however it was clear (to me and others) it was the latter, SP thought it was the former. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But she specifically was referring to Eric. She began her sentence with "Eric" and it's clear she is talking about his comment. As I said, if she took it to mean that he was challenging her for not doing anything when someone at some point insulted him (and she had no knowledge of this), then I agree it was out of line. I don't know when someone called him that and what happened - the username Eric cites, CMDC, does not exist. Why would other people be offended by her comment? And how could anyone claim it was "ambiguous" and insulting? It's pretty clear. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I imagine Liz will clarify (or already has somewhere) but I interpreted her comment as referring to what was said about Eric (and I agree) not Eric's comment on Dennis's talk page (which was fine). But there definitely was heaps of room for interpretations either way, it absolutely does not justify Sagaciousphil's actions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found it. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) called a bunch of people "Manchester gangbangers" and insulted British people over GG. [78], [79] She was blocked within 10 minutes of that comment and ultimately indeffed by ArbCom, and is still indeffed despite a sympathetic article in Slate[80] so she was not allowed to get away with that insult. Not sure what Liz has to do with this but seeing as this was related to GG, I can see why she felt the comment was so out of line, if that's what it was about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a terrible comment to make, Eric, I think that remark is out of line. Oh shoot, I didn't know that comment could be misinterpreted. I absolutely meant that the remark to Eric was out-of-line and uncivil. That's a horrible remark to make to an editor. I apologize for any ambiguity in my statement. I aim for my communication to be clear and this comment was less than successful.

As for Sagaciousphil, I don't know why she believe I am the epitome of everything wrong with Wikipedia but it's come up before since my RfA and I've tried to discuss it on her talk page which only made her angrier. So, I try to respond reasonably and, sometimes, with humor, hoping it will lighten the mood but no luck with that. I don't know what attacks she claims I've made. I generally steer clear of editors who dislike me and in this case, she responded to my badly worded remark on Dennis' talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz, to be honest, I do not think your further intervention in this thread will be helpful. The best you can do now is to stop commenting on Sagaciousphil. There are other users around to handle this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In Liz's defence, she was called here for comment(I see now that you have already noticed this :). HighInBC 15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I already noticed that and modified my comment.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was notified about this discussion on my talk page so I thought people wanted some clarification. I was talking about the remark to Eric, not made by Eric. But I'll take your advice, Ymblanter, and stay out of this unless people have any more questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Very poor use of unblock indeed. Contrary to the unblock summary, my reading of the discussion here is that consensus supported the original block. I propose a reblock until a decent unblock request is received in which Sagaciousphil promises not to repeat such remarks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, that was a bit of a hasty unblock. Especially without input from the blocking admin or a block appeal. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree with all of your comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, had Phil given time to submit an appeal after cooling down, we most likely wouldn't be here now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am so sick of these cowboy unblocks. Is it so much to ask that if you cannot get the agreement of the blocking admin that you get consensus first? It is almost never helpful for someone to unilaterally decide a situation like this. Unblocking when a user is still insisting that they have no fault is essentially enabling the behaviour that resulted in the block. Please remember that your admin tools are to be used to enforce the expectations of the community and not ones personal whims. HighInBC 14:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Trout served. I doubt much more can be done about this. Reblocking now would be pointless, and other than trout there is little to be done about yet another cowboy unblock. HighInBC 14:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The lingering issue though is that there is no reassurance that this wont happen again, I have let Liz know about this discussion as I do not think anyone has pinged her. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, from either Sagaciousphil (hence Martin's proposal above) or from Ritchie333. Yngvadottir pinged Liz above, but thank you for doing that! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, in my opinion I very much doubt that Phil would have served the full 48 hours if she had offered up an unblock request saying she has had the time to cool down or at least something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: with Sagaciousphil we can just react accordingly to future edits, we still have some ability to enforce our personal attack policy. As far as Ritchie333 goes there is very little we can do about this sort of unilateral unblock, there seems to be a culture of acceptance. The wheel warring policy makes sure that anyone who does a unilateral unblock gets the last word and we don't enforce the part of our administrative policy that requires one get consensus if they can't find agreement. It is against the rules, but every admin knows they can get away with it, and some decide that since they can they should. HighInBC 15:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: The concern is whether this is a pattern with Ritchie333 to be flippant with other admin's blocks. I was a third party to another bizarre behavior by Ritchie333 here. On an unblock request, they post "I think we should apologise and unblock this user", which seems then and now improper to not discuss directly with the blocking admin and instead undermining the integrity of the blocking admin by posting on the blocked editors page. Moreover, it was a checkuser block, and WP:CUBL states: "If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee." After that drama, Ritchie333 did not resolve the unblock request for 9 days, at which point they inexplicably comment out the unblock request instead of outright denying the request. Are these just one-off events, or a pattern? Perhaps others can comment.—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is a pattern, and evidence can be gathered to show this then I do think it merits further discussion. Though I think a fresh thread would be better suited than this one. I am not familiar with this admin's history so I cannot comment as to pattern. HighInBC 15:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would start a new thread below as a sub-section if you feel it is warrented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

(multiple e/c)I would not put it as 'culture of acceptance' (see this discussion, there is much non-acceptance) although, it is given temporal leeway - but, if an admin keeps abusing their tools after they are told not to - than consequences will generally follow. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I agree there's nothing more to be done about Sagaciousphil now, hopefully this discussion will show that the community isn't willing to give leeway when it comes to this sort of attack. Regarding Ritchie333 though, I think what needs to be done is that whoever closes this notes that there is (dare a I say, strong) consensus that Ritchie's actions were out of line and should not be repeated. Not to do that, just makes it harder to show that there have been previous instances if this comes up again. Having said that if someone wants to start a new (sub)section discussing Ritchie333's admin actions (or even just unblocks) then I don't have a problem with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Terrible unblock - "grow up, gain some integrity...oh, wow, I think I've told you this before....You have no comprehension of content creation and epitomise all that is wrong with Wikipedia" - Liz, you are truly pathetic. Perhaps one day you might learn how to produce content although it is doubtful...Grow up. - You are an insidious POV "editor" - I use quotation marks as personally I consider you very far from a competent content editor. Get a live, learn some integrity...You are not worth the dirt on my shoes ... take a hike ... do I need to make my thoughts about you any clearer? - When editor was told to stop the attacks by both me and Dennis, Phil went to further hysterics about her being a female and content creator. Not once apologizing or realizing that they were wrong. This is tool abuse, there is no consensus here to unblock, and Richie has unblocked against consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits of the block and unblock, Dave Dial, you should be aware that your "hysterics" comment is really sexist. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Being hysterical is hardly a quality limited to females. There is no need to assume the usage of the word had anything to do with gender. HighInBC 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• That's bullshit Drmies, and you know it. I won't play this game with you. Dave Dial (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As a female, I can say unequivocally that I was not offended by the hysterics comment. Being hysterical is most certainly not specific to women, and I'm disappointed Drmies seems to think so. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• So what can we do going forward? We could re-block Phil, that has met with some support but High brings up a good point. We could seek action against Ritchie, I can see this thread as being an admonishment though as it is. Or we could let this whole thing go, and use this thread if the same issue repeats its-self that results in a block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've no idea about Phil. Since she's been blocked and unblocked, one can hope that she got the message that that sort of behavior is unacceptable. The more pressing problem is Richie and the manner he has chosen to go around and make 'cowboy unblocks'. He has even stated that is his goal moving forward. Dave Dial (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• What we do is move on. I talked to Phil via email a couple of times (for the record, I've never talked to her before this incident) and her comments were more than enough to generate an unblock had it been posted in an unblock request. She gets it. This was a very experienced editor and her first block, not a newb troublemaker. Some might see the block as a bit hasty, and/or the same for the unblock, but it's now over. My opinion....is irrelevant. The middle part is less interesting to me as nothing "evil" happened during that period. None of us can cast the first stone, so instead, let's close this and go write articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support closing, there is nothing else to do here. While the block being reversed was not ideal we are in the same situation that we would be in if it expired. Any further concerns about the unblock can be handled at the relevant user talk page or if anyone really wants to a new thread. HighInBC 15:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support closing, I do feel however that Ritchie's actions need to be looked into. Thank you Dennis for letting us know about Phil. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support reblocking Phil unless Ritchie is investigated - anything else is utter incompetence. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry I may be daft but can you explain to me why the decision to block Phil would be based on Ritchie's actions and our response to them? Seems like the two issues should be handled separately. HighInBC 15:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Phil was unblocked without consensus and without apology. She should be reblocked. This is common sense. Reblocking her shows that Ritchie was wrong and violated policy in his unblock, and that nasty personal attacks will not be tolerated for any reason, especially from people who are not sorry about it. If you choose not to reblock her, you should investigate Ritchie's pattern of this kind of behavior. I don't understand this total apathy/impotence. "Look at all the terrible behavior we see, including from our admins... let's do jack shit about it" must be an admin motto I'm not aware of. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think reblocking will solve anything. As far as holding Richie accountable that is something you are as capable of doing as anyone else. HighInBC 16:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with High, I encourage those who want to see Ritchie's actions looked into to start another thread. I know it isn't right the unblock, but re-blocking rather than looking at the admin who made the unblock is going to cause more of a mess. This thread can be referenced going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Then reblock her and investigate him. I think his conduct and your implicit endorsement of such is sending a very negative message to other users who are blocked for good faith edits or minor infractions and have their block requests declined. That you endorse a five-hour block of someone who made egregious personal attacks is a big middle finger to those users. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• As Neil states below there is WP:WHEEL, I am open to re-blocking but that is what I meant by more of a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• You can't reblock. As I've indicated, as an uninvolved admin, I've received emails that qualify as reasoning for an unblock, an indication that she understands the mistake she made, and had I had the opportunity, I would have done so based on that information. This doesn't speak to the validity of the actions of the blocking or unblocking admins, and their actions are completely irrelevant to the fact that she satisfied the criteria for an unblock, even though the discussion was in private (this is not that unusual, actually). Reblocking with that knowledge would clearly be construed as punitive and outside of policy, so it is doubtful any admin would. You can't punish her for what some see as Ritchie's mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, I'd feel more reassured if you said you'd unblock after discussing the issue with Berean Hunter than because Phil sent you private email messages. A unblock request should be public as it is only clear to you and Ritchie, and no one else, that she regrets what she said. The insults and slights have been occurring for months and I doubt they will disappear overnight.

And I find it very absurd that I was asked to not participate in this discussion when I was the target of the personal attacks. I don't think I've ever seen one party in a conflict asked to stay away from the discussion of the conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Liz, as I've never unblocked anyone in violation of policy and don't even know the blocked party, I shouldn't have to qualify my statement by outlining the steps in an unblock; it should be understood that typical procedure would be followed. To ask me to explain implies a likelihood that I wouldn't follow policy. I had already given her notice on my talk page prior. And we have accepted unblock requests by email since I started in 2006. It isn't optimal, but it is often one way to get the ball rolling. I won't reveal the content, but just say it took a couple emails to get to the "I get it" stage, which isn't unusual as people usually cool down with time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Wikimandia: Not apathetic (the rapid growth of this thread shows that) but an adherence to WP:WHEEL. Ritchie has chosen to disparage another editor on his talk page instead of rethinking his unblock so it's clear he stands by it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Isn't WHEEL in regards to two admins each overturning another, and thus going round and round? It seems pretty clear there are multiple admins here who feel Ritchie's action was incorrect. I don't recall anyone who supports him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." Based on the "support closing" comments here, I don't see clear consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I saw a bunch of support above for a re-block, as I said I would still be open to the idea but feel the bigger picture is Ritchie. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support closing: Neither the block, nor the unblock comes off well here. It is incorrect that WP:NPA results in punitive blocks. It can result in bans if they are repeated and gratuitous, but that is for the community to decide. And cooldown blocks are definitely discouraged, for good reason. Admins should use the block button carefully. That said, there shouldn't have been an unblock without a consensus. Admins should use the unblock button carefully as well. At the end of the day, it won't matter, let's end the drama. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A block prevents future attacks - thus, preventative.

As for 'reblock' - that will not happen, unless there is additional attack. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that I closed this thread, since there is no way it could be consensus on re-blocking, but Hawkeye7, who is not an admin, reverted my closure. Need another opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Per recent discussions at ArbCom, items are to be left open for at least 24 hours. It is not acceptable to close discussions after three hours between 2 and 5 in the morning solely to avoid scrutiny or to restrict debate to North American editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What scrutiny? I said very clearly that whoever wants scrutiny is welcome to open a separate thread. This one escalated to the point it became unusable.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And it is a subthread, and for whatever reason you did not unclose the main thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't set policy (or isn't supposed to on things outside their realm, anyway), but just for grins and giggles, please point to the Arb finding. I would also note that your edit summary "Invalid closure - cannot close items after three hours solely to avoid scrutiny" looks a lot like casting aspersions, and I would ask you please be more careful in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't set policy for AN. The closest thing I can think of is there's discussion about making it so AE reports (something actually within ArbCom's remit) stay open for 24 hours.Capeo (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see this turning into an arbcom debate, what does that have to do with the original discussion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ban discussions must go 24 hours, nobody is being banned here. There is no rule that says a discussion that closes with no action must run a certain amount of time. The accusations of trying to "avoid scrutiny" are baseless and rude. HighInBC 00:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am tired of admins overturning blocks without discussion, which ArbCom has classed as WP:WHEEL warring. I am even more tired of discussions of serious wrongdoing being shut down after a couple of hours in the middle of the night. That is the opposite of consensus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think everything that needs to be said on this sad incident has been said. Much useful and reflective material has been posted. It has been over 24 hours now since this blew up. In a sense, everyone involved is a victim, of misunderstanding, anger, impulses that seemed right at the time. Now it is history. I am sure many parties have learned from this, even if pride, shame or other factors have prohibited them from articulating in public. Who knows what reflections, afterthoughts, apologies have been expressed via private channels? Let it go. A close would be wise. Irondome (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There was discussion and there was no serious wrongdoing. The problem wouldn't arise if admins didn't make bad blocks in the first place. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No. It was obviously a good block. Personal attacks are serious wrong doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reclose section It's clear that Sagaciousphil won't be reblocked. There's the matter of Ritchie's conduct. Based on his rather self-serving and condescending comments on his talk page it's also clear he considers the matter closed. Those who disagree should open a new section focusing on his actions rather than calling for a reblock. However, it's likely that "take it to Arbcom, we can't do anything here" will be a common response. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Segregationist

User:166.175.56.39 had made an edit calling Harry "Curley" Byrd a segregationist on the page Byrd Stadium and I reverted it. He sent me a link trying to prove that he is a segregationist, and I told him that it doesn't matter if he is because it is still inappropriate, but he is still yelling at me at the articles talk page accusing me of being a racist. CLCStudent (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've explained on CLCStudent's talk page, hopefully that is all that is needed. Will watch a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I sense dispute resolution had not run it's course before posting here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    • You are correct, which is why I'm taking it off-board :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    • This IP editor may be part of the same 166.17x.x.x range that has been quite prominent for the last few months. There was evidence that the banned user Ararat arev uses this range, but in this case it is likely to be the IP editor who was topic banned from World's oldest people articles. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor is right, it actually says as much in the Harry C. Byrd article itself, cited to the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, so there's no issue. KoshVorlon 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please put this in Template:In the news

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

---

• The Japanese space probe Akatsuki successfully enters orbit around Venus, using only its attitude control thrusters.--LL221W (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • LL221W, the place to nominate items for In the News is WP:ITN/C. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Discussion at CIVILITY

Per the recommendations at WP:SQS, I would like to request an uninvolved admin refactor any disruptive and stonewalling comments at WT:CIVILITY#Link to workplace bullying article. I would also appreciate any advice on what to do next. Thank you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Industrial copyright violation of Wikipedia information

The website www.callrecorded.com is reusing Wikipedia content on a series of pages, including for example http://callrecorded.com/london-underground-contact-number/ which copies London Underground. It does not include any license or attribution. Therefore it is a copyright violation of Wikipedia and someone with appropriate authority should seek to have it taken down.

It is an odious site which uses premium rate telephone numbers that redirect to the genuine (and cheaper) customer service telephone numbers of other organizations, which is legal, if a bit tawdry.

Who is in a position to raise this with the site? Stifle (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is attributed, in large letters at the bottom of the material copied from Wikipedia—they should technically be linking to the history page rather than the article page, but that's a minor point. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone means "by anyone", not "by people you approve of". ‑ Iridescent 10:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The CC BY-SA license requires that the license be quoted or linked to, and the authors attributed, neither of which has been done. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually it doesnt. It requres attribution. Its good if it is done comprehensively, but it is not legally required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

From the license: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform." That is from section 4a which does not include the "reasonable to the medium" clause of section 4c. BethNaught (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The official stance (in the form of a crafted template) that OTRS agents are directed to reply to tickets about reuse of Wikimedia content:

"Dear Stifle,

Thank you for bringing the reuse of Wikipedia content to our attention.

As you may be aware, we encourage other sites to reuse our content. Wikipedia contributors license their content using a license called the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), which allows reuse of text either in its original form or with modifications provided that certain conditions are met. There are hundreds of web sites that do this. A list of some of them is available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FORK

While we encourage all reusers to comply with the requirements of CC-BY-SA, including proper attribution for authors, we are aware of the fact that many web sites do not do so correctly. Thank you again for bringing this site to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Landry"

Just FYI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ban Ritchie333 from unblocking

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a very clear bias in which he has been showing favoritism to content creators and it has been getting in the way of admins who are attempting to keep a level playing field amongst all of our editors here. He is gaming the system and "evading the spirit of community consensus" with an abuse of process when it comes to unblocking this class of editor. This is editor discrimination and it shouldn't be tolerated. While others have opined for an abuse of tools approach and favoring a desysopping, I would prefer that the community ban Ritchie333 from unblocking anyone except the blocks which he has placed himself. I am unaware of any other forms of abuse so I think this would be the best approach to solving this recurring problem. I do believe that he is still a positive asset both as an editor and an admin.

He knows very well that he shouldn't be doing cowboy unblocks but once he has done them then he replies that someone may file for a desysopping at Arbcom. If the community choses not to place this ban on unblocking then that will be a viable alternative.

09:25, August 17, 2015

• "I have had a look. If both Chillum and Salvio giuliano are happy to unblock Alakzi then I can do the deed, but I can't do it without their approval (or at least not without running the risk of a juicy ANI thread)." (He knows that he should be consulting blocking admins)

22:08, November 23, 2015

• "And I'm honestly not sure if it is necessary to get permission from the blocking admin or not, but I can think of once incident where I was lambasted at ANI for not running an unblock past the other admin..." (Cowboy unblocks revisited is the full thread where I spoke up to help avert this and several admins spoke about consulting the blocking admin)

Apart from the most recent incident which consensus shows as a bad unblocking there is a strong pattern of favoring the content creators and for the wrong reasons while showing his prejudice:

• Recent UTRS request which needs to be categorically denied unless you want him subverting admin blocks behind the scenes to the tune of this favoritism. (My !vote on that is no confidence.)

I propose that Ritchie is restricted from overturning any other admin's block so that we avoid future problems. I find his prejudice is not in keeping with project goals and is interfering with other attempts to keep things fair and even-handed. If not banned or desysopped then I would suggest blocking him for gaming the system the next time that he does it.

• Support ban as proposer.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think I've ever heard of a proposal to ban an admin from using their tools. Beyond the implications, it's not technically feasible. Your concern sounds like one of WP:ADMINCOND and the only real solution there is I think ARBCOM and a request for desysopping and/or admonishment at most. - Ricky81682 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see no reason why it would be outside the purview of the community. That being said if a clear pattern of tool misuse can be demonstrated(not saying it can, I have not yet reviewed the evidence) then arbcom would probably be more appropriate. I don't imagine a situation where the community does not trust an admin with one tool but does trust them with others. HighInBC 18:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's unclear from the "Evidence" section above which are just Ritchie commenting and which are explanations/rationales for actual unblocks he's done. Berean Hunter, could you separate out a list of unblocks he's made that you think are bad, or at least controversial? 28bytes (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've got 3 hours of daylight left to do outside work so not at the moment. I think the prejudice and problems are clear but I'll let others add evidence or comment and try to get back here later.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yeah, the casual ANophile might look at the list of evidence and think "wow, Ritchie's making way too many cowboy unblocks, let's do something about it". But to be clear, none of those are instances of him unblocking someone; they're all instances of him saying in general he thinks blocking established editors is a bad idea. (Also, the diff from May 21st should be removed, as it taken severely out of context (people should click on the links to discover this for themselves, but that doesn't always happen.) The "evidence" is evidence of his sympathies, not his actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, the Alakzi and Drmies diffs above the "evidence" section are also cases where Ritchie didn't unblock anyone. I know he's unblocked more than Sagaciousphil, but right now, that's the only unblock mentioned above. Could all those already voting to ban him from unblocking at least show other problematic unblocks? Did any of the unblocks actually get overturned after discussion, or did they stand? Are you banning him from unblocking solely because of his statements that he doesn't like blocking established editors? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Huh. Well, then, obvious oppose until somebody, perhaps one of the supporters, can be arsed to actually list the unblocks they have a problem with. I can be persuaded to restrict someone's tool use if they're misusing that tool, but I'm sure as hell not going to restrict somebody based on their "sympathies." 28bytes (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Here is the block log for Ritchi333 going back to May. Please list the actual unblocks that concern you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• JackTheVicar for starters. An unblock of a user whose unblock request is a rant with personal attacks and a "Keep the GAs coming". HighInBC 19:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment That's Wikipedia for you. Where some folks actually think an Admin unblocking too often is more of an issue than Admins blocking too often. Capeo (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is a difference though when it comes to how an editor is unblocked by an admin. Just as it shouldn't be a rush to block, it also goes for unblocking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• So it's your contention that the evidence above shows a blatant misuse of tools? Really? There's only one unblock actually shown and, while it wasn't a great unblock, it most certainly is no reason for this extreme a sanction. Capeo (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock ban There seemingly was a solid consensus that the recent unblock was not in the right, admin are trusted with these tools after all. I agree with the above that I do not see any problem areas in any other aspect of Ritchie as an admin. This ban need not be permanent, it is highly disruptive though when an unblock/appeal process isn't followed through. At the very least a discussion with the blocking admin on their talk-page would also have helped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support with the added caveat that Ritchie undergo review of his admin status. His preferential treatment of a subset of users, generally aligned wit Eric Corbett, who use their self-assigned "content creator" status to justify a range of immature and unacceptable behavior calls his qualifications as an admin into question. --Drmargi (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Why are you trying to drag me into an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with me? Eric Corbett 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Ritchie333 can discuss with the blocking admin and if he cannot find an agreement and really thinks an unblock is needed he can seek a wider consensus at ANI or AN. This is what any admin should be doing anyway if they think the action may be objected too, and this is the part he seems to be missing. I think an exception would be reversing his own blocks. I also think any community action should not preclude a potential arbcom case. HighInBC 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am temporarily withdrawing my support until the evidence of long term tool misuse can be properly laid out. From my memory this is an ongoing problem but I do want to see the actual specific unblocks at issue to refresh my memory before I commit to this. HighInBC 19:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – A much better proposal would be a ban from cowboy blocks by admins who are not here to build the encyclopedia and who show a very clear bias against the content builders who are here to build the encyclopedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  But that would, of course, force such administrators to come clean about their real agenda. Eric Corbett 19:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  Epipelagic you are welcome to propose a change in policy. However you should know that such ideas have been repeatedly rejected by the community in the past. If you can get consensus for it then as an admin I will either follow it or find another website to admin. HighInBC 19:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And you should know that such ideas have not been rejected by the general community. The "consensus" in those proposals is wholly determined by the admin corps together with other users who have a stake in the promotion of admin power (the admin wanabees and the drama board devotees). This is the core source of the central dysfunction on Wikipedia, that the admin corp controls the terms under which it operates. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clone Ritchie333, then tell all the clones to dial back on the cowboyness about 33%, then let them loose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support If he has a strong problem with a block, he can work it out at AN or with the unblocking admin. I'm still a bit surprised he accepted an unblock request from someone I blocked that literallly contained a blockable npa against me in it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Can you point us to which user was blocked/unblocked in the incident you mention? HighInBC 19:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's in this diff. Ritchie was also incredibly wrong in stating I was too WP:INVOLVED to be blocking. My only previous involvement was in mediating a dispute against him and WV. Ironically, I've now been advocating for his unblocking, because he's provided convincing evidence that he's not the sockmaster he was blocked as. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, sooo unblocking when the unblock request was a rant that included personal attacks and then add on "Keep the GAs coming.". This is the sort of evidence that should have been presented from the start. HighInBC 19:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• And only on Wikipedia do you see an admin come along after recently reversing a bunch of CU blocks without consulting the blocking admin supporting that another admin not be able to unblock. Glass houses and all that.Capeo (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons: one is that much of the evidence appears to just be comments he made. Comments I strongly disagree with, but I don't like the idea of sanctioning someone for one bad decision and a series of "thoughtcrimes". Unless it can be proven that the recent unblock is part of a pattern of bad unblocks this is over kill. The other reason is that I am opposed to the very idea of banning an admin from using one particular tool while retaining all the others. Either we trust a user to be an admin, or we do not. If you can prove a pattern of tool misuse, take it to arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree the currently gathered evidence is lacking, but I think mostly for lack of trying. I do remember the recent issue with Phil not being the first time something like this has happened. I would not have supported this if I thought it was an isolated incident, and the attitude an admin presents in regards to their admin tools are relevant to their use of the same tools. Even Ritchie admits that he has a history of controversial unblocks[81]. I do wish that the evidence was gathered before this posting though, when such things are posted late they tend not to influence the discussion as much. HighInBC 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Actually you have convinced me to temporarily hold back my support. My memory is not perfect and I do think it is reasonable that the specific actions be detailed here first. HighInBC 19:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see 54 unblocks according to their admin statistics on their user page. Five are of people who might be considered established users (DaltonCastle, Salvidrim!, Callmemirela, EEng, and Rationalobserver). I think I also see five unblocks of accounts now identified as sockpuppets... if anything that fact is more worrisome to me. Beeblebrox is right. There is no evidence to support a claim of a pattern of abuse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Where does JackTheVicar fit in? HighInBC 19:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• That is by far the most egregious unblock done by Ritchie. And imho deserves an admonishment at least (and is made extra ridiculous given the CU findings). But honestly it's a bit stale at this point. It fits with the other comment-based evidence, but does not create a pattern. Not sure why that incident wasn't brought up at the time. If it was, what was the outcome? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The blocking rationale was plain false. There was no IBan, voluntary or not. As for what happened after that it doesn't really matter in the scope of the unblock itself. Capeo (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• I believe you want this ANI thread. That was, of course, well before there were CU findings to consider. AFAIK no final judgment has been posting on-wiki regarding the sock claim. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose with given evidence - Can specific examples of biased unblocked be given? I see a lot of comments about their opinion of blocks, but few actual unblocks of the so-called "content creators". (Block/unblock log here). There doesn't seem to be any actual violations. As such, it would seem this is about their comments, not their actions. And we can't remove tools if no abuse has occurred. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add I concur with Beeblebrox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose just for the record. In case my above comments aren't clear enough. There is no evidence of abusing the tools in the evidence given just opinions a bunch of people don't like.Capeo (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: where is the evidence of any bad unblocks? This all looks like a thread for "in-the-know" people, the ones who're likely to "support", leaving others who might oppose wondering what exactly is the crux of the matter, and quite possibly not saying anything for that reason. For that reason alone, I am boldly opposing pending any further evidence evidence at all. LjL (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose one heavily disputed unblock != a pattern of behaviour such that community sanctions ought to be imposed upon the use, even when coupled with general opinions that some dislike. Bencherlite^Talk 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Why's this even a thread ? ... I disagree with Ritchie unblocking Phil but what's done is done ... Next best thing for everyone to do is move on!, On another note this is precisely the reason why I never have any intention of ever being an admin here... You make one mistake and it's as if you've just caused a nuclear disaster!. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose First, there is lack of evidence for a problem. Second, an admin who is doing his/her job should occasionally make controversial decisions. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not going to support on this present record - although, I would and have personally admonished over the last unblock (with its misleading unblock summary, and apparent encouragement of personal attacks, private evidence, etc.). But obviously if he is ever increasing his involvement in this area, his future acts may well lead to more drama, if he does not even keel himself. No one is blocked for their good content creation - so, it is irrelevant to unblock for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What to do with User:JackTheVicar's content

Hi all -

Some time ago JacktheVicar was accused of being a sock of Colonel Henry. Via email and other means, he has since convinced me that the person behind the account is not the person who was behind Colonel Henry's account. Arbcom is still reviewing his ban, but in the meantime I wanted to discuss what to do what his content - some of it is quite good, including 3 GA's, and every article that has had it's references checked (including one where I tracked down obscure physical references) has not seen the same kind of fraudulent claims that characterized CH's work. JtV's GA's had already been restored on the basis of WP:BANREVERT and the fact that an article that other users had already given significant input to shouldn't be G5'ed. However, I'm proposing restoring all of his content - it's good, it's sourced, it doesn't as far as I can tell contain fraudulent claims, and it's about topics we were missing. If the discussion goes the other way, I'd be okay with personally redeleting the articles in question (except for the GA's,) but for the purposes of this discussion, I've restored all of the content he's created so that non-admins can view it - you can view it here, on his old userpage. I think the content is worth keeping, since it's good content (and the fact that I suspect it's not really G5able has something to do with my feeling as well,) but figured I'd start a further discussion here about what to do with it. Shall we keep it? Yay? Nay? Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)