Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive275

Noticeboard archives

AerospaceAirAviation WP:OFFER unblock request

User unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

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

This user is applying to have their indef block lifted at User talk:AerospaceAirAviation#September 2015. The request itself:

It has been more than two years since I first attempted to have my block reviewed. Although I have failed to prove that I'm ready to be rejoin the editing community with my first unblock request, I believe this request will hopefully show the admins that I am ready to be unblocked. During this two year time frame, it gave me a chance to look over my actions that have led to my blocking. Since my blocking admin Toddst1 seems to be retired and inactive from Wikipedia, I am not sure who will take over his spot and replace him as the blocking admin in my case. I will clearly address WP:BATTLE like Toddst1, plus, reiterate what WP:OFFER is as well. As I clearly now know, my block was put in place due to aggressive editing, and the sockpuppetry. I violated two big rules of Wikipedia. I did indeed use KevinMichaelBradley as an account to abuse my editing privileges, and potentially start a war with another user on Ethiopian Airlines. I was given the WP:OFFER at the time of my blocking by BWilkins. I understand that this is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card that is randomly given to me. I have to show and prove to the community that I deserve to be given another chance. By reading WP:BATTLE, I completely and fully understand that Wikipedia is not, I repeat, is not a war zone where you can be at war with other users. Wikipedia is a friendly community where users and IP users edit in good faith. When I see something that is incorrect, I should not be ready to attack the user with negative comments. I should first off, always assume these edits are in good faith. Unless otherwise if you can tell that this is vandalism. Instead, If I see an edit that is incorrect, I should politely explain to them what is incorrect about their edits. Wikipedia is no place to start conflicts and discriminate or harass anybody. I should always act in a calm and civil manner, and not try to start an edit war with a user or with multiple users. Again, Wikipedia is not a battleground. If I am attacked by a user, I should refrain from defending myself. Rather, ignore the user, or kindly explain how the user, or users, are acting uncivil, insulting me, and/or are being uncooperative and disrespectful. I should make sure to come to a consensus with users as well.

If given another chance, I do promise to abide by these rules and always act and edit in a calm and civil manner. I will not abuse multiple accounts ever again. I will never ever aggressively edit any pages if I am given a second chance. And finally, I will never make anymore threats to users and IPs. I do promise and swear that I will make good edits from here on out, and that any new edit that I see is done by another user should be assumed in good faith. I can assure you that these two years have given me a good long time to think about my actions in the past, and how I should act if I am given the opportunity to edit pages again. This is not the place to start any battles, or take out my anger, or create any conflict with another user. I hope that this request can be seen as a huge improvement from the first unblock request that I posted more than two years ago. I am willing to go above and beyond to prove that I have changed, and that I will keep my promise to contributing good edits in the community, and behave more maturely than I did in the past. Thank you for your time. Triple A (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, why the hell not. Blocks are cheap for repeat offenders; let him back and see how it goes. Unless someone comes up with some evidence that he isn't telling the truth above regarding being away for 2 years, people grow up and change over that time period. If it goes pearshaped, we can always put the block back in place. --Jayron32 04:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, Jayron, but "blocks are cheap" is a tired old cliche that really doesn't have much relevance to the real world, since editors can do significant damage to the encyclopedia before anyone catches on to their shenanigans and blocks them again. In that respect, blocks are decidely not cheap, once you factor in the cost of undoing the damage done. So let's retire the "blocks are cheap" slogan and take a look at the specifics of this editor
  AerospaceAirAviation's edit count profile shows that they made 341 edits in 3 1/2 years, which is not terribly proficient, although 64% of their edits were to articles (which would be good if they were productive edits), with 30.5% to user talk pages. So, what is that about? If 30.5% had been to article talk pages, that would be a different matter, but why the disproportionate percentage of edits to user talk pages, with no edits to article talk pages? That would appear to be the profile of an editor who didn't discuss disputes on article talk pages, but took them directly to the editor, which is not a particularly good sign. In fact, all of their edits in the last three months of their editing, before being blocked, went to user talk pages. I don't see that as a positive in any way at all.
  My own conclusion from examining the data on this editor is that I am not really convinced that allowing AerospaceAirAviation to edit again would be a net positive for the project. I would be less inclined to say this if someone would step forward and offer to mentor the editor and to monitor their edits while mentoring (too many mentors appear to think that it's a hands-off assignment) for, let's say, three monrhs, at which time they would be free to edit without supervision. Anyway, that's my suggestion. BMK (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Over the course of two years, people can change. I am totally willing to give this editor another chance. There is a good chance that will result in gaining a good editor. Of course, there is also a risk that it will result in disruptive editing that will go unnoticed for a while, as Beyond My Ken suggests, but there is no reason to assume that will be so, and it's not too difficult to check the editor's edits for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Support unblock. Cheap are blocks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, while blocks do have a cost a block every 2 years is not that expensive. We have something to gain by getting a potentially productive contributor. Unless evidence is shown that this person engaged in egregious personal attacks or threats I see no reason not to try again. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Seems like he's maybe grown a clue. KrakatoaKatie 04:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• I believe him. Support unblock. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. NE Ent 18:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Blanking of Madotsuki the Dreamer's talk page

Joshua Goldberg is a young Floridian recently arrested, suspected of inciting terrorism. He edited wikipedia logged out and logged in using more than one account. His User:MoonMetropolis account was indefinitely blocked for socking and edit-warring two years ago. The talk page is not protected or blanked. Goldberg sock User:Madotsuki the Dreamer was indefinitely blocked by User:Guerillero on 18th of this month, after Goldberg's arrest was reported. Guerillero protected the talk page and blanked it. I'm curious about the blanking.

I asked Guerillero on his talk page and he addressed his protection of the page but not the blanking. [1] (In that discussion he says I'm on a crusade of some sort. I genuinely have no idea what he means. Perhaps he's mistaken me for someone else.)

Can anyone here explain the point behind the blanking of the Madotsuki talk page? On its face I think the page should be readily visible to anyone looking into Goldberg's online career, but perhaps I'm missing something. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The content of User talk:Madotsuki the Dreamer is readily visible in the edit page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's available, but not as readily visible as it would be on the user talk page. That's the effect of blanking: it, to some extent, hides the content. I'd like to know the reason for hiding it. I can see no obvious purpose. I grant I may be missing something. Hence, per WP:ADMINACCT, I'd be grateful if Gamaliel would explain. I don't appreciate him dodging the question and addressing me like a troll ... or a crusader (whatever that means). Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the fuss? Are you concerned about censorship or loss of liberty? Is Wikipedia a battlefield for freedom? How about just assuming that the admin took his actions because he (a checkuser) has access to information that you don't, and that dropping hints about the information would not in any way help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your speculation. I'm fairly sure I'm not making a fuss. I'm just asking a question. If I don't get an answer soon, though, then I might make a fuss. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You missed an opportunity to mention why you are asking a question, and your reply did not address the substance of my comment. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He hid a page. It seems pointless and a bit stupid, frankly. If he has a good reason for doing it, fine. Share it. If he doesn't have a good reason - and the longer this goes on the more convinced I am it's just a stupid move he can't defend so he's being rude to me for asking the question - then he should unblank it.

It's a simple, reasonable question from one volunteer to another. I realise I'm just a, you know, editor and he's an admin and all, and I know how very busy he is and how he has so much important stuff to do around here. But I would like him to explain himself ... and without accusing me of being on some imaginary crusade if at all possible. From WP:ADMINACCT:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this blanking and protection should be at all controversial. This guy is a serial troll and apparently a terrorist. Why on earth would we want to serve as a host for publishing material written by him? The only reason we allow blocked editors access to talk pages is so they can appeal the block or discuss the circumstances of the block, neither of which is going to happen here. And the talk pages of high-profile blocked editors often end up serving as forums for people to discuss the user or the block, which isn't the intended purpose at all. That's just what I can tell from public information, and from the sounds of it Guerillero has access to private information about the case as well. (Admins don't get to play that card, but arbitrators do.) Hut 8.5 20:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about the hiding, not the protecting. You ask why we would want to host his talk page comments. Transparency. If there's no reason to hide, don't hide. (Do I really need to explain that?) And there is no reason to hide it, in this instance. I know this is a relatively small case. That doesn't diminish my question's legitimacy. My concern is rising, though, about Gamaliel's Guerillero's behaviour in this small case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Correction 02:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Virtually everything I've said above applies to both the blanking and the protecting. We're not "hiding" this person's writings. Anyone who wants to see them still can. If we wanted to "hide" them we would have deleted or oversighted them. We just aren't displaying them to the world. You'd prefer them to remain unblanked in the name of "transparency"? OK, but you don't get to decide what happens here, I don't think there's any policy or guideline indicating that these things should remain unblanked, and it doesn't look like anyone else agrees with you. I also don't think Gamaliel has anything to do with this. Hut 8.5 06:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispenser tools and updates

Hey everyone. I got my Labs account back and getting things working again. Thanks to all those that took the survey. In Dab solver you can disambiguate your watchlist (Multilingual Wikipedias now) and Dabfix has had some usability improvements.

Additionally, IEG 2nd round for 2015 is ending today and since community support is weighted in you should comment. My three proposals are To check images for colorblindness problems, An Alt text game, and for the nerdy programmers out there Telnet version of Wikipedia. Cheers, Dispenser 20:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dispenser: I hate to keep mentioning this every time the matter of your old tools comes up, but is there any chance that your coordinates-error tools will be restored? Deor (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: The WMF decided to scrap community development code in favor of new code in-house. I was consulted only once from the team over a parameter's function. Although, I believe the WikiMiniAtlas is still running it. — Dispenser 21:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretending to own images

@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: pretends to be owning those images that he has saved from other websites. He fails to prove that he is the actual owner of the pictures.

Images include:-

• [2] coming from [3][4][5]
• [6] from [7][8]
• [9] from [10] (scroll below) [11] [12] (3rd last image of the page)

Problem is with his continued edit warring over the tagging of the images, since he don't own them, he cannot upload either. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Where has Hitch Hicking claimed to own any of these images? I see that even in his original uploads of those images, he clearly states who the actual copyright owner is, and he does not claim himself. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See licensing. He refers to PAF Museum and their material is protected with copyrights. Best he did was, he copied them from there or these links that I mentioned, and then uploaded them here, while having no connection or consent with the original copyright holder. That way, we can take many images away from the same website and simply credit them, but I am sure that it is not allowed. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with non-free use? If Hitch satisfied the requirements laid out by that policy, he doesn't need anyone's permission. I'm not saying that's the case, but what you've shown has not proven wrongdoing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think he is not. His sourcing to PAF Museum also seems to be incorrect, because he has no links to show and pics have been copied from these sources that I have provided, can be observed by the moment of the picture (same amount of brightness, smoothness, etc.). D4iNa4 (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The links you provide as the sources of the images are not the sources of the images, and do not claim to be either. In fact, most of the links you've provided explicitly credit the ISPR as the source of the images. The ISPR is a government run public relations agency that services Pakistan's military branches. Hitch indeed did not provide the link where he got his images from, and that's imperfect, but so far nothing looks inconsistent with his claims. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

D4iNa4 is just returned from an SPI block 1 and started Editwarring and removal of Sourced Contents 2 and a Picture 3 about Pakistan victory in Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 for which he was warned by a fellow editor 4 since then he started warring by an IP and Oversighted the details 5.I filed an spi against him for his actions 6, and he counter filed an spi against me 7 which proved nothing against me, after this i warned him that i will request an action against him 8 on WP:ANI per WP:BOOMERANG and he counter filed this report against me just after few minutes. This report is a Clear example of WP:BOOMERANG. HIAS (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

HIAS: I did no edit warring, my version exists on the current article,[13] you did attempted to game system[14] but it didn't worked.

@Someguy1221: if there is no credible source to the actual source, what we do then? ISPR is clearly not PAF Museum. Yes these don't claim to be the owner of the images which should be noted, but these images have been replicated to Wikipedia, it is essential to link to the actual source. The real sources of these images are still missing. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: you could start by politely asking Hitch where he got the images. But the history between you and hitch, as well as the fact that you ran straight here to tattle on him instead of asking him a simple question, makes me wonder if you simply have a vendetta against him. It may be best for you to just drop the matter entirely and avoid hitch in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Greetings, noting here that there is one request here that hasn't been addressed for over eight days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge, and congratulations! All the best, Miniapolis 22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Miniapolis, I don't know if you noticed this but User:Bharatiya29 was requesting the autopatrol right for User:Kanghuitari. I wasn't aware that one editor could request user rights for another editor but I'm new to PERM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: From my casual, non-admin observations, it's just autopatrolled that other users can request. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autopatrolled also mentions requesting for other users. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kharkiv07, you are correct and I was mistaken. But now I know! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: yes, an editor can "nominate" another editor for Autopatrolled rights. I've done it at least once myself, and intend to nominate more when I get some time again so I can properly research candidates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems unusual to request a right for another editor without at least requiring that editor's assent and stated desire to acquire that privilege. But if the user right guidelines permit it, that is the last word on it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess the idea with autopatrolled is that it's not anything extra for the person getting the right; it wouldn't affect their editing at all unlike the addition of extra buttons that comes with other rights. Autopatrolled is primarily for helping other users. Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it autopatrolled is the only right you can't request be removed, and the only one where it's morally okay to nominate others without their consent. It can be detrimental to others (the patrollers) for you not to have the flag. Of course you could then create some bogus articles and we'd have to remove it, but I like to think someone who has gained that trust wouldn't intentionally disrupt the project to remove something that doesn't have a direct effect on them in the first place. If they want a second set of eyes on their articles they can go through AfC — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) I didn't know that autopatrolled—or any other user right—is irrevocable (if that's what you meant, MusikAnimal). The reason it can be requested by a third party is because it can lighten the load at NPP. Miniapolis 22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not irrevocable, but MusikAnimal's interpretation seems to be that it should only be revoked for cause and not on request. Not that I hang out at WP:PERM much, but I hadn't thought of it that way, and if someone asked for its removal I would've done it. In general I'd be inclined to say you get to decide what user rights you don't have; I don't think there's any significant population of anti-autopatrolled protesters to the point where you'd call it disruptive to NPP to reject the right. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply there's some strict guideline on removal of the right (not sure if that's even in writing). I wouldn't go as far as to call it disruptive to do so, but we should not knowingly allow a user to unnecessarily add to the backlog. Every little bit counts in a project that yields 750+ articles a day ([15]). The only scenario where I see removal of the right appropriate by request is if they choose to leave the project. They otherwise need a very good reason, as it makes no difference to them whatsoever. Autopatrolled is entirely in the interest of patrollers and not the user who holds the "right" – which is better worded as a "flag" than some sort of privilege. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

True. I should butt out since I don't work on this stuff, but I just don't love the idea of a user group that works like reverse Groucho Marx club: we'll have you as a member whether you care to belong or not. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible abuse of admin tools by User:Nyttend

Apology issued by Admin Nyttend. Consensus exists that things said and some actions taken were not correct. There seems to be a consensus that Nyttend should not have said he would block, here, over a supposed "hoax". A concern has been raised and is supported that editing through protection, here, was problematic. Some dispute remains over how exactly to apply WP:Involved, in this matter, although, at the least, a plurality sees an Involved problem. Close has been requested, and there appears to be consensus for this to be closed Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Nyttend has been abusing admin tools. The trouble started at this thread. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk · contribs), a disruptive sock account, was reported for threats and edit-warring. Heimdallr of Æsir was then blocked for a week but immediately unblocked at Nyttend's request. Nyttend then protected the Turkey article and reverted it to a version only he found acceptable. He then threatened to block anyone who reverts him after the protection is over [16][17].

Nyttend repeatedly called users that felt the need to restore the original caption as "hoaxers" over and over again [18][19][20][21][22][23]. He then closed the discussion to that effect. But even his closure was immediately reverted by Future Perfect at Sunrise who saw that it was made on unacceptable grounds. Even after me and other users pointed out that the caption was backed by sources, he continued the name calling despite the fact that several users, including veterans users and admins, spoke out against the usage of such language. See comments by admins NeilN and Future Perfect at Sunrise and veteran users Dr.K. and Athenean. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that Nyttend could have handled this better, but the only "abuse" of admin tools is editing the article to his preferred version after protecting it. Your main concern however, seem to be Nyttend's use of the term "hoaxers". It doesn't require admin tools to call people hoaxers. So what is it you want from this thread?--Atlan (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The situation is very simple: several people have knowingly presented a map as being otherwise than it is. A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real; in this case, the "something false" is the idea that the map represents Kurdish-majority areas, a statement clearly belied by the map's source. When you're willing to tag-team editwar a hoax into an article, and you're more concerned about personal attacks than presenting a truthful article, you're not here to build an encyclopedia. It's not surprising that you'd seek sanctions against the admin who sees through your sham and tries to enforce our policies against you. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As Nyttend did not do the unblocking, that's irrelevant. Nyttend did unnecessarily mix editorial and admin functions: they should have either a) reverted and requested another admin WP:RFPP -- simply dropping the hint I can't protect it due to involved (e.g. I'm an admin) would likely gotten someone else to protect in short order. Or b) protected and posted an edit request on the talk page -- again another admin probably would have made the edit in short order. There is, of course, the "any reasonable admin" argument here, but a two admin solution is the Path of Least Drama. NE Ent 12:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, are you saying Future Perfect at Sunrise is supporting hoaxing? [24] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If necessary, we revert disruption that leads to protection. FPAS misses the point; numerous users are saying that this map represents Kurdish-majority areas. Perhaps it corresponds a bit with Kurdish-majority areas, but that's not relevant: editors have presented text sources saying "These areas are majority Kurdish" and presented the map saying "This is a map of Kurdish-majority areas", but unless the text sources specifically address the source map, they are irrelevant. Let's say you want to use a different map, e.g. one that highlights the provinces mentioned in the source, or let's say that you decide to exclude this map entirely; I'll have no comment and won't participate in making such a decision. Make such a change after protection expires, or ask any other admin to do it before then, and I won't intervene; ask me to do it before protection expires, and I'll happily do it without comment. The sole issue is presenting this map as what it's not. This is fundamentally the same as a situation I regularly encounter with US geography articles: US communities had their demographics from the 2000 census added by a bot in 2002, and since the 2010 census is more recent, I often see people putting 2010 data in front of the 2000 citation. Such a situation is hoaxing, because they're claiming that the source provides 2010 data when it doesn't. Omit it or use a 2010 source, and it's fine, just as it is to omit this map or use a different one. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So in short, it is synthesis of multiple unrelated sources, correct?--Atlan (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There's probably a hundred discussions happening right now on Wikipedia along the lines of "that's not what the source says". They're proceeding along without accusations of hoaxing, protection of articles, and threats of blocking. If you regularly tell editors who update stats correctly without updating the source that they're hoaxers then I'm surprised you haven't been hauled to ANI for this practice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page (well, put back the semi-protect editing and full-protect move situation). Protecting a page where you are in a content dispute and then editing through the protection to win the dispute is misuse of the admin tools. Claiming that it was "hoaxing", i.e. vandalism, is very nice, unless (like here) no hoaxing is involved, only a dispute about correctness which should be handled on the talk page of the article (which you haven't edited during the last few months at least). Fram (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Fram. Admins like you, NeilN and FPaS, just to name those who commented and took action in this case, renew my faith in this project. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. I don't agree with many of Nyttend's actions here or his insistence, but Fram, saying that Nyttend is in a content dispute in this article is silly, very silly. Nyttend reverted what he thought was a hoax--that's not "being in a content dispute". He made three edits to the article, ever; one cannot possibly believe he was in a content dispute, as if he had something Kurdish or Turkish at stake. Seriously--I feel for Dr. K and Athenean, and Nyttend's feet should be held to the fire, but accusing him of something he obviously didn't do is unproductive and, duh, unfair. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If it were remotely reasonable to think this was a hoax, that would be a legitimate point. But that's what's concerning about this. He shouldn't have even thought that this was a hoax per WP:AGF. But not only did he assume bad faith and decide that it was a hoax, but he has repeatedly defended the accusation based on some twisted reasoning that even if the caption was accurate, it misrepresented the given source, thus it constituted "hoaxing". This apparently doesn't make sense to anyone, but even if he were convinced that this was a malicious hoax, that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't, it was a content dispute that he inserted himself into while simultaneously executing an involved administrative action. And, while good faith mistakes happen, has refused to acknowledge any sort of overreaction, or wrongdoing, or misjudging. He appears to continue to stand behind all of his actions 100%, even in spite of ample feedback. Swarm ♠ 01:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it is remotely, or somewhat nearbyly, reasonable to think this a hoax; I wouldn't have used that word even if I saw what he did. But you, Swarm, you have to assume that he reverted etc. in bad faith. I mean, if he thinks it's a hoax, it's not a content dispute; it's as simple as that. And I think Nyttend is from Ohio, and I hope he's not an OSU graduate because that would be even more problematic, but I believe in his good faith. He may well be wrong in his thinking (and his stubbornness), but we're talking about content, and I just don't think you can pin "content dispute" on him. Thus you also can't pin "involved" ("favorite version", etc) on him. Now, the longer he stands by it the sillier he looks, but come on, making a person eat crow is difficult no matter how much mayonnaise you put on it. Sure he's going to have to get off the hoaxy horse, but the more we raise the stakes ("involved") the harder we make it for him to get down. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Not remotely, not nearbyly, no it cannot be considered a hoax. Please see what Future Perfect at Sunrise said to Nyttend originally: "Wait a moment. Sorry Nyttend, I've undone your closure here. First, please don't keep using the term "hoaxing", that's not what we're dealing with here. The person who first added the map, Athenean, [25] had just previously also added a sourced textual description [26] that said that "Kurds make up a majority in the provinces of Dersim, Bingol, Mus, Agri, Igdir, Elazig, Diyarbakir, Batman, Sirnak, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Siirt and Hakkari, a near majority in Sanliurfa province (47%), and a large minority in Kars province (20%)." I haven't seen anybody challenging the correctness of the sourcing for this sentence. I assume that Athenean believed in good faith that the textual description enumerating those provinces matched the area described in the map, in which case his use of the map with the "majority" caption would have been legitimate. If he was mistaken in this assumption, overlooking that there might have been some factual differences between the two areas, that would make it a case of inadvertent source misuse, but not "hoaxing", which by definition would have to be deliberate. Certainly this should have been hacked out on the talkpage." If an admin has to accuse veteran, good-faith editors of such a terrible thing as perpetrating a hoax he should investigate thoroughly the facts the way FPaS did. If he did the due diligence exemplified by FPaS's response details the conclusion would have been not possible to be a hoax. But Nyttend chose the witchhunting route. That's irresponsible of an admin. Coupled with his brutal attacks and block-for-edit-if-you-dare taunts on my talkpage his behaviour in this incident is inexcusable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's right, Dr.K., or that he acted properly in regards to you and Athenean... Drmies (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I know you too well and you made yourself abundantly clear in your previous statements for me to think otherwise and I have read your clear statements in that regard as well as your closing statement at ANI for which I sent you thanks. I just wanted to address the asymptotic limits of the hoax argument. Also my examples were not meant in any way toward you. I just added them to show what I think is the larger picture of this admin's behaviour toward myself and the other editors. My respect for you as an admin and editor would preclude any misunderstanding on my part. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I hope you know that one disagreement on one part of the event doesn't mean I condone what happened. I also hope Nyttend will respond. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Doc. But there is no need for the clarification. I knew that from the beginning. All the best to you too. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean let's get real here. He comes to my talkpage calling my replies to his attacks "agitation" and concluding Further agitation will be ignored.. Who talks like that to a fellow-editor? What is this place supposed to be? A prison? And who does he think he is? A prison warden talking down an insurrection? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Then we have the other gem: The edit-you-get-blocked dare: Baiting me with an edit-for-block combo: If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block. Is this where things have come to in communication between editors? It is clear from these examples, and unfortunately there are many more, that this is not an isolated example of bad behaviour but a multifaceted and determined attack on myself and the other editors whose menace shows no signs of abating. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, labeling an edit a "hoax" is much like labeling an edit "vandalism" or "sockpuppetry"...it's an inherent assumption of bad faith and should not be done unless it's justified by evidence. I quite simply don't see how you can look at an edit that was performed by a long-term, highly established editor in good standing, and label it a bad faith action (I.e. a hoax). You should just not do that, per AGF. It really is that simple. Making a bad assumption of bad faith does not exempt one from the expected standards of conduct...even if done so sincerely and with good intentions. It really doesn't matter if he genuinely thought he was justified, because he was wrong, and should have realized it. His actions were inappropriate, and while he needn't be punished for this incident, I'm not going to make excuses for him. He could have at least given a modicum of consideration to the people who were questioning his actions, and in refusing to do so isn't living up to our standards of conduct. Not trying to unduly tear the guy apart, just saying. Swarm ♠ 06:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with Fram The map is not the source. The map is just a convenient illustration which contains all the provinces that have majority Kurdish populations. The fact that there are majority Kurdish populations is supported by a separate reliable source which names these provinces. But Nyttend instead of AGFing or simply stating his opposition he goes ballistic, misusing protection edit-summaries to advertise that good-faith editors are hoaxers and performs ANI closes accusing an editor that he is a hoaxer. Thankfully he was reverted by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise who also explained to him his unjustified use of the word "Hoax" to attack established editors. After I politely asked him on his talkpage that in view of FPaS's explanation if he could change the protection log edit-summary to remove the word hoax, he came to my talkpage to accuse me of "tricking the reader" and block-bait me by telling me "if I wished" he would unprotect the article but he would revert and block me if I changed the caption. He also called my good-faith responses to him "agitation" and said that he would not respond to it further. All in all this administrator has been abusive to several veteran editors including myself. He also abused the edit-summary field of the protection log to attack good-faith veteran editors. Further, at the time of my reversion, I reverted the sockfarmer because he was an obvious sock of Lord of Rivendell whose SPI I had created. Per Wikipedia policy all such reverts are justified. It turned out the sockfarmer was an even older sock since 2007 with almost 100 socks. I had not seen the exact details of the map at the time. But I trusted the editorial discretion of my fellow editors. In summary I think Nyttend is out of order in this case and he should cease attacking longstanding veteran editors this way. He also abused his admin capacities by reverting to his favourite version and using protection edit-summaries attacking other editors where they cannot respond to his attacks. That simply is not fair and it is also an abuse of admin tools. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend should instead encourage editors at the talk page of the article to either find a better source or replace the map. His rationale for keeping the current caption was never even explained. This whole source discrepancy issue was raised by him for the first time just a few minutes ago. Neither have I ever heard him provide a different avenue to solve the caption issue. Its been either "you revert me, you get blocked." The discussion at User_talk:Dr.K.#Turkey highlights his approach towards this entire issue up until this very moment. Nyttend did not once provide any user an avenue to express his concerns over the current caption. Instead, he pushed his agenda with the same refrains:

"If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block."

"Further agitation will be ignored."

"You added a demonstrably false claim, i.e. a hoax."

At this point, it isn't about the caption. That's a secondary issue. This is about an admin using and abusing admin tools to force his "opponents" to have it his way. His approach has been to dismiss each and every user, threaten to block them, overtly ignore their concerns, and force users to accept that they're somehow hoaxes. Meanwhile, he has not given any user an avenue to provide an explanation as to why this map and its corresponding caption should be there. Why, for one, is such a discussion happening at WP:AN, WP:ANI, or even User_talk:Dr.K.#Turkey? All his comments about the map and the source for it can be easily handled through discussion at the talk page, as it is done in a common fashion throughout Wikipedia. But taking this approach has caused more problems than solutions. Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• PS: Thankfully Fram made a note in the unprotection edit-summary that cleared the hoax allegation, so s/he repaired the damage caused by Nyttend. I am grateful to him/her for that. I seek no further action against Nyttend, unless this becomes a pattern. But I will AGF that it will not. Despite the problems he created he is still a veteran editor with many articles under his belt and I respect that. Thank you all who commented in this thread for helping sort this mess out. All of you take care and let's go back to writing some articles. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately Nyttend does not seem to get the idea. He went to my thread of a thank you note at Fram's talkpage to repeat the same attacks and to chastise him/her for correcting his attack at the protection log of Turkey which also doubles as abuse of his admin tools. His edit summary was Your actions will long be remembered. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Everything about Nyttend's actions is actually fine IMO apart from the accusation of hoaxing, which is a bit intemperate. It may be POV, but it's not hoaxing as such. This is an occasion for saying "oops, my bad" and everyone getting on with something more productive. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree entirely. I find Nyttend's behavior to be unacceptable and bizarre. Just because a caption does not perfectly match up to a source does not mean there's a willful attempt at deception going on, and per this little thing called WP:AGF, such assumptions should generally not be made. I know, AGF is a difficult concept, especially for an admin. The map and caption were added by an established editor in good standing.[27] This same user later raised the issue on the talk page, in a reasonable, good faith effort to provide the most accurate information in the article. He gives a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the caption was not demonstrably false as Nyttend says, and suggests that it's a little more complicated than that and that a new map might be better. Nyttend has not responded there. Nyttend's labeling of this as hoaxing is not only a flagrant violation of AGF, but an unfounded personal attack. His repeated attempts to defend the accusation are nothing short of shocking. Now, that aside, he quite clearly and blatantly committed an act of administrative abuse by full protecting an article and then reverting to his preferred wording with the bad "hoaxing" rationale. Even if this was a good faith attempt at providing accurate content, it was absolutely unacceptable to take involve himself in an edit war after full protecting the article against said edit war. WP:INVOLVED can be dicey sometimes, sure, but this is not a gray area. This is basic stuff. If you're in an edit war, you sure as hell don't action that edit war as an administrator. And if you full protect an article due to an edit war, you sure as hell don't involve yourself afterwards while no one else can edit! He clearly involved himself and thus could not be considered an uninvolved administrator who could fairly mediate the edit war, and yet when an admin correctly unprotected the article, he left a rude, borderline harassing message on their talk page with what could be interpreted as a threatening edit summary.[28] I have never had anything but a good impression of this user and I am frankly blown away by what I'm seeing here. In this very thread, he holds true to the accusation of hoaxing, when he's dealing with veteran editors in good standing and gives no indication that he understands why he might not be anything other than 100% in the right. I think he should stop being overly-defensive reconsider his hardline stance, drop the bad faith accusations, and refrain from using the tools while involved, and we'll all be better for it. I hope he does so because he's certainly better than this. And, while I'm absolutely not suggesting that a case is needed over this, if an administrator fails to acknowledge complaints about their conduct in a community forum, it's a matter for ArbCom. Swarm ♠ 00:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I would sincerely like to know how is it going to be possible to work with an admin who is upholding such grudges and bad faith assumptions against fellow users. Ideally, I would love to have good faith restored. But Nyttend is not dropping the stick. The Sword of Damocles still hangs at Turkey. The block bait technically still stands there. His bad faith assumptions were never retracted and has only continued. But more importantly, who's to say his actions here wouldn't be similarly applied elsewhere? Does this not merit further measures to prevent such problems from recurring in the future? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing through protection you (Nyttend in this case) have placed to install your preferred version automatically makes you involved in the content dispute. Unless its to remove an obvious BLP or other policy-violating material. Once protected, the page stays still until discussion about content has been resolved on the talk page (or the protection is removed due to the disruption stopping). This is a basic tenet of how protection is meant to be used. The 'hoax' rubbish is just bad faith accusations to justify a side in the dispute. This is not the sole instance recently of admins making misunderstandings of what constitutes involvement in a content dispute. Perhaps someone should write a manual.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, are you willing to agree that there is no "presenting a truthful article" exception to WP:INVOLVED and make a commitment to not do it again? I would remind you that, as with all cases where an administrator is involved in a content dispute, a request posted at WP:AN asking for an uninvolved administrator to look into the situation and take whatever action is required almost usually results in action within minutes. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Good suggestion. There is clear abuse of admin tools here: Reverting after protecting the page. Block-baiting established editors is also unacceptable. I have seen admins desysoped for less. Perhaps refer the matter to Arbcom if there is no resolution here? I also note I have posted at length at Talk:Turkey regarding the content issue. I note with disappointment that Nyttend has so far not participated. Athenean (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What resolution are you after? Arbcom would be either for an egregious act of behavior or an established pattern of abuse. I don't see anything that warrants desysopping. He was not involved in a content dispute and I believe that he reverted based on what he honestly believed. That others might disagree with him did not suddenly involve him in a content dispute. He responded initially at this ANI thread and then later this one, He made two edits to the protection status of an article and one edit to clear up something that he thought was wrong. Fram's characterization that he was involved and trying to win a content dispute is wrong ("Misuse of protection to win an edit war") entered in the protection log. Nyttend wasn't participating in an edit war. His role as an admin was not compromised by those actions. I do believe that there is room for improvement in the discourse with other editors and that things should have been handled a bit differently but the debated edit was reverted. What else is there to do here? The regrettable part that might be viewed as abuse comes from the discussion threads thereafter. I do think that he should consider apologizing to Dr. K.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Nyttend's answer to the above question is "no".[29] There seem to be three alternatives at this point; ignore a clear misuse of the tools by an admin who has stated that he indends to do it again, a brave and uninvolved admin giving Nyttend a short block to make it clear that the community takes WP:INVOLVED seriously, or a trip to arbcom with the probable result being the same as when Kww refused to back down after making an involved action. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't involved and I don't see why editors keep trying to label him as being involved. Before he protected the article, he didn't have a dog in that fight did he? What am I missing?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What Berean Hunter appears to be missing is the expectation of WP:PREFER: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. " (emphasis mine). By selecting other than the version at time of protection, Nyttend mixed administrative and editorial functions, hence the perception of involvement. NE Ent 13:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Can we put the stick down now? See WP:Editors have pride; it's applicable although written from a slightly different context. The action has been reversed and a bunch of folks have provided explanation as to why the consensus here is it was an involved action. It is not necessary to harangue a mea culpa out of Nyttend, it is simply necessary they don't do it again. This might take some time for reflection on their part, and that is difficult to do when you feel like there's a "witch hunt" against you. NE Ent 22:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit does not appear to be made by an uninvolved admin. Especially when his position concerning article content was reaffirmed right after that revert. Meanwhile, hurling accusations of hoaxing and claiming that certain users should "Not to be trusted whatsoever" is very serious. This did not occur towards just one user, but many. Which leads me to believe that it's a precarious pattern we are dealing with here. I wouldn't push it so far as to seek an alternate forum to solve this issue if it weren't for the overt refusal to get the point. It's Nyttend who should drop the stick. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly not responding to this thread is not a refusal to drop the stick. Bringing up the same examples over and over again is. Either submit a proposal for community input regarding Nyttend's actions or bring the case to a higher authority. The constant back and forth here is going nowhere. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Etienne: I had not seen the diff you added. It is worse than you describe. Nyttend has escalated this further. He is leveling WP:NOTHERE against the editors he disagrees with: more concerned about personal attacks than presenting a truthful article, you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Assuming such a level of bad faith against reputable, longterm, veteran editors is a clear sign that he is not fit to be an administrator. Also his punchline It's not surprising that you'd seek sanctions against the admin who sees through your sham and tries to enforce our policies against you. disingenuously concentrates and attacks his target editors while blithely ignoring the wide criticism he has received from his fellow admins. He obviously sees himself as a man on a mission for WP:TRUTH while his opponents are NOTHERE. He also implies he can only see through the "sham" while his fellow admins are dupes. This is a dangerous state to be in when you have the tools. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend isn't belaboring the point. How can you suggest that he is involved? He didn't reaffirm a content position...he was explaining his admin actions. Those are two entirely different things. Show me the diffs where he had been involved in this previously. Show me where he takes a position in editing in this article. He responded to your request for an admin. How dare you suggest that he was involved and let that stand as if it were so? Patently false...and you should know better. Anyone who thinks he was involved cough up some diffs from before that request was made. Show us that he was involved in a content dispute. Don't show me the one edit to the caption after the protection..that isn't it. If you think that is involved then you don't know what that means.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's my diff. Who is that calling Nyttend to come to the talk page?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

So reverting to a version he preferred after he edit-protected the page is not a misuse of admin tools? And then threatening to block anyone who reverts him while hurling accusations of bad faith because he does not understand the complexity of the issue? I have seen an admin resign because he was about to be desysopped for exactly this kind of behavior (ChrisO, if anyone remembers) Athenean (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't reverting to a version "he preferred". No abuse of tools here. The bullshit mis-characterizations are going to earn someone a boomerang soon. Bad faith some of you have, you've earned that characterization well. I'm not defending all of his actions and words here but if you guys are willing to misrepresent things and let it stand then I can see why he wouldn't be too quick to apologize. Invite him to the party and then throw him under the bus? Nice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Berean, you're mixing two separate situations here. That comment was in reference to continuous insults by an SP IP account of a user already blocked for similar insults. I said "see the TP" because that user was socking and continuing to personally attack users there. I never said he should participate in a discussion at the TP. As for the current situation, Nyttend's concerns regarding the map can easily be made at the talk page of the article. His concerns over the map is reminiscent of any other content dispute in Wikipedia. "That's not what the source says"-like discussions are very common when it comes to content disputes in Wikipedia. Threatening to block anyone that disagrees is also a way of pushing his position without referring to simple talk page discussions. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you believed that he was involved and then you requested his assistance there?...or were you calling what you thought was an impartial admin?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Berean, I asked for Nyttend's attention because he himself had already blocked the very user I raised concerns about at ANI. And again, I told him to see the TP because the user he had blocked was socking and continuing his personal attacks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is absolutely no ambiguity in "If you wish, I can unprotect the page to enable you to restore the hoax to the article, but such will result in an immediate reversion and block." Whatever he did before or after this statement makes no difference, although even that seems far and away from best practices, threatening, baiting, in this way is far beyond the pale. It took me less than 30 seconds to see Dr.K. has been editing heavily here for nine years has over 80,000 edits and one block, of slightly over five hours duration seven years ago. This is not the profile of a hoaxer. An admin is supposed to exhibit good judgement and de-escalate situations not double down when questioned or when they make an error. And never, ever, I repeat ever threaten a long term, good faith editor, in the way quoted.

I genuinely do not understand why this is still open. We do not tolerate users going around accusing editors of vandalism repeatedly when they have been told it was not vandalism — they get blocked. We should not tolerate an admin doubling down on accusations of experienced editors supporting hoaxes when they have received amble community feedback that they are in error, or threatening editors when they are questioned. Block him for 20 minutes to get his attention or press on to ArbCom if no one is willing to do even a symbolic block to indicate that this behavior is not acceptable. Jbh^Talk 02:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jbhunley for your kind words. Ironically my single block was for reverting a hoax Greek name "Ιάσπερος". "Ιάσπερος" does not exist, it is a hoax. But the blocking admin did not speak Greek and apparently could not Google either so I got blocked for edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The bullshit mis-characterizations are going to earn someone a boomerang soon. Bad faith some of you have, you've earned that characterization well. Berean, this opinion is shared by many editors in this thread, including admins. Fram unprotected Turkey on that basis. Are you saying they are going to be boomeranged as well and that they have bad faith? Or are you reserving the honour just for Nyttend's targets? By the way, thank you for your decent comment about Nyttend apologising to me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already stated that I think Fram had it all wrong to promote the idea that Nyttend was involved in an edit war. No one who has researched this properly can make that conclusion. If they hold onto it then they need to produce diffs to back it up. My defense of Nyttend here is strictly about people accusing him of being involved as a reason to try to get him desysopped. He didn't use his tools inappropriately. He wasn't a participant in an edit war that suddenly decided to whip out the tools and use them. Anyone that calls him involved hasn't done their due diligence and they will need to justify that. I'm not defending the discussions thereafter and I do think that he was heavy-handed in the conversations. If it were me, I would apologize to some folks about that including you. I'm trying to separate the wheat from the chaff here...let's dispense with the involved accusation and get to the crux of the matter. It is about what he said and not an abuse of the tools. I see some folks as trying to skew the evidence because they want a certain outcome. I feel apologies are in order.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Berean. I think Nyttend has abused the tools by using the protection log to accuse good-faith editors of hoax creation. He has also said that he sees similar actions in US articles when editors use maps for highways with newer stats. Therefore he has already made up his mind regarding using newer sources with older maps. That's an editorial position of his which he tried to impose on Turkey while at the same time using his tools and protection log edit-summaries to attack his opponents. That, imo, makes him involved. But even if we assume that his edit was not involved, his abuse of the edit-summary field to accuse multiple longstanding editors of hoax creation is abuse of admin tools. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly you could toss out the involved accusations all together and this is still really bad behavior from an admin. Put aside even the editing through protection and unblocking a sock. What the hell is with the horrible lack of AGF and strong arm tactics? Hoax? Really? With the editors involved and the talk page activity about the map and source in question? It would have been resolved shortly. None of the involved editors are hoaxers. The fact that Nyttend just wouldn't drop that stick is bizarre. That edit summary to Fram is just bizarre too. Dr. K was ready to extend AGF but Nyttend keeps doubling down. Why? From what I've seen Nyttend seems to be an all-around good admin. Don't go down the Kww obstinance road. Everyone has bad days. Days where the BS you put up with all day just boils over and you just say enough and take a stand. This ain't the ground to make that stand on. Nobody involved was damaging this place, intentionally or not. All that said, everyone take a deep breath, get some sleep, whatever. ArbCom is not needed here. There's no pattern of abuse as far as I know anyway. I think everyone here is big enough to not demand some grudging public apology from someone who feels put upon. Chalk it up to a bad day. We all have them. If this behavior crops up again then a case is warranted. For now? Let it drop. Nobody is doing anyone good here. Capeo (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Capeo. In an ideal world I'd be totally in favor of dropping the case. I'd even consider dropping it now. However, my concern is whether I will, in the future, be able to work with an admin who upholds a variety of bad faith remarks against me and various other users. From what I see, there's a serious concern of a lack of AGF on Nyttend's part. And it ain't going nowhere. How else are we to restore AGF among fellow users and admins? I'd argue that it would be quite difficult to do that by dropping the case now under an environment like this. But don't get me wrong, my AGF towards Nyttend will always stand. However, it takes two to tango. And if that's not going to happen, then what else can be done? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I knew I had seen an issue with Nyttend editing through his own full protection to restore a preferred version before this. It is in this discussion [30] and it is a large portion of the discussion involving long term experienced editors. I can not locate the diff of the complaint but the text is "...and made improper use of editing through full protection. I am disappointed that Nyttend has not commented here, nor acknowledged that some of us have raised these concerns." and the edit time is 10:28 am, 6 February 2015 on ANI. The diff given showing editing through full protection is [31]. As near as I can tell from a brief scan of that thread he did not comment or address community concerns there either. I have not looked for any other similar instances but the concern has been raised before and he did not take on board community concern for that practice. Jbh^Talk 06:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• The link of your quote is here. The full quote of the sentence is: As I said above, those administrative actions reflected significant misunderstanding of policies, including NPOV and BLP, as well as misunderstanding the scope of the RfC discussion, and made improper use of editing through full protection. I am disappointed that Nyttend has not commented here, nor acknowledged that some of us have raised these concerns. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Call for close

There appear to be four possible courses of action at this point:

[A] Ignore this situation, let the discussion die out, and let the archive bot clear it away.

[B] Find that there was no misuse of tools.

[C] Give Nyttend a short block to make it clear that the community takes WP:INVOLVED seriously.

[D] A trip to arbcom.

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for [B] or [C], nor is further discussion likely to produce a consensus for either.

That leaves [A] and [D], both of which are best served by closing this discussion.

Therefor, I move to close this discussion with a finding on no consensus for any administrative action. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• C D I wish it was C. There was a similar instance of editing through his own full protection back in Feb. that I just mentioned above. he did not participate in that discussion either and that makes me very concerned he is unwilling to accept community feedback. That is, in my opinion, a big problem and it should not just be swept ignored. Jbh^Talk 06:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• We all have to abide by the consensus of the community, no matter what our personal positions are, and a quick scan of the discussion above shows that there is a fair amount of support but no consensus for C. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Then D it must be. The threats and unwillingness to admit error, to the point of continuing the accusations, makes dropping the matter a non-starter. I probably would not !vote ArbCom if he had just dropped the matter without acknowledgement, I would not respect that move as admin's are supposed to be better than that to maintain community trust but I would not say it needs ArbCom. That he has been called out earlier for similar behavior (Inappropriately editing through protection) is an issue for me as well. Jbh^Talk 13:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd favor D since there's a lingering lack of good faith that's very unpleasant. I find that Arbcom is the only avenue to overcome that problem since it would promote further discussion and inquiry. C would be an alternate option to that. But a block would teach nothing and would might be inflammatory. The goal here is to move on. But first, let us do it in a comprehensive and thorough manner so that these issues will never resurface again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see abuse of admin tools on Nyttend's part. I do see poor communication and lack of understanding of the participants' positions, mainly because of the tenacity of clinging to the term "hoax", but I don't see a problem in his edit/protection as such. When protecting a page, admins have an amount of discretion in choosing a "status quo ante" of an edit war, and if an admin believes that one version has been conclusively shown to contain an obviously disruptive source distortion, I believe it is fully in their discretion to choose that version. Nyttend may have been objectively mistaken about the severity of that perceived source distortion, and he was most definitely wrong about his charge of deliberate distortion, but I don't see any harm in implementing the edit he did (more so because the version he chose wasn't in fact detrimental to the other editors' position; there can be no doubt that the wording chosen is actually one correct way of representing the source.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That still does not address his abuse of the protection edit-summary ("Hoaxing by multiple people" and "Rv hoaxing") to attack good-faith editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

...Or edit-summaries such as "Not to be trusted whatsoever" towards fellow users. I mean it's one thing if a disruptive editor like Heimdallr of Æsir says that about me, but it's entirely different when an admin of over nine years of experience says it, especially without a tinge of remorse afterwards. Indeed, any average user would have the good faith in believing that an admin so experienced and reputable would be right in saying that. And that's why I'm personally quite uneasy about that remark. And I'm sure others, who have been hit with similar comments, are too. Such remarks of bad faith must be curtailed, especially when it comes from admins because their comments are generally more influential within the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

'How about E?: being that Nyttend just says, "Hey, I fucked up a little bit. Sorry." It never ceases to amaze me around this place in how so many simple disputes could be averted with a little humility. Capeo (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Capeo but I think that someone who attacks a fellow-editor as a hoaxer, block-baits him and calls the replies of his target editor "agitation" and tells him that "further agitation will be ignored" is and has been on a power-trip so high that there is no possibility that he will land back to reality without being desysoped. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Without agreeing or disagreeing with the above comment, I will note that I asked Nyttend[32] to agree that there is no "presenting a truthful article"[33] exception to WP:INVOLVED and make a commitment to not do it again. His response was "no"[34] and thus E is not an option for us. I wish it was. I would also note that Kww was offered the same choice by arbcom, and if he had simply agreed with the overwhelming consensus of the community concerning what is and is not an exception to WP:INVOLVED he would still be an administrator today. I hate losing admins this way when the desysoping is entirely avoidable by simply agreeing to follow the consensus of the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• i obviously agree that there is an entirely legitimate complaint against Nyttend's actions here, but I think he has received ample feedback regarding this incident, and even if he's unwilling to admit that he was wrong, I assume he will consider it and remember it in the future in order to avoid a similar problem from happening. I also entirely trust that he will not hold onto a grudge against any of the editors he has come into conflict with, even if he's given such an impression. If this discussion was somewhat successful, we will all move on to continue working on the project and Nyttend will not repeat this mistake. That's the real goal here and what I think the likely outcome will be. If this discussion is really unsuccessful and Nyttend refuses to listen to any of the editors here, and exhibits more problematic behavior (which, again, I do not anticipate in the least), then obviously AN is an ineffective forum for dealing with it and it should go directly to ArbCom. Either way, I agree that this discussion should be closed as it's clearly achieved the most it's going to, which is outside input and feedback. There's no consensus that it needs to escalate further at this time. Swarm ♠ 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would be the last editor to disagree with you Swarm as I respect you, your opinions and vision for this project. But although I will not oppose in any way your opinion out of respect, I admit that given his behaviour so far, including his edit-summary to Fram Your actions will long be remembered, it is very difficult for me to believe that Nyttend is the type that will either learn or forget any time soon. In any case, your rationale for closing this debate is correct. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand entirely why you feel that way and I don't think you're being unfair, as that comment essentially constitutes a threat on it's face. But I'm willing to assume that it was a defensive overreaction as opposed to a genuine threat of lasting bad faith towards Fram. People can get very worked up and defensive when overruled or questioned, even if they know they were wrong. It's a natural human response that I myself can be guilty of. I think and hope we can let that one go, and if I'm wrong, well, WP:ROPE is a very real thing. Swarm ♠ 07:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Swarm. I will take your opinion strongly under consideration. You have almost persuaded me that you are right in every respect. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Swarm and Future Perfect at Sunrise: (Or any other admin) I respect your opinions here quite a bit. I linked an ANI thread I from Feb where it looks to me that similar improper use of tools to protect/create a favored version of an article happened. In this case it also involved closing an RfC, editing the article beyond the scope of the RfC and against established consensus to agree with his view, protecting the article when challenged and then editing through that protection to return it to 'his' version. The thread closed with no consensus and no input from Nyttend. I will not put you on the spot by asking whether he was right or wrong there, what I would like to know is if, in your experience, I am way off base to consider these two events similar enough to consider this incident is the equivalent of "more problematic behavior... [that] should go directly to ArbCom." Swarm mentions above, just in relation to the Feb case.

  I guess the TL;DR is the earlier case was kicked down the road, is this similar enough to be a 'here we are again' event? I would like an admin's perspective on this because you are the people with the actual day to day experience and I just see some fraction of the 'mistakes'. Jbh^Talk 13:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the thread I am referring to ANI Archive 269 - Edit exceeding the scope of the RfC. The editing through full protection is brought up first at 5:42 pm, 4 February 2015 and continues from there. Jbh^Talk 13:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Call for patience

There is no temporal crisis here and no deadline for resolving an AN thread. The goals here are: making Turkey the best possible article for readers; ensuring editors are comfortable making good faith edits without inappropriate sanctions activities from those with administrator bits; ensuring that as Nyttend proceeds forward he continues his good administrator work with full appreciation of nuances of involvement, page protection policies and admin accountability et. al. At this point would benefit the discussion is more editors reviewing the situation and offering non-accusatory, policy based viewpoints. NE Ent 13:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend maintains he did nothing wrong. There is no other support for this position but there is some support that he did not misuse his admin tools. If a similar situation happens again go to Arbcom and let them sort it out. My two cents. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I don't think there's a better forum to handle those issues other than Arbcom. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Nyttend stepped out of line here and compounded it with petulance. It's bad enough that he doesn't seem to understand what hoax means, and that he used it in bad faith against long-term contributors in good standing, but the fact that he is not acknowledging that and refuses to reassure the community that it won't happen again is a problem. Editing through a page protect is a problem. Making veiled threats of retribution is a problem. Failing to follow WP:ADMINACCT is a problem.

I'm not sure if this rises to a level of WP:ADMINCOND worthy of an Arbcom case, but at minimum, I would expect a clear, public acknowledgement from Nyttend that he understands what he did wrong and will strive not to repeat similar breaches. I would also note that this is not the first time that Nyttend has used his admin privileges contrary to community norms. A couple of years ago, he unblocked a homophobic IP troll and justified it by misrepresenting the reason for the block. He utterly refused to consider that his unblock was improper in spite of substantial opposition to his action. - MrX 16:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked Nyttend[35] to agree that there is no "presenting a truthful article"[36] exception to WP:INVOLVED and make a commitment to not do it again. His response was "no".[37]

I will ask again, in the hopes that the additional input from the community or additional time to reflect has changed his mind:

Nyttend, are you willing to agree that there is no "presenting a truthful article"[38] exception to WP:INVOLVED and make a commitment to not do it again?

If I see anything resembling agreement, I will support closing this as being resolved with no action required. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Guy but I doubt this will happen for the reasons I enunciated above. In fact, however regrettable Nyttend's actions were at the beginning of this incident, his most recent reply, the one you linked above, contains two more escalations: WP:NOTHERE directed to one of his target editors and WP:TRUTH. This looks to me like escalation, which is the opposite of any type of acknowledgement or agreement. In fact TRUTH is almost never used by experienced editors as WP:V is the central criterion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course there's no such exemption, and so I won't ignore WP:INVOLVED because something is The Truth. "Presenting a truthful article" here means "presenting an article that truly reflects its sources", not some potentially unverifiable truth (as anyone can see if my comments aren't taken out of context); the caption probably reflects reality on the ground, but I don't know, because I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with the topic. It's verifiable that this map's source image is labelled "Kurdish-inhabited areas", and it's verifiable that such-and-such areas have Kurdish-majority populations, but without additional sources commenting on the map itself, it's not verifiable that the map's boundaries are identical to those of Kurdish-majority populations — it's original research. That's why I said somewhere (I wish I could remember where, but I don't) that if someone wanted to delete this map and replace it with one based directly on the provided textual sources, I would do it as soon as I had the chance (at the time, the page was still protected), regardless of what the sources said; I'm not a partisan or someone attempting to ignore sources, just someone who's demanding that sources be represented accurately. Meanwhile, as I have not previously been involved in Kurdish matters, Turkish matters, or matters with these editors, this was not a WP:INVOLVED situation. I simply responded to a ordinary ANI request, observed that the situation was otherwise than described by the requester, and took actions identical to what I would have taken had it been on any other unknown-to-me topic or any other group of editors with whom I've not previously interacted. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, how do you know that there are no additional sources regarding the map itself? How do you know I wouldn't provide one if you so requested? If you demanded them from me from the beginning, you would've gotten it. But you didn't give me and other users an oportunity to do that for you. Instead, you resorted to a "revert me and get blocked" approach while hurling bad faith accusations of hoaxing. Just look at the talk page of Turkey for once. We're discussing not only province by province verification, but we are also uncovering sources that state that the very CIA map depicts the Kurdish majority in that region. Also, my request at ANI doesn't relate my opinions in relation to the map at all. It was to stop uncessant edit-warring and personal attacks. All talk of the map should've been dealt with at the TP which is happening as we speak. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, do you still believe that there was Hoaxing by multiple people? This is my first question. I will submit a few more after you reply to this one first. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, unlike Dr.K., I am not going to comment on the content dispute regarding the map. I haven't bothered to look into it, but for the sake of argument let's assume that everything you say about the map is true, and your opponents are completely in the wrong. Given those assumptions, when you first saw what we are assuming was a hoax, you had a choice to take one of two policy-compliant paths. You could have entered into the content dispute as an ordinary editor, made your case, and followed Wikipedia's dispute resolution process just like any other editor would have to do. Alternatively, you could have entered into the situation as an administrator, giving warnings about user behavior that violates specific policies or guidelines. protecting the article, or imposing blocks for user behavior. As an administrator, you could also have impartially ruled on what the consensus is (whether you agreed with it or not) and implemented that consensus. You could have even reverted the article to a stable version if there is one. What you couldn't do is mix the two, taking sides in the content dispute (remember, we are assuming for the sake of argument that you were 100% right concerning content), editing the article and posting talk page comments supporting your side, while at the same time using your administrator powers on the same article. You need to pick one. You can be an editor, fighting for what you believe the content should be using the same tools available to any ordinary editor, or you can be an administrator, dealing with user behavior and not article content.

You say "I'm not a partisan or someone attempting to ignore sources, just someone who's demanding that sources be represented accurately", but those on the other side of the content dispute concerning maps -- some of them veteran editors -- say the same thing. That's why we have RfCs and other forms of dispute resolution -- to determine which side in a content dispute is following the sources and which side is not. When we elected you as an administrator we did not give you a supervote on content disputes about maps even if you are right.

If you continue on this path, there is a very good chance that you are going to be brought before arbcom. If that happens, I am reasonably sure that they will give you the same offer they gave Kww -- admit your error and commit to not doing it again -- and if you continue to dig in your heels they are likely to desysop you so that you don't have a choice about whether to use your admin tools. I implore you, please look over this entire thread and see how many people are telling you that you are in the wrong. Go ahead and say that you think they are all wrong but will follow the consensus, but please stop indicating that you will do it again in a similar situation. Nobody here wants to lose you over this. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you insist, I note that I will not do the same thing again in a similar situation. I already said this a few days ago, but on a user talk page, not a project page; it's not like you would have seen it. Quick note, there was no relevant consensus; no discussion happened, just an ANI post. The whole problem is that it was a content dispute in which the perhaps-in-the-right side was misusing sources. I invite anyone to explain, for example, how this kind of statement would be accepted in an FA review, where they check sources carefully and don't permit you to attribute a likely-to-be-true statement to a source that doesn't say so. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Again ignoring the details of the content dispute, I accept the above and strongly recommend on the basis of the above that this be closed with no action required, and I strongly advise against anyone here going to arbcom with this. If anyone does, I will comment saying that this was resolved at AN. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

NOBODY PLEASE RESPOND HERE because I'm in the middle of drafting a note to Étienne Dolet. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No such user exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It was just a typo; his signature is Étienne Dolet even though his username is ÉtienneDolet. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[Note that this response was completely rewritten; I started by saying that there weren't sources about the map, and then I realised how wrong I was. My note of 23:45 was written before I realised my error.] EtienneDolet, I deeply apologise. I had not looked and therefore was not aware that you'd already presented sources talking about the map itself. Had I known that, I would never have taken any actions in this situation: it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to block the other guy, since I'd recently filed a sockpuppet request against him, and of course it wouldn't have been right to levy sanctions against anyone on your side. I hope you understand that this would have been appropriate had I understood properly, i.e. if the only information we had about the map was the page where we got it, your actions would have been a fabrication of the source, a false statement (i.e. a hoax) about what was in the source. This is why I consistently considered your and others' actions to be hoaxing. Of course I now realise that you did the right thing, and I well understand that you and others were quite right to be angry. I never intended it as a method of joining a content dispute; I hope you understand that, and I ask your forgiveness for my recklessness. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, since you're talking about a no-action-taken close, what about "No action taken, because Nyttend now realizes that he recklessly misunderstood the situation and humbly apologizes"? Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, I accept your apology in good faith and in turn I want you to know that my confidence in you as an admin has been restored. I consider the matter resolved including any behavioural issues I may have raised about you. I wish you the best going forward and thank you again for restoring not only my confidence in you but also the good opinion I had of you in the past. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said, Nyttend. Let's close this thing now. Capeo (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Nyttend. —Sladen (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, while I am happy that the content dispute has been resolved, AN does not deal with conduct disputes. The reason this should be closed is because, while you still thought you were right, you made a commitment to either enter into a dispute as an editor or as an admin, not both as you did here. I believe you and trust you, and am confident that you won't use your admin tools in a content dispute even if you are 100% sure you are right. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Need an admin

Owing to a difference of understanding about unused file-redirects I tagged a number of these as G6, which as has been pointed out doesn't actually apply :(. I've done a mass revert on the most recent batch I'd tagged, but it will need an admin to restore the ones that were already deleted, these are of two sorts :-

1. File redirects listed here - Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_file_redirects
2. Files which were attempted cleanups after file moves to eliminate. (A number of these may well have been under CSD#F2 or FNC#9

I am also asking for removal of file-mover as I seem to have exceed the competence required.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the file mover user right per your request. I am a bit busy right now and can't go through the deleted articles. I do appreciate that you brought this to our attention and are willing to step back until you are better acquainted with our arcane policies. HighInBC 17:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Have also made a request at WP:REFUND here

I should know stuff like this, I am after all a fairly infamous contributor :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am also wondering if to appease the concerns about competence if I should request an account lock, given that as a seasoned contributor, I should have been much more careful. I've done a rollback of pending G6 tags, but can't rollback the already deleted items (which are nearly all the red-links here - [[39]] (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_file_redirects&oldid=682853211).

I am rather disappointed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sure we can all move on, it is not that bad. HighInBC 18:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I urge that we not overreact. In a narrow technical sense, there was an error. If someone uses a CSD that claims it is uncontroversial and someone else disagrees, by definition, it wasn't uncontroversial. That said I'm not fully understanding why these redirects are needed. I thought a file move was followed around by a bot which updated the links. I'm told my thinking is incorrect. If I'm the only one that thought this I don't know where I got it. If we don't have one why not? Many of these redirects had no substantive incoming links, however, the deletion is contested because there might be a deleted file somewhere that if it's restored that has a link. It's a pretty weak argument, and only the fact that redirects are cheap makes it adequate.

It look like clean-up to me. I did a number of the deletions and restored those I deleted. I've been asked to restore the ones deleted by @RHaworth:, but I'd prefer that someone else step in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• No mate, feel free to restore all the ones I deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The technical concern expressed was to do with prior revisions which now contain the "deleted" item as gaps in a layout look unprofessional. Having seen some badly maintained web-sites, I would actually agree that it looks unprofessional from a design standpoint. However, related to this is the issue of how to resolve "eclipsed" files, I.E files at Commons that share a name, filenames that are close to others, and filenames which are clearly meaningless to humans.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Redirects should be left for those reasons, and moreover because renaming breaks attribution when images are used on external websites. The exceptions are if the original filename requires redaction (see WP:FMV) or if a file shadows one on Commons. BethNaught (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There's also the consideration of these [[40]], I'm not sure if there's an easy way for the report to recognise a Redirect/Commons vs a local image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

25 more reasons you should have kept the filemover flag. Widr (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think that User:Sfan00 IMG is overreacting. Some errors were made, but they are easily reversed. I don't see any abuse or misuse of the filemover flag, so I'm not sure why Sfan00 IMG requested removal of that flag. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Even if it was a massive deal for these pages to be deleted, I think the onus is on admins to check whether a csd tag is valid or not; I could tag any random article with any random csd tag, it's more the admins fault than mine if the page is deleted. This is of course a more obscure case, and I'm not blaming the admins for any major wrongdoing, I had no idea that this was an issue before now either. Sam Walton (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Need a history change

Can an administrator move these three edits from Program for Action (New York City Subway) to User:Epicgenius/sandbox/4, where these edits originated? The three edits are currently part of the history of Program for Action (New York City Subway), which was moved from User:Epicgenius/sandbox/4, but I made these three edits in the sandbox. Although I'd prefer that these three edits didn't show up in mainspace (which wasn't my original intention), it's fine with me if something else is done instead. Epic Genius (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion was closed already, by NE Ent. Kraxler (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And I undid the close. You are not allowed to make a comment opposing a proposal and then immediatly close it, especially when it is only hours old and there is an active discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Proposal:_Remove_WP:In_the_news_from_the_main_page.

Is there any chance of giving a link to this in the watchlist notice, so we can get some proper discussion? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Who is compiling databases for pageviews now

Currently, I am unable to get responses about the current pageview tool at http://stats.grok.se. However, the operation is ongoing and continues to compile although occasionally, it seems that I need to leave a reminder. When I leave a reminder, I get no response, but work seems to get done. Now, I have a request at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Missing_stats_dates that needs a response from someone who is compiling or can compile the necessary databases. I am getting no response there. I am also getting no response at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Pageview_database_needs_some_administration. Where else can I go to find people knowledgeable about compiling our databases?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Rodgers

Closed per author's request. (non-admin closure) --Stabila711 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Can someone add this information into the article Aaron Rodgers where it mentions his career highlights and rewards since its protected:

• Ranked #1 in the Top 100 Players of 2012

Thanks! --74.130.133.1 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

74.130.133.1, you should make edit requests on Talk:Aaron Rodgers and you will need a more reliable source than another Wikipedia article. Look at NFL Top 100 Players of 2012 and you might find some sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Found one: [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.133.1 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I'm closing the discussion. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Commissary spam

BLOCK ENDORSED:

Admin consensus that Huon's block was a good one.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I just blocked Special:Contributions/65.125.15.222, an IP address apparently belonging to the Defense Commissary Agency, for adding linkspam to Wikipedia despite warnings. That IP isn't on the "contact the WMF immediately" list, but with the general deference given to the Department of Defense in the US (which apparently led the Commisssary employees to believe that "I am NOT spamming, I am doing this for the Department of Defense" would be a valid excuse), I invite other admins to review my block. Huon (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Good block. Those links serve no encyclopedic purpose. We don't invite every soccer club in the world to add a link to their "team store" to their club article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, since the agency is on the periphery of the DoD. Spam is spam. Miniapolis 20:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Endorse block. Possibly being done in good faith, but fairly obviously their additions do not meet our external link guidelines. Unblock if they promise to stop and not do it again, obviously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

---

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

Procedural question - Can an identical edit be made to hundreds of articles with no discussion or consensus?

This discussion was started at WikiProject Politics, which stemmed from two threads at the Help Desk.[42][43] In short, an editor unilaterally made a contentious change to a date in hundreds of political articles without ever starting a discussion. So my question is very simple and is about the process, not the editor: Is someone allowed to make a contentious edit to a very large number of articles without getting consensus? If not, should the edtior be required to revert himself until the matter has been resolved? Czoal (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, editors should "be bold" if they think that something is going to be uncontroversial. If it does later turn out to be controversial, they should stop and garner consensus before continuing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

Concur with Lankiveil. If we all had to ask for "permission" first before doing something that someone somewhere might disagree with, WP would consist of a single blank page. BRD is an an essay describing an optional process that it self-describes as useful for some editors some of the time. It was pretty recently savaged in WP:VPPRO when someone proposed elevating it to guideline status, and it is frequently abused for patent WP:FILIBUSTERing. While most of us agree to use that methodology, when we think a revert has potentially rational reasons and a discussion could be warranted, it's not a policy violation to decline. As OlEnglish notes below, unless the attempts at improvement were obviously actually controversial (and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a real controversy), its better to initiate discussion than revert. BRD is basically a last resort. Assume on WP:AGF that changes are intended well and as an improvement. If we assumed that repetitive changes across multiple pages were a problem, categorically, WP:AWB would not exist. If someone is generally using AWB other other mass-edits to do something against a clearly established WP:Consensus that has not changed, or it doing it is clearly disruptive ways, lodge a complaint about it at WP:ANI, and expect drama. It is not WP:FAITACCOMPLI to use ABW to make a bunch of trivially complex changes that are just a trivial to undo to with an equal-but-opposite AWB run. Fait accompli involves shaping content to fit an editorial agenda with the intent or effect of pre-emptively short-circuiting consensus formation, in a way that is hard to back the encyclopedia out of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD the matter should get resolved first, before making any other reverts. See also Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Avoiding or limiting your reverts -- œ^™ 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal: @Lankviel: @OlEnglish: My apologies for only spotting this thread now.

On the procedural issue, the "fait accompli principle" adopted in several ArbCom decisions reflects that "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." (See, for example, here.)

On the substantive issue, although this issue is a perennial challenge and I have largely given up fighting it, March 4 is unambiguously the correct answer. See the evidence I provided here in 2006. I will cross-post that link in the project-page thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't seen yet any of the "hundreds of articles", could you post a link to a few, USER:Czoal? Fact is that thousands of congress bios were originally imported by User:Polbot (a bot) from the Congressional Biographical Directory which states March 3 as the end of term until 1933. Anything that was changed later (while cleaning up) to march 4, was done without consensus, and contrary to the sources. There were some discussions started by editors who think that the term ended March 4, none of which were formally closed, and all of which ended inconclusive. The present discussion, linked by the OP will have the same fate. The reason is simple: the issue had become controversial in real life (to clarify the point, the XX amendment was enacted) and debaters always mix up "term" and "session" and mix up events of 1791 with events of 1917 and then start generalizing. Obviously one can't do that, WP:OR is forbidden under WikiPolicy. I suggest some other sort of dispute resolution, since the RfC model has failed, so far, in this case. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Golpeie - me!

Block evasion

Obvious block evasion is obvious. HighInBC 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Previous discussion at Special:Diff/683957721. That naughty Future Perfect at Sunset is in trouble again. He's been removing content from the archives, something which is not done [44]. He's also been badmouthing she-who-must-be-nameless - again. Eva Carneiro made a very telling comment on Friday: I wonder whether this might be the only formal investigation in this country where the evidence of the individuals involved in the incident was not considered relevant. Choosing to ignore some of the evidence will surely influence the outcome of the findings. No, Eva, it's not. If Future Perfect at Sunset put his case at the SPI page and if it was unprotected he would be shot down in flames. E a vida. I think we should grade administrators on the number of policy violations they make per hour (p.v.p.h.). You know, an annual appraisal sort of thing, like they have in offices. Future Perfect at Sunset would come out top (bottom?) or very close. 188.220.113.221 (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC) So, do I gather that this yet another "Vote (X) for Change" sock? BMK (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC) (Non-administrator observation) The diff provided does not show any involvement of the named editor, no evidence whatsoever supporting the claims made and to boot, the header is a pejorative. Can somebody please return the WP:BOOMERANG? Kleuske (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC) In case anyone missed it, let me note that the heading that the IP user emplouyed for this section, "Filha(o) da puta", means "Son/daughter of a bitch" in Portuguese. LjL (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I've changed the title to something more appropriate. BMK (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC) IP is a clear case of block evasion. Note that both originate from London, UK and use the same style to make "reports". —Farix (t | c) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Any admin willing to throw this boomerang back? GABHello! 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I'm restoring this thread for three reasons: (1) Elockid has not edited here since April Fools' Day, and this appears to be more foolishness since the policy he quotes is irrelevant. (2) there is no provision in policy allowing contributions of editors who are not accused of sockpuppetry to be removed. (3) per User talk:Zzuuzz#User "seems" to be a banned user, etc none of the participants is a sockpuppet anyway. 109.152.119.76 (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC) More socking, reclosing. BMK (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Note to Elockid - Beyond My Ken thinks every IP editor is a sockpuppet. 81.159.254.181 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC) I note that Beyond My Ken struck out the words per User talk:Zzuuzz#User "seems" to be a banned user, etc none of the participants is a sockpuppet anyway. Apparently Beyond My Ken values his own opinion more than the consensus of the community. Could that have something to do with him being a hardened sockpuppeteer Special:Diff/340605845#Ed Fitzgerald and his sockpuppets? Among the aliases he has used are Before My Ken, Beyond My Ken, H Debussy – Jones, Edfitz and Ed Fitzgerald. He was "outed" on the internet. He posts a blog and tells his followers: I will come to your house, kiss you on the forehead, bathe your feet, and cook pancakes for you, with yummy syrup and everything. The following snippet, posted on 30 January 2006, is worth passing on: This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fall on the same day. As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication and the other involves a groundhog." … Correction: I should have made clear that the Air America comment dates from last year, 2005, when Groundhog Day and the SOTU address coincided. He had a barney with Future Perfect at Sunset, as did most people here Special:Diff/236814331. Future Perfect at Sunset made it clear what he thinks of the community: I hereby state that I will consider this whole RfC null and void, and will permanently refuse to take anything said on it by anybody into any consideration, as long as Jerry’s signature is found anywhere on the main page. – Future Perfect at Sunrise 15:40, 2 September 2008. Cf Jc3s5h: THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST before nuking it from his talkpage. In case anyone didn’t get the message, “ Being dragged in a kangaroo court is bad enough. Having a kangaroo court manned with delusional and/or abusive kangaroos is not to be borne. If they won’t retract voluntarily, it’s a matter for the community to resolve. Be a mensch, go and strike out those signatures, and we can talk, the rest of us. If the community wants to talk with me, the community needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done. If the community can’t get these abusive elements off my back, the community can go f… itself. ” – Future Perfect at Sunrise 08:06, 3 September 2008. An editor has criticised Favonian in connection with the operation of filters. This criticism may not be justified. As PMDrive1061 observed at 01:27, 30 January 2010: Is it just me or are the 4chan kids back in force? I’ve been seeing an awful lot of garbage on the new user log with the usual stupid attacks and alternate spellings of profanity which they think will keep them from getting blocked by the filters. Transferring here as Bbb23 has stifled discussion at ANI. 81.157.50.164 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC) More socking. Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request admin review non-admin close

This was worked out amicably. HighInBC 02:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

• Article: The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise
• AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise

1. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise, the debate was closed by editor SSTflyer with rationale: "The result was Keep. Early close per snowball clause." DIFF
2. I am most grateful to SSTflyer for the closure, but since it was nominated in the first place by an admin -- could another admin please write a more detailed closing rationale, below the close of SSTflyer ?
3. I'm in the middle of a Quality improvement effort on the article itself -- and I'd much appreciate it if we could have a solid explanatory closing rationale posted by an admin at the AfD page -- so I don't have to worry about wasting my time on the Quality improvement effort.

Thanks very much,

— Cirt (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The standard for a non-admin closure is that it be non-controversial. This one seemed fairly one sided. The snowy nature of the close is unusual for a non-admin however I would say as long as the snowball close itself is non-controversial then all is fine. Detailed rational is often useful but it is not uncommon to omit it when the result is clear. HighInBC 01:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want, I can vacate my original closure and relist this. sst✈ 01:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Either relist, or a comment from an admin at the AfD page itself regarding endorsement of the early-WP:SNOW close, either way. HighInBC, if you could help out with that, it'd' be most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it needs any endorsement, as far as I can tell nobody is complaining about the validity of the closure. If someone does wish to take issue with its validity then SStflyer has graciously offered to vacate their close. I don't see any problem to be solved. HighInBC 01:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay well I'd rather not waste my time on a useless Quality improvement project so I'd like a really solid close. Can it please be relisted, HighInBC? — Cirt (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a solid close, I don't think anyone is going to walk by and delete it. It was SSTflyer who offered to vacate their close, I am not going to do it because I don't see any problem with the close. HighInBC 01:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

SSTflyer offered graciously, and I've asked him to relist. — Cirt (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. sst✈ 02:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Review of Reguyla (Kumioko) reblock

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

---

Earlier today Kumioko was unblocked by Worm That Turned. This was done without consulting the blocking admin, Floquenbeam, or the community. These restrictions were placed upon him, one of which reads: "You may not comment on administrators as a group, nor on any sysop or desysop procedures." Kumioko's response can be read here. My query to WTT on blocking and his response can be read here. Upon reading this comment, made less than an hour ago, I blocked for one month. I see no change in Kumioko's behavior. Posted here for review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting that I agree with the 1 month reblock and have declined the unblock request on those grounds. That said, I'd appreciate comments on the unblock - and also remind people that my recall process are certainly open on this matter. Worm^TT(talk) 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, I wish this had been brought to a noticeboard before the unblock. Yes, lots of drama would have ensued but we were going to get that anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what Neil said. A bold unblock, but really I don't quite see why this wasn't swung by the community first. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's a step in the right direction, but I'm stupefied as to why he was not indeffed. The thought of losing a wise and productive admin because of this makes me sick.- MrX 20:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Literally their first edit was a violation of the terms. Last time the community discussed this the standard was 6 months without being disruptive, an standard also not met. I think the block should be indefinite until the community agrees to their return, it was after all the community that banned this user and reviewed the ban in February giving clear terms. It is not for any one person to redefine terms set by the community, I think before this user is unblocked there needs to be a consensus to do so. HighInBC 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A month seems a bit long, given it is a very new and short leash, so obviously I would oppose extending it. A week would make more sense, but I would rather have seen discussion with him before a block. Normally, comments like his wouldn't even get a second glance, and it is only due to the restrictions in place, which of course are there to prevent. Worm unblocked him originally, I endorsed that, and I think some venting will take place but we have to give someone the chance to get back into participating. More than a day, anyway. But yes, I think a block was at least one option in this circumstance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said the above, he seems to be going off the deep end, so I guess this experiment in recovering banned editors is doomed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(multiple e-c's later, there were only two comments here when I started writing this) Knowing that other individuals have mentioned discussion at Meta which I don't know about, and, on that basis, may have more information than I do, I am less than sure that I agree with the length of the block knowing what I do know, as I think some degree of venting might be understandable under these circumstances. So I might myself have chosen a shorter time, but, again, acknowledge that there are discussions elsewhere which might be directly relevant in this matter. And there is no way in hell I would support any discussion of recall of Worm regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comments Unblocking admin should have known better that any return of this user should have gained an explicit approval from the community for all the disruption that Reguyla (and their previous incarnations) caused. To unblock on their own initiative, without consulting the blocking admin, and by devising their own exotic restrictions is well outside the admin discretion levels. If the unblocking admin does not realize their faults (including causing the blocking admin to resign their bits and depart the field of engagement with hostility) then I question the level of trust that the community holds them and their actions in. Second, the blocked user in question has in the past resorted to many actions that individually would have caused a lesser editor to have been blocked indefinitely (including "Fait Acomplis" changes, Personal Attacks, Disruptive Editing, and Sockpuppetry). I question at this time (in light of the short timeframe between being unblocked and the first violation of the unblock conditions) if we should go ahead and deliberate a Community Ban on this user. As I have personal issues in the past with this user, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to propose the CBAN. Hasteur (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• WTF? Again? Do you people like being trolled or what? Smh.... Dave Dial (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• I support the block and would support increasing it to indef. The user immediately resumed the same toxic behaviour that got him banned. It was nauseating to read and it made me feel like quitting too, to be honest. To answer WormTT's question, I don't think the user should have been unblocked without consulting the community and the blocking admin (Floq.). -- Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• ...You know, if WTT believed that the editor could contribute within the restrictions placed on their account, I have to trust that call. I would not have made it myself, but that's me. I am surprised that Kumioko is not indeffed, but that's also not my call. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying not to be hard on Worm but I really do have to comment about the administrative policy. It says Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged.

User:Worm That Turned I would like to know if you thought that this was unlikely to be objected too by Floq or if you have some other way of explaining how this action was in line it administrative policy. This comment[45] seems to indicate that you did not communicate about this because "he thought Reguyla's behaviour was a farce and straight indef". This seems to indicate that you knew it would be objected too.

I know this part of the admin policy is broken all of the time and is not held nearly as sacred as the rule against wheel warring, however I am sick of these cowboy unblocks. They always produce drama and I think we need to make it more clear that the administrative policy needs to be followed in this area. Frankly you offered something to Kumioko that you had no standing to fulfil and they are right to be annoyed at the outcome. HighInBC 20:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that a lot of careful thought went into the unblock - apparently there were discussions with Kumioko off-wiki (!), and the restrictions were crafted with the editor's consent and input, ideally so that they'd be something that could be complied with. The fact that they then violated those restrictions is evidence of lots of bad faith on the part of Kumioko, certainly. But I trust that WTT was acting in good faith. Of course Floq should have been consulted, or at least notified as a courtesy - and the failure to do so is the likely reason that Floq retired today and resigned the tools. That's a concern as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said it before and I will say it again: When the community fails to keep abusive people off-wiki good people will leave. Good people will be correct to leave. HighInBC 20:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're absolutely not wrong. My name is in Kumioko's long and storied block history as well, and not on the unblock side. Does good faith on the unblocking admin's part mitigate a colossal fuckup like this? I dunno. I would expect this to go to arbcom, or at least to recall, before long. And then we lose two good admins over this... person. Distasteful. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be my hope that this can be settled with some honest answers and be filed under the "lessons learned" category. I don't think we need to lose another admin and I hope Floq will return to the task. HighInBC 21:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree on all points, and my name isn't in Kumioko's "long and storied block history," but disparagingly referred to on his current user talk page as well. John Carter (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• If he was unblocked with restrictions and then turned around and violated those restrictions immediately then he should be immediately reblocked for the same duration as the block that was lifted. Not for a lesser amount of time, the same amount of time. Not to mention that WTT's unblock essentially removed a good admin due to Floq's retirement in disgust. I will say that had I still had the tools, I would have communicated with Floq first (likely via email in the event that on-wiki conversation was problematic) and then made my decision based on that. I would NOT unblock a known banned user whose MO is screeching "admin abuse" left right and centre without that conversation. VERY bad unblock, and the original indef needs to be reinstated as it's clear Kumioko has zero intention of actually abiding the restrictions. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• There is no way that Kumioko should have been unblocked unilaterally. It is a slap in the face to every single person who has been at the receiving end of their vandalism, personal attacks and disruption. If an unblock had been brought before the community I don't believe that there is any way it would have passed. In a December 2014 email I sent to Arbcom wherein I noted that Reguyla stated they planned on simply creating a new account if their block wasn't lifted I ended the email with "I have no idea why he's been provided so much leeway on this project at the expense of long-term valuable contributors, nor where his disproportionate sense of entitlement comes from". I stand by those comments. Reguyla continually expounded the belief that they were completely invaluable to the project and the block was a horrible disservice. Years have passed and it's apparent that they still believe this fallacy to be true, a one month block won't change that. I would definitely support an indef block. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Under the circumstances, particularly considering Reguyla has had his access to his user talk page removed, I would myself oppose discussion of an indef at this time, preferring that at least it wait until the editor in question can respond. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• The blatant and immediate violation of the conditions of his unblock means that the original indef block should be reinstated, not a month-long block. As noted above by Ponyo, a one-month block won't magically make him compliant. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• The indefinite block was placed by the community and then reviewed by the community. Given the lack of community consensus for anything else, why do you think it should be finite? HighInBC 20:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• He was already indefinitely blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support re-indef: Yeah coming off an indef and immediately breaking the terms of their "probation" should result in a reestablishment of the original block. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef - Here is the specific language of the unblock: "For the period of 1 year following the unblock [1] You may not comment on administrators as a group, nor on any sysop or desysop procedures. [2] You may not participate in any noticeboard listed in the general section of "Template:Noticeboard links" unless you are previously involved in or named as a party in a discussion that has been brought to the noticeboard. [3] Should you wish to take up an issue against any administrator, you must discuss the matter with Worm That Turned prior to doing so and get his agreement. [4] After the period of 1 year, these restrictions will expire. Should you break the restrictions, you will be blocked for a finite period of no less than 72 hours and no greater than 1 month. If the restrictions are breached 3 times, an indefinite block will be reinstated." Therefore, the one month block is appropriate, resumption of indef is not. If you have a problem with the unblock itself and want to eliminate two productive Administrators over this, you all know where ArbCom is. Your call, I don't care, and I seriously doubt that Dave and Dennis do either... They acted in good faith. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Ignore all rules. Kumioko flagrantly disobeyed the unblock conditions immediately after being unblocked pursuant to the acceptance of those conditions. He should not be rewarded with a lesser block time for immediately violating them; if anything common sense dictates that the original indef block should be restored as he clearly has no intention of abiding by them. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• IAR says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Please explain, in detail, exactly how giving Regula the sanction we promised that we would give him prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. When an administrator gives a user a warning that contains the words "should you break the restrictions, you will be blocked for a finite period of no less than 72 hours and no greater than 1 month" it is fundamentally unfair to decide after the fact that the block should be greater than one month. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• But there was no "we". WTT had no authority or consensus to restrict what sanctions other admins or the community could take. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone should lose their bit over this. An experiment was tried and it didn't go so well. However it should be engraved somewhere that unblocking a well-known socker with behavior issues without having a community discussion first will always end badly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Don't want to comment but I suppose I should. This had nothing to do with the fact that it was somehow "my" block, nor that I'm cranky that WTT didn't talk to me first; come on, you really think I'm that precious? Hell, sometimes I like "cowboy unblocks". But they have to be smart. There has to be some modicum of thought and research and cluefulness put into them. They shouldn't be made when you know for a fact that 6-7 different admins strongly disagree with the unblock. I'm stunned WTT didn't see this reblock coming; Reguyla has literally spent the last 2 years demonstrating what would happen if he was unblocked. My other problem with this unblock is that it shows a profound lack of respect for the (I'm guessing, but this is in the right ballpark) 3-4 dozen people who tried to help him over the years and were slapped in the face for their trouble, or who were subjected to his drama, taunting, socking, nasty comments on WO, and vandalism. Who (regardless of what Reguyla said off-wiki to WTT) have not been apologized to. It is inconceivable that there are people who think the solution is.... to give him a 45th "final" chance. This is not the Island of Misfit Toys. We should not be in the business of trying over and over to bring back known troublemakers completely incapable of editing collaboratively with others... who are so out of control that they got banned from Wikipediocracy! It's just mind-boggling. The third problem I have with it is the horrible message it just sent to all of the other similar editors out there (won't name them, I'm sure each of you can think of at least 3), who now realize the solution to things not going your way is to cause MAXIMUM DISRUPTION for months on end.

Cowboy unblocks in moderation are invaluable, I'd hate to see all of them tarnished with the same brush. And I don't want WTT desysopped or recalled, but I would like to see him agree to never again unblock someone who is blocked indefinitely without running it by some other admin first, ONWIKI. I'd also like to know from WTT if it is true that other admins knew this unblock was coming before it happened, based on off-wiki communication - not their names, just whether they exist or not. If they do exist then I'd like them to be honorable enough to identify themselves instead of letting WTT take the hit.

And for God's sake, I'd like to see Reguyla officially-no-fucking-doubt-about-it-community-banned so we don't have to do all this again in a month. Yes, he will never leave, ban or not. No, that doesn't mean we have to cave into his every whim. There are more of us than there are of him. RBI.

Now, goodbye. This was not some "ultimatum" that it's either him or me ("Ultimatum" is your word, Dave; a tacky assumption). You should ban him because he does significant damage to the project. I'm gone either way, at least for a long while, no matter what. This place leaves a bad taste in my mouth right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Re-indef per Floq and Ponyo. He should not be rewarded with a reduced block for years of abuse. This was a seriously bad unblock by WTT. BethNaught (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I am sufficiently "involved" with this unhappy situation, historically (not recently), that I will not opine on the best outcome here, but I will provide some background. Reguyla/Kumioko has indisputably made voluminous and valuable contributions to mainspace, particularly in his area of specialist knowledge or interest, which is U.S. Medal of Honor winners. Those contributions have been quite valuable to the project and its readers.

Also indisputably, for some time Reguyla/Kumioko has been enormously disaffected with the governance of the project, including the ArbCom and the administrator corps. In too many instances, he has crossed the line from legitimate criticism (which is itself a positive contribution), to name-calling (which is not generally a positive contribution), and into out-and-out disruption. More than once he has said he was walking away from the project but then changed his mind. Some of his grievances have at least arguable merit and some of them don't, but in expressing all of them, a sense of proportion has consistently been lacking.

Ultimately Reguyla/Kumioko wound up as the subject of a community ban and was asked to leave us. Following the ban, his level of admitted, intentional disruption and trolling reached the point of consuming tens if not hundreds of hours of administrator time. The disruption was intentionally designed to prevent large numbers of other editors from editing (by triggering rangeblocks)—to the point that in this post, I concluded that it might become necessary for the Wikimedia Foundation to obtain a civil court order in order to deal with him, a suggestion I did not make lightly. Fortunately, that sort of disruption stopped a couple of months later and has not resumed to the best of my knowledge.

When I was an arbitrator, I was often typecast (sometimes accurately, sometimes simplistically) as the most lenient member of the Committee and the one most open to allowing second (or further) chances. From that vantage point, I completely understand what Worm That Turned was trying to achieve here: regaining the benefit of mainspace contributions from a knowledgeable editor, unburdened by the more ridiculous baggage that has accompanied his participation in recent years. But it is also understandable that some of the administrators who bore the brunt of dealing with the editor's worst misbehavior, both on and off wiki, would not want to see him welcomed back, or would have wanted to see a collaborative discussion of the pros and cons of having him back, before his return.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that by trying to cut the Gordian knot, I stabbed myself in the leg. I will answer any and all criticism in the morning. Worm^TT(talk) 22:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• As I said to WTT on his talk page, I suspect he has perhaps drunk a bit too much from the fountain of good faith in this case. I have no doubt that his actions were, indeed, in good faith, even if they were lacking in other ways. Perhaps for WTT the best way for the community to treat the situation is to bandage up his wounds and give him that patented "mother's look" while saying "this won't happen again, will it?"

  There has been mixed success when editors who have been badly behaved are permitted to return to the project; this shouldn't be a surprise, as there are often wounds on both sides that simply don't seem to heal. However, historically the returns that have been approved by the larger community seem to have a greater likelihood of success, while those solely by the Arbitration Committee without community discussion, or by individual administrators, seem much more prone to failure. While I can sympathize with the view that it is really difficult to get the community to agree to such returns, perhaps the lesson to take from that is that the returning user *needs* to work within the community, and by permitting the return, the community has a stake in trying to ensure that the returnee stays out of trouble. I won't be commenting below. Risker (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I support the original unblock, and I applaud Worm and Dennis for trying to bring him back into the fold. I also support reblocking when he violated the terms of his return for the third time. Everyone seemed inclined to let him get away with that one initial blast, at admins in general and "trolls" who oppose his return, after which he said "That was limited to my initial reply. Now lets move on!" But it wasn't limited, and he didn't move on. The second violation was when he called John Carter's comments "utterly disingenuous trolling". The third violation was his characterization of everyone who didn't participate in his unblocking (and probably didn't know it was under discussion): "Everyone else wanted to act like children, stick their thumb in their mouth (or elsewhere), ignore emails, stomp their feet and give the silent treatment." By that time, Neil was absolutely right to block him; even Worm said he would have blocked him. Worm and Dennis went out on a limb to give him a chance; his response was in effect to kick them in the teeth; I don't see any reason to ever let him back. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse the reblock; very clear violation of the unblock conditions.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse both WTT well-reasoned unblock, and the immediately reblock afterward, because the subject of these actions violated the terms of the unblock. Without prejudice to reinstatement after the reblock expires, and further without prejudice to an indef if the problem behavior just resumes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Community ban for Reguyla/Kumioko

Since it's clear he has no desire to edit Wikipedia constructively, follow community norms, or abide by restrictions, I am hereby proposing a community ban for Reguyla/Kumioko. I would actually also go one step further here, if possible: This ban can only be contested by application to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or Arbitration committee, and not more than once every twelve months. I'm not stupid enough to assume this will actually get rid of him - I note what Floq says above is generally true of most, if not all, banned editors - but it will prevent crap like this from happening in the future. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re-iterate support. With respect to WTT and Newyorkbrad, fiat justitia ruat caelum: Kumioko's actions have been intolerable. BethNaught (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - this user has committed every violation in the book and has been given many chances to reform already. There were numerous reincarnations of the user as well. Given that his recent actions and behavior have clearly outweighed any positive contributions he's made to the project, it's time for him to go. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Re-iterate support from above. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support it clearly isn't worth expending additional effort to rehabilitate this editor per the above. Hut 8.5 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Frog and scorpion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support for all of the glaringly obvious reasons. I would also like to see some centralized effort to prevent IP sock hopping, including aggressively blocking proxies, reporting abuse to the ISPs that he uses, and an option to escalate to WMF for further action as mentioned by NewYorkBrad.- MrX 22:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for picking up on my post, but to the best of my knowledge nothing that has happened in recent months would warrant that escalation—the types of outrageous disruption that led to my earlier comment have, as I said above, stopped (although the threat to sneak in and make mainspace contributions continues, which is a different issue). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - At the end of the day he won't ever learn or change and to be honest I think he's worn everyones patience out here, Personally I think he should just move on from this place, Nothing against WTT but unblocking him was IMHO a complete waste of time. –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support This person has a history of bad faith, failure to follow promises, and downright abuse towards our editors. When we fail to keep people like this away from the project good people leave and they are right to leave. Of course it can later be overturned by the community, but not any individual please. HighInBC 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support as a potential solution to a definite problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 October 2015‎
• Support The WP:WIKILAWYERING that led to previous name changes and unblocks has always wound up with the resumption of the behavior in which the community is treated like dirt. The extraordinary number of socks and personal attacks that occurred in the past should have been enough to keep from any admin from unblocking without consulting the community first. A WP:BAN will ensure that wont happen in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• oppose without prejudice. I trust the judgement of WTT and NYB, if they saw there was a glimmer of hope we should not extinguish it. the early violation was minor but very poor form. I'm willing to let the month tick out, then see if the pattern continues. the leash should be very short considering past history, and I do not begrudge those who think it is already too long Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot speak for everyone but my opinion on this ban is not based on the reaction to recent unblock. It is based off a history of using sockpuppetry to intentionally get large ranges of IPs blocked so as to cause collateral damage as a form of extortion. It is based off of vicious personal attacks against numerous editors. It is based off their leaking of private information about admins and other respected users. This goes a lot deeper than the events of today. HighInBC 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this history. I was personally implicated in one of his impersonation disruptions. My comment about WTT and NYB holding out a glimmer of hope was taking that into account. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. HighInBC 23:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support The first edit after unblock was to refer to those who have previously experienced the Kumioko/Reguyla time-sink as "trolls", and to reiterate his rejection of the original ban, and to repeat the same tired nonsense about double standards and fairness. Being fair to a drama-magnet leads to more drama. A new ban is required to prevent future abuse of the community by misguided admin unblocks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but let's try to make our decision objectively, rather than as an emotional response in the heat of the moment. I'm not averse to an unblock one day, and Dave undoubtedly acted in what he felt was the best interest of the encyclopaedia by unblocking. The trouble is that Reguyla/Kumioko has caused a great deal of disruption and pain to this community. Part of the healing process is that the cause of the disruption and pain leaves the community for a while. Kumioko simply hasn't done that, and the damage he has done can't be repaired until he does. He has made useful edits and even insightful comments while socking, but these are vastly outweighed by the disruption he caused, and the deep personal resentment he has given many editors to feel through his conduct towards them and towards this community. That he would breach his unblocking conditions within hours of being unblocked, going back to attacking individuals and admins as a collective and all the other things that led to his ban, only confirms that it is too soon for him to come back (not, as I say, that he ever left in any meaningful sense)—too soon for him, and too soon for us. Kumioko needs to leave enwiki and its community alone for long enough for the wounds to heal. Then we can revisit allowing him back. @Reguyla: I strongly suggest you read this; and for what it's worth, I'm not one of those editors who feels personal resentment towards you, so if you have helpful suggestions or comments to make, you can email me or post on my Commons talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  That is why I suggested BASC/ArbCom as a requirement to lift the ban. Kumioko's future should not be left to a single admin (given that this blew up in the community's face) nor to the community writ large (who won't be forgetting this incident or the efforts to blackmail us into letting him back); I would rather someone who can fairly assess his behaviour and his words do so. That way he gets a (relatively) unbiased way to appeal and the rest of the community doesn't have an opportunity to dogpile on and torque him off even more. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Perhaps there is another way to prevent dogpileing? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
  

  Nothing that immediately comes to my mind. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose more or less as per Gaijin42. Worm and Dennis indicated that they saw some reason to hope here, and not knowing what they saw, I am obligated to trust the judgment of some admins I trust. And, at the very least, I would like to be able to see Reguyla participate in such a discussion as this, which right now he can't do. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is too extreme. Everyking (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Not really. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support As I see things, this latest incident is the culmination of a five year campaign of disruption, personal attacks, harassment and industrial scale sockpuppetry. Yes, this person is capable of writing Featured articles, but they are clearly unwilling or incapable of doing so without creating monumental disruption and grief for others to have to deal with, without remorse, and with every likelihood that the disruption will resume instantly if they are allowed to return. Their determination to combat their "enemies" ignores the fact that they are their own worst enemy. ~·Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

• Oppose quite obviously. We've worked with reintegrating previously banned editors before, it is always a bumpy road, but the fact is, the initial ban WAS too quick, and if we are going to call ourselves a community, if we have the gall to say we treat everyone equal, we need to be a little more patient. Keep in mind, this current block was a violation, but it was still a small thing. Of course that is going to get him into vent mode. My personal thought is that he has a lot to contribute and it is easier to manage if he is here legitimately. This is why I supported the initial unblock. To ban or indef block him now for a small comment would simply be proving him right, that this is a kangaroo court at AN where anyone can be permanently banned simply for being unpopular. Everyone needs to just calm down, have a tea, and ask if what he has done since being unblocked is really indef worthy. To me, obviously not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown Did you not think the unblock would be very controversial and if so, did you suggest bringing it to a noticeboard first? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on his reaction on his page, on this page, in email and everywhere else, I have to withdraw any support. Much about the initial block and ban two years ago was less than perfect, but it doesn't excuse his behavior once Worm was willing to give him a chance. I'm going back to my Wikibreak, which was interrupted by all this. I simply endorsed giving someone a second chance, for a variety of reasons. I didn't really sign on for all this drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• It is a bit more complicated than I can explain in a paragraph, but I've been talking to Kumioko since he was first banned, including trying to convince him to not sock. Keep in mind, Worm did the unblock, not me, so it wasn't my decision to make in this case. I was aware of it and supported it beforehand. There already has been previous community discussions if you go and follow the history, which is too complicated to explain here, again. As far as I can tell, Worm had full authority to unblock him as the community had agreed to lift the ban after a period of time. And of course I knew it would be controversial, but I've never strayed from supporting an action I think is worth the risk, even if it is unpopular. Right now, many people don't have the full story and I don't expect they will bother to find it out. I have no control over that. Of course, Reguyla shot himself in the foot as well, but I don't think all this "pitchforks and torches" is a shining example of community participation. That I'm in the minority is irrelevant in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Where is it written that we treat all users equally? I would say the we decidedly treat users who try to engage in extortion far from equal to an editor who does not. I normally have a lot of respect for your opinion but in this case I think your point is lacking. To suggest that we are banning him for a small comment seems to disregard the past behaviour of this user. The argument you have presented does not seem to address the issues at hand, we are not here asking for a ban because he mentioned admins when he was told not to mention admins. There is a very long history here and you know that. HighInBC 23:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• We already extracted our pint of blood for that. Unblocking was a way of starting over with restrictions. To drag behavior he has already "served time for" so quick after an unblock and a simple comment is saying that we will never forgive or forget. He clearly messed up as soon as he got back, but lets not fool ourselves, it doesn't seem that many were even willing to give it a chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• DB, please post a diff of a single comment about a) R or b) the unblock before his trolls comment. NE Ent 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but not going to play games Ent. Your arbitrary line in the sand is meaningless in a case that has spanned two years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't consider engaging in sock puppetry and blaming everyone else for his ban "serving time". The unblock offered by the community was conditional and those conditions were not met. He was told 6 months without disruption and he could come back, he decided to use that time engaging in sock puppetry and personal attacks.

• This user has not even gone half way to accept the generous offer by the community. There has been zero contrition from this user and I find it unrealistic to look at this situation and see user who has learned their lesson or in any way appeased the community for their abuse. The unblock was a lapse in judgement and it was a disservice to Reg. This is a mess Worm made and it is not something for the community to bear the brunt of. We should not have to endure yet another repetition of this user not doing what they agreed too because of a piss poor unblock.
• It boggles my mind that the return of this user is even being considered while contributors like Betacommand are being blackballed from the community. My bright line in the sand is when a user gets really nasty and abusive, that is when I don't want them back. I find it insulting to anyone he abused that he was unblocked to begin with. It is damaging to the project to forgive and forget something that has every likelihood of happening again. HighInBC 05:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've tried in the past to work Betacommand in a similar manner - just before his community ban. I hope there is a way back for him too. Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• You made an accusation: "it doesn't seem that many were even willing to give it a chance." I'm asking to back it up with evidence. NE Ent 11:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - A major sockmaster gets unblocked, blows his unblock terms in the first edit, and winds up here. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's not that he is "unpopular", no doubt he has friends, but it's his disruptive behavior that brings him to a ban - that's what a ban is to judge and his conduct as a User has been terrible for an extended time, whether he is personally popular or not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: This editor has repeatedly expressed an adamant defiance to the consensus and the statutes of Wikipedia. Every post-block edit has been oppositional, with no indication of slowing down. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support That in the space of a few hours we've lost one admin with diamond level bona fides, that we're about to admonish another admin who has been well respected, and that we have many editors that have held advanced permissions all concur that this user is a lost cause should be indicative that no edits by this user under any guise will be able to outweigh the drama/agony/disruption that they have caused. As I referenced in the Block review this user has gone for Fait Acomplis actions, personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and more. I would prefer a indefinite ban to be only appealed through Ban Appeals Subcommittee with a public comment period so the subcommittee can get the views of the community at large since the community at large has been the main target of this user's disruption. Hasteur (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Kumiko's very first edit after being unblocked is to violate the terms of the unblock in a particularly drama-mongering fashion? That's not the action of someone who intends to be a productive editor. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - A very productive editor whose feelings were hurt by repeated rejection in the RFA process and who lashed out. I don't find his "violation" all that shocking. Give him a chance, a path back. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. No amount of constructive work will be able to counteract the massive disruption and thousands of hours lost by others because of this guy. He is an extremist who will never stop trying to blow up Wikipedia to remake it in his own image. Bar the door. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. They've had far too many "final chances" and have never shown any sign of getting the point. I'd even support an actual "infinite" ban with no appeals permitted; Kumioko seems to be an incorrigible sort who will never be a net positive to the project again. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• (ec) Support. This user has perhaps been give more "second chances" that any other editor in Wikipedia's history, and has failed to live up to them every time. Given this, a re-instatement of the community ban of a few years ago is more than justified. BMK (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• While I'm commenting, the Kumioko drama is so toxic that I don't believe any admin should be sanctioned in any way over it, regardless of my opinions about who did the right thing and who did not (which I have, but will hold onto). In any case, a community ban is needed to put any future action beyond the reach of a single admin, as an indef block would not. BMK (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that WTT acted in good faith, and sanctioning him for this short of a strong reprimand is excessive; my assumption is that WTT didn't do his research into the whole Kumioko situation. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• If in the future anyone ever brings up 'They are already indeffed, we dont need a ban discussion, no one will unblock him!' .... I am pointing them right here citing 'the Kumioko effect'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Considering the amount of community effort Reguyla has consumed ban discussion, ban review resulting in ineffable, bizzare "blocked but not banned," ANI discussion about talk page nonsense and, in the brief time since his unblock:
  • Immediately calls editors trolls
  • Calls another editor a diva
  • Calls editors thumb sucking children
  • Reviewing the talk page in its entirety ... its clear he simply agreed to the conditions to get unblocked.
  • Problem is apparently we're not mature enough: All I wanted to do was edit and improve the project but you all weren't mature enough. So ok, understood. I never believed for a second that this was going to be real anyway
• Support site ban. NE Ent 01:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban - As per BMK, this user may have been given more second chances than any other editor in history, and until now there have always been a few sympathetic editors who let them Wikilaywer their way out. Enough is enough. Formal community site ban, with restrictions on appeal. This has gone on too long. There have been too many second chances. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. The fact that Dennis has to use the words "trying to convince him not to sock" pretty much encapsulates the mindset of a terminally disruptive editor who thinks nothing of violating and flouting policy. WTT has a very kind heart and in my observation has kindly given people second chances due to this kind nature. However, in this case it's clear that the community wants the site ban re-instated. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. My goodness what a time-sink this editor has been, and for such a long time. With regard to recent events, it's hard to argue with that NE Ent lays out a couple of posts above. It frequently surprises me just how often Wikipedia tries to give "one more chance" to editors who make so little effort to understand how they come across to others. WTT, you are kind, and you did not mean it this way, but (and from what I can tell you are able to handle some direct feedback) this is quite disrespectful to fellow admins who have dealt with these problems, and to the community in general. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. It is clear that Kumioko cannot control himself. Obviously we're very different people but if I was in his shoes and got an unblock after all the disruption I've caused, I would shut up and edit productively for a couple weeks before testing the boundaries of my restrictions. The fact that he immediately went back to his old ways shows he hasn't changed enough or at all (as does his message below). As a rather unpleasant side-effect, based on his comments, I find my faith in Dennis Brown's judgement in these kinds of matters significantly reduced. Your fellow editors are not a kangaroo court and "you don't have the full story but it's too complicated to explain" is not helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Everyone seems to be familiar with the background of this drama except me, but the upside of being out of this particular loop is that I can look at this matter dispassionately. One thing I look for in gauging unblock requests is an awareness on the part of an editor that their previous behavior was inappropriate. They don't have to ask for forgiveness, they don't even have to be sorry, but they have to demonstrate that they are aware it was not okay, and I do not see that here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We should not try to dictate people's opinions or extract confessions. We can "agree to disagree" and move on, as long as an editor is willing to refrain from behavior that the community has deemed troublesome. Everyking (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I have no interest in extracting confessions or dictating their opinions. They can think what they did is perfectly fine, as long as they demonstrate they are aware that they did was unacceptable. This demands even less than your stated willingness to refrain, so it's hardly akin to extracting a confession. Gamaliel (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• The latest statement posted by GW shows exactly why this user should be blocked, as it basically boils down to "Floquenbeam is a quitter and I'm not" and "those who !votes support are just the same group who are out to get me". I have no idea who this person is so at least in my case this is factually inaccurate. I don't care if this user is contrite, but they don't seem to have the slightest understanding why other editors would object to socking or harassment, nor do they even seem to acknowledge that they did any of these things. As Jéské Couriano writes below, it's all "me me me". This is not the kind of editor who is capable of engaging in productive collaborative editing with others. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. per Dennis Brown. Begoon ^talk 04:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Thoughts: I just re-read WP:STANDARDOFFER, and as far as I can tell none of the conditions seem to have been met, and none of the public procedures (e.g. "open[ing] a thread at an administrative noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI)") seem to have been followed. I don't know if they needed to be met and followed; I can't tell whether the original indef was Floq's judgment call (in which case we simply have a case of the unblocker overturning another admin's action, albeit without discussion with that admin [Whether or not discussion was warranted, with Floq or the community, I don't know.]), or whether the original indef was a community consensus (in which case SO should have been followed to the letter). Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose:Dennis summarises my thoughts well But Vehemently Oppose the BASC only return. Kumioko needs a community return option. Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  I heavily doubt the community is going to forget the holding-anons-hostage-via-IP-hopping, the constant sockpuppetry and block evasion, the imprecations towards admins to the point of single-issue wonkery, the constant relitigation of past wrongs anywhere where he can speak, or the fact he immediately violated the terms of unblock that you offered him. I suggested BASC or ArbCom only because I strongly doubt that the community writ large would give him a fair shake, especially after the events that transpired yesterday. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, I like to think I'm a patient type, but they barely lasted twelve hours this time. Either WTT has gotten trolled, or Reguyla is seriously incapable of working with others; and neither indicates that any positive contribution they might make will outweigh the disruption that they cause. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
• Sigh personally I have never had a problem with Kumioko and would not mind him editing here at all, however I am aware of the huge drain that the ongoing battlefield has been and folks that have been upset, so fully understand folks' exasperation too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough is enough. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - clearly here to be disruptive. GiantSnowman 11:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - As an observer of Kumioko/Reguyla's conduct since the big community ban review discussion a year and a bit ago, I can see no option here but indefinitely banning him. There is no point saying "come back in a month". Twice now over 12+ months the community has extended an olive branch after repeated assurances of regret and future good behaviour, both times things ended in tears. It's one thing to assume the best of people and that they can change - it's quite another to ignore repeated evidence to the contrary. The Land (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough is more than enough, after a nearly 4 year campaign of disruption, personal attacks, harassment, serial sockpuppetry, vandalism and extortion. For the record, I find the minimizing rhetoric used by both Worm That Turned and Dennis Brown to describe Kumioko/Reguyla's behaviour and their attempt to sanitize what he actually got up to be quite distasteful. Even more distasteful, is their description of the original ban discussion as a "kangaroo court" allegedly closed after "a couple of hours", when in fact it was closed after 48 hours and had quite a thoughtful participation of both admins and ordinary editors. Ditto Dennis Brown's clear implication that those supporting a ban now are simply a mob of "pitchforks and torches". Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Based on behavior, past and present, I fully understand why this is being proposed. The original ban was imposed fully in accordance with policy with wide input from the community, and was not the result of "kangaroo court" proceedings. With that said, the disruption at this particular iteration was brief, and has already resulted in a fairly severe sanction of a one-month block without talkpage access. That should already send a clear signal that the community is serious about enforcing the restriction. The community's skepticism of letting Reguyla back in is fully justified, but I am uncomfortable with the unbanning process requiring acts of contrition, confession, apologies etc. The advantage of keeping the blocks finite is that upon expiry, the user is readmitted to the community without fuss and with more dignity. Any sockpuppetry during the next month should result in the ban being reinstated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support I didn't think he should have been unblocked to begin with considering the massive disruption he has caused. That being said, he was, but then he immediately violated the very very very light restrictions put upon him as part of the unblock. He needs to be shown the door with an indef ban at this point. It is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Their first comments immediately on being unblocked show that they are no closer to understanding why they have ended up in this position. Until they learn a minimum of self-control I see no hope for their successful return. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I know my opinion here is in the minority, but the restrictions and conditions WTT laid out all this user a fair second chance. I'm one to always AGF and see the good in people, and I'm also not fully aware of Kumioko's background, but I've only had positive interactions with him. I believe people are capable of change, be it takes 1 try, 2 tries, or 4 tries. Using myself as a model, I was an ecstatic, frustrating, stubborn as a mule user who took flak from a community to get to change. I got myself indefinitely blocked which required a BASC appeal, and look at me now. I almost passed an RfA, and narrowly missed by a hair. So again, people can change, and I'm glad the community gave me the chances to change. I think with these restrictions, this will allow Kumioko to redeem himself. And if he can't stay unblocked, and manages to get himself blocked 2 more times, it automatically becomes an indefinite that will likely have no chance of being lifted anytime soon.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. This isn't a matter of a single editor causing limited disruption, it's an editor who made it their purpose to disrupt the entire project through a campaign of targetted harassment and (in Newyorkbrad's words) "his level of admitted, intentional disruption and trolling reached the point of consuming tens if not hundreds of hours of administrator time." This is an individual who continues to prove themselves incapable of the type of collaboration required to edit on this project. I don't see how anyone who knew that full extent of Kumioko's actions and the lengths they went to in order to maximize the disruption caused could oppose the ban.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Kumioko has not been here for any reason other than to harass and abuse various editors for years. As stupid as the attempted unblock was, it did demonstrate - in a matter of hours - just how unsuited for participation in this project this editor is. Resolute 16:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedians need to look forward and work collegialy, not shout "burn the witch" at every opportunity. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
  
• Support WTT's decision to unblock, support 1-month reblock, strongly oppose indef. When an administrator gives a user a warning that contains the words "should you break the restrictions, you will be blocked for a finite period of no less than 72 hours and no greater than 1 month" it is fundamentally unfair to decide after the fact that the block should be greater than one month. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  The fact that he turned right around after the unblock and violated the terms of it justifies it. If your first edit after being unblocked pursuant to certain conditions was to immediately violate said conditions, you should expect for the original block to be reinstated. The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  Worm does not get to decide on maximum block lengths, it is beyond me why he tried. HighInBC 20:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  You could say the same about any warning posted by any administrator. You may not agree with it, but setting the terms of the restriction was an administrator action, and unless you can persuade WTT to allow a longer block or show that somehow his setting restrictions as a condition for unblocking was against policy, changing the block to longer than one month would be a clear case of wheel warring. Let the block expire in a month. If there are no further violations by Reguyla, we are done. If there are, you can post to ANI and in all likelihood there will be a strong consensus for an indef block. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  That is not how things work. Making up conditions for an unblock is not an admin act(unblocking is though) and no admin can put limits on how much a block can be made by another. Wheel warring happens when there is a back and forth, reversing another admins action is not automatically wheel warring. HighInBC 22:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I read the discussion that occurred on his talk page and I came away with the view that if so many editors hadn't jumped into the discussion, he may have quietly reentered the community. He has been a productive editor in the past and I think it would be beneficial to the project to be a bit more tolerant and less rigid in enforcing policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Look, I was the one who blocked him in the first place back in 2012, and he's been banging his head into the wall and shouting "Hey look at me" ever since. But no, I can't community ban someone for what is essentially one comment. Now, if he's been socking during his block or his ban, then show me that and I'll support a ban. But this? It's pitchforks. He was told that he gets a month if he screws up, he screwed up, so give him his month. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• He self admits to socking a lot during his block/ban. That really has never been in question. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, so true, and I see Doc's link below as well. Put me under Support then. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban. Dennis asks above "if what he has done since being unblocked is really indef worthy". No, not in itself, but his whole conduct over the last few years is, and what he has done since being unblocked shows that, whatever he promised to WTT, Kumioko has not in fact changed his spots. This is the person who wrote: "I will be the most prolific vandal, troll and sockmaster in Wikipedia history." (posted on WO; quoted, with much else, here). That was not a momentary "vent" but a serious declaration of intent, which he pursued relentlessly, including deliberately damaging the encyclopedia; three months later he wrote: "Even today, I made about 200 contributions, mostly vandalism and fictitious page moves and most haven't been undone."[46].

Dennis says "We already extracted our pint of blood for that" but that does not mean we should forget it in assessing whether Kumioko is likely to be a net positive if allowed back, and how he is likely to behave the next time he does not get his way. If he is to be welcome here he has to put all that behind him. WTT hoped, against all the evidence, that he could; what he has done since unblock shows that he cannot.

My advice for Kumioko would be to stay right away from en:wp for a year. No block evasion, even for constructive edits. No unblock requests. Don't even read the drama boards. By all means contribute at other sites, but do not use Commons or Meta for endless recitals of your en:wp grievances. Forget them, forget en:wp, do other things, get a life. In a year, things will be in better perspective: if you are then ready to put all this behind you, and you still want to contribute, ask again. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support There has been too much disruption from him in multiple avenues. Kumioko's recent behavior shows that he hasn't changed and doesn't appear to be willing to change. This temperament doesn't fit well in a community that requires civility and cooperation. Mike V • Talk 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. Not that I think this will actually result in keeping him off the wiki - until the WMF adds better blocking tools, that's almost a hopeless case. With that said, I hope that Kumioko will choose to stay away; it's certainly better for all involved. Obsessions are good for no one. -Philippe (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This freaking guy again. Should have never been unblocked/unbanned. Doc talk 02:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly. I don't want to re-open old wounds, but it was a bad decision then, and it was a bad decision now. It is not true that everyone is redeemable, or it may simply be that because we are here to build an encyclopedia, we don't have the excessive amount of time and effort it would take to redeem him, especially when he refuses to meet us even part-way. BMK (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Why is this habitual vandal not tagged as a sockmaster? I remember all too well his obnoxious tirades at this board using a bunch of socks. "You can't stop me!" blah blah blah. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko/Archive should be prominently linked at Reguyla (talk · contribs) and not swept under the rug. Where is Category:Wikipedia sock puppets of Kumioko? This guy's a known liability. Doc talk 06:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• That would be here. When you're making angry "Why doesn't this exist?!?" denunciations, it helps if you get the name right. ‑ iridescent 06:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Ah, yes, I see. My bad! What a gallery of socks (that we know of). We shouldn't ban him. Let's give him a present! Doc talk 07:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - I've meditated on this !vote a bit longer than I would normally have; for I have supported Kumioko, at times in the past, to then witness a regrettable decline of conduct by him. Many are suggesting his conduct after the current unblock is but another example, but I don't see it this way. I think the calls to welcome Kumioko back into the community by site banning him are based in hyperbole, and frankly: I am not nearly as narcissistic as those who suggest Kumioko's presence can so drastically effect our ability to function as editors. He certainly is not a "known liability" – that's fear mongering pure and true, and I'm just not buying it.--John Cline (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, being banned from Wikipedia isn't the best experience in life. However, how one conducts oneself while being blocked or banned is a sign of whether or not one is ready to return to Wikipedia. Reguyla's past threats of socking & coming through on those threats, warrants a full year ban. If he can show restraint & stay entirely away from Wikipedia, the entire time his block/ban runs? then I'll support his return. PS: Note that I served a 1-year ban & so have a unique PoV on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per BMK. Every damned time this name comes up the biggest can of worms erupts. It's time to close the can once and for all. Losing a veteran admin and forcing the community to admonish another one of the most respected ones is, in my book, basically spitting in the face of the community. Quite frankly, this is a case of an editor who is never ever going to be worth unblocking regardless of their past contributions. Blackmane (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support (including proviso that the ban can only be contested by application to the BASC or ArbCom). I appreciate that those in favour of extending a further olive branch mean well, but please can we stop wasting time on giving fourth/fifth/sixth etc chances to perennially problematic users? WJBscribe (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia is not therapy and it is not a support group. Competence and the ability to collaborate in at least a semi-professional manner is necessary and important, and being prolific is not a substitute for being able to work cooperatively with human beings. Kumioko/Reguyla has proven that he does not have that ability and the project should recognize that simple fact, take the appropriate and permanent step of removing him from this environment, and move on. Nathan ^T 17:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support siteban. Kumioko is not Rootology (talk · contribs). He is not (insert any of several "difficult" content producers). Rootology was site banned, then was unblocked and became a huge benefit. During his ban, he didn't sock, he didn't rail against every admin and every editor who disagreed with him, and he actually changed the behavior which caused his banning. The same can be said of all of the active editors who have been mentioned by others in this thread; they don't turn into centipedes when blocked, and they don't beg for unblocks, then immediately violate the terms of the unblock with their very first edit. Kumioko is an enormous time sink, and while I won't be grabbing my pitchfork and torch to head up to the Frankenstein castle Worm hole, I think that the unblock was a very bad idea. I respect most of the editors who oppose the siteban, but I don't see Kumioko as likely to become a net positive to the project. Horologium (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose Indefs against constructive editors because they've gotten pissed off and done something unconstructive is pointless, itself unconstrutive, and just serves to turn would-be-editors-again into vociferous WP-is-a-cesspool enemies, for no good reason. See alt. proposal below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I find it unrealistic to think that anger or being "pissed off" has anything to do with their actions. The vandalism, extortion, and abuse occurred over a period of years. Do you think he was pissed off for years? If they are pissed off for years that is not a good sign. More realistically their actions are more based in their personality than a transient emotional state. HighInBC 14:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure whether I'm involved here, as I vaguely remember interacting - as an admin - with Kumioko over some unpleasantness or other - but in any case the deplorable record of this editor, as explained e.g. by Newyorkbrad above, calls for a community ban as a matter of course. We must get rid of antisocial editors as fast as possible, no matter what their merits as content creators may be. That's because such editors disrupt the editing environment for many other people who are just as good contributors but who do not have such character flaws.  Sandstein  08:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support; This thread is proof enough that conduct like this is nothing more than a time-sink on the community, something that we don't need. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban. I get it that he has done some good content work and some good vandal fighting. But when I weigh that against the huge time-sink that he has created, I'm seeing a net negative. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Postpone action until the block is lifted

I propose that Reguyla/Kumioko's existing one month ban remain in place, and that a discussion regarding the terms which would be imposed for him to allow to return to active editing take place shortly thereafter, after a broad-based community discussion. This return might reasonably involve some degree of Arbitration Committee involvement in the final outcome and in the process of determining such terms, as per the discussion above.

• Support as proposer. I have Kumioko possibly longer than many others here, and while I acknowledge his lack of self-awareness and extremely unfortunate tendency toward self-dramatization are offputting at best, and such that many might reasonably find them insufferable, that he has been a productive editor in the past and that the unfairness he perceives, rightly or wrongly, in the existing sanctions might well be itself a significant factor in the degree to which the above problems have been manifest.

  Also, frankly, it is extremely hard for me to imagine many, if any, individuals who would see the community taking a slightly lenient position in this particular case as being an indicator of how they can personally terrorize, for lack of a better word, the community into getting a block or ban lifted. Any individual who has seen the remarkable degree of what some might call obsession Reguyla/Kumioko has displayed regarding his sanctions will, I think, realize that there are damn few people in the world who would be willing to go to such remarkable extremes to get such a sanction overturned. I know that there would be no way I would, under any circumstances. That being the case, I cannot see this proposal as being a "blueprint" for more than the smallest handful of others to get similar restrictions on them lifted, because, honestly, few if any other people would display the remarkable single-mindedness Reguyla/Kumioko has displayed in this regard. It is certainly possible that in his particular case there has been a degree of injustice in his own treatment which few if any others would encounter or perceive. If that is the case here, and I acknowledge that I think it could be, it might, maybe, be in the best interests of the community to examine how it may have been less than fair, and do what it can to correct that. Also, honestly, if unacceptable conduct continues thereafter from Reguyla or others, such that Reguyla is banned again, I cannot see how anyone would think that the community itself, which will by that time have bent over to a possibly unprecedented degree to try to address previous concerns, could have any degree of responsibility for the circumstances leading to that theoretical final sanction. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Seriously? No. There's absolutely no reason to wait a month to take action. If you want such an unblock discussion to take place, have it in a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: You know I would have supported this if Reguyla just kept his mouth shut and let the community discuss. However, his responses below show a serious lack of acknowledgement and a serious persecution complex. This level of obsession is not a good thing and the level of discontent the community has shown with his behavior is enough to show that any attempt to bring him back into the fold is likely to fail. Especially at this stage. Waiting a month is not going to change that. I doubt waiting a year will change anything but that is to be seen. He failed to abide by the restrictions set by WTT and he failed in less than 24 hours. How can anybody stand to trust this user to abide by any restrictions? Enough is enough. --Stabila711 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. BMK (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. Regrettably no reason to believe that this would end any differently to the most recent unblock. If he can stay out of trouble for a year (which on past conduct seems unlikely given that he has a long pattern of evading bans and abusing people off-wiki) then maybe we should consider unbanning him. The Land (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We do not ever reward users who disrupt wikipedia by giving them what they want. Postponing only defers the implementation of the community's will in which there is a snowball's chance in hell that the User who has been blocked will reform in the 1 month of block time (considering that they've been in various states of restriction for 2 years) and that there already was a reasonable consensus to not let this user come back to begin with. If I had any glimmer of hope that Kumioko could respect the terms of the block (which they've repeatedly demonstrated no interest in respecting via evasion/massive IP sock hopping/using backchannels to get his "truth" out/etc) I'd be willing to hold the CBAN in abayance but the proxied in statements are absolute non-starters no matter how you slice it. Recovering from a block/ban requires the user to understand how their actions put them in that state. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose No... as those above have said. You don't reward bad behaviour. He has had plenty of chances to reform and has blown them all. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, especially since the first several edits after the unblock were blatant violations of the terms of his unblock. Usually in a case like that you reinstate the block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We already tried giving him terms for return, twice(at least). He failed to honour those terms both times. I don't think the community wants him back. I think unblocking a person who has repeated said they will harm Wikipedia until they are unblocked is begging for other blocked users to engage in extortion. The extortion is a deal breaker, he has basically made it so we cannot welcome him back or we are capitulating to extortion. The argument that others will not do this because they are not as determined as Reg fails the laugh test. HighInBC 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - A permanent ban from every Wikimedia website is overdue. Community patience, extended repeatedly, is exhausted. This is a sober judgement from concerned editors, not a mob action, as a few are attempting to characterize it. Jusdafax 21:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. (NOTE: OPPOSING THIS DOES NOT EQUAL SUPPORTING AN INDEF BAN.)

Some here clearly do not agree with it, but WTT setting the terms of the restriction was an administrator action, and unless you can persuade WTT to allow a longer block or show that somehow his setting restrictions as a condition for unblocking was against policy, changing the block to longer than one month would be a clear case of wheel warring. Once the 1-month block expires You have to wait until Reguyla violates a restriction or a policy before you can block him again. If Reguyla keeps his nose clean from now on, then certain people will simply have to slake their thirst for blood somewhere else. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. No admin action is set in stone and every action is reviewable and changeable by community consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update: I have been in contact with Reg elsewhere, in a place readily visible I don't want to reveal because I myself have my own love of melodramatic tendencies and silly little secrets, which, given my user name, among other things, is probably kind of obvious to everybody anyway. That conversation is, more or less, in relation to putting together content elsewhere in the WMF relating to topics of interest to him, like military biographies, and then having the material there used to develop missing and poor articles here. Speaking strictly for myself, I would like to maybe have it possible, if work of that type is done, to make it possible for him to receive the "credit" for an edit here. I think one thing that might be useful, and which might be overlooked in a forum such as this one, but not be at ArbCom or elsewhere, a limited activity unblock to develop the poorly developed or missing content here which can be imported from wikisource or elsewhere. Unfortunately, I don't think myself that at this time, whatever the merits or lack of merits of such an idea, that it being introduced at this rather late date will necessarily have much effect on those who have already expressed opinions. Having said that, however, I am going to @Worm That Turned: and @Dennis Brown: for information on whether their contact with him indicated Reguyla had a specific limited field of primary interest, and, if it did, whether it might be worth perhaps allowing if nothing else a "work release" form of ban lift to develop some of the content related to that specific field of interest. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

John: Your comment above could easily be construed as conniving with a blocked (soon to be re-banned) editor to circumvent his block/ban. My advice is to think very carefully about what you're doing. Worm That Turned is one of the best admins we have here, but that didn't protect him when he tried to help Kumioko (inadvisably, I believe), it just put him in the middle of a "shitstorm" of criticism, a lot of it unwarranted, but some of it justified. That is the last thing you would want, I would think, but Kumioko is like a black hole, sucking in good intentions and giving nothing back. I seriously suggest that you not pursue this scheme. Kumioko is, honestly, not worth it, his value to the project before he went off the deep end has been consistently overstated, as you woyuld see if you investigated some of his vaunted 500K edits. BMK (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per my support above - I've lost track at the amount of chances he's had & blown here!, Not even sure if it's worth posting here ... –Davey2010^Talk 01:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion is at wikisource:User talk:John Carter, which I thought would have been obvious given the nature of my own comment below suggesting that he do as much. On that page, I have suggested that he develop content related to the matter of medal of honor winners, which seems to be his primary focus of interest, there, and then, as the content there is develped allow him the limited right, almost certainly under some restrictions beyond that topic, so that his edits for an at this point indefinite time are limited to that content. I have also removed the material which had previously collapsed this section, based in part on the rather strange and to my eyes clearly out-of-process premature collapse of this subthread. We have already had individuals below state that the thread will be reviewed in roughly four or five days at this point, and I cannot see any reason to preemptively judge any proposal in advance, particularly considering the lack of any full consideration of the proposal being offered to this date. Again, under the circumstances, I thought it would have been obvious that was where the discussion was taking place, and my apologies for having apparently been mistaken there. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• You have gotten your response John. People don't agree with your proposal. You say you have not gotten full consideration, I say that you got it but you just don't like the answer. The closure discussion is about the proposal above, this proposal came later and I don't see anyone suggesting it run a full week. HighInBC 15:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Although I clearly thank you for so clearly both misrepresenting my earlier statement, in which I said four or five days, not a week, and for making it clear that you did not read Callanecc's comment to the effect that it would be closed on the 12th, which is in four or five days, I also feel obliged to point out that your conduct in this thread has already been found to be at times at best counterproductive, but that hasn't apparently had any impact on your conduct. Also, honestly, I have not gotten a full response yet, as the only response which has been made since I posted a link to the relevant discussion elsewhere, so your statement is also one which some might not unreasonably call dishonest. A reasonable attempt to deal with all concerns would actually involve directly dealing with them, rather than jumping to conclusions, and, honestly, I haven't seen any direct response yet. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes John you told me on your talk page and my talk page that you don't think much of my behaviour. No need to tell me in a third place. You may note I have invited you to discuss my behaviour on my talk page, this is not the place. As for the topic at hand, 11 people responded to you. Perhaps you have not gotten the response you wanted, but you got a response. HighInBC 15:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @HighInBC: Regarding your insistence that you apparently have an absolute right to use this page to discuss my behavior while at the same time insisting that I cannot discuss yours, particularly considering in one of the hatted sections below it is clear that I am not the first one to question your conduct here, may I perhaps suggest you read WP:HYPOCRISY. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• If Reguyla can do useful work at Wikisource, that's splendid, but I think a "limited unblock" here on en:wp is a seriously bad idea. That is what WTT just tried; why do you think it would go any better next time? JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• You have no idea how grateful I am to see that someone has actually read what I said. Thank you. To my thinking, the only limitation to the block would be to pages particularly relevant to the contnet he develops elsewhere, either at wikisource or wikia, where the content here is clearly of a lesser quality than that elsewhere. If there were any sort of way to do something along the lines of a protected edit request or something along those lines, that would be the extent of the lift of the limit that I would be considering. Or maybe calling it a single-topic unban might be another way of saying it. To my eyes, again, the limitations would be at least in the beginning extremely limiting, to specifically and obviously related articles here. I acknowledge, not being an admin, I don't know how many such have been done, but I think it might be workable and that it might be possible for ArbCom perhaps with community input to devise a specific way it could be done which might give him a way to at least to a limited degree show here that he can be a good editor, and, maybe, to help him concentrate on what he is good at, content development in that area. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I read the link. It did not change anything, it is the same thing just in a different place. You keep insisting that the link was not read by anyone. I read it and I see Reg complaining that everything is someone else's fault. I see you expressing regret in their behaviour and pointing out issues with how they have handled themselves, I see you criticizing that he boasts about policy violations. You keep acting like we are opposing this because we are not informed. Which part of that conversation is supposed to make me reconsider your proposal? HighInBC 16:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Where did you get the impression that your individual response is, as your comment above seems to at least strongly indicate, the one and only thing that anyone could be seeking here? I thought this site was directed by group consensus, and your comment above seems to at least imply that, in your eyes, your individual response is the only thing that might matter here. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• No idea where you got that idea from. If you look very carefully you will see there is a clear consensus here to reject this proposal, a consensus that you reverted the closure of twice. I am asking you why this link to the conversation should in any way change our minds, it seems to only re-enforce the consensus reached here. HighInBC 16:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support this alt. proposal as the obviously proper way to go about this, due to the fragmentary and oft-contradictory way in which this editors' issues have been approached. The new block is long enough for him to rethink, and I think it's very clear that a renewal of the "admins are vermin"-style ranting will result in an immediate indef without further discussion or reconsideration.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The argument that he was "a productive editor in the past" might have held weight if we did not have years of harassment and attacks in the interim. Frankly John, it is time for you to accept that the editor you knew a half decade ago is gone and not coming back. And it is time for you to accept that the only thing your proposal offers the community is more unnecessary and pointless drama. Resolute 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no need to enable the bad behavior again and again. MarnetteD|Talk 14:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. What MarnetteD said, plus adding there is no reason to waste the community's time even more than it has already been wasted. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While I laud John Carter's efforts, my reading of Kumioko/Reguyla's comments at the wikisource page shows that nothing has changed. While I've not interacted with Kumioko, I've paid attention to the the train wreck that is his descent into the hole that he has dug for themselves. John summed up K's lack of humility quite nicely. Every time I've read anything about Kumioko, I have never ever seen them take responsibility for anything that they've made happen. Everything is someone elses's fault. I don't see anything changing sufficiently in the next month any more than it has changed over the last couple of years, since they were originally blocked, to the point that letting K back in would result in a positive collaborative atmosphere. While there are a number of editors who are viewed as troublesome and interactions with them occasionally boil over, at no time have they deliberately set out to damage the encyclopedia or threatened to. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. More than enough of the community's time has been spent on this over the last four years. There is no reason whatsoever to think that in one month's time, anything will have changed. One simply has to read Reguyla's comments here, on his talk page and at wikisource:User talk:John Carter to see that. He was offered a change to a six month's block after his first ban on the proviso that he cease causing disruption and cease socking for those 6 months. He did neither and yet blames everyone but himself. He violated the conditions for his latest unblock with his very first edit and kept at it. Ditto. It is time to stop enabling this behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't close too early

In the past Kumioko has complained perhaps rightly that the ban discussion was rushed. The banning policy calls for at least 24 hours discussion, I think we can do at least 48 hours so that we can lay to rest the idea that the community came to the wrong decision because we rushed. Ideally it can be closed by an admin who has no prior involvement in this case if there are any. This is a user who looks for any excuse to invalidate the legitimacy of their ban so lets not give him any. HighInBC 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. One of the reasons I blocked for thirty days and not indef is because I didn't want to perpetually hear, "I was blocked indef only because NeilN doesn't like me." Goes without saying but I'm fine with whatever the community decides after a proper discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your restraint. Not sure I would have had such foresight in your shoes. HighInBC 23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, looking at Reguyla's block log, there was every single indication that any conditions laid out for him would be ignored, and a HUGE part of his MO is complaining that the admin corps hates him. He would have complained about the block no matter who levied it, even if it was for 24 hours, and he would have defied his terms of unblock. The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact, and we have long reached the point where Kumioko should be barred from participation permanently. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that no matter what it is likely they will cry foul. However even in the ban discussion above long term contributors are expressing concern that the original ban was rushed. I want that concern to be put to rest. HighInBC 23:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is wise to let the discussion continue for 48 hours or more, so that no one can say that it was rushed through. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• I imagine this discussion is going to get quite convoluted so it might be worth having closers worked out. From memory I've been uninvolved (apart from a few clerk comments at SPI and a clerical block here) with Kumioko/Reguyla so I'm happy to close this in a couple days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Not that I'm even being considered here, but as someone who has had positive interactions with Kumioko, I will have to recuse here as I am clearly biased.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If the above comment from @Callanecc: is indicating he thinks this thread might benefit from multiple closers, maybe it might make sense to have a separate section below where those who wish to take part in the closing can indicate as much? John Carter (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily that it needs multiple closers (but not a bad idea if the community wants it), just that there was a need for someone to put their hand up early on. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - please, leave this open at least a week. If a ban is the outcome, it must not be rushed. Worm^TT(talk) 07:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We did 48 hours the first time: Original ban discussion: Filing: [47] 22:16, 25 February 2014 Closing: [48] 22:28, 27 February 2014 Elapsed time: 2 days, 12 minutes. NE Ent 11:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse leaving open for a week. In Kumioko's mind, his continual socking and block-evasion were justified because all his various blocks and bans (except last August's ban review) were too hasty or otherwise invalid. Let us leave no possible scope for doubt or complaint over the result of this. Multiple closers would be desirable for the same reason. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I personally have no objection to keeping this open for a week, or whatever, but I don't think it will make a whit of difference. Kumioko's reaction is going to be what it's going to be, whether it's closed in 48 hours or a month. Once again, we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that his responses are rational ones; his behavior for years has shown that not to be the case. BMK (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Also, we're talking about the "48 hour ban discussion" as if it came out of nowhere, but that was not the case. There had been a number of previous noticeboard discussion in which there was considerably support for indeffing or banning Kumioko, but these discussions were closed with no consensus. Thus there's history behind the "48 hour" discussion, it did not appear ex nihilo, and because of that it was not an unreasonable amount of time to reach a consensus. BMK (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse, he will doubtlessly sulk and complain no matter what we do, however we shouldn't go out of our way to give him fuel. No good reason to rush this or act rashly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC).

• Unfortunately, like a self-oxiding pryotechnic, it doesn't really matter whether we "provide fuel," or not. The behavior to date is quintessential WP:NOTTHEM NE Ent 03:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was this is a good idea; but I really don't think it is, as it gives credence to the canard the first ban discussion was somehow improper or hasty. NE Ent 03:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse: Sufficient discussion and consideration won't kill anyone. "Sulking and complaining" is completely normal behaviour to expect from people who feel (rightly or not) that they've been run though a hostile gauntlet and have not been listened to. If he starts up again with anti-admin ranting, well, so be it, indef without further big discussions of it. Reguyla: If you're let back, just please STFU about how sore you are about it and any further finger pointing. Go write a Facebook rant about it instead or something. WP itself is not the venue for it, no, not even on your talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion's been open 5 days and there has been no new opinion expressed on the main proposal for 24+hours, probably a sign that the conversation is mature and it's safe to close now. The Land (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I suggested it be closed after no sooner than 48 hours. I get why people proposed a week but at this point it is getting stale, few new comments are coming in and even Reg has said it can be closed. It is of course something for the closers to decide. HighInBC 21:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page messages left for Callaneecc, KTC, and Katie. NE Ent 21:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Closers

Probably worth creating a section for this. I imagine we'll only need one to three closers, with the thread to be closed around 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC). So who would like to join me (assuming the community is happy for me to do it, see disclosure above)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why there need to be more than one closer. But if you want, give me a ping when the time comes. -- KTC (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Me too, if you like. KrakatoaKatie 05:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I've emailed them both my thoughts on closing so we should have this closed in a day or two. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Responsibility

This is not hard.

• Reguyla is responsible for what Reguyla did, no one else.
• Floq is responsible for / entitled to his decision to take a break; the choice is his, and in his own words I'm not a child.
• WTT is only responsible for his actions, no one else's. Did I personally agree with the unblock? No. Was it a violation of policy? No. The community imposed a ban; the community later removed the ban, making Reguyla eligible for an unblock if any admin thought it was not longer necessary to stop disruption. We tolerate good faith mistakes because if we don't, there will be no one left to write the encyclopedia. NE Ent 01:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  ^This. Without commenting on whether Reguyla should be banned or not. It's not WTT's fault floquenbeam (talk · contribs) left.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  Not to mention, WTT clearly acted in good faith. At best, he should be reprimanded, but I doubt at this point that's even necessary or desirable. My hope is that he takes a lesson away from this: Always do the research on editors who are seeking unblock. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  That's how I saw it Ent. I'm responsible here, not for violating policy but for believing that Kumioko could come back and be a decent editor. You know what, I still do. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, WTT, I respect you immensely, but you really have to disabuse yourself of that notion, Dennis (another admin I admire) too. Whatever happened to Kumioko to put him over the edge -- and I don't believe for a minute that two failed RfAs were the chief factor, there's got to be something else going on -- is not going to be solved by his getting access to Wikipedia. If anything, his obsession with Wikipedia is simply part of the problem, but we're not here to solve people's personal problems. BMK (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  There is no absolute reason Kumioko cannot return to constructive editing. It's apparent that he will have to work alongside people who have behaved in reprehensible ways in the past, as well as people who he believes have done so. This is not going to be easy. Conversely, for a number of those people the same applies.

These difficulties are not insurmountable. Happy to discuss them here or elsewhere.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

Yours is clearly, by a very wide margin, a minority opinion, and is not supported by the evidence. BMK (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kumioko has contributed constructively in the past. He has contributed to other open knowledge projects. He claims (and we have no reason to doubt) that he has articles ready to go.

Therefore the evidence is that he has the ability and desire to contribute to en:WP.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

Claims are not evidence. His long-ago behavior has been completely usurped by his long, long reign of misbehavior since then. He has shown absolutely zero ability to edit constructively in years. His desire to contribute was so lacking that when he was unblocked he immediately acted out again, subverting his own chances. That's the relevant evidence here, not what he did with semi-automated editing tools years ago. BMK (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement from Reguyla

Reguyla asked on IRC to be unbanned for the purposes of participating in this discussion. I did not agree to unblock, but I do think he should be allowed the opportunity for a response. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to post a statement but given the length of this discussion its going to be a bit long, sorry. I also am disappointed that again the community is having a ban discussion and refuses to let me participate in it to defend myself or argue in my own defense.

I cannot believe that we are having a ban discussion the same day as I was unblocked over a minor comment. I also cannot believe I got a month block for a comment that shouldn't have gotten more than a week at most. So about that comment first, WTT unblocked me and left the statement he left. I didn't agree with all of it and wanted to comment to clarify it. I fully intended it to be a one time statement and I was moving on. I was able to do a few edits, but much of my time today was simply responding to comments about my unblock.

With regard to the hyperbole about how horribly disruptive I am. Yes I over rected to my ban. A small group of people kept resubmitting ban requests till they got what they wanted. I have apologized for that several times in several ways. In August of last year the community had a ban review discussion and voted to unblock me in February 2015. Several people who did not agree with my unban created a disruption on my talk page, blocked me and then started a discussion at AN that I was not allowed to comment on. They extended my block to May and then again to August. Then Floquenbeam indef blocked my account, so the indef was not from the community as a couple has stated It was from Floquenbeam who clearly stated that my unban was a clear farce anyway. I have ignored the last three extensions since because they were invalid. There is no reason for three people who opposed my unban to be allowed to start a new discussion to change the outcome. So I have ignored the block extensions first and continue to abide by the community unban decision.

For more than the last year ALL of my edits and contributions have been positive. I have reverted vandalism, created articles and tagged articles for WikiProjects. So arguments that I am not here to participate or am being disruptive, at least for the last year, are hogwash. In fact, several people have taken it upon themselves to create a disruption in my name if any account is thought to be me by deleting the articles created, restoring the vandalism I reverted and reverting the edits. This damages the project and causes a disruption for no reason when there is no policy or reason to do it other than to create drama. The only thing I did wrong was not use my Reguyla account, which should have been unblocked last February.

So Worm that turned and I talked and he agreed to unblock me with restrictions that I did not agree with but was forced to concede to because no admins were willing to follow the last community unban decision.

Several people commented that I am not a positive participant in the project, well how can I be if you won't let me edit. The site admins refuse to follow the community decision so I follow the community decision through Ignore all Rules. "If a rule hinders improvement of the project, then ignore it".

So, if the community is unwilling to follow the community decision to unban me but allow some to keep insisting a new ban discussion is needed to keep me banned, why should I follow it? I am trying to contribute positively but if all you do is find reasons to block you will keep finding them.

Do not unblock. Enough is enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:

I agree Ymblanter, enough is enough. Its time to follow the community unban discussion that was decided last year. Its time to stop having ban discussions for no reason like this one. Its time to stop manipulating policy to keep me blocked for no reason. The community already unblocked me last year and ever since I have been following the spirit of that unban. I can't do anything not having an admin willing to perform the action and I cannot do anything about the lack of respect for the community or its decision that teh admins conttinue to ignore. I can however control participating in a positive way in the spirit of the community unban decision. You don't have to unblock me and you can even revert my edits, but does reverting and deleting positive edits out of spite really benefit the project or our readers? Does it really help the project to make drama just for the sake of it just because I think all editors, admin and regular edit should be treated equally? Does that opinion really make me that much of a threat? My opinion is no.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Stay away from Wikipedia for a full year. By showing restraint & faithfully serving your ban, you could get reinstated. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I notice a lot of "me me me" in Reguyla's communiqués. Where's the "we", "us", etc.? I'm sorry, but, Reguyla, you're coming across as a man on a mission from God. You may have been - may still be - a productive editor when left to content. But, to put it very bluntly, you're displaying some horrible narcissism here. You clearly don't give a toss about the whole "crowd" aspect of "crowdsourced" and scream that you're being repressed when criticised. The whole reason we're even debating a community ban yet again is because you're more interested in relitigating battles lost as opposed to editing encyclopædia content. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is a good idea to post here all comments of a blocked user thereby letting him to evade the block. They were blocked and the talk page access was revoked for a good reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think he should be given opportunity to respond, especially given that this discussion will probably only be open for another day or two. I've asked him to please keep the responses minimal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Reg should be able to have his say during this discussion. I personally want as little excuse to complain about the result as possible. HighInBC 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He has been given too many opportunities to respond, which, in fact, led to his immediate block earlier today. And by posting all his comments here, I am sorry to say, you are acting as his sockpuppet. From my part, I am going to ignore his comments while he is blocked, even if he directly addresses me.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reguyla's whole argument is nonsensical in my view, because all blocks have been by the books, and he knows exactly how to request unblocks, but instead of effectively requesting unblocking, he flagrantly sockpuppets instead, because he believes himself to be above the law. This is sheer lunacy and a blatant flouting of policy. Stop referring to a community discussion and so-called decision that occurred over a year ago. Deal with the reality of current time, and current actions. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent Thanks for showing those links to those statements in my comments NE Ent. Would you mind providing links now for everyone showing the personal attacks towards me by Floquenbeam? Or his frequent tendency to tell others to Fuck off? Like the one where he told me to Fuck off maybe! Or the dozen or so others in the last year. Or maybe you could provide everyone a link to the Arbcom discussion that advocating someone sending a letter to my employer, outing me in an attempt to get me fired. Does everyone know about that incident and what level the Arbcom is willing to go? I bet not. So yes I made my share of mistakes, but yur narrow and one sided argument completely ignored all of the abuse I endured that caused me to become so angry and frustrated with the project and the admins in it. Not to mention the ongoing namecalling and abuse currently going on in this discussion that I cannot even respond to myself to ensure it stays one sided against me.

NeilN Neil, As soon as you saw I was unblocked you started running around the project looking for a way to block me. I saw you pop up in at least 3 places asking if you could block me before you finally did after getting the approval from WormThatTurned. That is exactly the sort of hounding I am talking about. There are enough policies and rules in Wikipedia if you want to block someone its easy to find a way. You went looking for a reason to block me and found one.

GoodDay - I know you faithfully served out your year ban and now feel anyone who is banned must do the same. We were banned for very different reasons though so its realy not the same.

Jéské Couriano - Please stop twisting my words. Editing Wikipedia is a collaboration and I have stated that all along. Its not a me thing it is and always has been an us thing. The fact that you don't know what I was even banned for shows me that you don't have all the facts. The comments are mecentric because I am the one you are trying to ban, again, eventhough I have effectively been banned all along since no admins are willing to perform the unblock that the community decided last year. This whole ban discussion is nothing more than another instance of I didn't like the last decision so I am going to change it.

Stabila711 Your right, no one in this project is irreplacable. Not me and not Floquenbeam or anyone else. I had over 500, 000 edits and many artices created and featured content. No one cares. I am just an editor. Floquenbeam blocked many, many people and drove many others away with his over zealous personality and insistence he was always right. He is an admin and a hero. In the end, many editors and admins have left and the project continues although, I would argue it gets weaker and continues to decline as everyone can see. I did not cause Floquenbeam to leave, Floquenbeam chose to leave. I was forced out and am fighting to get back in, thats the difference between us, good or bad. I am not a quiter even if some here want me to be.

For the most part, all the people who are supporting my ban are the same ones that Supported it the last tie, and the time before that and the time before that. Several have mentioned second, thirdm etc chances, but I have not had any chances. I have been continuously blocked for more than 2 years because people that do not want me to edit continue to manipulte the outcome. Even if I did not make a comment and get blocked we would still be here now. Someone would have drug me back to AN with some justification that I should be banned. Its time to move on folks, its time to stop making all this drama and let me edit again. I was a high output editor and will be again if you let me and drop the torches and pitchforks. I'm not perfect, but there is no need to continue to create ban discussions of minor comments that aren't even worthy of a block. Is this really what the ENWP project has come too? Do you really not hae anything better to do than to blame editors for disruption when there is none and I mean literally zero disruption. In fact, to those that said I caused a disruption, please show me in the last year where an edit I did was an actual disruption to the project. I would love to see some links of what you think is a "disrupton" and I am sure others will as well.

Now I know I can be an asset to this project if everyone drops the sticks and gives me a chance but its a hell of a lot harder if I am banned and that doesn't improve the project. I have literally about 70 articles ready to be loaded, mostly Medal of Honor recipients,Some ships, some generals and other bios and a lot more to offer in cleanup. I am not coming empty handed here. But it doesn't do me much good to create these articles on ENWP just so a couple of admins who don't care about the project to delete them and claim disruption.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well thats informative. I certainly advocate contacting a abusers employer when they perform abuse from their workplace. In fact I did it regularly when I was a network administrator. I contacted employers, schools, parents, their ISP's... Oddly enough contacting their mother's usually got the quickest solution to problems. While I dont advocate telling trolls to fuck off as an optimum response (it only feeds them) its certainly not a big deal. When you provoke someone and get a reaction, to then bitch about the reaction as it is somehow their fault is beyond a joke. And at this point, I think the community repeatedly banning a troll is a giant 'fuck off' even if it doesnt use those words directly. Perhaps he should just take the hint. And in related news, why does he still have access to IRC? Who is in control there that he is still allowed access? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Same martyr complex. I asked WTT once as a courtesy to them why I should not block you. [49] I didn't need their permission or approval. Even then, I did not block you until you continued on. This is like a teenager complaining about being grounded for lighting up a cigarette in front of his parents right after he was told he'd be grounded if he smoked again. "You were looking for an excuse to ground me!" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You're just not getting it, Reguyla. Stay away from the Wikipedia for the length of time the community demands. If you had taken my advice before & walked away for 6-months, the situation would've been better for you now. Sock-puppeting, emails aren't exceptions. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kumioko, I wouldn't have cared enough to start the ban discussion if it weren't for the fact that you essentially backstabbed WTT by completely disregarding the terms he unblocked you under. And WTT made those terms the way they did for a reason: You have a very hard time letting go of (perceived or actual) wrongs committed against you in the past, to the point where you're coming across as a parody of who you used to be. What happened to the content creator quietly creating content? Did he get slain and replaced by the bickering, my-way-or-the-highway doppelganger when we weren't looking? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare: I wish you wouldn't post here on the user’s behalf, effectively circumventing their block and WTT’s removal of talk page and email access. You could consider reenabling them if you’d like the user to participate in this discussion. - NQ-Alt (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree: (a) we should not give him the chance to complain that he was condemned without a chance to defend himself, and (b) his responses are quite illuminating and may help to form our decision. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think John has it right. If we deny him a voice he will add it to his list of "unfair" things that has happened to him. Letting him speak only allows a more informed decision from the community. NW-Alt's should take into account that it is normal procedure to post comments by blocked users in threads discussing them and we also even unblock users to participate in such discussions. GorillaWarfare is not doing anything wrong by posting the messages here. HighInBC 16:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that this comment from Reguyla is anything but a positive development. In it, he seems to be demonstrably incapable of recognizing that WP:CONSENSUS takes priority over his personal whims and desires. There is no way anyone would see repeated statements of that type, and this is by no means the first one from him, without having questions whether this person is perhaps in some way impaired. I have never been in the military, although, as someone who grew up near a major air base, I know that anyone who displayed such disregard for authority and remarkable self-righteousness would have a better than even chance of being basically personally disowned by his wing and/or squadron. However highly any individual may hold himself, boasting "I am breaking every rule in the book but doing it in a good way, so I deserve thanks and praise," will basically come across as, well, delusional. If he honestly wishes others to believe there is any real chance that he could ever show any regard for policies and guidelines when they disagree with his own personal goals and intentions, the time to do so is now. And, unfortunately, the above comment really doesn't in any way come anywhere near doing so. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Now I know I can be an asset to this project if everyone drops the sticks and gives me a chance but its a hell of a lot harder if I am banned and that doesn't improve the project" Yep, I know, and I would have been willing to support that, but "Floquenbeam blocked many, many people and drove many others away with his over zealous personality and insistence he was always right. He is an admin and a hero." See, that's where you're wrong. Floq was one of the admins who always gave people a chance to improve. You've let your hatred of the "admin" culture (very clear in your rantings after you were unblocked) spill over into plain false statements about a named person. I couldn't give a shit about people telling me I'm a useless admin (we get that all the time), but regardless of whether Floq goes or stays, you've caused your own downfall here. I would have given you a chance, but not now. Sorry. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Doc9871 Doc, if you are going to make statements, please at least make them factual.

Comments like calling me a vandal and a liability are not needed nor factual. I am being banned in this discussion for statements far less than this. If I am as bad as people are claiming then facts should be enough.

All of the things you state are over a year ago, second I have never been a vandal and third I am not a liability. If there is a disruption here, its because its being created by others, I wasn't unblocked long enough to create a disruption and although making a comment on my talk page might be annoying to some people, its far from a disruption to the project, unlike this long discussion that was started without even giving me a chance to get back to editing. People have stated I had multiple chances, but I have never been given a chance. I have been blocked continuously for 2 years and no one. Not one of you has given me a chance to get back to editing until Worm unblocked me.

Maybe if people stopped lying about me like you and others have done here Doc, in order to justify an unneeded ban, then I would have had a chance at getting back into editing. There are new users voting to support my ban here that don't even know who I am nor have they interacted with me and haven't been here long enough to even know what they are supporting. They are just following the mob. But its clear from statements like yours that people are going to say and do anything just to keep me from editing. Sure I have used socks to edit, and I lost my bearing when I was people manipulated a ban on me but for over a year I have contributed positively (although yes though other accounts). Clearly its now commonplace to have a full ban discussion over a comment on my my own talk page, but its still an extremely weak justification for a ban and far from being a disruption as people claim...just like when I was banned over making a comment the first time, 2 years ago, and a couple people tried resubmitted over and over to get me banned until they got what they wanted.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Today: "...second I have never been a vandal..."
June 15th, 2014: "Even today, I made about 200 contributions, mostly vandalism and fictitious page moves and most haven't been undone..."
Why does anyone believe what this person says or promises? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN - that was the exact diff I was looking for. And I'm the liar according to this character. Doc talk 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Request to @GorillaWarfare: I really don't think it's necessary to re-post Kumioko's comments anymore. They're not advancing the discussion, and, in fact, they're doing him no good at all that I can see. Can I suggest that he's had his say, and that we've extended to him more than sufficient courtesy, considering his long history of vandalism, socking and disruption? BMK (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN First I want to state that link you provide was over a year ago and before the community unban review. I don't expect you to believe me but I wanted it on record that I have never vandalized the project to my knowledge outside of the talk page comments (that could be argued as vandalism by some I admit) and have done nothing but positive contributions since around July of last year. Please provide links to prove otherwise. Particularly after August of 2014 when the community ban review that was ignored by the admins decided I should be unblocked in February. What I see in this discussion is a lot of people who want my head regardless of the reason. I gave them a reason with the comment, but they would have found one anyway. A lot of the people are voting support with comments like "This guy again". They don't know why, just that its my name. This AN discussion is full of hyperbolic statements and accusations and lies. Multiple people see that and some don't. You cannot prove I did any vandalism because I didn't regardless of what I said in anger. You cannot prove a disruption so you created one with this discussion, because that comment was many things but it was very, very far from being the enormous disruption that this discussion has become.

So yes I said made that statement last year that you link too and I said a lot of other things in anger back then but I never did any vandalism other than some talk page comments that although not vandalism were certainly unnecessary and unkind. Disruptive even. I agree there was a point after my ban that I became disruptive because I was hurt, frustrated and felt completely betrayed by the project and the community I had dedicated so much time too. I have apologized for it many times, to many people and in many different venues. At one time Godzilla was a little bity lizard and Darth Vader was a child, things change over time and so have I. I lost my respect for the community and the project back then and lost my composure. For that I am sorry. I should have just said fuck it and walked away from the project like so many other editors and admins have done. But I didn't, I went off the rails and damaged my reputation and my history of contributions on the project. I can't change what I did, I can only move forward, if the community will allow me too. I would ask if there is some path to get back into editing but I know there isn't. Just like I told Worm months ago that this unblock request was doomed to failure, but we agreed it was worth a try. He and Dennis put their reputations on the line with this unblock and I let them down with that comment that I felt was minor and didn't think that anyone would really give a shit about one comment on my talk page that anyone could ignore. I was wrong. Clearly the community is not ready for that yet so it doesn't matter what I want or what they want. If this small group of community members want me out of the project and that seems evident in this discussion then fine. There are plenty of other projects to devote my time too even though this one is the project I am most passionate about.

If you want to blame someone for this mess then blame me. Worm and Dennis didn't do anything and neither did GorillaWarfare by posting my responses. So if you have issue with me, then blame me, not them. You are free to close this discussion at any time. It is evident that there is no desire within this community for me to participate here so there is no need to continue this AN discussion just to ensure I cannot complain about the process. The process is fine, the consensus is that my ban is to continue indefinitely as it has been for the last 2 years.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I generally agree that his statements aren't particularly helping his case, but I do believe it is important that the subject of a potential ban have some say in a ban discussion. That said, since he's willing for the discussion to be closed, I don't plan to post any more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for considering my request. BMK (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seemed like a perfectly reasonable approach to take. It's not like Reguyla used it as an excuse to post a bunch of "go **** all your mothers!" disruptive rants. He made his case, people didn't buy it, and he rather maturely (more so that most here would have given him credit for) accepted the result. I see no harm in that. Anyone who thinks it's just too much drama and "enabling" to let someone defend themselves on a forum that exists for discussion and resolution of editor behavior problems maybe needs a break from the noticeboards. I mean, they do exist, after all, for people to raise concerns and for those about whom concerns have been raised to rebut, and for the community to consider the differing views fairly. Last I looked, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

While I'm posting, might as well throw my 2 cents in: I don't think Reguyla is unredeemable. He clearly just feels railroaded and entrapped. He's also clearly a bit on the intemperate side, but plenty of other editors are too, just better at wikipoliticking. That said, his first post to his own talk page immediately upon being un-banned (or un-blocked, or whatever it is – the confusion in this regard is a good example of WP:NOT#BUREACRACY failing to be adhered to), on the condition (among others) that he refrain from anti-admin aspersion-casting, clearly violated the terms of the un-b*. Even if one accepts the idea that it was reasonable he didn't think it applied to his own talk page, he was informed it did, and then did it again in the same thread. The anger and the lack of judgement resulting from it clearly had not dissipated. So I think the new block was justified, and should be sat out. After that he should be allowed to return again, because he appears to be correct that a community un-b* decision some time ago agreed to this and that others have been trying to undo that consensus finding. Just let it alone. If he can cool off for another month, and come back and actually avoid antagonistic anti-admin stuff and go back to productive editing, hurrah, the project wins. If he goes back to the same disruption, that's proof – without need for much further discussion of any kind – that the WP:TIGER has WP:ROPEd its own neck with its own stripes, to mix a metaphor involving redundant essays. If it comes to that latter result, I would think the discussion would be quite brief and nearly unanimous for an indef. But people also should not be baiting him and basically trying to engineer him into a slip-up. Just walk away, let him edit when comes back, and he'll either do well or he won't.

I'm not sure what to say about Floq's abrupt exit. I find it surprising and out-of-character, but people leave (and often come back after a year or whatever, as I did myself, and people do so for various reasons that are not always transparent to others). I believe we all own our own emotions, and I've stepped away from WP quite a number of times, for a month, 3 months, even a whole year, other than sporadic responses to things people e-mail me about. It's healthy to do so. This should be a pleasurable project to work on, not a source of stress, but we make that stress for ourselves for the most part by getting over-involved in disputes that, in the long run, really don't matter much. If you're making "enemies" as well as friends on WP, you're doing it wrong.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A highly personal opinion on the infamous "unpleasant but productive" editors

Statement from WTT

Subpage?

Discussion seems to have finished and in agreement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

This thread is 163,127 bytes and growing, currently 46% of this page. Does anyone object to this all being moved to a dedicated subpage with a link left behind? I am sure every other topic here will appreciate it. HighInBC 19:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I've no objection. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, do object. AN can cope with this size thread for a few days, its not ANI, and historically, threads go to subpages to to turn into walled gardens where only the people who have a vested interest hang around. If there is one thing that is good for this sort of situation, its fresh eyes. Worm^TT(talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. HighInBC 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're going to great lengths to avoid any appearance of unfairness, I think it's necessary to keep it on the main page. BMK (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well he is saying now that we can close this any time. Perhaps it will not be open the entire week. HighInBC 23:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If only to remove any possibility of the user trying to revoke their approval of us moving forward, I strongly oppose any attempt to move faster. This user has attempted to use the "I was railroaded" argument multiple times and I want it read in no uncertain terms that this was a deliberate and considered position. Hasteur (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is some wisdom to that. I will leave it as an exercise to the closer(s). HighInBC 03:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Could he be redeemed?

I vehemently opposed the idea of stopping the community from being able to look at Regulya's case above, because the community is his only viable way back. There will be people who absolutely oppose his return and I can absolutely understand why, but I have a question for the rest. Could Regulya be redeemed?

I've largely kept out of this AN, because he had me spitting feathers with his return. But for those of you who wondered how I could be so naive, see his final response above. I'm going to pick out a few lines.

• I said made that statement last year that you link too and I said a lot of other things in anger back then but I never did any vandalism other than some talk page comments that although not vandalism were certainly unnecessary and unkind

  Acceptance that he did wrong

• I lost my respect for the community and the project back then and lost my composure. For that I am sorry. [...] I went off the rails and damaged my reputation and my history of contributions on the project.

  Reflective explanation and apology

• I would ask if there is some path to get back into editing but I know there isn't.

  Willingness to move forward

• [Worm] and Dennis put their reputations on the line with this unblock and I let them down with that comment that I felt was minor and didn't think that anyone would really give a shit about one comment on my talk page that anyone could ignore. I was wrong.

  Taking personal responsibility

• If you want to blame someone for this mess then blame me. Worm and Dennis didn't do anything and neither did GorillaWarfare by posting my responses. So if you have issue with me, then blame me, not them.

  Selflessness

• You are free to close this discussion at any time. It is evident that there is no desire within this community for me to participate here so there is no need to continue this AN discussion just to ensure I cannot complain about the process. The process is fine, the consensus is that my ban is to continue indefinitely as it has been for the last 2 years

  Acceptance of reality

To those who say Reguyla hasn't changed - read those sentences and tell me he hasn't. If you want to believe he's lying through his teeth, that's fine, but that's never been his style. Now, maybe the community is just not ready for him to return. But I ask, genuinely - what would it take for him to return? Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

People with Kumioko's personality traits can be very persuasive when they need to be. You have been, I'm afraid, taken in. Nothing about him has changed in the least. BMK (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really happy with your attempt to define a person's psychological makeup and predict his future behavior when the only evidence you have are the words typed on one website. Then again, people with your personality traits tend to do that a lot, and you will never change. (Note to the humor impaired: that last bit was a bit of good-natured kidding among friends, not a serious comment about BMK.) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite a few editors have been subjected to WP:ACDS for doing precisely that. WP is not the place for ad homimen attempts at amateur psychiatry. As a matter of policy we're expected to AGF about mea culpas of this sort, and they're listed among the things that are most likely to get the ocmmunity to consider un-blocks, un-bans, second RfAs and other rehabilitation matters. It's a WP:TIGER/WP:ROPE matter. If after all of the above, Reguyla comes back and goes right back into the screw-all-admin and WP-process-can-go-F-itself antics, the stripes are shown and the rope drawn tight.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If Reguyla can stay away from Wikipedia (no socks, no emails, no ip evasions) for the length of his community ban? I would support his reinstatement. He must show restraint. GoodDay (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Over the past 6 years observing the community's moods and whims, it is actually very unlikely anyone ending up in similar situations can be redeemed, regardless of what they do. I cannot think of any single instance where prominent users subjected to a ban have come back and stayed on for the long term. Every single editor who tried is under constant scrutiny, and their past thrown in their face whenever it is convenient for someone disagreeing with them. Old opponents do not drop their grudges, ever, and bury the returning users under reports over the slightest missteps. Eventually, even the most patient editors snap - and those who were arbcom or community banned before tend to not be the most patient editors in the first place. So to answer the question, no, I don't think Regulya can be redeemed, because Wikipedia is not a forgiving community. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm one of the redeemed. It's true about the scrutiny, the past being thrown in one's face etc. That's happened to me almost every time, when in content dispute discussions. GoodDay (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A new clean start after the present block expires is probably the best bet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would support a return to editing if he respects the community's above decision and doesn't sock for a while ... six months would do it for me. Clearly he loves this project. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

He perhaps could be. I've had numerous interactions with Reguyla on IRC, many of which have resulted in my banning him from channels. He's definitely engaged in harassment and disruption to the point where I consider whether he'd ever be welcome back in the community. I never expected that Reguyla would think I was on his side after our interactions; I think he may have mistaken my willingness to post his comments as a form of support for his position. That said, if he's willing to take a year off from participating on Wikipedia (including socking, no matter how much net benefit he thinks he's making) and decides that he is willing to consider that perhaps not everyone is out to get him, I'd consider allowing him to return. That said, this has not been a promising return (in all stages: before the unblock, after the unblock, and after the reblock), so I think Reguyla would have to make a considerable effort to regain the trust of the community in order to return successfully. His continued threats to sock do not qualify, regardless how righteous he may think they are. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Continued threats to sock? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That was unclear, sorry. I was referring to the socking he's been doing over the past year or so, not claiming that he's been threatening to sock during this whole process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Redeemed? This is not a soul in danger of eternal damnation in the fires of hell if we don't do something, and we are not Saint Good Faith performing miracles. Could R return to editing? In theory, yes, anytime they choose: see Quiet Return. In practice, of course not, because for many years it hasn't been about improving the encyclopedia, it's been about Reguyla improving the encyclopedia.

For example, seven years ago, an editor asked for help at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive151#Am_I_being_blacklisted; Reguyla's response [52] was: I doubt that you are being blacklisted, in addition to the absence of SatyrTN I have noticed a sharp decline in several areas of WP including edits in general. It seems that people just aren't participating as much lately. I for one have drastically reduced the amount of time I spend editing and creating articles because my RFA and other RFA's have shown me that the general feeling within the established community seems to be that participating in wikispace and non article pages are more important when striving to become an admin and get the mop. So although I no longer desire the admin bit the unnecessary buearocracy and drama that has been prevailing on WP of late also caused me a lack of edit-drive and thus reduced editing. Perhaps others have the same feelings. Good Luck.--Kumioko (talk) 3:47 pm, 19 June 2008, Thursday (7 years, 3 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−4) (emphasis mine)

The GW transcribed comments in green above, all essentially WP:NOTTHEM variants continue the pattern. That fact that attempting to frame this as something plausible required cherry picking and recasting Reguyla's actual comments is an indication of how little substance there really is here.

I don't know if Reguyla lies, because I don't know if his falsehoods are intentionally deceptive or simply misrememories, but he certainly prevaricates. For example the statement about A small group of people kept resubmitting ban requests till they got what they wanted. is to the best of my recollection simply untrue. I submitted the single, successful ban request and I'm pretty sure I opposed banning in discussions before that.

"Redemption" is a meaningless red herring; the relevant question is whether it is worth the continued expenditure of volunteer hours to pursue this. And the answer is obviously no. NE Ent 12:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reguyla has certainly talked the talk about understanding the reasons for his bans and how much he wants to focus on writing great encyclopedia articles. Then a moment later he's deliberately stirring up drama in such a way as to get re-blocked. That suggests to me that there is a very big gap indeed between his perceptions and reality, and that while he can use the right words to persuade people he's changing course, that doesn't reflect any actual ability to do so. It's against my nature to say "never" but I think this behaviour is very very unlikely to change. The Land (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Worm That Turned, let's just start with your first excerpt: I said made that statement last year that you link too and I said a lot of other things in anger back then but I never did any vandalism other than some talk page comments that although not vandalism were certainly unnecessary and unkind [my bolding]. You have characterised this as "Acceptance that he did wrong". Now take a look at the spate of BLP vandalism he indulged in on March 3. 2014, the most egregious of which was this followed shortly thereafter by this comment. Here's a further example of deliberately introducing false information by another of his socks a month later. Less harmful, but still vandalism to article space was to remove the featured list icon from multiple articles by yet another of his socks [53]. And as for lying not being "his style", just read User talk:ShmuckatellieJoe from start to sordid finish, he's been at it since 2012. And was he was still at it two months ago.

There is nothing in any of the remaining quotes that demonstrates anything but a determination to prevaricate and dissimulate so that he can continue expressing his unabated contempt not only for the people he thinks have wronged him but also for those who have tried to help him. The only way he could be "redeemed" as far as I can see, is for him to break the cycle of obsession, lies and abuse of trust for which he and he alone is responsible. He needs to stay away for one year, with no socking ("good" or bad) and come back with a pledge to edit productively and constructively with no excuses or justifications for what he did before. If he is unwilling to do that, well, no, he can't be "redeemed". If he is willing, well maybe. But there are no shortcuts. Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, I agree with NE Ent that "redemption" is a meaningless red herring here. Applying a concept like that to his destructive and self-centered shenanigans simply glorifies them and is truly inappropriate. The repentant sinner dialogue above means nothing. Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I, too, agree with NE Ent's comment above. BMK (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

[Worm] and Dennis put their reputations on the line with this unblock and I let them down with that comment that I felt was minor and didn't think that anyone would really give a shit about one comment on my talk page that anyone could ignore. I was wrong. This perfectly illustrates the issue. He wasn't blocked for that one comment but a subsequent one. He seems remarkably self-unaware or is incapable of understanding that "don't do that" means "don't do that". How can a person change if they honestly feel what they're doing is going to be accepted? I ask as someone who has never participated in Regulya's RFAs or the block/ban discussions surrounding him but has cleaned up some of his socking disruption as a routine course of action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In my humble opinion those seeking to limit reconsideration of this ban from the community are exceeding their authority. Consensus can change, and we cannot come to a consensus now that cannot be overridden by consenus later. If the community has a miraculous change of heart later it can of course change it's mind.

That being said I find it unlikely to happen. Even if this user can be redeemed I don't think it is reasonable for the community to spend more time than it has already dealing with this, we are not therapy.

This person is an expert sockpuppet and if they really wanted to come back and contribute without disruption we probably would not notice. We notice their sock puppets because they always mention how unfair his block was and how corrupt the admin core is. We notice them because he uses them to engage in extortion and to abuse our editors. We don't notice his sock puppets because we recognize his valuable contributions. This guy has at least one way back, just don't be disruptive with their next sock puppet. HighInBC 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think if someone with a similar writing style who wrote extensively about Medal of Honor recipients showed up today, he would be banned by approximately tomorrow, even if his manners were impeccable. Everyking (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and therein lies the rub. Our current process is counterproductive in this regard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That this section is being proposed while we are debating the CBAN proposal smacks of deliberately creating an alternate proposal to water down any concluding consensus. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely normal in any RfC-like process to introduce alt. proposals. Why should this page be different? They usually are ignored, but fairly often they turn out to be the better option.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Worm I must say your comment If you want to believe he's lying through his teeth, that's fine, but that's never been his style is a little shocking. There is an abundance of evidence clearly available that shows lying through his teeth is very much his style and has been for years. This person is an expert liar who will say pretty much anything to get their ban removed. Are you reading the various diffs being posted? Do you remember a couple of days ago when he said he would follow your restrictions then immediately did not? HighInBC 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, Worm's impression is not surprising. Kumioko/Reguyla had so many socks that what he has actually got up to over the years has not always been formally documented in SPIs etc. RBI has its merits, but in cases like this, it's sometimes very counterproductive. Finding the chicanery and lies is often down to chance. I first encountered him when as an IP he interfered in a very unconstructive way with a very distraught user in a very fraught AfD for the user's autobiography. I followed various links, soon figured out what was going on, and caught Kumioko/Reguyla in another blatant lie here. This is one of the reasons that I found Dennis Brown's comments here so distasteful, stating that those of us who knew what was going on were simply a mob with pitchforks while he allegedly had the full picture but his "knowledge" was too complicated for him to explain to us peons. I'm an ordinary editor, not an admin, and I confess that I find sockpuppetry absolutely loathsome, worse even than incivility. It completely destroys trust amongst editors and the collegiality that makes Wikipedia work, and in this case led to Worm falling for Kumioko's lies hook line and sinker. I very much doubt that Kumioko/Reguyla feels any remorse whatsoever for that. Voceditenore (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is supposed to be about Reguyla/Kumioko's behaviour and the ways to face it. But we can see several attempts by User:Worm_That_Turned to derail this procedure and turn it into an evaluation of the behaviour of the unblocking admin. Before the unblock, this admin was rock-solid sure to know, better than anyone else, how to deal with the Reguyla/Kumioko's behaviour. Now, we are after the cristal-clear failure of this experiment. Nevertheless, User:Worm_That_Turned ensures assures us that the unblocking admin has not changed his mind and remains, as of now, convinced to know better than anyone how to redeem the lost souls. How to address such a situation ? Pldx1 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I am having trouble parsing your comment. You mention Worm and "the unblocking admin" as though they are two people. Worm was the unblocking admin, who did you mean? HighInBC 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

To me Pldx1's meaning was quite clear: Worm = the unblocking admin. Sort of like Venus and "morning star". Voceditenore (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are right. I was thrown off by the User:Worm_That_Turned ensures[sic: read assures] us that the unblocking admin part which seemed to treat them like two people. Assuming that was just a language problem you are right it is clear. HighInBC 22:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Voceditenore and HighInBC are right to assume that my ensures was in fact an assures. Previous message modified accordingly. Pldx1 (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Venus = Morning Star? [Citation Needed] --Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reguyla/Kumioko's sockpuppets

I'd like to request that, without prejudice to former good-faith decisions made via email, all of the currently known Reguyla/Kumioko sockpuppets be publicly revealed, blocked, and categorized, and an SPI thread opened/started regarding them, so that (unkown and/or) future socks could likewise be compiled and categorized as such. It appears that at least two admins currently know of existing socks. I'd also like to request that, going forward, if any admin becomes aware of any user's sockpuppets, block-evading or otherwise, that they report and block the socks, regardless of the circumstances or rationale. Thanks, and no prejudice regarding past actions or decisions made in good faith. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? Actually, no, bad idea. We're supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, and if there's a quiescent sock that's not disrupting anything, what possible value is there classifying / categorizing / making a fuss about it? Building a shrine to disruption essentially ends up glorifying it. And the 2015 Wiki award to the editor with the most socks goes to ... NE Ent 10:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This is tantamount to saying that some editors get to evade blocks, and some don't; some editors get to sockpuppet, and some don't; some editors get to violate policy, and some don't; some editors get to violate policy repeatedly without the least bit of sanction, and some don't. How is this even a matter of consideration or debate? Policy is clear, and I don't see any policy that exempts anyone from policy. If I'm mistaken, and editors are now allowed to evade blocks and/or sockpuppet, please let me know where that policy is located. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, there is one good reason not to do this and one jaw-droppingly bad one. You cited the jaw-droppingly bad one. We don't have the concept of being a little bit banned, and the entire point here is that Reguyla has to show that he can actually not violate policy for six months, which is not a big ask given how determinedly he has done so in the past.

The good reason for not doing it is that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by rubbing his nose in his own mess, other than to provoke more of the same. Looking at your input to and evident delight in exploiting the various drama venues, I wonder if perhaps that wasn't your plan here, but if so it is not a good plan. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

'Actually a good idea I can't go into details, it would more than just slightly stray into WP:BEANS territory, but yes, it would be a good idea except for IP's, since CU's never link IP's with named accounts. KoshVorlon 15:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, for what feels like the thousandth time, please stop making comments about things you don't understand, as it only confuses other people reading your comments who don't know to disregard them. CU's never link IP's with named accounts is flat-out untrue, as a glance at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kumioko (linked repeatedly in this thread) would have shown you. The relevant part of the CU policy is "Unless someone is violating policy with their actions (e.g. massive bot vandalism or spam) and revealing information about them is necessary to stop the disruption, it is a violation of the privacy policy to reveal their IP" (my emphasis); noting the IP ranges of known sockpuppeteers is fairly routine. What exactly did you think the {{IPsock}} template was for? ‑ iridescent 16:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a good reason for comprehensive cataloging of sockpuppets in the cases at WP:Long term abuse. It serves as an institutional memory rather than depending on the memories of individual editors who come and go. It also makes identifying new cases faster and easier as it establishes an evidence chain. In some of those cases, the checkuser data on the original and earlier sock accounts is usually stale and/or destroyed. However, as bad as it was at its height, I don't think Kumioko's disruption rises to the level found at LTA (yet).

Having said that, the quantity of socks he used made it difficult to verify some of the claims made in this discussion, e.g. that none of his socks had vandalised articles, when several clearly had or that none of his socks had lied about who they were, when at least two of them had. For example, neither User:ShmuckatellieJoe nor User:RingofSauron appear in an SPI or in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kumioko, although the former does appear in this 2012 ANI report. The latter I found by chance. He was using it right up until it was checkuser blocked 6 weeks ago. Like ShmuckatellieJoe, RingofSauron also tried to pass himself off as a new user [54]. He edited undetected (but without vandalism) for 3 weeks, including !voting in one RfA and one RfC. So you pays yer money and you takes yer chance. By the way, I presume WTT was aware of that latest sock when the "comeback deal" was worked out? If not, well, not good. Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And the block-evasion editing continues. See the "Immediate unblock needed" section of the current revision of WP:ANI — yesterday, I made a kind-of-emergency request for help because I'd unintentionally autoblocked the Wikiconference USA, and I wasn't clear how to lift the autoblock, so I made a request at WP:ANI saying "someone please fix this problem". Someone using a pair of IPs jumped in to insert comments about why I shouldn't lift the block, why the First Amendment to the US Constitution should influence our (un)blocking decisions, etc.; you'll note that the same person using the same IP jumped into the Kumioko situation to say why he shouldn't be blocked. Nobody else would add such a comment to his talk page. You can see the whole discussion in the collapsed box right here. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Keep blocked. Maybe Jimbo should learn a bit about what it feels like to have your first amendment rights taken away without due process. 166.170.45.93 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Ooh, edgy. Did you forget the First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities? clpo13(talk) 23:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) This is not a request for a block review; this is a request to fix a technical problem. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC) The First Amendment can apply here, and whether or not it's a block review, it's a block that shouldn't be overturned. 166.171.121.70 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Oh, dear. I hope you've left plenty of time to cram before your Constitutional Law final. Pruneyard arises under California's constitution, not the US Constitution (except secondarily). Good try, though, smartypants. EEng (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If folks start spilling the beans in public when they promised confidentiality, how would anyone ever be able to trust them with this sort of information again? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

I agree that if an admin has promised confidentiality, they shouldn't "spill the beans". However, it doesn't stop others who discover the socking from bringing an SPI if they think it's worthwhile. Even so, if a serial and highly disruptive socker is asking for a new start and unblocking, and is expecting everyone to take it on faith that they have no intention of ever socking again, I would have thought that he/she would want to make a clean breast of things. As of 6 weeks ago, RingofSauron/Reguyla vowed on being blocked: "I can create new accounts forever and I will continue to edit positively forever.". The attitude of unblock me or I'll just keep on socking is hardly indicative of "redemption", is it? I've seen nothing in Reguyla's voluminous comments above which indicates that he no longer has that attitude. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"People have stated I had multiple chances, but I have never been given a chance." That's from above. That is his attitude, and it always will be. He is right and we are wrong. Why is this such a difficult decision? Square peg, round hole. Does not fit! Doc talk 07:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Arbitration Committee comment regarding community ban of Reguyla

The Arbitration Committee notes the community discussion above. If the proposal is enacted, an appeal from Reguyla will be heard by the whole Committee (not just the appeals sub-committee) without requiring prior appeals on-wiki (using the {{unblock}} template or otherwise) or to UTRS. If any appeal by Regulya is declined, they may not appeal again within 12 months, or any longer interval the Committee communicates to them. Any appeal should be sent by email to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf Does "will be heard" mean "will only be heard"? NE Ent 00:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Committee will not require a prior appeal on wiki or to UTRS. Whether an appeal to those venues is permitted is a matter for the community. Speaking personally, it is my understanding that if this proposed ban is enacted then they would not be permitted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not the case, per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Appeals_and_discussions, "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community," and a decision by AN community Oct 2015 cannot bind a future AN community. NE Ent 01:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If this proposal is enacted, the conditions of this proposal will apply - i.e. appeal only to the arbitration committee. A future consensus at AN may altar the or remove the conditions of the ban, but the conditions imposed here would apply until that point. A community proposal for a community ban will not result in an arbitration committee block. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the whole committee vs BASC, then yes the appeal will only be heard by the full committee; however in practical terms an appeal sent to BASC would just be passed to the whole committee internally and would not be rejected only for that reason. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This section is not intended for discussion, any comments that are not clarification requests or responses to clarification requests by an arbitrator may be removed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Typo in Arbitration motion regarding that couldn't be discussed on clerk's talk page

Original announcement

Miniapolis Not sure where this link was supposed to take me

[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control|Gun control amendment]]

I replaced it with

[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Gun control amendment|Gun control amendment]]

You may wish to change any other similar messages.

HTH.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Thanks very much, Rich; the only other posting is at WP:AC/N, and I've fixed that. Guess it's obvious I'm new to this :-). Miniapolis 21:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Still were not correct. Fixed now. BMK (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Procedural question - Can an identical edit be made to hundreds of articles with no discussion or consensus?

I think we're done here. --Jayron32 23:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

This discussion was started at WikiProject Politics, which stemmed from two threads at the Help Desk.[55][56] In short, an editor unilaterally made a contentious change to a date in hundreds of political articles without ever starting a discussion. So my question is very simple and is about the process, not the editor: Is someone allowed to make a contentious edit to a very large number of articles without getting consensus? If not, should the edtior be required to revert himself until the matter has been resolved? Czoal (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, editors should "be bold" if they think that something is going to be uncontroversial. If it does later turn out to be controversial, they should stop and garner consensus before continuing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

Concur with Lankiveil. If we all had to ask for "permission" first before doing something that someone somewhere might disagree with, WP would consist of a single blank page. BRD is an an essay describing an optional process that it self-describes as useful for some editors some of the time. It was pretty recently savaged in WP:VPPRO when someone proposed elevating it to guideline status, and it is frequently abused for patent WP:FILIBUSTERing. While most of us agree to use that methodology, when we think a revert has potentially rational reasons and a discussion could be warranted, it's not a policy violation to decline. As OlEnglish notes below, unless the attempts at improvement were obviously actually controversial (and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a real controversy), its better to initiate discussion than revert. BRD is basically a last resort. Assume on WP:AGF that changes are intended well and as an improvement. If we assumed that repetitive changes across multiple pages were a problem, categorically, WP:AWB would not exist. If someone is generally using AWB or other mass-edits to do something against a clearly established WP:Consensus that has not changed, or it doing it in clearly disruptive ways, lodge a complaint about it at WP:ANI, and expect drama. It is not WP:FAITACCOMPLI to use ABW to make a bunch of trivially complex changes that are just a trivial to undo to with an equal-but-opposite AWB run. Fait accompli involves shaping content to fit an editorial agenda with the intent or effect of pre-emptively short-circuiting consensus formation, in a way that is hard to back the encyclopedia out of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD the matter should get resolved first, before making any other reverts. See also Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Avoiding or limiting your reverts -- œ^™ 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal: @Lankviel: @OlEnglish: My apologies for only spotting this thread now.

On the procedural issue, the "fait accompli principle" adopted in several ArbCom decisions reflects that "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." (See, for example, here.)

On the substantive issue, although this issue is a perennial challenge and I have largely given up fighting it, March 4 is unambiguously the correct answer. See the evidence I provided here in 2006. I will cross-post that link in the project-page thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't seen yet any of the "hundreds of articles", could you post a link to a few, USER:Czoal? Fact is that thousands of congress bios were originally imported by User:Polbot (a bot) from the Congressional Biographical Directory which states March 3 as the end of term until 1933. Anything that was changed later (while cleaning up) to march 4, was done without consensus, and contrary to the sources. There were some discussions started by editors who think that the term ended March 4, none of which were formally closed, and all of which ended inconclusive. The present discussion, linked by the OP will have the same fate. The reason is simple: the issue had become controversial in real life (to clarify the point, the XX amendment was enacted) and debaters always mix up "term" and "session" and mix up events of 1791 with events of 1917 and then start generalizing. Obviously one can't do that, WP:OR is forbidden under WikiPolicy. I suggest some other sort of dispute resolution, since the RfC model has failed, so far, in this case. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: I agree some sort of dispute resolution seems warranted. While March 4 is unambiguously a date when some presidents signed legislation, and the Senate sometimes met, as @Newyorkbrad: has demonstrated, --- March 3 is unambiguously the end of Members of Congress terms of office, by law, as reported by the House and Senate History Offices contributing to the Congressional Biographical Directory, and not disputed elsewhere.

There seems to be continuing confusion as to the nature of the Senate's character as a “continuing body”; a quorum is assumed unless called for and it fails for the morning business. On any given March 4, two-thirds of the Senate (more than a quorum) are still in the midst of their individual terms of office, though one third has ended a term that March 3 --- so they may still be in session as a continuing body. The Senate is occasionally noted as having a Special Session of “one day only”, March 4. But I could not find a citation in Newyorkbrad’s references to the House extending a session to March 4, — was it the exigencies of wartime? Were there any objections? How many Members of Congress terms were not then March 3 in those Congresses of exception which is the default date for info box terms of office? In any case, such exceptions for some few do not justify making a blanket change for all Members' terms of office with contrary sources pointing to their individual terms ending March 3 as was customarily done by law throughout U.S. history until Constitutional Amendment to January 3. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The substantive discussion really ought to continue on the project talkpage and not here; and I will return to that discussion when I have some more time. In the interim, though, I have to say that I despair: in my extended contribution on that page, quoting myself from as far back as 2006, I quoted verbatim an instance where both the outgoing House and the outgoing Senate were still in session on March 4 straight until 12:00 noon, whereupon the Speaker of the House and the presiding Senator interrupted the Member who had the floor to announce that the constitutionally mandated end of the session had arrived. There may possibly have been some dispute as to the end of the term in the early 19th century, but not all that much, and not afterwards. The Congressional historian's office, albeit in a personal communication with me, has explained that March 3 in the early directories should not be followed and is being corrected; that said, those entries provide an explanation of why March 3 dates appear in many articles, but they cannot outweigh the evidence that if one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year when the body was in session, the Members sitting belonged to the outgoing body and not the new one, a fact that to me is virtually dispositive. And the suggestion that Representatives' and Senators' terms might have ended at different terms, makes no sense at all. To be continued, I suppose.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RE "if one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year when the body was in session, the Members sitting belonged to the outgoing body and not the new one" that's a fallacious argument, like asking "If you beat your wife, then did you beat your wife or did you beat somebody else's wife?" The question assumes that you beat your wife, and obviously it brings the answer along. The real question is "If one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year, was there anybody sitting?" and "If at that time the body was in session, did they have the legal right to sit?" Kraxler (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeepers, I didn't realize this dispute was still ongoing. FWIW, we should use March 4 :) GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: There is nothing dispositive about an assumption that Senators with six year terms all end at the same time every two years in odd numbered years when terms of U.S. Senators are staggered into class 1, class 2, and class 3, each separated by two years. At no time do all members of the Senate cease to hold office.

No one in the Congressional historian’s office has communicated the end of the Senate's staggered terms. You are mistaken. For instance, in your home state of New York, every six years in even numbered years, there is no election for a U.S. Senator, because each state has only two Senators, each with a term of six years.

New York Senators are Class 1 (Gillibrand re-elected 2012, next election 2018) and Class 3 (Schumer re-elected 2010, next election 2016). There was no Senate election for class 2 for New York in 2014, nor will there be in 2020. For every state to have a U.S. Senate 6-year term election every two years for six years, there would have to be three Senators for each state, and that makes no sense at all. See List of United States Senators from New York for a graphic display. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For goodness' sake. Given the content of my contributions to this and other discussions over the past nine years, you may take it that I know how many senators there are. In the words of King Arthur addressing the French taunter, "Is there someone else up there I can talk to?" Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Newyorkbrad: 1) The House and the Senate meet in separate chambers at the opposite side of the United States Capitol Building. You said, "as far back as 2006, I quoted verbatim an instance where both the outgoing House and the outgoing Senate were still in session on March 4 straight until 12:00 noon, whereupon the Speaker of the House and the presiding Senator interrupted the Member who had the floor to announce that the constitutionally mandated end of the session had arrived." I read your link to 2006 and I could find no such Congress, or I would have double checked sources myself. Joint Sessions are held on ceremonial occasions. It may be you misremember, or you mean to represent the counting of electoral votes for presidential elections for a new president as old business at List of joint sessions of the United States Congress, which does not bear on the end of an individual’s term as you propose.

2) You presume that all Senators terms end on the same day, they do not. You said, "the evidence that if one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year when the body was in session, the Members sitting belonged to the outgoing body and not the new one, a fact that to me is virtually dispositive." There is nothing here dispostive other than March 3 across class 1,2,3 terms in the Senate and for all Representatives in odd numbered years. It may be your imagination ends six year terms every two years together, but it is Congressional sessions of the House which end at the end of the Representatives terms on March 3. You may distinguish between end of an individual's term and the end of a Congressional session.

3) It would be anachronistic to now change the standing historical record of Sessions ending March 3 and arbitrarily make them March 4 to conform with the noon-to-noon Constitutional Amendment. At House History webpage [57] we have the account of correcting a misappropriation of $3 millions, corrected on June 30, 1906, extending the end of a First Session, not at the end of Representative’s terms. That’s it — by search on the House Historian’s website for March 4 end of sessions which you said was to be changed post haste in 2006. You were clearly mislead, see [58] viewed October 14, 2015. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question, again Where are the hundreds of articles, referred to by the OP? Give me a link. Are we discussing here some ghost issue? Kraxler (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(question for Czoal) Who's the individual that made the numerious changes, btw? GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: You have again made a number of errors. The House and Senate were sitting separately on the morning of March 4, 1917, right until 12:00 noon; I described the situation and quoted from the Congressional Record extensively on the project talkpage. Just as I know how many senators each state has, I know where the Senate and House Chambers are located, and your continuing assumptions that I have an advanced level of cluelessness are becoming a serious problem. You are also confusing the ending date of a session (which is whatever date the House and Senate voted to adjourn sine die) with the ending date of the term of Congress (which is the date on which the Members cease to be Members, regardless of whether the House and/or Senate are in session on that date). Again, this can be continued on the project talkpage, and I am torn as to whether I should expend much further effort regarding it, but please don't gratuitiously insult my intelligence any more if you can help it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Brad, AN is not a content dispute place. ApparentlyUser:Czoal asked a question and then abandoned this thread. No answer to my question. So we don't even know what his question was about. Who changed what and when. I propose to close this thread, which had been bot-archived already. You all, please, continue the content discussion at the Project Politics thread. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that this thread can be closed, at least from my point of view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question, yet again Where are the hundreds of articles, referred to by the OP? Give me a link. Are we discussing here some ghost issue? Kraxler (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(response to Czoal) FWIW, on about 3 occassions over the years, I've attempted to change the dates, when I came across congressional bios pre-1935. I was usually reverted. Therefore, in answer to your question, I'm guessing that it's not alright to make across the board identitcal changes. Atleast it's not alright, without a consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Abusive Redirect

Sock has been blocked by Bbb23. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

The page Sindhu Bhairavi is constantly redirected to the page Uttaran by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. So please rectify this problem and protect Sindhu Bhairavi (TV series) from being redirected again.Devmahatma (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The page is being redirected because it is a non notable language dub of a show that has not established that the original is notable. Any admin action should be to lock the redirect to prevent the nonsense recreation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a content fork to me. There's some stuff worth moving over to the original article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Not the eye-blinding colors though --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Speedy deletion request (CSD tags don't work)

Thanks to User:zzuuzz for cleaning this up. --ais523 08:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Please could somebody delete MediaWiki:Undeleteextrahelp/enCA under WP:CSD#G8?

The situation is that the page was created at the wrong title (it should end "en-CA" or it won't serve its technical function), and was renamed on my request. I've since tried to get the redirect speedied (on the basis that redirects in MediaWiki:-space doesn't work), and admins have agreed with me, but because I put the speedy tag on the talk page (I can't put it on the interface page itself for obvious reasons), the talk page got deleted, which isn't very useful.

Because the "standard" CSD tagging method isn't really working in this situation, I decided to ask over at AN instead. So here I am. --ais523 07:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and just as a note, ensure you delete the redirect itself, not its target. The software might not follow redirects in MediaWiki:-space, but clicking on links to them will still take you to the redirect target. --ais523 07:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

I.P User claiming to be Colton Cosmic

Sock has been put back in the drawer. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

This | user claims he's Colton Cosmic, it may be and then again, it may not be, however, on the off chance that it's him, he's banned and as such , it might be a good idea to block this IP address. Even if he isn't , he's definitely a past user, who I don't know. Just a heads up ! KoshVorlon 18:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked it. Elockid^(BOO!) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Request article rename

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to request that the article Hoteling (office) be moved to simply Hoteling. I believe this is an uncontroversial change, since there is no other term competing for this name. I explained this in a little more depth on the talk page (and also disclosed my employer there). I am happy to fix double redirects after the rename. -HeyBoogie (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RM will walk you through the process on how to do that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial. I just did it for them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to move it before my above post but it wouldn't let me for some reason. Ah, well. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

@Erpert: the target page had two edits to it so it needed an admin to delete it before the move could be made. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking of T Mobil IP's for a long time (several months)??????

I have noticed over the past month or two or more that IP's starting with 172 have been blocked. A message pops up when trying to edit saying all 172. IP's are blocked until December. This is preventing thousands of editors who use tablets, smart phones, etc. I tried to create an account and that was blocked as well. It absurd to block millions of T Mobil users. I guess Wikipedia is becoming a more exclusive club. Remember exclusive means less relevant and if it becomes to exclusive it becomes endangered. 208.54.38.175 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to give us more information - specifically what does the block message say. Looking down the Range block database for blocking starting 172 and ending in December 2015, I see 172.56.0.0/18 by @Materialscientist: which says "Long-term abuse, WP:BLP violations". It looks like you've experienced collateral damage, and as long as Wikipedia is available for anyone to edit anonymously, this situation will remain. If you have an account, you should have enough information to post an unblock request on your talk page, which can be reviewed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please read post again.208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Use {{Unblock}} on the account talk page, and simply say you're caught in a range block for the reason. NE Ent 11:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting original user: "I tried to create an account and that was blocked as well."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And without knowledge of which account this is, there's nothing we can do about it. For all I know, the disruptive user in question is the one who reported it; even if not, the block may be justified for other reasons. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

How many IP's does the 172.56.0.0/18 block hit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It effects all American T mobile users which effects millions of people. I am unaware if it effects Canadian users as well but I believe it does. Why is it blocked for so long? As far as I can tell reading the myriad of bureaucratic rules this violates policy concerning broad long term range blocks. It appears this type of block is already sufficiently covered and recommended against. Additionally account creation is blocked as well. Why would anyone completely block millions of T Mobile users?208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The block 172.56.0.0/18 (like any /18) hits 16,384 IPs. This is Not all of T-Mobile, as they also use the ranges shown here (10,649,856 addresses total). The blocking admin (User:Callanecc) may be interested in contributing to this discussion. I will notify -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is Callanecc. His block is superseded by block #1586 by Materialscientist. The other 172.xxx blocks belong to Elockid who is having the more dramatic impact. I'm sure they have their reasons.

• 494 172.246.0.0/16 16 Elockid
• 826 172.255.0.0/16 16 Elockid
• 1701 172.56.8.0/23 23 Callanecc
• 1729 172.86.176.0/21 21 Elockid
• 1586 172.56.0.0/18 18 Materialscientist

We haven't been getting bombarded with unblock requests so the IP can simmer down...it isn't as they describe.:
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've blocked the 208.xxx IP as a sock. The account, User:Davidromano67 is one of his...based on the way that account looks in editing history there are probably more. I would leave all the range blocks in place...looks like it is having an effect on some of them. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Range block database appears to be wrong, which is consistent with Wikipedia:Database reports saying "many database reports are consequently broken. The actual record can be viewed at [59]; (note: I wasn't smart enough to figure that out myself, but I was smart enough to ask Diannaa on their talk page.) NE Ent 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NE Ent. It has the appearance that Callanecc only modified Material's pre-existing block without changing anything just so he could get the "<!-- ACC ignore -->" comment in there so that (guessing) the audit subcommittee or whatever audit group doesn't screw up and undo it. :) Forget it, 208.xxx, it isn't going to happen no matter how much you wikilawyer.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"<!-- ACC ignore -->" is so that users who create accounts at WP:ACC don't defer the request to CheckUsers. Regarding the blocks, there are heaps and heaps of hits in the CheckUser log indicating that there are many sockpuppeteers using these ranges so they are unlikely to be unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

172.255.0.0/16 and 172.244.0.0/16 are not allocated to T-mobile. Both those companies are webhosts. Elockid^(Boo!) 13:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to end enforced wikibreak.

Hey! Can an admin please edit User:Brustopher/common.js to end the enforced wikibreak on my main account? My exams finished far earlier than I expected when I set it. Thank you in advance. Bosstopher2 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Please consider updating the link on your userpage. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

History merge needed for areas of Armenia

Resolved: all done. Graham87 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A minor case of an improper move has occurred:

1. Protected areas of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is the original title, created December 2009, but is now a redirect to #3.
2. List of national parks of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a redirect to #3 but has the original page history.
3. List of protected areas of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is now the article, without the original contributors in the history.

I raised this at User talk:Spetsnaz1991#Copy/paste move but the editor has done a few more edits without responding, and it would be better if the issue could be fixed before anyone else edits the article. Would someone history merge #2 into #3 please. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: All fixed. Graham87 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Attention needed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999

1. I fear that sockmaster and sockpuppet are using TL;DR to disrupt and confuse.
2. By posting WP:WALLOFTEXT responses at the sock investigation -- they are trying to (unfortunately) decrease the likelihood anyone will take action on this.
3. The numerous WP:WALLOFTEXT posts all over Wikipedia can be seen as disruption, in and of itself.
4. Please evaluate this original evidence on its merits -- and decide to take action, or not, based upon the evidence.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Also would appreciate action on behavioral evidence provided by myself and by DGG, at case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Zeke1999 blocked. The other is more complex, I encourage other admins to look into it in detail. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much! Action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000 would be most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with a change please?!

Resolved

HI, Hoping you can help me with a change please to the external link on the Hotel Saskatchewan page.

Marriott International has taken this over from Radisson and the external weblink needs to be : http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/yqrak-the-hotel-saskatchewan/ are you able to assist me please?

Sorry for the trouble, this is my first foray into editing, I did most of the other content on my own successfully!

Thank you,

Jennifer Worden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jword850 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made the change you were looking for. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Socking disruption of GA process, request admin attention please

Both blocked by JzG. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Admins,

WP:DUCK case:

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

Socking disruption of WP:GA process, request admin attention please.

Thank you for your attention and action on this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing "extra" is going to be done here. The SPI is at SPI, and there's no reason to open an additional report here at AN. Doc talk 12:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Added notice here as SPI appears to be backlogged these days and we have ongoing disruption of our Good Article Nomination processes, in addition to Featured List nominations disruption there, as well. — Cirt (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

User:eeekster keeps tagging self-created photographs with speedy deletion notices, and I think he's harassing other editors

Duplication of a thread on AN/I, as originally cited by Beyond My Ken. As I had already responded earlier there, and it was the first thread opened, let's keep the discussion contiguous. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I stitched two snapshots of myself (yeah they're on FB but I don't really consider that "published") into a single picture (I own the copyright to both of them) that I could use for hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female), but User:eeekster keeps posting generic "no proof of attribution" templates on my page and on my uploaded files. What do I have to do to prove the images are mine? I am tired of this harassment (these photos weren't taken with a DSLR) and I would really like this issue resolved quickly. Thanks. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

But we do consider that to be publishing and require the OTRS procedure. Eeekster (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not a prominent, notable figure. Furthermore, where did you find my image that suggests I am not the copyright author? I believe that declaration of "own work" is all that is necessary. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history I am suspecting that similar harassment is occurring to other editors as well. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This thread is a duplication of this one on AN/I. I NAC'd it on that basis, but the OP reverted the close. BMK (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thus WP:FORUMSHOPPING needs to be added to the things that Yanping Nora Soong should read before proceeding further. Oh and not a single shred of evidence has been presented of harassment by Eeekster so the title of this header needs changing. MarnetteD|Talk 02:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Request of independent evaluation of my actions in Anna Politkovskaya

• Related discussion at BLPN, filed before this discussion began. BMK (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NO FURTHER ADMIN ACTION REQUIRED:

Consensus seems to be: block was fine, unblock was fine, page is now unprotected; continuing discussion of the content can continue on the content forums (WP:BLPN Talk:Anna Politkovskaya). NE Ent 21:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Earlier today, I saw the request [60] at WP:RFPP to protect the article because of the edit-warring. I went to the history, checked that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) made eight reverts of the same material within an hour, and several other users reverted them back. I checked that BMK was under understanding that the material represents an unambiguous BLP violation, that they were aware of the fact that some user oppose qualification of this material as BLP violation, and that they were aware of the existance of 3RR. Then I blocked them for 72h, declining protection. There have been two topics about BMK at WP:ANI/EW, one about their edit-warring in this article, and another topic about their edit-warring in a different article which I did not even check [61]. Since I have already blocked BMK, I closed both topics. Eventually BMK filed an unblock request and was unblocked by Drmies (talk · contribs). I did not object to the unblock, though I refused to unblock BMK after they started bad-faith accusations against me. The discussion is at their talk page. Simultaneously, Sladen (talk · contribs), the filer of the RFPP request, asked me to take the issue to AN/ANI for independent review. Please note that I will be leaving to the airport in several hours and might be unable to participate in the initial stage of the discussion. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring against consensus sure. But where a (potential) BLP violation is not clear-cut, the appropriate place to take it is the BLP noticeboard, and the only two people to comment there (and I concur with them) do not think it is a violation. But that was after the block - you probably should have warned him before blocking (do this or I block you) to stop edit-warring and take it to the BLP noticeboard first rather than block straight off the bat. BMK knows how the process goes where BLP issues are not obvious/unambiguous - but also that is rather the point, it was quite clear that it was not an obvious BLP violation, and again BMK should have known when faced with multiple people who disagree with him that he needed to get further input. Basically sub-optimal from everyone all around.

Including Drmies, unblocking BMK who said they will not edit war further, then edit-protecting the page they were edit-warring on *in BMK's preferred version* is ridiculous. Since there was highly unlikely to be any further edit warring by BMK, why the need for protection? Given the consensus so far (excepting swarm) has been against BMK, it leaves Drmies open to accusations of favoritism. Blocked user gets unblocked after minimal time served AND gets their way at the article despite consensus against them. It basically justifies BMK's conduct and states to others that he can get away with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

See this on the last point. Doc talk 07:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You win my internal 'who is going to link wrong version first' lottery. Wrong version is for when a request for protection comes in and whichever admin responds to it protects the page to stop the edit war. In this case the edit war was clearly already over, BMK had said he was not going to re-start it, so protection was unnecessary. Its also not a defense for Drmies because he had clearly already taken a look at the dispute, seen that BMK was acting against consensus and protected it in BMK's preferred version anyway. Given that a request for page protection had already been declined, the only explanation I have is that Drmies thought the edit war was going to continue, like I said, sub-optimal from everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. What's the remedy? Doc talk 08:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Trout everyone. Unprotect page. Wait for BLP discussion to be resolved. Job done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The disputed content is highly questionable and borders on UNDUE / SYNTH / POV. However I do not regard that as a blatant BLP violation and should not have been relied on as an exemption from 3RR. In any case its removal was not so urgent and BMK could have left it to another editor to revert, discuss it on the talk page, or post at BLPN rather than edit war. As such I find Ymblanter's block entirely appropriate and the unblock premature and questionable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. The disputed content is backed up by over thirty highly reliable sources which can be found on the talk page. And it's "only" thirty because I got bored typing. Pretty much every single source on the topic covers this aspect. Note that BMK did not respond to this, and they also additionally stated that they were not interested in going to BLPN. Volunteer Marek  20:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So does BMK get re-blocked or what? If I had a dime for every time I saw an admin unblock an editor "prematurely" over another admin's authority... I'd have a shitload of dimes! Doc talk 08:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To make it clear, I do not contest (and I did not object) Drmies's unblock of BMK.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a re-block of BMK, but the page should be unprotected. Volunteer Marek  20:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Drmies unblocked BMK and protected the non-controversial version because BMK made an extremely cogent argument on his (BMK's) talk page for why the material should be excluded. (The argument was the main gist of his unblock request.) I personally was highly convinced by the cogent argument (see my comments as a TPS on that page after I read it). Having now looked at the article's talk page and the article itself a bit more, I'm a little more ambivalent about it. The material is still a conspiracy theory, but it's one that has popped up in the media several times, either to sell papers, or because journalists actually feel it has some merit, or both. I can't read Putin's mind or the murderer's mind, nor do I know all the ins and outs of Russian politics. I will say that the version of the material that BMK was reverting was highly inflammatory and completely conjectural in that the text of one of the footnotes stated that Putin rewarded the alleged person behind "gifting" Putin the murder on his birthday by making him President of the Chechen Republic, which is so wrongheaded for Wikipedia to print that I think anyone would agree that it's a double BLP-vio and could not stand without intervention. As to whether the people in favor of the "birthday" mention are single-minded Putin-bashers I cannot say, but if they are, their opinions on neutrality in this article should probably be given a good deal of skepticism. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Softlavender, I hate agreeing with you so frequently; it makes me feel not so special anymore. Yes. I know about this material, though I didn't know it flared up a couple of weeks ago and ended with protection. I didn't need BMK's lengthy argument to tell me that. I do agree that the content is not a clear BLP violation but it's at least questionable. (That footnote is interesting; I had not seen that.)

  I protected because that's typically what we do, but also because--of course--I need to honor the BLP, which requires of us that we play it safe. So if someone wants to call that "my preferred version", they can, as long as they mean by that "the version that certainly does not contain a BLP violation". Anything else is hogwash. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis mine) As the content is clearly sourced: see Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Sources_for_Politkovskaya_being_murdered_on_Putin.27s_birthday, it's not a BLP violation and therefore the block was justified, and the content should be restored in some form to the article. NE Ent 10:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally disagree with that, based on the actual edit involved. The article-body text that was added was neutral, but the two footnote texts (and I mean footnotes, not citations) clearly state that Putin was responsible for and/or pleased about the murder. Read the edit: [62]. In fact the footnotes contradict the body-text. Also, WP:BLP is 40,000 bytes long, not just one sentence. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK is not the first editor to believe they have an unlimited right to revert anything they personally think is a BLP violation. The definition of BLP depends on community consensus, and it takes general agreement. The fact that he had never taken the issue to WP:BLPN could have been taken into account by the 3RR closer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Since BLP is, by its very nature, intended to be extremely conservative, any disputed material should be removed first, and discussed while it remains out of the article. That discussion is incumbent on the people who contend that it is not a violation to start, since the onus is on them, and not on the person removing the violating material, to show that the material is appropriate. In other words, there was a clear dispute, a 3RR report had already been rejected, confirming the validity of the BLP concern, so those who were keen on getting the material into the article were the ones who needed to make their case at BLPN. Instead, they continued to cite the same arguments over and over again on the article's talk page, never acknowledging the counter-arguments which were upheld in the previous 3RR report.

As this current episode began, one of the advocating editors said "If no one objects, I'm going to add this to the article." I objected, and clearly stated I would remove it as a BLP violation for all the reasons that had been hashed out previously, and yet the material was inserted into the article anyway, an act of intellectual dishonesty, if nothing else. They were reminded that removing BLP violations was an exception to 3RR (just as in the previous instance), and yet they, acting as a block, edit warred to insert the violating material into the article, despite knowing what the consequences would be.

Having failed to get their way in that manner, they instead approached a friendly admin who After an uninvolved editor filed an RFPP (which explicitly mentioned the EWN rpeort) [63], rhe admin who responded to it, without looking at the article talk page (where he would have seen the previous discussion, and, importantly, a notice from one of the editors that a new 3RR complaint had been filed), blocked me. That he hadn't read the 3RR report, not having been aware of it, is confirmed by their own statement posted later on that report, something on the order of "I blocked BMK after a RFPP was filed, and only saw this report afterwards." So the block was made without knowledge of the previous discussion, and without reading the extensive discussion on either of the two 3RR reports, the earlier one (which wasn't acted on) and the more recent one. Instead, the blocking admin applied his own unique formula concerning BLP blocks (see my talk page under the block notice), and blocked me on that non-standard basis, which does not conform to BLP enforcement norms. He then claimed ignorance of my meaning when I requested that he initiate a review of his actions, doing so only when another editor asked for it on his talk page.

So, clearly, there are a number of issues here, but my not filing a BLPN report is not one of them, since it was not my responsibility to do so, but that of the editors who wished to insert the disputed material. Interpreting BLP policy in any other way guts it, and enforcing it in the manner that the blocking admin did here, without knowledge (or apparent interest -- see my talk page) of the ongoing discussion, removes the cloak of protection which the BLP exception to 3RR was meant to provide. I certainly will think three, four or five times before attempting to remove an obvious BLP violation, for fear that an admin with his or her own standards will see fit to block me for it, and would advise the same to any other editor attempting to uphold what is one of the most important policies we have -- or at least the WMF appears to believe it is, even if some admins do not. Such an outcome is not beneficial to Wikipedia in any way. BMK (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody approached me. I saw the topic at RFPP, where I am a regular.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, struck. I was thrown by your saying "I first went to RFPP", [64] as if you were sent there by someone's request, as opposed to, say, "I was patrolling RFPP..." BMK (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Um, how is that footnote not a BLP violation? "they knew that Putin would be pleased by a gift from them on his birthday. Apparently the gift did please the recipient.". That's only a hairbreadth from "Putin ordered the killing" (which, of course, is the insinuation that people are trying to insert). Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, you appear to think that that's what some Wikipedia editor wrote. It's not, it's a quote from a reliable source. Volunteer Marek  20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

One with no evidence supplied at all to back it up. WP:RS is not a suicide pact. Black Kite (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not with Ymblanter. BMK is the edit warrior par excellence, blocked five times in just over five years amid probably dozens of 3RR reports. Sure, he really believes that BLP justifies eight -- yes, eight -- separate reverts to the Anna Politkovskaya article. But while that edit war was still raging, BMK was undergoing a separate edit war at Union Square, Manhattan, for which he was reported at the 3RR noticeboard. That case was closed because he was already blocked. Let's reopen the Union Square edit warring violation and just block him for that case, where there's no fig leaf of a BLP excuse. Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

[65] BMK (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Black Kite, there is no way that footnote is not a BLP violation. Thinly veiled accusations of assassination are not BLP violations? As much as I can't stand Putin, there is no way we would allow those kinds of innuendos directed towards any other living person. I see a list of sources over at BLPNB, most of which refer to 'conspiracy theories'. While there seems to be some disagreement on this, the default action should be to not have this in the article until it's resolved, not edit warring/tag teaming to keep it in. Dave Dial (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That footnote is a direct quote from a reliable source. Similar quotes can be provided from other sources. The list of sources at BLPN does not refer to "conspiracy theories" but is a list of straight up reliable, academic and mainstream sources. Volunteer Marek  20:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• As it happens, Encounter Books is far from "mainstream". I gotta say, if I had seen that footnote I wouldn't have hesitated the way I did. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think the BLP issue is valid, but the problem is that, as noted by Alansohn, BMK then took the dispute to an unrelated article, and engaged in a non-BLP related edit war, for which they should have been rightly blocked. Once again, we have the problem of "User A was correct in one little aspect, so they were justified in acting inappropriately everywhere in everything they did..." No. The BLP issue at the Anna Politkovskaya was a legitimate BLP concern, and should have been left out of the article. BMKs further vindictive edit warring at Union Square should not be tolerated, however. We cannot say "Well, he was right in the Politkovskaya article, so he can go off the handle and do whatever he wants to get attention..." --Jayron32 15:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Except that is not the order of the events. The Union Square, Manhattan editing happened first, in which both editors were edit warring, and even though BMK was technically correct(User:Yanping Nora Soong did not follow BRD), he surpassed 3RR. It was then that Yanping Nora Soong seemed to follow BMK's edits over at the Anna Politkovskaya article and join in the tag teaming to keep the claimed BLP violation in the article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Except WP:BRD is an essay; WP:3RR is one of our most fundamental Wikipedia policies, one that BMK violates with impunity. There is no BLP fig leaf for the edit warring at Union Square, Manhattan, and that 3RR report was closed by Ymblanter as BMK had already been blocked on the Anna Politkovskaya matter, despite the chronological order of the reports. Whatever the issues between YNS and BMK regarding Union Square and Politkovskaya, BMK made six separate reverts by four other editors utterly uninvolved in BMK's other active edit war. This isn't just about BMK's record of five blocks in five years, this is a chronic pattern of edit warring in multiple articles in one day. The only question is whether BMK deserves a sixth block or a seventh, and if so for which of these two concurrent edit wars. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, BRD is an essay; and I tried really hard to compromise and collaborate at Union Square, Manhattan. In the first revert, BMK reverted me without explanation; after the second revert, I modified the addition by adding more sources. BMK told me that was UNDUE and reverted me for a third time. After the third revert, I decided to scale back the edit and tried to remove the parts that could be thought of by as UNDUE (even though I contested this concept). BMK seemed insistent on undoing any change of mine, and reverted me for a fourth time. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• If edits in question were unsourced or sourced to non-RS, the actions by BMK might be justifiable. However, it was sourced to several books including books by professional historians, in addition to ~30 other RS on the article talk page. In cases like that (the claims are reliably sourced, but there is a dispute if content should be included), everything must be decided by WP:Consensus. In this episode, BMK reverted edits made by five other contributors, who apparently decided that the case was not a BLP violation, that material was important and should be included. BMK simply conducted a typical edit war against consensus, after refusal to discuss and accusing other users of hatred [66]. He did it even after being previously reported on 3RRNB for exactly the same. That was a good block by admin. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question contained multiple egregious and slanderous accusations about two different people. Read the edit: [67]. It's one thing to say Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday. It's entirely another thing to say that Putin and Kadyrov were responsible for the murder, which this edit clearly did, in the highly visible footnotes. That's not just one BLP violation, it's two, and neither of them is substantiated by anything, just laid out there as putative facts. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Here (edit summary) BMK demanded to provide "source which connects these events". Therefore, the direct quotation of sources which do make such casual connection was provided. BMK never asked to remove these direct quotations, but simply edit war. If he asked, they would be removed. Just to summarize: that was something included on request by BMK.My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, thanks for explaining that. I would say, since so many sources mention the fact, that one sentence which merely reads "The date was Putin's birthday." would be appropriate after the sentence which mentions what day she was murdered. But that's it. None of the more egregious articles or books should be used to cite (i.e., not The Corporation or any other source which makes such sweeping claims), but one or more of the more reliable and conservative sources. No quotations should appear in the citation. At this point, I think BMK is reading way too much into WP:BLP, and there is no part of BLP which specifically prohibits mentioning incontrovertible statements of fact which are mentioned in a variety of reliable sources. As long as we don't editorialize or use hit pieces like The Corporation as the source, I see no problem in reflecting what the majority of reliable sources report. I think BMK's stance on this a bit extreme, even though he seems to be acting in good faith according to his viewpoint. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every source on the subject tells about this fact as something highly significant and implies or tells explicitly that some actual connection exists. This must be included simply per WP:NPOV, and this is not a BLP violation. The sources only differ in the question which exactly connection exists (the conclusions about this differ depending on analysis of available facts by authors). This question should be discussed separately, on the article talk page, to identify which "majority" and "minority" views exist. No, you can not dismiss any RS (books by academics) only because you think they are making "sweeping claims". Yes, sure, some sources are better than others. Best sources are usually not newspapers, but books by academics, specifically on the subject under discussion. In this regard, best sources are the books that included chapters on political murders in Russia. Such are books by Felshitnisky, Pribylovsky and Volodarsky. If you can suggest other books by academics on the same subject, that's fine, let's use them too. My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I get the strong sense y'all will not be able to address any conduct/admin issues here. As for the article: I have started an RfC on this issue on the article talk page: [68]. Consensus can be determined there via closure by an uninvolved admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Your innuendo by way of italics is childish, User:Nomoskedasticity. In case you weren't paying attention, conduct/admin issues were being addressed--including the clear BLP violation in that footnote and possible tag-teaming to keep it in, and what appeared to have been HOUNDING on the part of the "new" editor. I could go on, but I really don't have an interest in filing a list of grievances. I just hope you understand the basics of what it means to protect the BLP. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh dear -- I've upset you with italics. I'm terribly sorry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is BMK still participating re this article?

---

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

Request the deletion of a forged username

My thanks to all, the issue has been resolved. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

My user name is User:Medeis but I use the signature μηδείς (the same in the original Greek) for ease of identification on talk pages. At one point a user created the page User:μηδείς without my consent or knowledge as a "test" of his trolling powers, and was promptly blocked, with the user page being directed to my own. The talk page continues to exist, however.

I did not think this would be an issue, and just ignored the entire matter. But at this good faith edit here, User:Aspro used my signature as if it were my user name. This has the double effect of indicating to those users whose preferences are set to seeing blocked user names in throughstricken italics (so) that I am a blocked user, and if one clicks on that "user"'s talk page, one is directed to the forged account.

Given the account was admittedly created as a hack, and that the user who created it said I should 'claim' it, I now request that the User:μηδείς account be deleted entirely, so that good faith mistakes like Aspro's will not be repeated in the future.

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, Medeis, you've been here long enough to know that it's technically impossible for us to delete accounts. What would you like us to do? I can delete User talk:Μηδείς and recreate it as a redirect to your talk page, if that's what you want. Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Apply for WP:USURPing the account and keep "Medeis" as WP:DOPPELGANGER (it's mildly annoying to the rest of us when user's sign with other than their account name) NE Ent 01:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. "The account you want to usurp should have no edits or significant log entries to qualify for usurpation (though rare exceptions are made in some circumstances)". I can delete the edits to the user talk page, and that would leave no edits except for this one; a single edit by an impersonator shouldn't be enough to prevent usurpation. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I thought crats could disappear people? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I can think of a few editors I wouldn't mind seeing "disappeared". See also [73]. EEng (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The following is a big (ec) but I will post it for clarity's sake (and will try to figure out the usurping thing above):

Actually, no, I don't fully know what is and is not possible according to policy or to admins around here. I do know that what I am asking would be very easy codewise, or should be. My bottom line is that if someone now sees user:μηδείς and they have their preferences set (as I do) to see blocked accounts as stricken and in italics, they will see that as if it were a blocked account. Yet, while that account is indeffed, I most certainly am not.

If it is possible to both redirect that account to user:medeis (as well as the associated talk page) and to unblock it without giving control of it back to the troll who created it, I would be quite happy. Presumably the password to the user:μηδείς account would have to be changed. I guess this could be reset by someone and emailed to me? That is what the original troll 'offered' to do.

I don't really care how this is taken care of, I just want to continue editing under my established signature, I don't need an alias, and i really don't need "control" over the μηδείς pseudo-user-account; but I don't want someone innocently addressing me as if μηδείς were my user name that their edit would go to the blocked troll account. I was shocked when I saw an edit with my signature showed me as blocked, and I suspect this problem is exactly what the troll intended to bring about in the first place.

In any case, there must be some remedy that will assure (1) that user:μηδείς does not show as blocked, and that the troll who was in effect indeffed for creating that name cannot in the future manipulate it. I do realize this is a complex and abnormal situation, which is exactly what I assume the troll wanted. I do appreciate the aid offered in addressing the issue which none of us created. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Trolling accounts intended to impersonate are sometimes usurped by request. I got to usurp User:Benoit Landry last earlier this year when some troll created it (hint: it's my real name) to troll, as trolls are known to do. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate any help a real person can give, since at this point the usurpation request has been treated as invalid by a bot, yet the forger himself has invited me to take over the account. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Xeno helped me with my similar issue, and seems generally knowledgeable and helpful when it comes to usurpation and other 'crat matters. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno and Nyttend took care of the problem. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Review of Reguyla (Kumioko) reblock

Discussion archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Reguyla-Kumioko community ban. Katie^talk 04:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy and Renee Ellmers

Just a heads up that these two articles have hit the headlines after Homeland Security IPs were identified as having edited them. There could be a fair bit of activity picking in the coming days, which may bring about some potential BLP violations. I would recommend that admins be ready with ArbCom DS notifications relating to BLP's and American Politics 2. Blackmane (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, revdels, blocks, page protections etc. Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Which Kevin McCarthy, though? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

this one--MONGO 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kevin McCarthy (California politician) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As I suspected, the Speaker who never was :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have checked that it didn't just go to a DAB page. Blackmane (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think DS imposition is necessary. There already have been some revdels. Right now both articles are semi-protected and being well monitored. A DS notification would just make it harder for the people who are monitoring and maintaining the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. I only posted as a heads up to admins, how they choose to act with regards I leave to your (plural) discretion. The list was just options off the top of my head. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A CAT query

Possibly should be at VPT, but it's more admin than tech. How do you remove a user from Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy? They're unblocked and name changed, but the new name is in that cat, and the Hidden Cat note is on their page. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I was asked off-wiki to note the following :"ShakespeareFan00: can you drop a note for me? ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#A_CAT_query and a note that http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/cat_username_unblocked.py is a listing of all unblocked users in that category" to this thread ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Err, thanks (to both of you...). The one I'm on about is in that list. It still seems to be in the other list too. At 'Cat:Wikipedians who are indefinitely', in the blurb it says to remove ones that are unblocked. Damned if I can see a way. Still can't... Peridon (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That list of 'unblocked' ones has blocked ones in it as well. 8-( Peridon (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In the few I checked, it was just a matter of Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy being on their talk page from an old block template message. As its a talk page, the category is mixed in with the substituted template code, and not at the bottom of the page as one would normally expect. I'm guessing we have no systematic process in place to remove that after a rename/unblock, unless there is another problem on top of that. See: [74][75], maybe should be a bot task? Monty₈₄₅ 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

On a couple of occasions (at least), I've seen someone come in after I've unblocked someone and remove a cat, but never took much notice. Got it! I'm not sure whether it should be described here though per WP:BEANS.... Having a bot do it would probably be a good idea, anyway. Peridon (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This summer, I asked about whether it would be a good idea for me to go through this category, see if they were active accounts, whether they were blocked or not, see if the usernames were no longer a problem, but with 41,034 accounts in this category, I was told maintaining it wasn't a very high priority. There are more urgent areas that needed attention. If a bot could handle this task, that would be great! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Would an RfC be needed, or a request at Bot Owners, or a request to a bot creator who is able to do it? Peridon (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say just a bot request. This kind of thing would be simple: bot opens each page in the category, checks to see whether the user's blocked, does nothing if he is, and removes the category if he isn't. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Some weird vandalism patterns.

Obviously, there's nothing that can be done about it, but over the last day I've seen two articles under go concentrated attacks by both random IPs and newly-created accounts, all from the same country: one vandalised by accounts from Austraila, the other from Sri Lanka. Both have been carpet-bombed by nonsense vandalism. The articles themselves are apparently randomly chosen, but the attacks are the same - random and continual vandalism from accounts all from the same country until the page is semi-protected. HalfShadow 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the edit histories of the articles in question HalfShadow. Without them it is difficult for admins to assess what needs to be done. Then this thread could be closed without any help or advice being given. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Albertus Seba and Shanudrie Priyasad

I know you won't be able to do anything, since it's random, but I thought it was odd enough to mention. HalfShadow 19:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the links HalfShadow. Looks like both article have been protected at this time so that should allow you to clean up any mess those accounts made. MarnetteD|Talk 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the Sri Lankan actress was probably on television shortly before the vandalism, which is quite localised. The other was probably school vandalism. They seem dissimilar and unrelated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, the Australian IP vandalism is due to the use of this subject in the New South Wales Higher School Certificate English exam. The HSC is the exam that all students take as their last high school exam and serves as the entrance exam to university. We don't have colleges in Australia. It's something like the US SAT. Looks like there was someone rather disgruntled by the use of Seba in the paper. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

New arbitration trainee clerks

The arbitration clerks would like to welcome Amortias (talk · contribs), JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs), and Miniapolis (talk · contribs) to the arbitration clerk team as trainees. For the arbitration clerks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New arbitration trainee clerks

IBan removal

Admin allergy to this iban seems to extend to lifting it :) This discussion has been a meandering one, regarding an unloved and often unenforced interaction ban, but there is consensus here - and most importantly, agreement between the two users in question - that the interaction ban between MaxBrowne and Ihardlythinkso should be lifted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

There was a recent thread at AN/I [76] which discussed a/an WP:IBAN which was archived with no closure. The editors involved are: User:MaxBrowne and User:Ihardlythinkso. I propose that the IBan be vacated regardless of the formality of its institution, and that both editors be judged on their own actions going forward. — Ched :  ?  02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ched, I hope you don't mind if I say a word or two--some of you regulars know this is an ongoing affair. I want to ask all participants to keep it short and sweet. This is not about what these two users supposedly did wrong in the recent past, but whether the community is served by an iBan which, some argue, is not adequately enforced. Editors who were involved in that now-archived discussion, specifically in the section that discussed lifting the ban, are NE Ent, MaxBrowne of course, Sjakkalle, Cobblet, Penwhale. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• (original IBan discussion) per link at WP:EDR — Ched :  ?  15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Support

• I have read through the AN/I thread, as well as a talk page thread here. I have never felt that WP:IBAN achieved it's intended goal in most cases for many reasons. If two editors do not communicate well, it is best that they avoid each other, but I feel a forced "you two can't talk to each other" does nothing but increase tensions. For these reasons, and many more, .. I Support the removal of this IBan. — Ched :  ?  02:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• For freedom to improve articles w/o added burden of observing iBAN restrictions re overlaying the each other's edits. The other editor and I have had no history of edit-warring over content. IHTS (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• NE Ent 09:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think IBAN shouldn't be straight-up lifted without some other limitations, but it needs to go, IMO. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional - lift the IBAN for one month & observe how both editors get along or don't get along. Do this 1-month review for 6 months. Then go from there. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'll see you and raise you 10 NPAs MaxBrowne (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Explain. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  If the IBAN is lifted i'm willing to abide by wikipedia policies regarding no personal attacks, dropping the stick etc. I'll even acknowledge that my behaviour has not been ideal. MaxBrowne (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Can't disagree. (It lifts a proven detrimental-to-everything-and-everyone-concerned sanction.) The reviews seem admin time-suckers, IMO they wouldn't prove necessary. But comforts Max, so OK. (Perhaps lower their frequency [e.g. to every 3 mos] and lengthen the overall time period [e.g. to 1 yr]!?) IHTS (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support but only on the condition that this be raised to Arbcom. This dispute is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as the dispute between Hijiri and Catflap. It's blatantly obvious that the community isn't able to handle this so it has to be escalated. Blackmane (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not Blackmane. Arbccom is a harsh end. Folks disagree - let them work it out. Arbcom is notorious for making some extremely bad decisions. In fact - I can point to a case where an editor who had never been blocked, had never even been WARNED, was a party to a case and ended up being sanctioned and restricted. Total bullshit. They do their best, and it is a necessary evil to have a ruling body - But no - this is not for them. — Ched :  ?  04:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support with no ARBCOM involvement. MaxBrowne said here that he'd be willing to vacate the IBAN. Just play nice and carry on. Doc talk 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, with reservations, but I'll give it a try. Pro-tip IHTS - walls of text to people in the "oppose" sub-thread just make that section larger and give the visual impression that the IBAN has more support than it does. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  I understand what you're saying, but a closure reviewer at the "Administrators' noticeboard" presumably assesses merit w/o "visual impression" sidetracking them. I look forward to collaborating w/ you where appropriate after the iBAN, Max. IHTS (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  Let's do this shit. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  It *is* good shit, but a neutral admin needs to close. IHTS (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support given the change of circumstances (both parties now desire the IBAN lifted). Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support A step forward. Best wishes to both editors. Cobblet (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - No benefit to building an encyclopedia has been presented which isn't true of any I-Ban at any time. Unless the original conditions which provoked the I-Ban are no longer in effect, I don't see why the ban should be lifted, especially when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't - implying that one of the two will benefit more than the other. The edits of Wikipedia contributors are always judged "on their own merits", and sometimes their lack of merit, which leads to sanctions such as an I-Ban. If there's a general problem in enforcing I-Bans, that's something that needs to be dealt with with the admin corps. BMK (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  Update (copied from Close subsection): "Since both parties now agree, I support lifting the I-Ban. BMK (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)" IHTS (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Removing my oppose since both editors want it lifted. I am always hesitant to lift an IBAN when both parties don't agree that it should be lifted as that generally creates greater problems. IBANs need to be enforced robustly and vigorously, if they are, they work. But as BMK says that's a problem with policy and administrative enforcement. To lift any sanction I look for the sanctioned editors to note the problematic conduct and show how they are going to change their behaviour. This is slightly different (and note I contributed to the original discussion) in that it was imposed as more of a 'no fault' IBAN, that is both editors were unable to be constructive around each other. So I'm looking to see if both of them can move forward without further drama and I can't see that so I oppose lifting the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed oppose. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Then how about you being the admin to enforce blatant edit undo violations? I went to three admins (Blade, Brad, JzG) and got no help! Also, why don't you be the admin to tell the other editor what they can and cannot do under the iBAN, the editor has openly said they refuse to check edit histories and "don't care" if they undo edits contrary to iBAN. So far no admin has corrected the other editor's understanding, they appear to think iBAN does not apply to theirself. Also there are two edit undos that were disimprovements, and I'd like to know what you intend to do about getting the edits restored, since even the content disimprovements in violation of iBAN were pointed out at article Talk and explained at ANI as well, the other editor has not restored the edits, and has even in one case shown their intention not to, at article Talk. I've been asking for a way forward at every turn so as not to violate iBAN myself, have never received instructions or directions. I'd also like the iBAN clarified re personal derogatory remarks the other editor has made in ANIs opened re iBAN violations, and at admin article Talks. (Where is this governed or controlled at WP:IBAN?? I'm not supposed to point out the hypocrisy and dysfunctionality??) IHTS (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• If they edit in violation of the ban I'll block them (assuming I'm online and not on wikibreak) and that includes undoing your edits. As it is everywhere the onus is on the person making the edits to show that they are within policy (which, in this case, means checking to see if the other editor has edited the page, such as through this tool). If you give me the page histories and diffs of your edit and their undo of that edit I'll revert it as ban evasion. "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" does not include making "personal derogatory remarks", so if these are personal attacks or are casting aspersions then I'll make use of the block button (again assuming that they are recent and I'm online and not on wikibreak). Hope that helps. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with all of that. But it occurs to me iBAN lift is better for health of WP and users' time. (You do have an unusual hard & fast view re rule enforcement from your background at Arb. But yes, your offer is a way forward under the iBAN that I've been asking for, so thank you.) p.s. As long as you are forthgiving of answers, WP:IBAN prohibits editors in iBAN from "interacting" with one another, or undoing one another's edits. But it says they can edit the same articles, and even the same article Talks. My question is this: if they are permitted to edit same article Talks, and article Talks are for content, then may they or may they not make contributions to same thread in article Talks, about same issue (whether their views are different or same)? And if the answer is yes, they can contribute to same article Talk thread on same issue, as long as they do not "interact", the discussion is assumed about content, which might be content contributed to the article by any editor, even one of the two editors in iBAN, yes? So then is it OK to comment re content of the other, as long as no "interaction between users" takes place, and discussion is purely about the topic of said content? Or is content discussion limited, if the content was the contribution of one of the editors? (I've been long here to be specific and clear. My Q is in good faith. It is not my fault that WP:IBAN does not spell it out. The content discussion contributions I've described don't appear to me to be prohibited at WP:IBAN, which makes sense to me since is consistent with allowing editors to update same article and article Talks. Anyway the fact it isn't spelled out is not my fault, my Q isn't "game-playing" or "wiki-lawyering" if I in good-faith want to know. [I've already been accused and threatened from those arguments. Nothing you did, I think.]) IHTS (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• True, but I think IBANs need to be enforced that that, as they tend to be very easy to game.

may they or may they not make contributions to same thread in article Talks, about same issue (whether their views are different or same)? Yes they can

(editor X and Y are mutual IBAN'd) If the discussion is about content which editor X added then editor Y cannot comment (third dot point). If the discussion is about content which neither editor added then they can both comment in the discussion just not replying to each other or referring to the other's comments (intro para and second dot point).

I'm hoping that answers your question? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you have me confused ... You say "If the discussion is about content which editor X added then editor Y cannot comment (third dot point).", but, the third dot point (if I'm wrong correct me) says: "make reference to or comment on Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly" (where "Y" is an editor, not a piece of content). I don't get you. IHTS (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I meant that I was basing that point (read interpretation) on "make reference to or comment on Y" in the third dot point, that is by discussing content they added (and hence are responsible for) you're commenting on them and hence breaching the terms of the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, this discussion doesn't belong here of course, but I wanted to followup to let you know I don't think things are so straightforward as you suppose. First, that is not what WP:IBAN says. (I think you're adding what's not there, and even what the original WP:IBAN language authors did not intend, or want.) Also, I asked my Q in a framework where topics at article Talk were separated by identifying which editor added them. Your answer was in accord w/ that separation, but you weren't obligated to answer according to that separation. (Consider this gray area that flows logically: Editor 'A' brings up a topic at article Talk. Since editor 'A' opened the discussion thread, not editor 'X', editor 'Y' adds to it. But! - the same topic or close relative was brought up by editor 'X' previously in a long-ago archived Talk thread. Since editor 'X' is still feeling passionate about the issue, they join in the current discussion, avoiding editor 'Y' in doing so. [iBAN violation according to your prescription, or not?] There's even gray re edit undos, which otherwise seems pretty clear at WP:IBAN, consider: Editor 'X' makes an edit, then editor 'A' reverts it. Editor 'B' restores the reverted edit, then editor 'Y' comes along and reverts the restore. [Did editor 'Y' undo the edit of editor 'X'?]) Cheers, IHTS (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose absent a mutual showing of agreement to collaborate better. IBans are usually instituted because either a) two parties' continual interpersonal conflicts are disrupting a topic area, and/or b) one party is being harassed by another (or sometimes both are harassing each other). Either way, there needs to be clarity that both parties, not just one, are agreeing to go forward in a more positive light and to avoid a repeat of the disruptive conflict. (And this is not all that difficult, honestly, unless one party is a grudge-holder, in which case they're probably bound for an indefinite one-way IBan or worse eventually).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, can you please reassess your !vote if appropriate in light of recent posts here re "mutual showing of agreement" and "both parties, not just one, are agreeing"? Thx. 08:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the issue is referred to ArbCom.Changed to support MaxBrowne has opposed lifting the IBAN, and having looked at IHTS' commentary here and on Drmies talkpage, it looks like he still feels he has done no wrong, even though the issues were very real and the imposition of the sanction had strong consensus support. This issue has gone on for two years and needs to stop. We could request a binding resolution at ArbCom in which case the IBAN should be lifted so that both parties are free to submit evidence. The alternative is a considerably more rigorous enforcement of the existing sanction. MaxBrowne should note that edits such as this, with a provocative edit summary to boot, will almost certainly lead to blocks in the future under a more strict enforcement regime. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have not posted an outright oppose in this thread. All I want is some assurance that there won't be a return to the constant sniping which occurred prior to the IBAN, but any attempts to raise this concern are perceived as attacks, and are met by attempts to play "your diffs are worse than my diffs" and "my grievances are worse than your grievances". This gives me no confidence that he will modify his approach if the IBAN is lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, excuse me, when did a lift iBAN AN proposal initiated by Ched, add expectation or condition for the confession of sins? And even if that logic is granted, how do you suppose or imply with a straight face, that the other editor was the only injured party? Or that the other editor's offenses were less? Especially when the actual fact is, the other editor's complaints at the original AN that imposed iBAN, were a pittance compared to their unprovoked epithets thrown at me in an ANI just days before that AN? (I guarantee you, or anyone else, the other editor's complaints basis for requesting iBAN at the AN, consisted only of an irritation over having their username often mentioned, in threads of mine with other editors where they were not directly involved. And nothing more. *That* was an issue of ETIQUETTE, and someone telling/warning me to stop it, which would have been a reasonable request, and which I agree I overdid [sorry Max]. The "strong consensus" you name for that AN was a misguided giving of iBAN to a user profusely complaining and moaning for one, to statisfy them. [Not a good basis for handing out iBANs!] And I believe the !voters in support of said iBAN somehow thought the magic of iBAN would gracefully put away all the fuss and a rainbow would appear suddenly over the horizon. When in fact the user has subsequently been actively following my edits for even a smell of iBAN violation they can claim at ANI--which they've done alot with your support--and doing what they supposedly object to from me--sniping with derogatory comments in all the iBAN violation ANI threads and at admin Talks, in retaliatory fashion. [The editor has publicly stated they "despise" me. I really don't care, but there you go.] Lastly, if you take a look at the ANI that JzG opened re the edit undo violations, there you will see the other editor attmpting to rally editors to slap me down that I dare bring up iBAN that might apply to them re undoing my edits, because they are "contributing to the encyclopedia", and apparently my role is that of nuisance to be trashed or banned?!? He wanted the darkest forces of WP to put me down, that is for sure. [Continued in-fighting? On who's part?! "Needs to stop? On who's part?! BTW I already said at the ANI, when Max was sounding positive about iBAN lift, that I felt we both have learned what the other editor doesn't like and won't tolerate. I also said I could go into detail if needed, with or without Max doing same, to get specific. I implied that doing so would probably be unnecessary, because there's little doubt about what the issues are/have been. At no time have I ever struck out at Max with unprovoked incivilities, I have no reason to do that. Ditto Ched. But I also accept that I rub people the wrong way sometimes, and then they want to eat me. So much for human nature. Nevertheless, I harbor no grudge, I want Max to enjoy editing as freely as I want editing for myself. The bad stuff is not clinging to me, Sjakkalle, so please clean up your act and get off my case!? Thank u. p.s. Arbcom!? So more people's time can be sunk over an issue of ETIQUETTE? If you must know, I've long-ago dropped any idea that Max might apologize for his classic epithet. [I have dropped that stick, why don't you drop yours Sjakkalle?]) IHTS (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no explicit requirement that you "confess sins", but when you seem to think the IBAN was totally unjustified, there is cause to believe that you will resume the conduct that led to the IBAN once it is lifted. As for why I am commenting here, I was pinged to go to this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't "seem to think it", I very much think it was out-of-order and unnecessary (despite "consensus"). You apparently do not allow possiblity that editors can learn & grow!? (Drmies has noted it. Ditto Ched. But I don't expect you would/will, as you have carried a grudge [re my comments to Quale, your "long-term friend"].) So INDEF me if your worst fears come to pass. p.s. It's my understanding a ping is a simple notification and does not beg a response. IHTS (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose more or less per SMcCandlish above and below, by which I mean, make it clear that the i-ban need not necessarily apply at WP:DRN, WP:ANI, or similar noticeboards in which the input of other editors is actively sought-out. At such locations, it should be fairly easy for some admin reviewing the situation to determine if a comment crosses the line and discusses the other editor involved too directly. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I have expressed my misgivings re lifting the IBAN in the thread in question. Basically, lifting the IBAN would be unacceptable to me if it means a return to the status quo which existed before. Please don't play dumb and make me explain this in detail; just refer to the original thread leading to the IBAN, and the events leading up to it. I have no wish to attack the other editor but my concerns are genuine. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again, one-sided/unbalanced expression of concern re the other editor's behavior. Well *my* concern is an order of magnitude greater than the other editor's. (The difference might be, I'm willing and able to back up/demonstrate in an extended subthread anywhere, with a moderator[s], if needed, to sort it out. But I also know that WP and no one gives a whit to figure out what is distortion and what is not. No resources for that. So anyone gets by saying anything. And everyone knows that. [Theoretical Q: It's fond to be said here, "serious accusations need serious proof". But can anyone show a single thread where the serious proof or non-proof was ever sorted out!?]) IHTS (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"I want to ask all participants to keep it short and sweet." - DrMies, 03:03, 13 October 2015 MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Questions for Ched}: (1) What were the reasons the I-Ban was put in place? (2) Have those conditions changed? (3) How does removing the I-Ban help to build an encyclopedia? (4) Are you asking for the I-Ban to be removed on general principles or for a reason specific to this particular I-Ban? BMK (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @Ched: BMK (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK, the ANI thread from last year led to the iBan, and if I had to guess I'd say it was the back-and-forthing between the two that led to some exasperation on the part of those following the discussion. I can't speak for Ched, but IMO removing it will save us time and energy on ANI and associated boards, if only because we won't be asked to investigate the technicalities of whether something was in violation of the iBan or not. (Didn't we have another such thread a couple of months ago? Didn't we have talk page discussions too?) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK, "when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't - implying that one of the two will benefit more than the other." Do you know what you're talking about?! The other editor has expressed openly that they refuse to abide by the editing terms of the iBAN, specifically saying they refuse to check article edit histories and "don't care" whether they undo edits by the other editor. To unburden them from checking edit histories I have been doing that leg-work for them (since it's easier for me to recognize my own edits), and documenting on the respective article Talk pages where they inadvertently undid an edit. But that effort has been ignored. When I subsequently restored an overlaid edit I was reverted by the other edtor and told to "get lost". In the ANI you will see the other editor rallying support for his position that he shouldn't be under restriction of iBAN because he was working in good-faith to improve an article. I believe him (tho as explained, none of the four edit undos were improvements, and two were disimprovements). My being proponent of lifing the iBAN was for benefit of unburdening the other editor to edit freely, plus my dislike of the fact iBAN turns into a roving topic ban (for example, I'm active Project Board Games editor, the other editor created Backgammon match strategy, I'm not allowed to help improve the article, not even punctuation or grammar fixes, seeing that all the edits to that article are so far the other editor's). IHTS (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Ched started this thread, and it's his responsibility to present the evidence which supports his suggestion of removing the topic ban. I naturally take the comments of the subjects of the ban with a grain of salt. BMK (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • BMK, just one point - "I don't see why the ban should be lifted, especially when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't". I don't think an editor wanting an iBAN (whether the orig imposition or in a later AN proposal to lift) s/ be given the significance you give it re deliberations. (Why? There are plenty of editors who like to irritate or add sanction to an editor whom they don't like, via asking for iBAN, I've seen that alot on the WP, yes? And those threats/requests are typically seen as a form of harassment and don't get serious traction, yes?) Also I think your assuption that one of the parties objecting to an iBAN lift always does so for genuine and valid reasons, especially where there is past discord/friction between editors, is taking good-faith way too far and you need to open up to other realistic possibilities - there are distinct non-valid/non-genuine possibilities too. (E.g. a user might object to iBAN lift along the lines of continued in-fighting, with the philosophy "what my opponent wants can't possibly be good for me, so I'll object to it". [Do I think that might be relevant to this AN? Absolutely. For example the editor specifically requested iBAN provision denying undoing one another's edits--which incidentally they later argued didn't apply to themself due to WP:IAR!--when there was never any history of edit-warring re content or anything else between editors. Also do I suppose my expression at the AN that imposed iBAN, that I didn't like iBANs because they can morph into roving topic bans restricting freedom to edit, could have something possibly to do with the editor specifically insisting on that additional provisio!? Same answer.]) IHTS (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Max, I do fully understand your hesitancy here. I have had difficult discussions with IHTS in the past as well. To the point where I made a statement that I am still ashamed of (in email). I have also seen what I consider a very positive move in IHTS's approach, and I think it would be best for the project to drop any "IBan" items, and judge all editors on their own merits. — Ched :  ?  03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (1) I don't know the details of the original IBan. ( 2) Since I don't know the original conditions, then No, I don't know if they've changed. (3) I think it improves the project because it removes the ambiguity of what is and what is not allowed. Each editor is judged on their own actions. (4) Partly on general principle, but also noticing an improvement (IMO) in IHTS's approach. — Ched :  ?  03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - A lot of the support from admins for lifting the IBAN appears to come down to (1) "IBANs don't work anyway" (in which case, that is a matter for policy/process discussion, not a matter for discussion in relation to an individual case) (2) "I can't be arsed enforcing it" (understandable, but that's part of the "janitor's" job, isn't it? upholding community decisions?) MaxBrowne (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The "IBan's don't work, because we spend too much time trying to figure out if a particular response on some noticeboard thread was technically a violation of the IBan" is easily solved by narrowing the IBan, so that it doesn't apply to noticeboard commentary involving both parties. If they really need to hash something out, they can do so, in a venue prone to WP:BOOMERANG for unclean-hands vexatiousness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  Re "narrowing the IBan, so that it doesn't apply to noticeboard commentary". First, the only noticeboard threads where commentary between parties occurred, were always threads re iBAN violations, nothing else. Second, it was "commentary" that led to the iBAN in the first place. Third, if the iBAN were narrowed as you suggest, what would remain? (Undoing one another's edits? The two parties have no history of ever having edit-warred, save edits in direct relation to condition [violation] of the iBAN itself.) IHTS (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet another pointless iban violation

And is this corner IHTS continues to posts walls o' text above, and it that corner MaxBrowne seems unable to avoid pointless poking at IHTS [77], indenting what was a properly indented comment -- IHTS was replying to Sjakkalle, not MaxBrowne ... No one liked my outta the box Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Proposal_.28Nash_Equilibrium_iBan.29 suggestion based on misguided notions of "fairness." Please see WP:NOJUSTICE. Is it fair that the dispute resolution community has spent so much time on these two? MB complains above "I can't be arsed enforcing it" (understandable, but that's part of the "janitor's" job, isn't it?" The answer is NO, admins get the same crappy pay the rest of us get: it's not a job, its folks volunteering their time, and admins have numerous scutwork tasks to do, they shouldn't be expected to expend any more time on this. NE Ent 13:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The indentation was purely to separate my concise statement from what followed, yet you attribute bad faith to it. You have consistently done this with respect to my edits, and consistently tried to blow smoke and confuse the issue any time I have complained about Iban violations. You have shown a consistent bias against me and in favour of IHTS. Fact. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh zip it. I agree with NE Ent, except I might have used the word "crybaby". I think it's a word we don't use often enough. This seems to be going nowhere. MaxBrowne, Ihardlythinkso, good luck with it; please don't come to my talk page with perceived violations. Beyond My Ken, this is why we wanted the iBan lifted--so AN/I wouldn't have to deal with figuring out which one reverted which one's edits blah blah blah. You'll see this topic coming up again and again, I think; maybe you should run for admin and then you can take care of it. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Nah, you just want me to run for admin for the fun and hilarity that would ensue. <g> I sympathize with the plight of the overburdened admin corps, but isn't this what you all signed up for, cleaning up after other people's messes? Personally, I wouldn't have much problem replacing many IBans with mutual topic bans or even indef blocks, but you saw how far I got with that on Catflap/Hijiri, which was (I think) much more virulent than this case. BMK (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Way to guarantee BMK will never run for adminship, threatening him like that indicating he could handle conflicts like this one on his own if he were an admin. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, John, if you ever see my name at the top of an RfA, you and the whole of Wikipedia have my permission to bring in a team of top psychiatrists and psychologist to examine me, because I would clearly have gone off my nut. BMK (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In similar fashion to how a block can be considered a de facto ban if no admin is willing to reverse it, is an interaction ban considered "de facto lifted" if no admin is willing to enforce it? (not meant to be serious, but for what it's worth...) kcowolf (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Is it fair that the dispute resolution community has spent so much time on these two?". For the record, at no time did I ever ask any DR community to get involved. (Only individual admins, single-threaded.) IHTS (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposer's comment

The hell with it - I'm gonna be outta town for a couple weeks anyway, so I'll just say it straight out. This comment is mostly to Max. Trust me - I FULLY understand your reservations. I've been acquainted with IHTS for years, and I could point to a few threads (somewhat of an understatement) anyway ... But that is in the past. Anyway - I noticed the tone and the conversation at both the aforementioned ANI and at Drmies talk. My impression is an honest attempt from IHTS to put aside things and that he/she is making a very honest effort to communicate and collaborate with others. To be honest, I doubt that IHTS would ever think much of anything I had to say - but from my perspective? I've seen some very mature growth over the last few months, and I am one of those "give them every chance" kind of people. And let's be honest Max - (perhaps in frustration), there's been times you haven't exactly painted your self in perfect light either. (not that I have myself).

IMO - this whole "IBan" thing is a bunch of crap. Wikipedia is not supposed to be some daycare center, or playground for kids who should be out growing and learning how to deal with real life. Yes - adults don't get along too - we suck it up, deal with it, and focus on what is best for the concept of global knowledge. Adults can have their little bitchfests on talk pages - and move on. I just don't think it's right to turn our backs on those who make an honest effort. And the truth is that IHTS has put a LOT of work into improving our chess related articles.

IDK - and quite franky .. IDGAF. I just want someone to close this whole shitfest so we can quit wasting elecrons and stop abusing keyboards. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Probably a bit irregular to reopen this (sorry Spartaz and Ched), but I'm still open to removing the IBAN, because honestly it's a pain in the ass to everyone involved - me, IHTS and the admins. Only condition I'd like to see (apart from the obvious - strict enforcement of NPA, CIV etc) is Softlavender's suggestion - neither of us talk about anything that happened between us prior to 16 October 2015. No arguments will be had about whose fault it is or whose diffs are worse. It's gone. Over. Doesn't exist. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no strict or even monitored enforcement of NPA, CIV, etc. after an IBAN is lifted. You just have to be nice to each other like everyone else. It looks like the ban should just be lifted. Like, yesterday. Doc talk 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know this edit was probably a technical violation, but you know what? I don't gaf. In the end improving the encyclopedia is what matters. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Close

I wonder if this should be closed? It appears both individuals are in favour of having their IBAN lifted. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Could it be that interest to close dries up when there is consensus (at the previous ANI, where even Max conceded there was consensus to lift) or agreement between the two parties (this AN), because closure in either of those cases represents editing normalcy? (I.e. there is no longer a boxing match that sells tickets, or popcorn, for now. And it's a drag to close the door on the possibility of another crowd-pleasing advertised event!?) Maybe the Wikipedia needs a professional shrink--big-time!? In addition, closing an ANI/AN thread seems to be juicier to do, when the closer can insult both parties with the Wiki-accepted PA of suggesting that the two at odds are "children" (and thereby inferring the closer of course has superior maturity, yeah). (Blade did that to me in a previous ANI that I also didn't open [he subsequently apologized], and Spartaz has done it in this AN.) IHTS (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no gray area now between the two parties.[78] Lift this Iban. Doc talk 07:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Since both parties now agree, I support lifting the I-Ban. BMK (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

title inccorect spelling, no idea how to change

And that is that (ironically, "incorrect" has incorrect spelling in the section title). ;) (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, I have been pouring over the how-to guides for days and I can't figure out how to change the spelling of the title of a Wikipedia page about a person, the page in question is Sergey Pugachyov, a note has been added to the inside of the page that it is alternately spelled "Sergei Pugachev" but this is not really true, it is ALWAYS spelled Sergei Pugachev. One simply has to google the term to see that spelling used by major global publications such as Forbes, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, Financial times etc. NO ONE uses the Sergey Pugachyov erroneous spelling. Can I request that an administrator please make this change and modify the wiki page so that the title uses the proper Sergei Pugachev spelling. Thanks. Sorry - I really tried hard to figure out how to do this myself before submitting this post but I can't figure it out the display title doesnt seem powerful enough to modify such a change.

This is really a problem because it's as if someone, before Obama's rise to mass popularity had somehow started a page about him spelled "Obauma" - and the world had to live with that for the rest of time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visuals editor (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)‎

You can use the "move" command at the top of the page (it'll probably be behind the "More" dropdown) in order to rename a page. (Note that people with very new accounts can't do this, but your account is old enough; you don't need an administrator to help.) --ais523 10:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Visuals editor, have you mentioned this change on the article talk page? If this is a contentious title move, I encourage you to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the guidelines there to suggest your move to see if you have support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Visuals editor – I have renamed Sergei Pugachev per your request. As you say this seems consistent with the spelling used in external news sources including those already referenced from the article. For future reference you can rename pages yourself, even as a non-admin (see Help:How to move a page) or if it may be contentious request this at Wikipedia:Requested moves. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Reverted non-admin closure of RFC on Talk:Faith healing

Closure endorsed. I have ignored all opinions that essentially rehash the content of the discussion in my consideration of the close, as this is not what a close review is to do. However, consensus point to there being no consensus against rerunning this in a few months time. Mdann52 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I have reverted a non-admin closure of the RFC at Talk:Faith_healing, before I thought of reverting it, I checked the history of the closing editor, User:AlbinoFerret and he don't seem to be the right person to close.

Problem is that many reliable sources support that Faith Healing is pseudoscience, and similarly we need hardly one or two reliable sources for making such claims, here the things already seem to be obvious. Even if votes are counted they are:-

There were three different proposals.

• 8 oppose - 4 support for [79] pseudoscience labelling.
• 2 oppose and 4 Support for [80]
• 4 oppose and 5 support for [81]

Even if we look at the vote count. It is clear that I did not voted, same with user:Doc_James, User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc(appears as jps), User:McSly, etc. made no votes although they supported that Faith Healing is pseudoscience on original discussion.

I don't think there is any obvious consensus to deny that Faith healing is pseudoscience, and there are enough sources to consider it as a pseudoscience.[82][83][84] And this kind of closure is lousily based on a few votes. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Raymond3023 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I want to point out that a ping is not a notification. When bringing something here, it is standard procedure to notify the parties involved on their talk page. This was not done and in the future please do so if you open a section on the noticeboards. AlbinoFerret 14:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: All I see a careful close by a respected editor reverted by an editor who has not made a single edit in article space. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note the admin / non-admin status of the closer is not relevant per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Notes. The close should remain in place unless a consensus here overturns it. Support close as a reasonable summation of the arguments presented. NE Ent 09:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• It is obviously not proper because those "oppose" votes have only made their opinions, contradictory to WP:VERIFY. Closure of this RFC supports some editors opinion over the academic sources, more like "let them say, but I don't believe it", does it means that we should stick to editors opinion and not sources? Not even one source was provided by oppose votes to refute. Even the article List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has listed Faith healing as pseudoscience, clearly because it is highly an accepted categorization. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Raymond3023, per reason stated --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to go over the arguments again, but obviously "characterized as pseudoscience" is different to "is pseudoscience". StAnselm (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(Don't worry, reliable sources say that it is pseudoscience) I also think that the closer of the RfC has ignored the reliable sources in favor of the personal opinions of some participants. I see people hand-waving away all reliable sources, hoping they will be ignored if they repeat themselves hard enough. Thanks to this closing, the RS have been successfully ignored. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think AlbinoFerret was the right choice for a close of an RfC dealing with pseudoscience because the user is currently a party to an arbcom case about pseudoscience: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms on the side that supports pseudoscientific arguments against GMOs. jps (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point. He's also involved in the e-cigs area, where again there is a collision between science and belief. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a bit of a double standard, given that you are also heavily active in science vs belief issues, yet closed an RfC on GMOs recently. As it stands I don't believe either close was an involved one. Both of you are heavily active in closing RfCs. This isn't just a case of someone who never closes RfCs coming out of nowhere to close one in favour of his ideological agenda. Endorse close. Brustopher (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I will point out , that though I was named as a "party" in a arbcom case about GMOs by those already parties, I question my involvement in the whole mess which consists of some neutral notices of the arbcom case request, changing an and, and participating in an RFC where I focused on PAG. Others have pointed out I am not really involved. During this case I have focused on PAG pertaining to behaviour, not on the topic itself. AlbinoFerret 14:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brustopher: Anyone who closes any debate will almost always make someone unhappy. If you're not an admin, it's best not to get involved if anyone could interpret it as advancing any kind of agenda, because the flying monkeys will throw shit from on high. They always do. I take your point about the relevance of one sphere of science v. belief being relevant to another. My main thought here is that AlbinoFerret seems to me to be someone who could do without any more crap being thrown his way, is all. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In an ideal world I'd agree with you, but the problem is there are no admins closing RfCs. To my knowledge you're the only admin that's heavily active in closing RfCs. The rest of the closes all seem to be done by regular editors who are active in controversial topics and dispute resolution. Non-admins like AlbinoFerret are needed or else the system stops working. Brustopher (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose closure: People can believe whatever they want but faith healing is 100% a pseudoscience. There are precisely zero reliably published scientific studies that show that illness or disease can be healed if you pray hard enough. There are however, recorded verifiable deaths as a result of this belief. Faith healing is as fringe as you can get and should be labelled as such. On a related note, I really need to start watching RfC requests as I would have definitely !voted to label this as a pseudoscience if I knew it was ongoing. --Stabila711 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that post. I will point out that pseudoscience was defined and discussed, that is incorrectly attributed to science (a sham claim). Pointing out that 0 studies show something is very telling. I will point out though, that your comment appears to be rearguing the RFC. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: is faith healing normally "incorrectly presented as scientific"? Do its proponent claim it's a science? Because that's part of the definition of pseudoscience. Just being "not science" doesn't automatically make something a pseudoscience. Religion is not science, yet it's not pseudoscience. "Pseudo" means something fake, something that pretends to be. LjL (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close per StAnselm and NE Ent. AlbinoFerret is an experienced closer and has properly weighed the arguments in this case. This is not the place to re-argue whether faith healing is pseudoscience.- MrX 13:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close per StAnselm, Brustopher and NE Ent. --John (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse A reasonable close. Something needs to pretend to be science to be fake science. My opinion on the dispute aside, the closure was an accurate reflection of the policy based arguments. HighInBC 13:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure by AlbinoFerret - Faith healing does not present itself as "science", so it can not be labeled as "pseudoscience". Period. Faith healing is, as the name says, based on "faith", and all faith healers clearly state as much. Most actually highlight that their healing is not based on any scientific knowledge but exclusively on faith. The !voters said so, reliable sources should say so (if they say otherwise they are unreliable) and the closure assesses correctly the consensus of the discussion. Kraxler (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I understand that this is not the correct venue to talk about the pseudoscience or not aspect and I can clearly see that I am in the minority regarding the closure. However I thought I would bring up the actual quote from the WP:FRINGE page. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists), relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence (as for example in parapsychology), or indulges a suspect theoretical premise (such as the claims of water memory made by advocates of homeopathy). People who believe in faith healing specifically discount mainstream medicine and rely on a phenomenon with no real scientific backing. There is an entire church of "Christian Scientists" that believe in faith healing. If that does not qualify for a pseduoscientific label I really don't know what does. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that the mention of Christian Science in the RFC is by one of the proponents of the measures and says they use prayer to heal. Not exactly a scientific claim. AlbinoFerret 14:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose closure - Agreed with @Enric Naval: and @Stabila711:. Closure claims that because some people don't want to regard it as a pseudoscience, it shouldn't be called as such. Such approach would only lead editors to think that it is better to keep arguing or spamming same opinion and ignoring reliable references. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the closure claims that the claim it is a pseudoscience is not supported by the sources; it also claims that faith healing "is not scientific" - meaning, it is not normally presented as scientific, and as such, cannot by definition be a pseudoscience. LjL (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse I closed it, so I also endorse it. The close was based on the total of the discussion and did not focus on opinions. The arguments on the definitions clearly showed what pseudoscience is, from multiple sources, they say that it is based sham science, not faith and the supernatural. Sadly we have those that want to ignore this, or argue the points anew here. There were no attempts to clarify or discuss the close prior to this section, it was strait to review, sadly now it is to late for that. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• endorse This discussion, unsurprisingly, is going to repeat the epistemological dispute conducted at the RFC. The prevailing position was that it cannot be characterized as pseudo-scientific because it does not pretend to be natural science. The claim that it can be shown scientifically not to work (assuming that one even believes that such an evaluation passes philosophical muster) is thus not germane. The "you say that because of your bias" character of the opposition is an ad hominem and may continue to be disregarded. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose closure the "position was that it cannot be characterized as pseudo-scientific because it does not pretend to be natural science" was not the argument. "Faith healing does not present itself as "science", so it can not be labeled as "pseudoscience" is not the argument. "characterized as pseudoscience is different to is pseudoscience is not the argument. The arguement is that faith healing is identified by 21st century academics as pseudoscience and that the understanding of what pseudoscience is has changed over the last century. The central claim of faith healing is that it causes physical change which is something that can be measured and either refuted or verified. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe that the difference between "doing science" and "doing something that causes a physical change" has been explained multiple times to you. Putting water in a freezer "causes physical change which is something that can be measured and either refuted or verified" is usually called "making ice cubes" rather than "doing science". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: your repeated explanations are just wrong. That claim could be described as if the phase of H₂O is liquid and if heat is removed from the H₂O then the phase H₂O is solid – it is a claim of physical change that can by measurement be either refuted or verified. The process is obviously scientific regardless of agency. Mapping the conditions under which the phase H₂O is solid takes place is "doing science". Compare to my faith healing example, if you have polio and if you are the target of faith healing and from that you do not have polio. That sequence from you have polio to you do not have polio – it is a claim of physical change that can by measurement be either refuted or verified. Mapping the conditions under which changes to you do not have polio takes place is "doing science". The scientific method vets whether either claim is objectively true and from that vets if it is science or pseudoscience. Nevertheless, neither my opinion nor your opinion matters. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The result is definitely displeasing to some of our quack fighters, but the fact is that it is well within the normal zone of discretion that we give closers. I'd suggest that the opponents back off for a few months and then come back with a really stellar source (so far, the ones provided have been pretty weak, and sometimes even self-contradictory) and proposal that uses WP:INTEXT attribution to say that a particular author calls faith healing pseudoscience. I think that something like this would be widely supported. IMO Raymond3023's first proposal on this subject (his first ever, of his 14 logged-in edits so far) failed for overreaching. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We have many reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sources provided after a close and comments made on them made after a close are not appropriate to use in a close review. But in further RFC's they may be usable.AlbinoFerret 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• AF: Do you have a policy to cite that says that only what's in the RfC can be considered when determining if a close is good, and that additional information must be ignored? And, once again, it would be much better all around if you left closing of contentious issues to admins and not NAC them, since the very fact that they were NAC'd is more likely to lead to complaints. BMK (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, but its a review of a close, how could information provided afterwards affect the way an RFC was closed by anyone? If you know of one that addresses this please provide it. As for staying away from some RFC's, I do try and avoid what will obviously be a problematic area where its close enough that there is a question of the RFC going one way or the other. But all RFC's are contentious, there is a disagreement, and often there is someone who doesnt like how it ended. There is no sure fire way to close, and avoid contentious things. I help where I can. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What, you mean you cannot see the future and envision future sources and comments that would be presented? Ah, wait, that would be... pseudoscience. whistles away LjL (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, divination never claims to be scientific so by the standards here can it really be called a pseudoscience? --Stabila711 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

TTJ! (but, sometimes mind-reading claims to be based on some physical phenomena at least) LjL (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The admin / non-admin status of the closer is not relevant per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Notes, and of course reviewers should look only look at what's in the Rfc to validate a closing. The whole point of a close, per wikt:close#Verb is "To put an end to; to conclude; to complete; to finish; to consummate. e.g. close the session;   to close a bargain;   to close a course of instruction." The point of a close review is to ensure no gross misjudgement, prior involvement, or POV pushing by the closer, not for unhappy parties to forum-shop the question to a different venue in hope of getting a different consensus. NE Ent 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it's much more important that the close came to the correct conclusion, according to all the available information, rather than that it was bureaucratically correct. Information which comes to light afterwards should be considered in the review, as it could lead to a withdrawal of the close and the re-opening of the RfC. The alternative, to insist that a brand-new RfC be started, is just bureaucracy for its own sake. BMK (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's just for its own sake, since it allows to start with a clean slate and consolidate arguments in one place, rather than, has been mentioned, giving a forum-shopping impression where one (including a newly-introduced reader) has to bounce back and forth between the RfC, its review on a different page, and perhaps more comments on the original page after the RfC. LjL (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse close Faith healing does not present itself as science in any way, shape or form, therefore it cannot be described as pseudoscience as pseudoscience is something that pretends to be or masquerades as science. In fact 99.9 percent of people who hold beliefs in prayer or such like would tell a sick person to go to a mainstream doctor and then pray that the mainstream science based healthcare professionals are able to help the sick person get better. I think when faith healing is advocated as an alternative to science based treatments it could easily and quite justifiably be described as fringe. Religion versus atheism is such a polarised topic that almost everyone has a strong opinion on it. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are a few sources that inappropriately label faith healing as pseudoscience but by doing so they discredit themselves and thus they cannot be considered to be reliable sources.--WholeNewJourney (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close, but it is clear that any consensus is very very weak, with a number of people who commented seeming uncertain. I would suggest waiting a little bit, gathering more sources, then running another RFC on this matter to gather more attention. (I definitely feel that there are people who have attempted to scientifically prove faith healing or who have treated it as pseudoscience -- there have been numerous attempts by faith-based institutions to test or assert the power of prayer in a clinical setting -- and it doesn't seem like those sources were adequately discussed this time, which is probably part of the reason for the muddled and unclear result.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose closure per User:AlbinoFerret. See User talk:AlbinoFerret/Archive 02#Query. I asked a simple question on the talk page if the sources are reliable. There was no specific objection to the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose close - Faith healing purports to effect physical changes in ways that, in the 21st century, are normally done through science-based means. Its method of operation are ones that have been shown to be invalid by science. Because of these factors, whether it calls itself a "science" or not, it is a de facto pseudoscience. That the reliable sources which show this were not given weight invalidates the close, and the RfC should be re-opened. BMK (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) as a result
• Endorse close. Consider the intro to our pseudoscience article: Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.. Given the fact that faith healing generally isn't presented as scientific, and given the fact that this statement reflects some widely accepted definitions of the concept, any sources that describe faith healing as pseudoscience either (at best) are representing a minority definition of "pseudoscience" or (at worst) are outright wrong. In this situation, like any other, we need to represent positions neutrally, not supporting any single perspective in a dispute. It's neutral to say that some sources call it pseudoscience and others don't, but we need to be careful to ensure that a source disagrees with these generally accepted definitions of the concept. Unless we know that someone's unusual use of a term is intentional, we should assume that it's a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close Intelligent design is considered pseudoscience in every way based on the definition that Nyttend links to, yet proponents continue to argue that it is a scienec. Whatamidoing's sourcing in the RFC is pretty solid, whereas some of QuackGuru's and Enric Naval's seems a bit more shaky. Putting aside the sources that argue faith healing is a pseudoscience, is there actually any sources, reliable or otherwise that purports to push FH as as science? Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: I don't see a single reference provided by WhatamIdoing, all I see is qualitative word studies about how often the words appear together (here and here) which conveys little if any meaning – and without a single link. Not "is pretty solid". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:BoBoMisiu: User:WhatamIdoing also opposed labeling Ayurveda pseudoscience despite the sources presented. There are a number of reliable sources that the closer is disregarding. QuackGuru (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: one of the comments in Ayurveda RfC about "retroactively apply a category", is what this Philosophy Bites podcast discusses. Among other things, how alchemy was once a cutting edge of science but is now a pseudoscience. Massimo Pigliucci discusses Karl Popper and the definition of what is science and what is pseudoscience and how some definitions of science are inadequate – 20 minutes well worth listening to. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion here. I wouldn't disagree with the close as it stands, but with that said, my reading of the RFC is that the oppose !votes are marginally weaker that support !votes just reading through some of the sourcing prevented. I think that a really killer oppose step would be to try and present a source that explicitly identifies this as not at pseudoscience (because it looks like some sources have been found, if not many, that do). Although, of course, an absence of sources can sometimes be telling, this would go a lot further to evening up the cases. Regardless: it's at best a non-consensus on those specific questions. My other comment is that there does appear to be an emerging consensus that whilst Faith Healing is not viable to be labelled as pseudoscience because of the lack of sources (a pretty fair conclusion I think) that this wouldn't exclude treatment of the content in the prose itself. Perhaps someone can, as a next step, present some content covering the subject, with balanced RS's, for discussion. As an alternative to attempting a policy-based end-run around the RFC :) (But, to be clear. AlbinoFerret's close was fair, balanced and sensible and I'd Endorse it) --Errant ^(chat!) 07:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@ErrantX: there are reliable academic sources provided in the RfC that label it as pseudoscience, "not viable to be labelled as pseudoscience because of the lack of sources" is not correct. The dictionary definitions in the RfC (repeated here) are about what pseudoscience is not about whether faith healing is pseudoscience. The arguement against pseudoscience based on dictionaries was: "Either make reference to these definitions and show how faith healing fits them or give alternate definitions with support as to why we should use them" – that arguement excludes the 21st century academic sources by philosophers who specialize in pseudoscience that were provided in the RfC. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

BoBoMisiu, this is not a venue to re-argue the RFC, and I am making no argument of my own on this subject (you quote only part of my comment, where it starts with there does appear to be an emerging consensus that...). My comments are about the judgment of consensus. Both arguments have strengths and weaknesses in the evidence they presented but as I read the RFC it was clear that there is an emergent agreement on something that could be done going forward. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@ErrantX: sorry, this is my first time on this page. I misunderstood what you wrote and thought you wrote that there was a faith healing is not pseudoscience source presented in the RfC. I reread what you wrote and do see that you were discussing the concensus and not the evidence. Sorry again. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Experienced LTA clerks/admins needed.

Hey, if anyone is experienced in handling new LTA cases and doing the approval process, can someone take care of the small backlog at Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval? It's not a long list (9 cases) but some of them have been sitting around a while, and probably need to be actioned one way or the other. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Identifying the issues with RfA

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which aims to identify the issue(s) with our current system for selecting administrators. Please do not comment in this section, but rather post any comments about proposals in the relevant section, or on the RfC's talk page for general matters. Thank you. --Biblioworm 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for volunteer closers

Could there be three editors who would be willing to be part of the closers' panel for this RfC when it ends in about a month? The RfC is still far from ending, but I think it is generally advised to have closers ready a time before the RfC ends. Preferably, the volunteers are administrators who are familiar with the issues surrounding RfA and have a good track record of experience closing discussions neutrally. --Biblioworm 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from gun control-related edits imposed as Remedy 4 of the Gun control case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Gaijin42 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Gun control amendment

Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC

Might be time for an uninvolved admin - if there is such a thing - to make a careful close of this RFC? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Berber page vandalism

The user NottNott vandalized the page, by removing multiple sources. see [85]]. Guanches are only considered to be part of berber people by some scientists only. Doesn't make them elligible to be in the list of related people instead of Genetically proven related people. That's vandalism and its untolerable. Guanche language is unclassified language, similarities may only be a substratum and not a relation at all.
Best Regards
41.143.222.134 (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AIV, not here. Doc talk 08:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Banned user

I was just looking at a couple templates and noticed {{Banned user}} appearing on userpages for users that aren't actually blocked (discounting sandboxes/lists of templates). This might not be an issue at all, but it seems like one of the few userpage templates that should really only be used for its intended purpose (though there's no restriction in the template documentation, as far as I can see) so it seemed worth mentioning here. In a couple cases it looks to be non-serious (Voldejenn, MegastarLV). Rick73s looks to have added it himself (out of frustration?). Empengent and Carlisle Rodham have sock puppet tags but the block was removed by WP:BASC. And a few others were just never blocked: Macallla, Jumpika025, and Wanli. That's all. Feel free to close this thread if there's already consensus that these can be displayed on non-blocked accounts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I lookd at a few of your sample. Macallla is globally locked, so no local block is necessary. The ban discussion is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#AN/TPS-43. The tags for Carlisle Rodham were removed by user:John Vandenberg, an admin who was at the time an arb as well if I recall correctly. The tags were restored by a different (non-admin) user for reasons that are unclear. I have removed them. Wanli was banned in 2003 for using Wikipedia as a file storage facility. I found in this discussion that there's no block logs extant for anything prior to around 2004. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for looking into it. Indeed I did not know that block logs only began in 2004. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa and Rhododendrites: Before the automated logs were established in late 2004, the logs were on pages in the Wikipedia namespace, such as Wikipedia:Block log/Archive1 and Wikipedia:Block log/Archive2 (which mention Wanli, but don't note that user's actual ban. Those logs only go back to November 2003, and it was impossible to block usernames before September 2003. Wanli appears to have been banned in March 2003 by a developer. Graham87 09:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

See here for explanation of my edit. For future reference, it is always a good idea to look at contribs around the time of an edit by an arbitrator, or email an arbitrator, before reverting an edit like this. thx Diannaa for reverting the revert. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency in instructions regarding reporting vandalism

Hi all, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention says: Block a vandal or spammer who has been sufficiently warned? Visit Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, the latter page says The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now [...]. Now I'm confused where to report vandals that have received a final warning and after that vandalized again (so they may need to be blocked), but are not urgent cases (usually there are 1 or more days between acts of vandalism). Gap9551 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The rationale for insisting on warnings and edits being recent is that IP addresses may be reassigned to different people, so if a warning was left some time ago it may have been left for someone else and if an IP is blocked for edits made some time ago then innocent users may be affected. This doesn't apply to registered vandals, so if you've got one of those then I'd say go ahead and report it. (The instructions used to say that this rule only applied to unregistered editors, but it looks like someone removed it without explanation.) Hut 8.5 19:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't report this case then. Gap9551 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin needs to close this

NO ACTION:

KoshVorlon strongly advised to read the advice practically every admin on Wikipedia has given him at some point, and actually start reading what policies say before jumping in at AN and ANI demanding they be "enforced". ‑ iridescent 16:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

So, there's this RFC ongoing right now, and I'm thinking we need an admin close for this because the RFC is suggesting text be put in that would violate BLP (Essentially, editors are attempting to use circumstanial evidence in sources (read OR and SYNTH) to tie Anna Politkovskaya's murder to Putin. None of the sources make that claim, therefore, even if there is overwhelming consensus to add, it can't be done without violating BLP, therefore, the RFC can't and shouldn't be allowed to proceed. I've already voted, and am not an admin so I can't close it, so that's why I'm here. KoshVorlon 17:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the main reason you can't close it is because you're involved. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If the reliable sources state something and they find it relevant to state it concerning Anna Politkovskaya's murder, it is certainly most relevant to include it when talking about it, and not a violation of anything. LjL (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, I'm sorry but you appear to be totally clueless about BLP policy. You also don't appear to actually understand the nature of the dispute and you haven't bothered to actually look at the sources. You are also (again!) misrepresenting both the sources and the editors who disagree with you. There is no SYNTH. There is no OR. There is no "tying Anna Politkovskaya's murder to Putin" (total nonsense on your part). The material is extremely well sourced - which is easy to do since every single source on the subject talks about it. Volunteer Marek  17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi KoshVorlon. I think we last interacted on here when you were appealing a topic ban earlier in the year, and you very kindly agreed to adjust your signature when a few folks asked you to. That was kind of you. Anyway, the reason this "caught my eye" again was that I recall at the time you had an agreement with Floq about certain matters, including not nominating things for deletion, to avoid some sanctions. I couldn't find it when I looked for it today, so I had a quick search, and I guess you must have squared it all up with Floq, because you "hid" it for a while, then removed it here?

Anyway, I guess I'm just saying, in the light of stuff like this ill-judged request, this silly nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godwin's law, and the recent restriction/agreement, you might want to take it easy with stuff like this. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Begoon I think you mean this . It's a self-imposed set of restrictions, like hatting other people's posts. None of the restrictions include AFD, I'm not a real frequent poster over there anyhow. KoshVorlon 15:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

From your link: "Avoid starting deletion discussions of any kind (although I wouldn't say you can't participate in those started by others)" - from what you removed from your talkpage (my link): I am not to start deletion discussions of of any kind ( I may participate in thoose started by others).. Not sure how that meshes with None of the restrictions include AFD? It was my understanding the agreed restrictions were to prevent Floq pursuing sanctions. Still, you're at liberty to withdraw from voluntary restrictions at any time, obviously, and Floq is not around, so... I was just offering advice about how it can appear, that's all. Good luck. Begoon ^talk 16:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• The RfC is only four days old. RfCs run for 30 days unless they are withdrawn by the filer or unless they are unanimous SNOW cases. Recommend closing this thread as completely unwarranted, and to prevent a rehashing of the pros and cons on yet another page (besides the lengthy BLPN threads, the lengthy threads on the article[s] talk page[s], and at least one lengthy user talkpage thread). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Name change procedure query

At User talk:FusionWiki, I declined a request for unblocking as the name suggested appeared to represent a company. The request was made today by FusionWiki. I've just had it pointed out to me that the account started out as User:Fusion For Energy, and was softer blocked by @Edgar181: on the 16th. Then on the 19th, it was name changed by @Céréales Killer: while the account was still blocked. Is this the way that it's supposed to work now? What's happened to the 'suggest a name first' before unblocking to request the change? Peridon (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• One of the joys of usernames now being global. The user was renamed globally via a request on meta, which neither involves nor impacts the local enwiki account's status, which remains blocked independently. FWIW, after the name change, the new name still violates WP:UPOL (so an unblock decline seems justified), and it should be explained exactly why to the user so he can be renamed again to something compliant with local enwiki policies so he can be locally unblocked on enwiki. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a problem. I just chastised Céréales Killer yesterday (undeservedly, it seems) for doing this. So we have editors asking for user name changes somewhere not on en-wiki, being granted them in good faith, and then getting blocked or re-blocked because the new name doesn't meet en-wiki policy. Left hand, right hand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've posted an explanatory note for the 'victim' of this confusion. Peridon (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hem... Hello all. I suggest an idea... Until an account is blocked because the name is not acceptable, it should be useful that this account will can not ask for renaming until he has not proposed an acceptable name... What is your opinion? I am sorry for the renaming of an unacceptable account name... but with the volume, sometimes, the click is not on the good button... I am not a number (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that should be 'when' not 'until', and 'proposed' not 'not proposed' (negatives work differently in English and French sometimes...). Peridon (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

L'anglais c'est pas toujours facile.... je compatis! I think what Céréales Killer is suggesting is that when an account is blocked for an unacceptable username, that it would be useful to disallow renaming requests until an acceptable name is proposed. The issue is that global renamers cannot reasonably be expected to take into account the individual username policies of the thousands of Wikimedia projects for ever rename request they handle. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

With global accounts we are going to have to accept that renames will take place to names that are not acceptable on enwiki. We remain free to block those accounts until such time as they are renamed to a name that does not violate our policy, but I do not think we can dictate what names are/aren't acceptable to global renamers. Otherwise we would create a de facto global username policy that is simply the most restrictive amalgamation of all projects' username policies. Perhaps a notice should be added to the meta rename request system warning that users need to check the name they are requesting complies with username policies on the project(s) they plan to edit - and that they may be blocked/remain blocked on local projects if the new username does not comply. WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• RE to NeilN: It's not quite right-vs-left hand... it's a matter of global-level vs. local-level rules. This happens all the time across Wikimedia (when was the last time local projects were consulted before a MediaWiki update?) as well as in the real world (state-level laws clashing with municipal-level or federal-level ones). A username that is globally appropriate might still be inappropriate locally on some projects (enwiki or otherwise). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim: We know what's going on but to the user, it's all "Wikipedia". One person on Wikpedia says the name is okay, another person blocks me for it... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I don't have any problem with the unblock or the fact that the account was renamed on meta without addressing local username issues. It's just an issue we need to deal with on an individual basis as it arises (and it won't be all that often in relation to the total number of username blocks imposed). I like WJBscribe's suggestion about a notice in the meta rename request system - it may help make users aware of the potential complexities. As for the concept of "suggest a name first before unblocking to request the change", it's a good practice, but shouldn't be a requirement. At an admin's discretion, good faith unblock requests in order to make a username change request can be honored even if a suggested new username isn't specified first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally when uname-blocked users file a rename-and-unblock appeal (here or via UTRS), I always prefer requesting the rename on their behalf, seeing it completed, and only then unblocking the account. This avoids situations where you unblock and the user vanishes or never requests the rename. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) I'm not suggesting a way round this, but do the renamers look at the reasons for blocking - or even look to see if there is a blocking situation involved? And what about the renaming (probably a small part of the load) in Wikipedias with peculiar languages that sometimes use peculiar scripts? If someone on the Upper Slobodian Wikipedia wants renaming to 'Grzichfrud si tse o mtriw sa', how will they know that it actually means 'I've screwed your mother'? Do they just very quickly accept whatever comes to them? Perhaps we could do with a few more of them in here to comment. (Don't ask me - I wouldn't know where to find them...) Peridon (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I often find that someone blocked for 'BloggsCo' will suggest 'BloggsCo Inc' as a new choice - just as bad (and sometimes worse). The vetting process saves having to reblock for an inappropriate (and sometimes obscene) name. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Category request

Can someone review my category request on Category:National Football League teams that finished 1-15 on the page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why you needed me to decline it right now; someone would have been along sooner or later to decline it anyways. But now that you know it won't be created, you can work on something else instead. --Jayron32 23:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unblock an IP for training session

Hello, I am told I can ask the administrators page to unblock an IP for training so we can get more than the 6 people registered. I am running a training session at the African School of Excellence in Tsakane in Gauteng, South Africa. Please can you unblock this ip: 41.147.55.76 for the next 5 hours. Thanks Isla Haddow (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• The IP is unblocked. However, I have temporarily given your account only the "accountcreator" userright so you can create the additional accounts. I will remove it again after you have done so. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

List of languages by number of native speakers

There is nothing for admins to do here. If Rajatbindalbly continues his current behavior a report to WP:ANI should be made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Sir, In the above article hindi is shown to be fourth spoken language in the world. This is reported that 290 million people speak hindi. This data is very old and is probably taken from 1991 census of Govt. of India. The same Govt. Of India Census 2001 declares that 422 million people in india reports hindi as their mother tongue. I quote "http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement4.aspx". This is a verifiable source.The census 2001 is also an old data. Adding the fact that erstwhile India i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh is also having good percentage of people speaking Hindi. Nepal, Bhutan, Burma are the other countries where hindi is largely spoken.Further, the immigrants from India to U.S., U.K., Canada, Gulf countries , Australia and other countries also speak in hindi as their mother tongue. This data is not available but there is need of putting an effort to get this data. If the current data of Census 2001 is taken Hindi will be put on second place instead of fourth. I am trying this to edit but Thomas.W an editor is repeatedly trying to undone my effort without having any source of authentic data. He is also using scandalous and defamatory language. I don't mind that. However, a correct fact should be added to wikipedia to make it more reliable and authentic.--Rajatbindalbly (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Swift WP:BOOMERANG A look at the talk page of the article, as well as Thomas.W's talk page makes it very clear that Rajatbindalbly is the problem. The user is pushing a ludicrous WP:OR-violation and the user's refusal to WP:HEAR has already become disruptive. By taking the POV-pushing to yet a third place, the user just ups their disruption even more. While not involved in the conflict, I already warned Rajatbindalbly that their behavior could lead to a block. There is nothing to discuss regarding Thomas.W (who has been very patient trying to explain policies to a truth warrior) or the article, but I suggest a block on Rajatbindalbly who is most certainly WP:NOTHERE to construct an encyclopaedia and whose actions is causing disproportionate disruption. Jeppiz (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• This discussion on my talk page shows the extent of the problem. Rajatbindalbly isn't here to build an encyclopaedia but to get publicity for a self-published home-made "report" by a self-proclaimed "linguist", with a ludicrous claim that Hindi is spoken natively by 1.2-1.4 billion people around the world, including massive numbers in both the United States and Europe. And to show you how little he knows about Wikipedia and how things work in the real world I offer you these quotes from posts he has made at Talk:List of languages by number of native speakers: "If my request for updating the status of hindi language to at least 2nd position worldwide is not accepted I will ask The Prime Minister Office of Indian Govt. to take up the issue with Wikipedia and if Wikipedia dont agree to update I will also request The Prime Minister Office to Ban wikipedia in India for circulating false and scandalous material" from this post, and "Getting recognition internationally is also the job of PMO. Our P.M. Sri Narendra Modi is very particular on that. Also he will never ignore the request of a lawyer who speak only after doing original research" from this post. Thomas.W ^talk 15:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree on the above all except for my efforts for 1.2 billion people speaking hindi. I suspended my that version for future after doing more research.Presently I am fighting for 2nd place for hindi. The other editors do not have support to stop my claim. They are just trying to stop me unauthorisedly. Please refer to Arbitration in This matter. I am a qualified Lawyer and taking up the issue with verifiable source. Rajatbindalbly (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Rajatbindalbly, as a lawyer (be careful of WP:NLT by the way), you should know that "defamatory language" has legal implications. Please provide a diff backing up your accusation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As Rajatbindalbly confesses it's his/her own research, it's a clear case of WP:OR. The repeated lawyer talk, especially on the article talk page, brings WP:LEGAL to mind. As Thomas.W says, this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia, and is refusing to hear anyone else. I think an indef. block is the only solution here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rajatbindalbly links very "selectively", so instead of looking at the link in his first post in this thread I suggest you look at this link instead. It's the same official site, Census India 2001, but contains more information, and clearly shows that someone has confused Hindi, the language, with Hindustani languages, a whole group of related languages (like confusing German with Germanic languages), when writing the report, including 49 different languages under "Hindi". Unlike the page Rajatbindalbly selectively linked to the page I linked to lists the number of speakers for each of the 49 languages included under "Hindi", giving the true number of people in India who listed Hindi (the language) as their mother tongue in the 2001 census as 257 million, not 422 million. Thomas.W ^talk 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please refer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas.W&action=edit&section=72, use of words such as 'bollocks' work of 'hobbyist', 'self proclaimed linguisthomemade wild theories' are the words which are very defamatory. However I do not want this page to be a discussion page. I have submitted my proposal to the administrators who are the right person to check the authenticity of my submission. Thomas.W is not an administrator on wikipedia.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Rajatbindalbly, but I am an administrator and you should know statements of opinions are not defamatory. The only action that will be taken is sanctions against you if you don't WP:DROPTHESTICK. Keep to discussing content and refrain from hyperbole and wild predictions of your P.M.'s interest. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to be polite, but Rajatbindalbly just went on and on, and clearly didn't want to listen. "Bollocks", or to be more precise "utter bollocks", sums up my impression of the home-made self-published "report" (available for download from their personal web site), which includes totally unsubstantiated hyperbole like "I have been able to prove conclusively through my research that Hindi is not only the most spoken langage globally but the most preferred language too" (no, he hasn't), "It is an irrefutable fact that 'in the global arena Hindi is the most favoured language'. This has found acceptance with a majority of linguists" (no, it hasn't) and "Another aspect which backs this theory is the fact that our Hon'ble Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi addressed many countries and the UN in Hindi. People around the globe listened to this address avidly. Point to be noted is that this programme was globally broadcasted in Hindi as a mark of respect for Mr Modi. The aura and magic of Hindi is not limited just to India or its neighbouring states but is spreading..." (and so on ad nauseam). The very amateurish report also includes claims about the author having 28 academic degrees/diplomas (including two doctors' degrees...), having written 55 books and being an expert at virtually everything, yet he works as a deputy manager in a bank, and a search on Google returns only a Youtube-channel and the usual social web sites, but nothing substantial. A draft article about him was also declined in 2013 for lack of notability, and the only mention of him on Wikipedia was the name added to a list by an IP in India a couple of weeks ago, a name I removed both because of there being no article about him and because the IP also included a link to his personal web site in order to promote him. Making all of this just a big time sink. Thomas.W ^talk 17:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, Thomas.W your link is to a mirror site while Draft:Jayanti Prasad Nautiyal still exists on Wikipedia. Editors can read about his credentials on the draft article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: You mean "editors can read what he claims his credentials are". The draft has been declined three times now (13 and 19 October 2013 and 15 September 2014) for not having any sources at all, other than his own web site. And there still isn't a single reliable source that supports any of his claims. Have you checked the "report"? Long lists of numbers (such as claiming that 90% of the population of Maharashtra, one of the most populous states in India, with a population of 112M, speak Hindi when the correct figure is 11%) with no information about what any of it is based on, just expecting us, and everyone else, to take his word for it. Just like he expects us to take his word for everything in the draft article about him. Thomas.W ^talk 22:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was just sharing that Wikipedia had a draft article on the "linguist expert", I know it is only sourced to his own website and I don't take his credentials seriously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

For reversing an arbitration enforcement block out of process, Yngvadottir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysoped. They may only regain adminship after a successful RfA.

Supporting: Courcelles, Thryduulf, Seraphimblade, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano, LFaraone

Opposing: None

Recusing: GorillaWarfare

Inactive: AGK, Euryalus, Roger Davies, DeltaQuad

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

Baseball Bug directing verbal abuse at another contributor.

What happened to the Four Pillars? If you're Baseball Bugs, forget the third. I'm appalled and dismayed at his conduct towards another valued contributor. This is the edit I refer to :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AReference_desk&type=revision&diff=687188630&oldid=687138325

Can I please ask that an admin review this situation, and recommend an appropriate punishment i.e edit ban.

Thank you. Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.151.127.78 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Clear as mud. Please try and describe this abuse because I'm not seeing it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A tempest in a teapot from an IP in a rather disruptive range who was not involved in the discussion. Trolling? Mebbe. BMK (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit that this wasn't exactly the warmest sentiment on Bugs' part, but hmmm...a brand-spanking new IP's very first edit just happens to be at AN? Quack, quack, quack... (BTW, IP, it's five pillars, not four.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Mohsin17

Hello everyone. I am requesting the attention of the administrative noticeboard regarding continued disruptive editing by Mohsin17 (talk · contribs) after a recent block expiration.[86]

Since October 2013, [87] Mohsin17 has flagrantly ignored repeated requests from the community asking that he or she puts an end to the continued introduction of unsourced content, be it in the form of unsourced original research or poorly sourced content attributed to blogs/web forums. [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

See also the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics#Pakistani_cities_Transport_and_Economy_section

We have shown good faith to this editor for 2 years, and the responses received show an absolute defiance to our policies, going as far as making claims of discrimination. [97] [98] I feel that I, along with several other editors, have exhausted all attempts at communication with this individual and am now requesting community feedback on how to best proceed. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not ignored any requests by youtaor t anyone.The fact is that only a single person has objection on content added me and that's you. You are continuously targeting me, deleting my material and spreading hatred against me. Your behavior is totally biased Mohsin17 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If reverting your edits while assuming good faith to keep Wikipedia in accordance with policy and sending you notes to remind you of that means you're a target, then I don't know what to say. As multiple editors, Yamaguchi included, all agree that your edits are disruptive, you are by no means being targeted by an individual. It seems like that because you're the one in the spotlight. However, if you stop your disruptive editing and start editing productively, you'll find that you'll stop being called out. Amaury (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mohsin17, please make note of my response to you at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics which reads:

Mohsin17, numerous messages have been left on your talk page indicating that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, and that sources are required for all significant content changes. I see on your talk page that you have been notified at least 5 times between now and October 2013, so I do not understand why you are continuing to add unsourced and otherwise poorly sourced content to these articles. Please adhere to our editorial policies and guidelines and I wish you well in you future endeavors. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC).

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, provided that your contributions can be attributed to reliable third party source. Take the List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan article for example, where you have continued to dismiss our WP:V policy by introducing original research or using web forums hosted by SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM as a reference despite requests not to. Examples of sources you have used recently include: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1696650&page=46 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1731754 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3608 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1698468 - et cetera. These are unacceptable per WP:USERGENERATED, please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or request assistance from the community via the respective talk page. Persistent edit warring in opposition of our core policies is not the way. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello— Today, Mohsin17 (talk · contribs) has relapsed back to citing internet chat forums as sources despite multiple requests not to. [99] In some cases, the thread will discuss an article somewhere which may actually have encyclopedic purpose, and in other threads not. In any case, the SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM forums have no place being cited here. Will an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor please assist? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mohsin17: Forums are not suitable reliable sources. I suggest you revert your addition else you will attract a block for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mohsin17's reintroduction of internet chat forums as cited references on 07:08, 13 October 2015‎ remain in place in the List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan article at this time. I have disengaged from the article until an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor has an opportunity to review and intervene. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I posted a clear final notice that if Mohsin17 doesn't discontinue this practice of using original research and forum posts for sourcing, he will face a block. It could be that a block is warranted at this point but I like to give editors one last warning that a block is on its way if behavior doesn't change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it for you, Yamaguchi先生. Amaury (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting this issue in search of a resolution. I am requesting that the recent change to List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan by Mohsin17 (talk · contribs) be reviewed, again, by an uninvolved third party. See diff: [100] -- upon first glance it might appear that all claims have proper attribution. In actuality there are a multitude of claims which are all attributed to the base domain of website WWW.RAILPK.COM, lacking any verifiable page to confirm the data. This, in my mind, is a continuation of the uncited claims / original research issue. I have disengaged from the article entirely and have opted to present this to the community for further input. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 01:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead, and once again reverted to the previous version without the problematic sourcing. But could someone with WP:PROD and WP:AfD experience take a look at List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan and figure out if this article should be axed or not? Looking at it myself, it looks a little thin for inclusion IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Predictably, Mohsin17 reverted my restoration to (and then subsequent improvement of) the previous version of List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan (which I still think is basically a WP:COATRACK article that looks like a deletion candidate to me). I've now left a {{uw-editwar}} message on the user's Talk page, as this is Mohsin17's fourth or fifth reversion of others' changes to the article. I'd prefer not to revert Mohsin17 myself again here, but if someone else could revert to my last version, and Mohsin17 follows this up with yet another reversion, I think a quick trip to WP:ANEW would be fully justified. This definitely seems to be a case of disruptive editing, especially considering the warnings Moshin17 has gotten from Liz and others. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ideally Mohsin17 would acknowledge the sourcing issues and start editing in a cooperative manner with our editorial policies in mind. I have already listed one article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mubarak Center due to similar sourcing issues with the outcome still pending. When presenting my rationale for deletion there (lack of substantial coverage from reliable publications), he or she responded that "you just need to open your eyes and watch carefully instead of making excuses." This article is plagued with the same issues as List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan, relying heavily upon internet chat forums and vague references to the root domain name of a website, rather than the actual URL which supports the claims being made. There may be other articles affected in this same way, which would require closer examination. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 00:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yamaguchi: can you clarify why you are removing this content? Is it because you believe it is incorrect, or you are not sure if it is correct, or because it is written badly, or perhaps WP:UNDUE concerns? Otherwise would it not be more constructive to help find sources for this content rather than just removing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The concerns are primarily WP:V, that the claims being presented are original research, not directly attributed to a reliable source which is verifiable. Secondary concerns are undue weight, the grammatical problems can be resolved through the normal editing process provided that it makes sense to do so. I welcome your opinion on the matter, what do you feel is the best approach in this situation? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 15:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to lift temporary topic-ban

BAN LIFTED:

It is clear that this topic ban did not have the support of the community, and it is only procedural delay that let the discussion continue so long. There are only two days left in the ban, but that's no reason to continue it when there's no support for it.--Aervanath (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I request that this purely punitive two-month topic ban (the continuation of which has a purely punitive effect, however preventative it was intended when issued) by Future Perfect at Sunrise be lifted; it has been one month to the day so far. It's certainly not preventative of anything: The admittedly disruptive dispute at WT:MOS had already wound down and had moved to WP:ANEW; and two editors arguing about behavior at a noticeboard that exists for resolving behavioral disputes is not disruptive (though this WP:ACDS topic ban actually derailed that dispute resolution without any resolution being reached).

I can respond here, to address any questions or concerns over the next day, but I'm preparing to travel to Washington DC for WikiConference 2015, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to respond between late 7 Oct. and ca. 9 Oct, and will be AFK for much of 7 Oct., though available for a couple of hours from this posting, and again ca. 12 hours after it.

The ban was applied one-sidedly on a technicality (the other editor's discretionary sanctions alert had expired), although the admin had initially intended it to apply equally to both parties [101]. My repeated requests, on my own talk page (see [102], [103], [104], and [105] and that of the admin (see [106], [107], and [108]) for it to be narrowed or even clarified as to what it really means, have been totally ignored, as was my request (see diffs above from my own talk page) for evidence of its justification (the admin made accusations without diffing any evidence to support them, which is among the things that WP:ARBATC in particular was enacted to restrain, ironically). Weirdly, despite saying they would address these questions and concerns promptly [109], the admin has been active the entire time, even issuing further topic bans to others, then later archived the requests without any comment or action.

I've been just living with this TB in good faith, but it's getting to WP:IAR levels of impracticality at this point. All it's doing is muzzling me from routine participation, having the WP equivalent of a chilling effect on my ability and willingness to edit. I have a big pile of reliable sources to add to the affected article, and am just sitting on them twiddling my thumbs. The article in its present state is so bad that The Guardian publicly criticized Wikipedia for it, and that newspaper article is still in top-ten Google search results for the subject [110]. All this TB is doing is preventing me from genuinely improving a public-eyesore article (a genuine PR problem for WP) with RS research I've already done. Well, it's also denying me the ability to participate in any MoS-related discussion, despite the disruptive discussion having been very narrowly focused on one topic, and entirely a two-editor pissing match, not a general brou-ha-ha; a far more useful approach would have been an interaction ban for a while. But even that would not be needed at this point; ironically, I was in the middle of drafting a constructive olive-branch message for the other editor's talk page when FPaS dropped the TB bomb on me, and its overreaching scope actually prohibits me from posting it! What good is a TB that prevents editors trying to work out their differences?

Additional rationales and details supporting this request

I've outlined here a handful of the interference this is causing. Due to its overbreadth and vagueness, I fear even editing anything MoS-related in a sandbox or draft page, answering any requests for my participation (e.g. [111] and [112] today alone) even just to say that I'm not allowed to participate, citing MoS as a rationale in any discussion (which is why I've almost totally avoided WP:RM lately, and most WP:RFCs and WP:VP discussions I would normally contribute to), as well as editing anything related to WP:AT (because WP:ARBATC covers both, and the admin in question cited that as the basis of their ACDS against me). For all I know, I'm about to be punished further since this very request mentions MoS in passing. The extension of the topic ban to an article, that I was obviously actively working on sourcing, is especially uncalled-for and unjustifiable; it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The scope of ARBATC does not even include actual articles that happen to be about punctuation or other linguistic matters; it's about disputes relating to WP:AT policy and the WP:MOS guidelines. This is exactly the same as topic-banning someone from Japan-related articles because of disputation over MOS:JAPAN matters; I raise that example specifically because WP:ANI recently concluded multiple times against such a topic ban, in cases of far more intractable conflict. In short, the TB appears to conflict with WP:ACDS#Placing sanctions and page restrictions, in being disproportionate. The entire basis of it seems shaky to me to begin with. I opened a WP:ANEW discussion about another editor's actions (very clearly documented by me), spanning an MOS page, an article, both talk pages, and even an associated Wiktionary article, and then was slapped with ACDS for "addressing editor instead of content". But the entire purpose of such noticeboards is addressing editor behavior. It's not a "personal attack" to raise such concerns on a noticeboard, even if my tone could have been calmer. I feel that I've been railroaded unfairly here, and that ACDS is being misapplied to interfere with actual encyclopedia work, with normal consensus formation at both a policypage and an article, and normal dispute resolution at a noticeboard. The purpose of ACDS is not to "settle" disputes by short-circuiting normal process to declare whoever is quieter to be the "winner". We have talk pages to resolve conflicts about pages' content and the sources for it; we have noticeboards to fairly and correctly resolve editing disputes in the readership's and the community's best interests; and we have ACDS to stop actual disruption in particularly dispute-prone topics, as a last resort. An ANEW report pending neutral investigation is hardly a last-resort situation; nothing was being disrupted by one editor arguing with another about behavior on a behavioral noticeboard. And no disruption was prevented by retroactively applying ACDS punitively for disruption at an MoS talk page where the dispute had already fizzled out and moved to a noticeboard.

I concede that my tone was intemperate in the original dispute, and it was a mistake on my part to allow myself to engage in a dispute that became too heated, circular, and lengthy. One month is more than enough time to re-think my approach to this issue entirely (namely just sourcing the question reliably beyond most further argument – though the overbroad TB actually prevents me from doing this! – instead of continuing to argue back and forth about the matter, and starting at the article, where resolving this really matters the most, since it's our encyclopedia content, not an internal question of style guide wording). I also have a long history of coming to peaceable terms with editors with whom I've had vociferous disputes in the past, and I look forward to that kind of resolution with the other editor in the dispute behind this incident (with whom I already agree much of the time on most matters). If not for this TB we probably would already have such a resolution.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Added info about The Guardian article and prevention of user-talk dispute resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support In looking, it looks like SMcCandlish used dispute resolution , rather than just edit war, to resolve the issue and it didn't work, further, he politely contacted Future Perfect at Sunrise for clarification and it looks like FPOS just brushed him off. I'd say lift it. KoshVorlon 10:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Update:' Off to WikiConference. Probably incomunciado for a day or so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  Got airport wifi for a few hours, if anyone wants to ask anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, I think. I'll admit I haven't read over everything because frankly there's a lot of it and it's pretty dry reading. But I think it's worth giving SMc the chance here, he's handled the banning admin's lack of communication pretty well and he does sound like he's learned from the situation. Worst case scenario, the topic ban just gets reimposed, but I judge the chances of that happening pretty small. Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Request closure in favor of the request: This was open so long, without opposition, and without further comment but the supports, that a bot already auto-archived it once. If there are any questions/concerns, I have WiFi for about 20 min. (WikiConference is closed now, I'm at a café), and will again a few hours after that, at the airport.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• The bot shouldn't have archived this rather new thread so quickly. I think it deserves more feedback if admins who are familiar with the topic ban could weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Just lift it. I've already supported above, but this has been open for what four or five days and no one has opposed. FPAS is a good admin and I'm not saying the topic ban was a bad decision – certainly from what I glanced on my watchlist it was becoming an unhealthy and unproductive discussion for those involved – but it's now a month on and even FPAS doesn't seem to want to comment here (he has been editing while this discussion has been open) and say that the topic ban should continue. SMc will know he's treading a fine line in this area for a while and it's not like MoS talk pages are unwatched by anyone – I'm sure in the unlikely event he does anything silly it will be easy to come back here and re-apply, but in the meantime we should AGF for a long-term contributor who has clearly learned from the situation. Jenks24 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• OP calls the temporary topic ban "purely punitive", but I see no evidence to show that punishing him was the motivation behind it. Without supporting facts, perhaps he would be advised to strike that claim. In any event, I don't think it's appropriate to remove the topic ban without first hearing from the sanctioning admin, FPAS -- which could also shed light on the reason he applied the ban. So, let's call this a procedural oppose until that happens. BMK (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise: in regard to the above. BMK (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Beyond My Ken:. Done. My intent was never to imply a punitive motive (what on earth would be the point of attacking FPaS's motivations when the TB was for allegedly attacking someone else's motives to begin with?), only that this long after the event, it has a punitive effect and no preventative one. See latest post on my talk page: Even the other party in the original dispute is inviting my commentary on a current MoS matter. This water isn't just under the bridge but has flowed well past it at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• The point of a topic ban from MOS was to prevent you from participating at MOS. If your only real argument for lifting (from taking a look above) a reasonably placed ban is that its punitive because it prevents you from editing in the area its designed to prevent you editing in due to past behaviour... Well that is pretty much the point of it. Its 2 months. Take a break for 4 more weeks. Oppose Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The point of a topic ban for anyone from anything is to prevent disruption of or relating to that topic, not (constructive) participation in it. I've already explained why the TB should be lifted early. Given that, as far as I recall, every single one of the quite infrequent disciplinary actions ever taken against me in over ten years on this project has involved a sentiment that my posts leading up to and in defense against said action are long-winded and repetitive, I decline to be drawn into another re-explanation of what I already explained in probably too much detail above already, and which others seem to be accepting without coming to the assumption of circular reasoning you are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "The point of a topic ban for anyone from anything is to prevent disruption of or relating to that topic, not (constructive) participation in it" is incorrect. "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." This was all the explanation ever needed. Any participation is banned. Period! You were deemed to be disruptive in the MOS topic area and temporarily topic banned accordingly. You may have never agreed with it or accepted it, but that is totally immaterial to the banning policy. You are allowed to neither disrupt nor constructively participate in the topic area until the topic ban expires. That's it in a nutshell. It wasn't punitive then, and it still isn't punitive after all this extra filibustering. Doc talk 08:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That comment seems to serve no purpose. I obviously understand that I can't participate in the affected topic constructively, or I would not be asking for the TBan to be lifted early on the basis that its interference with me doing so is more harm to the project than good. Doc did not actually understand what I wrote, which is about the point of, not result of, a topic ban. I decline to re-re-explain this, for reasons already given above, or to address Doc in any more detail directly, for reasons already given below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Please do not "re-re-explain" things, as that doesn't seem to work out too well for you. We are not under an IBAN at all. I can say whatever I want about you, and vice-versa. It does not behoove you to claim that the topic ban is doing more harm to the project than good. The utter hubris of that notion is something you need to get a hold of. The project will get along just fine without you, and you are very replaceable. We all are. Get over it. Doc talk 06:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
          • I guess this deserves a response; I don't mean to imply above that I would totally ignore you, just not respond if the interaction seemed unconstructive. Anyway, it's not hubris; it has nothing to do with any notion that I'm magically special, I simply happen to have done a big load of sourcing work for the article in question, then the TBan (which probably does not validly include the article in the first place, because of ARBATC's WP-namespace scope) landed literally as I was in the middle of adding these sources to the article. It's about the article and bureaucracy blocking work on it for no common-sensical reason. It also, secondarily, doesn't make much sense to maintain the MOS side the TBan when the other party to the desipute among others (see new post on my talk page today, for example) are inviting my participation there. Even the admin who impose the TB has ignored everything about it, pro and con. No one cares to see it continue but you from what I can tell, and you seem to be approaching it from an "insufficient reason to end it early" viewpoint rather than a "sufficient reason to continue it" one. I think that's significant, given the reasons I've provided why it should not continue and why it was questionable to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
        • "No one cares to see it continue but you from what I can tell". Do you not see the comments above from BMK and Only in death? In reality there's no consensus to lift the ban early, and you've got less than two weeks on it. Take your lumps, STFU, and stop whining about it. Facepalm Doc talk 07:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
          • BMK opposed only conditionally, and I complied with the condition. OiD raised an objection that I addressed. I decline to respond to your verbal aggressiveness any further, per previous ANI discussions advising mutual avoidance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There’s no compelling reason to lift the topic ban early. Are we supposed to believe that we are all really being punished or deprived by not allowing him to get right back into the MOS fray that much sooner? He has maintained that the block was punitive from the very beginning with his 8-point demand for an “explanation”. "Whatever the intent, this comes across as a "punish more who ever posted more or more loudly” decision".[113] What amount of “explaining” would satisfy SMcCandlish that the topic ban was ever justified at all? Filibustering was specifically mentioned; and this continued whinging about a simple 2-month topic ban has wasted enough time. He said right off the bat "I'm not going to whine about receiving a temporary topic ban as onerous”... but here we are! To claim that "only that this long after the event, it has a punitive effect and no preventative one" flies in the face of what he’s been complaining about all along. To claim a PR issue because he is forced to "twiddle his thumbs" instead of protecting the encyclopedia is just... reaching. I don’t blame FPAS for not wanting to waste a ton of time arguing with him (though he really should comment here). SMcCandlish was given a little “time out” from MOS for two months. Plenty of other things for him to do in the meantime. Explanation time is over! Doc talk 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, Doc is hardly a neutral commenter on this matter, given that I lodged two ANI complaints about him last month, and the consensus was we should avoid interacting with each other for some while. His comment here does not appear to qualify as doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Alternative request: If this request for an end to the TBan en toto is seen as too broad, I alternatively suggest that a) its extension from MOS to mainspace be lifted, and b) that I be permitted to respond to MOS discussions in which my input is directly requested/suggested, through either pings or notices on my talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: Direct requests for my input at MoS continue, from surprising quarters, like soap opera article talk pages.[114]. I had posted a response to a punctuation issue, relying on external style guides, not MoS; was invited to an MoS thread on the topic; declined because of this TBan (and discounted my own value to the discussion); and the result is a public complaint about my absence from the MoS discussion. Doc, above, calls this "hubris"; I call it "observation of what people are directly asking me to do here as a volunteer". PS: Note that way back on the 11th, Liz wrote, about this being bot-archived when still open and unopposed, "admins who are familiar with the topic ban could weigh in." Zero have done so since then.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: SMcCandlish is often willing to help on Wikpedia matters, including WP:MOS matters, when others are not. His "23:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)" post above is an accurate reflection of my feelings. And I state that as someone who has disagreed with SMcCandlish times before; we've also exchanged heated words before (not often, though). SMcCandlish is able to recognize when he's wrong and take time to reflect on where he might have been wrong. I currently see no need for the aforementioned ban to stay in place. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• When you say that "I have a big pile of reliable sources to add to the affected article", are you referring to the encyclopedia article about Quotation marks in English (not WP:MOS, but explicitly included in the "broadly construed" rule)? Or to something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: Yes; that is the only article affected by the TBan. I'd done three days of source research to improve the article, and the TBan was put on me literally as I was editing it in one window, and writing a message to the other party in the already-waning dispute, in another window, toward reconciliation. This is seriously one of the least actually preventative TBans ever (given that the disputation on WT:MOS had already tapered off anyway), unless you count preventing improving articles and preventing dispute resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I really wanted to hear from the blocking admin, FPAS, but since he hasn't come by to comment, and since SMc has struck the part of his request I objected to, I now support the removal of the TBan. There's no reason SmC should suffer because FPAS didn't respond to explain. BMK (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

User:Bebbebopp appears to be a sock

Edits are here. Should we just block this account? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read through all of the discussions on the talk page of the article. @Doc James: do you have an opinion (evidence) on who the master may be? They are clearly not a new editor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes not sure what other accounts they use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for this discussion. It should be taken to WP:SPI. But to do that, you need actual evidence in the form of diffs, which Doc James doesn't appear to have. It's also worth noting he doesn't appear here with exactly clean hands. He's canvassed for his position in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Honey bucket and he's involved in a dispute on that page with Bebbebopp over what the outcome of the RM should be and also over what constitutes COI. His complaint here has a little too much of the feel of trying to take out an opponent for my taste, especially as an admin coming to an admin board where he might find friends rather than the correct venue where he might not. This complaint should be closed no action. If Doc has genuine evidence, he should take it to the proper venue. Msnicki (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Msnicki, I notice that you don't acknowledge that this account is not new and that Doc's suspicions are well-founded. You don't think this is a sock?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a new account and the behavior suggests this is someone who's been around for a while. So there's reason for suspicion. But that broad suspicion is not evidence. Evidence would be diffs showing that two accounts are likely the same person and that they're being used in a way we don't allow. It is entirely possible this is an individual who's been editing for years as an IP but finally got an account. We need evidence of wrongdoing, not just broad suspicion. And if anyone has some, the place to take it is WP:SPI, not here. Msnicki (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had more time this morning to look at the Bebbebopp's edit history and have decided I think this is a genuinely new user with very little experience simply doing his/her best. We should not WP:BITE. Bebbebopp's arguments about COI make it appear he/she is an experienced editor. I think it's just evidence he/she is trying to read and apply our guidelines. But this is definitely a newbie. Notice that in the first 4 of this editor's 9 edits, he/she had trouble getting the signature right. It doesn't get more newbie than that. I suppose a really cunning, calculating sock might do that, just to throw us off scent, but that seems unlikely to me. Msnicki (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to you that a sockmaster would make make deliberate mistakes with a new sock just to throw us off? So... you've never seen that before, in any other sock, ever?

I see. BMK (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that people always seem to expect their behavior is normal. If they're constantly pushing the envelope, getting into fights and gaming the system, they expect this is normal behavior for everyone and it causes them to be suspicious of everyone, even if there's no real evidence. By contrast, I'm pretty honest and I try to follow the rules, so that's what I expect unless there's some real evidence. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh, snap, pretty clever the way you did that, insulted me without seeming to. Well done! BMK (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This account is User:EChastain, blocked as a sock of User:Mattisse. The sanitation edits are the calling card. RO^(talk) 00:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, nice call on that one Rational. I guess this can be closed now as checkuser Mike V confirmed and blocked Bebbebopp as a sock of Mattisse. I have logged the info over at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mattisse - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#October 2015

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2.2 of the Richard Arthur Norton (1958 - ) case is struck and replaced by:

2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:

Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.

Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page.

This remedy may be appealed after the later of 6 months and when all draft articles he has authored, in his userspace and in the draft namespace, have been verified free of copyright violations and moved :::to the article namespace by other editors or deleted. In order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the :::Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.

Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block, initially of at least one month and then proceeding per the enforcement provisions. The article or draft article :::may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator.

Any page moves made contrary to this restriction may be enforced by blocks per the enforcement provisions. The page move may be reversed by any editor able to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) October 2015

NOTICE: Volunteers are called upon to review RAN's userspace drafts and move them to the mainspace. They're listed on his user page or can be seen from this PrefixIndex query. Most of them don't seem to have any copyright issues. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Review of rangeblocks for Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

Events in the LTA case described above (recent sample case at User talk:190.49.60.251) have deteriorated to the point where rangeblocks are the only effective way of curbing disruption. These are being logged at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#Known range blocks. So far, there has been broad consensus that these are acceptable, because they are "anon-only" blocks, so collateral damage can be avoided by creating an account (which this user refuses to do). However, I'm concerned that I can't really leave 6 long-term rangeblocks in place without reviewing it to the wider community, so that's why I'm here. Does anyone have any alternatives to how we might proceed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not opposed to the rangeblock, but is there an edit filter option to be tried? --Jayron32 22:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the edit filter is worth a shot. (Though I'm not opposed to rangeblocks. Sick of the guy.) Katie^talk 00:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a filter - Special:AbuseFilter/667, though it is set to log-only as it generates too many false positives. If anyone wants to try and improve it (based on some Bayesian analysis of previous behaviour, perhaps?), go for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Author deletion request

Could an Admin please take a look at this request Talk:USA Masters Diving 2010 Spring Indoor - Athens, GA. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

In the future, just put {{db-author}} on them. BMK (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) may edit the article Typewriter in the Sky, its talk page, and pages related to a peer review, good article or featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be revoked by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Cirt fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards while editing under the exemption. Appeal of such a revocation would be through the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 01:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

Twinkle's "Deli-batch" module will be removed

On or after 31 October, Twinkle's "Deli-batch" (batch image deletion) module will be removed. Its functionality has been available from "D-batch" (the regular batch deletion module) for some time. By removing "Deli-batch", the size of the Twinkle JavaScript code will decrease by 6% for all users of Twinkle (not just admins).

If you have any questions, or wish to request a stay of execution, please post at WT:TW. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Jaguars

Not an admin issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Anyone who is a Jaguars fan or knowns about the NFL International Series, please look at my request at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

my archieve page

OP has rescinded his/her request. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Please semi protect my archieve talk page as its per my request. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

For at least 1 month. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If that page is semi-protected you will be unable to edit it, since you are an IP editor. I would recommend that you create an account, so it can be uniquely, and personally your own account. With an anonymous account, such as you're using currently, if your IP address was to change, you would cease to be associated with anything under that IP address. I would suggest you see these two articles What IP Users cannot do and Why create an account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I wont need it that way. Closing. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

AIV backlog

Could someone please clear out the backlog at WP:AIV, Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for RFC close review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closure left as is. I don't think I can stay that the close really is endorsed, though. There is no consensus to change the closure of the RFC, and in any case the discussion has continued beyond the RFC, so retroactively re-opening the RFC wouldn't serve a purpose.--Aervanath (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

I closed a RFC on Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia as an editor closer. I found consensus and closed the RFC. One of the participants FkpCascais is unhappy with the close and continues to fight against the findings of consensus even after I tried to clarify.Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Clarification_of_RFC. I am asking for a review of the close. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 01:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Eastern European politics is generally a very contentious topic -- there are Discretionary Sanctions covering it -- and it probably would have been better to have allowed an admin to close the RfC. Although there is no absolute ban on NACs for such subjects, there generally is less of a problem with an admin close compared to a non-admin close when the subject matter is contentious. BMK (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It certainly should have been an admin closing, and probably sanctioning Albino for clearly copy/pasting the wish of one side, recomending ignoring 20 reliable sources, and saying he clarified when in fact he refused to answer questions I made him. Can an admin please see the case, it is unbelivable what happend there. FkpCascais (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sanctioning Albino for the close is not a reasonable suggestion. There was no bad faith act here, AlbinoFerret has a long history of making closures without bias. HighInBC 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is my fist time I interacted with him and all I can say is that his close is the most tendentious close I have ever seen here over the last decade. Copy/pasting the demands of one side, recomending the removal of content sourced with 20 reliable sources and the replacement of my content with a sentence saying the opposite and incorrectly sourced? Also, I had already told him I was going to ask for a review of hiis close, so why is he reporting me now? FkpCascais (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh come on, Albino doesnt even know the difference between "Contitutional" and "constitutive" (him claiming its the same after I called his atention for the mistake he made in the close by mixing constitutive with constitutional) and is making such a sensitive close in a contentious area such as this one? FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a word mistake, I corrected it. Mainly because of a concern of yours brought up during the clarification. AlbinoFerret 04:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)@BMK Thats true, there is usually less problems with an admin close. This close is good though BMK. I am sure it will be supported. If it had not been clear, I wouldn't have closed it and left it to an admin. AlbinoFerret 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The case is actually not very complicated at all. I made a resume at bottom of the talk-page. AlbinoFerret, please correct me if you believe I said something wrong there, or add if you believe something is missing. Also, I will like to apologise for having proposed santions here to you. I do find your rationale wrong, tendentious and going against several rules by itself, but seing the situation in the long discuions I understand you were missguided by the superior number of users opposing me and you applied WP:POLL. Thank you for asking for a review. FkpCascais (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC's are not a vote count. I did not apply poll. AlbinoFerret 04:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to explain then. You come to a RfC dealing with an issue regarding a Serbo-Croatian dispute. There are clearly two sides, one formed by 3-4 Croatian users opposing the sourced text I added, and me, alone but backed by 20 reliable sources. Since they lack sources, they are saying the matter is irrelevant thus should be removed, an argument hard to understand since in a article Serbs of Croatia the constitutional status of Serbs in Croatia is basically the most important thing. Also, they are saying the term is not well defined, thus clearly claiming the 20 authors of my sources are not knowing what they are talking about, an argument hardly sustainable. You close the RfC claiming consensus and agreement between the parties, while your rationale is just a copy of the arguments of their side. Sorry, but in my view your rationale is clearly a way of using WP:POLL to get perfectly sourced material out of the article. FkpCascais (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am an uninvolved editor, I dont edit in this area. I could really care less what side of this discussion gained consensus. Thats not the role of a closer. The role of a closer is to determine where consensus (agreement) lies. As for pointing out things mentioned by the majority opinion, well thats part of closing, to show what the agreement is. I will now wait for others to chime in on the close. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note In the interests of full disclosure I have removed the comment of a block evading user from this thread: [115]. This user has been evading blocks for months now with an unlimited number of fresh IPs. I have no opinion on the RFC, I suggest those involved in the dispute give some time for an uninvolved review to form here. HighInBC 15:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - The close was a reasonable assessment of consensus. FkpCascais' frustration is understandable given that he presented a large list of sources that appear to support the proposed wording and some solid arguments for which he should be commended. But after you eliminate the original research, personal attacks, and tendentious arguments from obvious sock puppets, there were still strong arguments made by a couple of experienced editors that the sources are not adequate to support the proposed wording. This was summarized accurately by AlbinoFerret in my opinion. The only thing I might have done differently is to close the discussion as no consensus. Of course nothing prevents FkpCascais, or anyone else, from seeking a new consensus for slightly different wording based on the same sources.- MrX 17:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you MrX. Despite not agreing with me totally, I do understand perfectly well what you are saying. However, while I read you perfectly well, that doesnt happend at all with AlbinoFerret, his close, and his posterior clarifications. Allow me to explain what concretely makes this close unacceptable in my view: he recomends removing a clear fact saying "X happend" and replace it with "Serbs perceved X happened". I presented 20 sources clearly backing the fact (there are more, I can bring them as well), all English-language, and clearly demonstrating that it is a mainstream view on the issue. No sources are saying the opposite or challenging it. But, the sentence he recomends using provides a clear indication that X didnt happend and only Serbs perceved it that way. So his close recomendation enters in direct confrontation with all sources and the scholar mainstream view on the matter. And to make it even worste, the only source backing that wording is not even saying it, but just uses that wording because the author deals with Serbian perception of the events, but not saying they are the only ones. So the sentence is not sourced at all. Implementing his close would break several fundamental and editing rules. Regarding the rest of the close arguments, saying that my text should be removed because we dont have the exact definition of "loss of contitutive nation status" is basically saying the autors are saying that but not knowing what they are talking about. Over 20 authors use the expression and some explain it quite well, it is not truth the term is not defined. Some sources even give exemples. And last, he says there is consensus and agreement between the parties, well, he missed the fact that this particular discussion was between 4 users on one side, and one on another. Well, the 4 of them agree ammong them, and I am opposing, so he is just using the disproportion in numbersagainst me to claim there is agreement and consensus. There is consensus and agreement ammong editors of one side, but that is not news. So, yes, we can work towards making the section better and better, I even asked Joy to provide sugestions. But we should not remove perfectly sourced text because of the reasons presented. FkpCascais (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - While I cannot in all honesty support or oppose the closure due to the sheer length of the debate, I have read the various "requests for clarification" and "application of consensus" after the RfC's closure, and I have noticed a slightly worrying attitude on AlbinoFerret's side of, to paraphrase, "I froze consensus, so now you must accept it, regardless of the validity of the arguments you're now making [which may or may not be repetitions of ones made before]". Other editors also repeatedly noted that having the specific statement FkpCascais was superfluous, meant beating a dead horse, or was a detail too small to be included, even though it was supported by many sources and notwithstanding the quite compellinig "the sky is blue and every sources says so!" argument. I think there is ground to look at this RfC's material yet again. LjL (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There's so much noise here that things get lost. Let me repeat this little tidbit I posted over there a month ago: "We have an RFC about a single ancient hot-button political issue that refers to Serbs in SR Croatia, while at the same time the article has an entirely empty section about the Serbs in SR Croatia." In the meantime, the section was expanded, but basically only as far as incorporating teaching this particular controversy in there, and some material was moved from the next section, which makes for a more graceful transition into the next section. That is why I've told FkpCascais that their rants are pointless - because the effort expended on this issue is disproportionate to the actual benefit to the encyclopedia from pontificating on this. Readers are told at length about the formal status of the Serbs of Croatia, which serves as a lead-in into a huge section about a war. But the war didn't happen because of these intricate formalities, so the article has been pretty much completely missing the mark in this regard. And instead of fixing that real issue, we're spending a month squabbling over a talking point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet, if that particular point has enough decent sources supplied by FkpCascais, then FkpCascais's wording can be used and the matter closed. I don't think it's fair to just say "there are more important things to take care of in the article", if that's just about the only criticism to the sources-backed point. LjL (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will briefly point out the problem that was brought out in the RFC. The sources FkpCascais wants to use dont define the terms that he wants to use, and the one source that does, he doesnt want to use. That is the core of the problem I saw in the RFC. Can an editor gather a bunch of sources and define the terms they use, but dont define, as he wants them to be defined. The consensus said no, we need a definition of the terms from a source. Then they said (paraphrasing) Hey this other article on a similar subject has a claim and its sourced and explained, lets use that. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources do define the term, and I do want to use the source from the sentence you want to insert in, however, that source is just saying Serbs perceved events that way, and basically just further backing what the 20 of mine say. I said several times that I opose the missuse you want todo with the source, which is to give a clear impressions that only Serbs perceved events that way but the reality is different. She desnt say that in the source. FkpCascais (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the term in question again? "Constitutive nation"? LjL (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. AlbinoFerret 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a term that necessarily needs a contextual definition to be used according to the dictionary meanings of the two components. If otherwise reliable sources use it without explaining it, I'd go along and use it without trying to explain it (while of course, trying to explain it in imaginative ways could easily constitute original research). LjL (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Some sources of mine even explain what the loss of the status means and provide exemples. FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@LjL That what I got from reading the RFC, its one of the reasons the consensus wants a definition, or a source that defines or explains, to avoid OR. While FkpCascais claims they do, multiple editors point out they dont. The other editors even suggested finding a source and then adding the claim after it was discussed. AlbinoFerret 23:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

But as long as you don't attempt to give a definition, it can't be OR (since there is no research being made - or every article that's lacking some information would be doing original research, which is an absurd idea), right? You'd only be stating what the sources say while possibly leaving some terms loosely defined / defined only in lay dictionary terms (something the sources potentially also do). LjL (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

But FkpCascais wants to use the loss of "Constitutive nation" to imply some kind of loss of rights. But since its not defined, it cant be compared to what came afterwards. The source the consensus wants to use says there was no real difference, just words on paper (paraphrasing). AlbinoFerret 23:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

But if the sources (assuming they're agreed to be reliable, of course!) proceed to explain what in their view the loss of rights actually was, in theory and in practice, then that can be reported, even if the term is left undefined. If the problem is that the sources, by elaborating on constitutionally-undefined terms, are doing original research... well, sources can and should do that. LjL (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats another issue in the rfc brought up by multiple editors, the sources are not really reliable for the extraordinary claim if they do make a close statement. Lack of references and definitions or explanations pretty much kill them. Its like a source saying the sun is green and then going on to describe the color green when other sources say its yellow. Read the RFC, I know its very long, but these are not my arguments, I just closed and I am probably missing some of the finer points. Since the close things have gotten very busy for me. AlbinoFerret 23:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Since FkpCascais presented a selection of sources again (I presume the ones he considered the most conclusive) on the article's talk page, I went for a quick analysis of them and of the four of them, it seems to me that two actually contradict his position, and the other two are relatively dodgy. LjL (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You incorrectly read one of them, strange, as it doesnt say at all what you claim. The "dodgy" can be excluded, there are 16 more. FkpCascais (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought it quite did; anyway, I've replied there. If there are 16 more, than why did you pick two dodgy one and two that can at least be read as being against you? Seems like a poor choice of "best sources to present", if you ask me. LjL (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This user went there and made clear missquotations, anyone can go and see the sources and see what she wrote. The "dodgy" one are from a university professor. But thank you for your input. FkpCascais (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That assumes we find the argument based on those other sources to be based on an accurate reading of those sources. Sadly, I have only seen proof to the contrary. (Plus many walls of text that I really don't have time to wade through.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse Partly endorse Fully endorse close, I can see now that the RfC likely got so long and involved because of waters getting murky due to complicated interactions, but that consensus was reached through, among other things, acceptably solid assessment of the sources provided. LjL (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC) However, there is at least space for reviewing the apparent decision to drop any mention of change in constitutional status: it factually happened, whether or not the statuses were clearly defined in the old or new Constitutions. LjL (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC) This has to end now, too many editors have been victims of the windmill fighting and it's quibbling over a tiny change in wording that may or may not have happened in a Constitution. End it already. LjL (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

An endorse coming from a person who went there saying one source says "Constitution did not really change the position of Serbs in Croatia" when the source says "Some will certainly argue that the provision contaiined in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia as in the...". Like you really didnt saw the begining of the sentence that changes quite a lot everything, didnt you? This user did the same with the other exemples, anyone can go and check it. Lying like this in order to influence AN report should be sanctioned hard. FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you feel I should be sanctioned, the you should probably report me at WP:ANI. I do concur with urging people to check at least the four sources given, and whether they tend to present Serb loss of rights as established fact or as their view. LjL (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I will not loose time making a separate report on you. After all in my long experience here I have seen often users making fake claims in reports in order to manipulate the outcome (I indeed find en.wiki too permissive regarding this). It is an old strategy done in other to make the other side loose time and write about your false claims and in the end the thread is clutered and an idea of a clear case is replaced by an impression how it is complicated and makes possible involvment of neutral admins less probable. Your fake quotation of the sources are here, and your immediate rush to come here and influence the outcome with your false assesment is here as well. So an admin can see exactly what sources say and what you wrote there. I will leave it to them. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your two attempts to silence the fact there is debate about your wording are noted, and I sent a stern warning to stop removing tags and edit warring like that. LjL (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fkp, you should ask yourself if it is likely that LjL, an editor of over 10 years here is "lying" to subvert the truth, or if perhaps they are just interpreting the sources differently than you. The information is not as cut and dry and you seem to think, there is certainly room for contrary interpretations to yours. I know you have been dealing with a very disruptive single purpose account/ip/sock in this subject, but it does not serve you or anyone else to assume bad faith about well established editors.

I semi-protected the page to stop the edit warring from the IP. If I see further edit warring I have no desire to full-protect the page, so please don't edit war. HighInBC 16:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I was initially slightly leaning towards FkpCascais's views as there were certain statements by RfC closer AlbinoFerret that I had found concerning about the way consensus may have been determined, but then things quickly deteriorated after I tried to make an analysis of the particular sources that FkpCascais presented for this review. I did, in fact, misread one quotation (which, I've got to say, doesn't really change my overall assessment of those four sources), and FkpCascais immediately jumped the gun claiming that I had done that intentionally. That is not the case. I likely haven't edited a single article about ex-Yugoslavian countries before, I don't live in any of those countries, and I can't see why I might intrinsically have a prejudice aginst FkpCascais' point of view. LjL (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, they could be Christ in person, it doesnt change the fact that:

They say

- "Constitution did not really change the position of Serbs in Croatia"

when what the source says is the following:

- "Some will certainly argue that the provision contaiined in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia as in the... However, .. What does this mean? It means primarely that Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community."

Can be seen here. Why did they removed just part of one sentence and firmly claim it says that, when by seing the rest of the sentence and the paragraph it is clear that it is very different what the author is saying. HighInBC, they didnt saw the rest of the sentence? They decontextualised the wording in accident?

Another case, for this source they said:

- "plainly says "Though granting equal rights to the Serbs and other nationalities, the 1990 constitution did not grant the Serbs the status of constituent nation of the republic". This is claiming that the change of status did not have any impact on their rights, which appears to directly contradict your claim."

Please, I am reading the page, how did they get their conclusion, please if they can explain. FkpCascais (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Gentleman, LjL is continuing to openly and now clearly lie at the discussion there. Please help. If this is a political matter and my wording needs to be removed, just say it, but tell me so I should know. FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close. If people don't like it they are free to ask better and more focussed questions. This RfC was a mess, and AlbinoFerret did a pretty decent job of drawing out something approaching a conclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I actually started a new section with more focused and distinct questions now, as I suspect that, despite FkpCascais's somewhat scorching ways, they may still have a point about part of the issue (I must, however, state the obvious, namely that this is not another RfC, which I couldn't possibly start after the first one has been closed and is being reviewed). LjL (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• No, dont pretend to be sudenly "good" now, you just blatantly lied about the content of the sources clearly twisting them in the ugliest way ever. I am out, you all do whatever you want, remove my text and ignore the 20 sources. Just remember, people around the world still have the books to read where everything I edited is said. Hide it here on our article, OK, I am not going to continue to fight for a free and just Wikipedia, obviously there are higher political interests and there is no real interess on behalve of no one to see what is really going on here. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse a close. Calling that mess an RFC would be a taking an extremely liberal view of RFC. As Guy says, if there is significant disagreement with the close a new RFC should be run with properly formed questions, and perhaps without FkpCascais's histrionics. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Final note

This is my edit and here is the list with even more sources backing my text. This is a highly politicized matter because it may imply Croatian governament had a slight share of guilt for the ugly events that happend there at that period. But it is prefered to hide it despite being mentioned in all those books, I will not involve myself more, I dont even know what was I thinking in first place to get involved, I am not a nationalists I have a happy life, I faced alone an entire group, and it was that feeling of justice that drove me there. I will edit other things I enjoy, if anyone wants to see what happened here, I left here the links, if not, I will not care anymore. FkpCascais (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I will just leave a note that LjL blatantly lied on the discussion and here on the report. Behaviors like those should be sanctioned hard. It is not the first time I see that on reports, WP would really benefit with creating a rule that would sanction this. Thank you all, best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just so I know, how many more times will you complain about me "lying" ("through my teeth" or not) before you stop being blinded about your by-now-obvious rage about this topic? It's a shame, because right from the start I've been sympathetic to parts of your position and have tried to distinguish between them and the parts that seemed quite dubious, but you've only got angrier and angrier. Oh well. LjL (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont have any rage, I dont care anymore. Everyone can see what you said sources say and what they actually say. You lied as good as you can. Someone doing that certainly has no good intentions, can only pretend to have, just as the entire pharse of your initial involvment here. I can totaly demonstrate how you lied if necessary. Feel good about what you did, I am out, goodbye. FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone who reported me for edit-warring would have certainly report me for calling them a lier. You didnt even if the acusations of lying I made you happend before. You didnt because you know if you reported me for that, your lies would have been scrutinised and you would be caught. FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't because I have no real motivation to be particularly upset at any perceived personal attacks, and also because your statements were made in places like this very noticeboard, which is full of administrators looking at them, who can make of them what they will. LjL (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais your continued assumptions of bad faith are getting out of hand. LjL does not deserve to be treated this way just because they are taking a contrary point of view. You are rapidly entering the territory of WP:AN where attentions turns around to you. If you cannot discuss this content dispute without resorting to accusations against those who disagree with you then I suggest you avoid it. HighInBC 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why dont we see then exactly if they lied or not? FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause lets not pretend it is not important. First they lie about what a source is saying. And no, it is not a slight missinterpretation, but aa total lie, turning 180 degrees what the source says and what they write it says. And then based on the lie about the ource, they build up more lies such as "There are contradicting sources". So you are saying I should ignore it? If so, if we are condoning lies, I am out, I have nothing to discuss there then, if one side can cheat by lying why to bother? Also, I told here that I am out, so I dont know why are you saying then all that. If you want to see if they lied, OK, if not, I am out. Will always be here for any clarifications if asked by an admin. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I mixed-up one source and LjL recognised she missread another. I hope we can now go trough the sources and confirm what they say and find the most neutral wording as possible. FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this

Looks like the discussion has died, would an admin please close this section. AlbinoFerret 13:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I will point out FWIW that discussion is ongoing (in a somewhat haphazard manner) at the talk page, and the RfC's resolution has in my assessment remained dead letter. LjL (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that discussions and such after the close cant have an impact on the close itself in a review. If other discussions or RFC's present new consensus thats fine, but has no impact on the closer at the time of close. AlbinoFerret 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that I was just sayin'. LjL (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: I wasn't disagreeing that this review should be closed (endorsing the RfC close, certainly), just pointing out as possibly-visible-final-words that the huge can of worm hasn't stopped leaking yet anyway. LjL (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LjL, you have really tried to solve the issues on that page after the close. AlbinoFerret 01:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

RfC: administrator election reform

The RfC at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC looks like it is going to be close on several questions, and there is a high probability that multiple editors will dispute any closing comments. Might I suggest two or three experienced admins work together on writing up the closing? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Karen Briggs (musician) might be a was copyright violation

Karen Briggs (musician) doesn't have any sources. While I was looking for sources to put in, I noticed that the text was the same, word for word, with an article from the Diva Foundation. The original article is gone, but there's a 2007 archived copy. At first I thought that the Diva Foundation article was a copy of the Wikipedia article, since the Diva Foundation archive is dated 2007 and the article was started, with much of the copied content, in 2006. However the first version of the article gives the Diva Foundation as a source.

I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I'd be happy to re-write the article (I was planning to anyways), but does it need to be done from scratch, or do the copied parts get deleted, or am I reading this all wrong and it's the Diva Foundation that's the copyvio.

Oh, also, this article is clearly a copy-paste of the Wikipedia article (the link is from this August), so is there a template to mark that source as a copyright violation of Wikipedia? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

For the copyright issue, I think a rewrite will serve here - there is still some similarity. Regarding Meekospark.com putting a {{Backwardscopy}} on the talk page should suffice - the fact that the first version of our article is highly dissimilar to the meekospark.com article while the current version is very similar supports the idea that meekospark's a copy from Wikipedia. Asking for assistance on Wikipedia:Copyright problems may help.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. I completely re-wrote the article, and this time it's even got citations. Should anything be done about the old versions of the article? I also changed the section title in case someone sees it and deletes the article without realizing that it's been fixed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but Revision deletion may be appropriate here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, The Squirrel Conspiracy! As you can see, some of the content was also present here, quite definitely before our article was created. I've requested revdeletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers. I'd really like to know how you found that serve.com source, though. It would have been useful when I was re-writing the article, and I thought that I found every source there was to find. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Tom Caplan

The article has since been deleted; and as Finlay pointed out, Wikipedia really has no control over mirror sites (or advertisements featured on them). (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

The Tom Caplan Wiki page seems to have been hacked and shows inappropriate material when the page comes up. The page itself is then frozen. I don't know much about Wiki editing etc but the page is set for deletions. It seems it was taken over by someone maliciously. Can you help with this svp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needs-abc (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article Tom Caplan was deleted several days ago as a result of this discussion. So that's all in order. That's not "inappropriate material", nor has it been "hacked". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to others: I've had a discussion with Needs-abc on his user talk page. It seems that, with the original Wikipedia deleted, some Google searches for "Tom Caplan Wiki" end up at a mirror site, which serves adult ads. All I can suggest is for the subject to take the matter up with the mirror and with Google, although I don't know how responsive either is likely to prove. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

How about that kind of draft

Not exactly sure what the question was, but the draft was speedied by Salvidrim. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Draft:The Silent Heroes--Musamies (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What's special about it? (I just G7'ed as a blanked-by-author). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Wikipedia:help desk#IP address change

(non-admin closure) Already been answered. BMK (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Please reply to my comment at the help desk about my IP address. thanks. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

someone seriously do it-. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Spambot attack

We are under attack by IP spam bots from China. Please click on "recent changes" to locate these IPs. I have to get ready for work now, need help here. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Elockid got them with a Rangeblock :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's calmed down for now. Elockid^(BOO!) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Check [116], they are back. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

hi there i found mistake in one article

(non-admin closure) This has been addressed at Talk:Israel#when israel was establish category, which is the appropriate venue for content discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

on this article israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel on the category it saying that israel was establish in 1948 but the truth is that israel was establish in 1 may 1949 since there was an independent war in the middle she was only declared in that year please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

DYK nomination with less than 1,500 characters

Wrong venue. See WT:DYK. sst✈^discuss 10:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

• Hello administrators, I am aware about the basic requirements for DYK; am aware that Everest (cigarette) wont pass it and hence requesting for your feedback here. This article is obviously less than 1,500 characters but has a very interesting fact. The name of the popular studio album Abbey Road of The Beatles was originally inspired by this cigarette and the album was named after it (before release and the working title of the album was also "Everest"). Due to shortage of time (and also due to the fact that The Beatles were not very happy with the name), Paul McCartney suggested that they just go outside (on Abbey Road), take a photo on there and name the album after the street.

Please see if this request can be accommodated on the DYK page and should you agree, I will nominate this for DYK. Either way, thanks for your time on this subject. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

While the fact is interesting, the article is woefully incomplete. It contains very little information about the cigarette brand (history, sales, ...) Compare Pall Mall (cigarette) for the kind of information I would expect in such an article. I don't think the 1500 characters need to be a hard limit, but there should be some level of completeness. —Kusma (t·c) 10:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Kusma, thanks for your revert. I tried to dig a lot to find more information but very little was available. Let me still try and find out. I just found this subject very interesting and hence dropped a message here. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

IP removes speedy deletion tags

Closing. Matter has been resolved. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

85.100.112.6 removed speedy dewletion tags--Musamies (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved through deletion (User:Kadir Avcı). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations

We had a rather large AFD closed yesterday. No issue with conduct, here - The close was correct and proper. It's just that there were 400+ articles involved. So now WP:BADAFD has exploded. Does anyone have or know of a script that might make un-tagging and notating the talk pages of these articles quicker? Failing that.... got 5 minutes to tackle a few? The list of the 350+ articles remaining is at WP:BADAFD, updated sporadically by bot. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The nominator used AWB to tag all of them in the first place, so I've requested self-reversion. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Running this past BRFA now, as a more general task in case this comes up again, so people can just poke me and I can run this task. Mdann52 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Another bad AFD

Someone please move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:25 (Adele album) to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:25 (Adele album) for deletion, where this deletion discussion belongs. Then untransclude it from the AFD log page and transclude it at WP:MFD. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Closed it - debates don't really get moved from one to the other like that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ultraexactzz:Actually, to quote Wikipedia:Speedy keep:

If a page is nominated for deletion on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be procedurally closed and the page renominated on the correct forum, with the original nomination, and any comments made so far, copied over to the new nomination.

So you should have kept all the comments. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I procedurally closed the debate, and it was promptly renominated at MFD. The nomination there links the AFD. But just so that people don't have to actually read a second page to get the arguments, I added the AFD comments in a collapsed box. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 05:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

212.121.214.222 (talk · contribs)

Already reported to the proper AIV venue by Donner60. Nothing to see here. Doc talk 09:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Blanked pages. Rzuwig^► 09:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to report this to WP:AIV. Doc talk 09:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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