Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 119 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 84 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Anomie⚔ 13:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals#RFC: Should we add a section about proposals for adding prominent links to crisis hotlines at the tops of articles?

(Initiated 47 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 44 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?

(Initiated 48 days ago on 13 August 2024) Ready for closing, RfC tag removed on 12 September and last comment on 17 September. — Goszei (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	5	18	23
TfD	0	0	1	8	9
MfD	0	0	1	5	6
FfD	0	0	1	3	4
RfD	0	0	0	94	94
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

(Initiated 51 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany

(Initiated 40 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Endings by year

(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Category:Prejudice and discrimination in fiction

(Initiated 30 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Category:1982 Japanese television episodes

(Initiated 26 days ago on 4 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 30#Category:1501 establishments in Venezuela

(Initiated 31 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 22#National shores of the United States

(Initiated 7 days ago on 22 September 2024) There are a bunch of these on this day's log; I'll only list the one but help closing 'em all would be appreciated :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 147 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 125 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 123 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 113 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 92 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 84 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Petah_Tikva#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 53 days ago on 8 August 2024) - This has been open and the discussion is at a standstill. While the proposer requested to keep it open, I don't think that it's proper. Another can be opened at another time, but at this point, if someone wouldn't mind closing it, I think that would be helpful to move on. Andre🚐 01:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

(Initiated 49 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 44 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 35 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

(Initiated 34 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 15:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Requested move 6 September 2024

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 September 2024). Discussion has died down and last vote comment was a week ago. Raladic (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_15_September_2024

(Initiated 14 days ago on 15 September 2024) Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, which has several opposes, this is not a "clear consensus to move". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022#Merge proposal

(Initiated 15 days ago on 15 September 2024) – Closed by involved editor under unclear consensus, reopened by a likely sockpuppet account. Discussion has died down and I want an uninvolved closer to get this over and done with. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 8479 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea 2024-09-30 13:53 indefinite create Firefangledfeathers Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 2024-09-30 08:25 2024-10-04 08:25 create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Wikipedia:Why the sandbox is shutting down 2024-09-30 01:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Ad Orientem Siti Zainab 2024-09-29 23:51 indefinite create Target of sockpuppets, been through 3 AFDs Liz Nabil Qaouk 2024-09-29 13:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Dahieh 2024-09-29 01:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Abbas Nilforoushan 2024-09-29 01:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Rafa Salama 2024-09-29 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Ukrainians 2024-09-29 00:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Costa Rica–Libya relations 2024-09-28 21:32 2024-10-28 21:32 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Faiq Al-Mabhouh 2024-09-28 20:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike 2024-09-28 20:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page currently on the main page and if this gets moved, it should be done by an admin who can also attend to the resulting main page redirect as per WP:MAINPAGENOREDIRECT Schwede66 Talk:Hassan Nasrallah 2024-09-28 18:04 2024-09-30 18:04 edit,move Persistent non-EC edits; temporary ECR Valereee Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/diffusingchildren 2024-09-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4745 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Karl-Anthony Towns 2024-09-28 17:56 2024-10-01 17:56 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:22 2025-03-28 14:22 edit Disruption by autoconfirmed users Black Kite 2025 FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:21 2025-03-28 14:21 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Black Kite FIFA Club World Championship 2024-09-28 14:19 2024-10-05 05:13 edit At least one of the disruptive accounts was autoconfirmed Black Kite Thirumagal (TV series) 2024-09-28 12:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Ali Karaki 2024-09-28 11:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Samthar State 2024-09-28 09:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq 27 September 2024 Beirut strikes 2024-09-28 02:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Gangwar (surname) 2024-09-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:R from book 2024-09-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2509 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah) 2024-09-26 22:28 indefinite edit Highly visible page I've posted the article to the main page, so if the decision is to move the page, the admin who moves it should simultaneously adjust the resulting main page redirect. Schwede66 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence 2024-09-26 17:25 2024-10-07 14:13 edit Persistent vandalism TParis

RFC on potential username changes

There is an RFC that has been started regarding a potential change in the rules for usernames. Please join in the conversation here. I know this isn't really an admin issue, but since it will affect admins in the future I'm posting it here. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [talk] 04:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

User editing a close about themselves

Back at the start of September, I closed this discussion at AN/I regarding User:Xenophrenic with no action and the comment, inter alia, User:Xenophrenic is warned, as his block log should already have made clear to him, that our policy on edit warring does not contain an exception for when you are right, and even less for when you think you are right. Exemptions from the edit warring policy are narrowly defined and editors are expected to be familiar with them. Xenophrenic appeared at my talk page to ask, fairly civilly, that I reconsider the text of the close - in particular, that I strike the warning because such a warning implies that I edit warred "because I was right, or thought I was right", which never happened. I asked for an explanation of his edit warring, after which (and I paraphrase, but I think it's fair) he admitted that his edits could be construed as edit warring but that he was in the right in the situation and was not disruptively edit-warring. I took longer than I ought to respond, so Xenophrenic took it upon himself to edit the close in the AN/I archive, to remove what he saw as a personal attack.

I reverted that change and explained that editing a close of a discussion about himself is inappropriate. After further thought, I said that I declined to change the close as I thought it perfectly justified and that if he still wanted it changed, the Administrator's Noticeboard was the place to request review of the close (unless he thought this ripe for arbitration, which I advised against). Xenophrenic has rejected all of that, both at my talk page and in an email to me, and proceeded to edit the close again, claiming NPA as his justification. User:Softlavender has kindly reverted him again.

I am within an inch of simply blocking for this as editing a close of a discussion about yourself seems to me so plainly disruptive as to be hardly worth discussing; however this seems to me likely to only escalate the situation and as Xenophrenic is an established editor and clearly disagrees, and out of an abundance of caution, I'm going to ask the question here first. Actually two questions:

1. Is the warning in my close fair or should it be overturned?
2. What sanction, if any, is appropriate for a user who repeatedly edits a close of a discussion about themselves?

I've created headings below to try to keep discussion of these two questions separate. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, your partial chronology of events is somewhat accurate, but you left out a few very salient points. You seem to have left out the italics emphasis you used when you alleged I "think" I am right in your quote above, indicating you've already formed a personal opinion. Could you amend that for accuracy, please? (I mean add the italics.)

Second, could you please confirm for our readers here that you understand that I came to your Talk page only to have you either add evidence to your accusation about me, or redact/strike your accusation about me. And that you declined to do either?

Third, can you please confirm for our readers that I only redacted your personal attacks, as instructed by WP:RPA, when you did not, or declined, to provide the substantiating evidence?

Fourth, can you please confirm that the only "editing [of] a close of a discussion about himself" that I did was to remove your personal commentary about me until you provided substantiation in the form of diffs as evidence, as required by policy? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Finally, can you confirm that I, in my email to you, concluded by imploring you: If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you? Instead, you came here. That is disappointing. And it sucks, because until now I thought you were just confused by other Wikipedia editors arguing for me in my absence. Now your position appears to be simply willful refusal to abide by policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that responding to you at all is a complete waste of time. I certainly don't intend to respond point-by-point to the bludgeoning going on below. I have italicised a word in my post above, since you seem to think it important to the timeline. Otherwise, the problems are all out on display here; I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page; you edit-warred over the close of the discussion because you thought doing so was justified by policy; in short, you continue all the exact same pattern of activity that caused the original AN/I report; yet you continue to assert below that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Thank you for illustrating my point so very neatly. Contra Softlavender below, irony appears to be not only alive, but kicking off the sheets and wondering where she will venture today. GoldenRing (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have detailed at some length above that you justified your edit-warring with various references of varying relevance to policy at my talk page --GoldenRing

This I can not argue against. I have indeed argued that I have edited according to policy. I had hoped to appeal to your sense of the greater good for the Wikipedia project: just tell me (by providing examples) what I did wrong, so I can improve, or if you were mistaken, simply redact your ill-considered comments. I am sorry that you consider the complaints and concerns of a fellow editor to be "bludgeoning". Above, your complained that I thought I was right about content, and I thought that justified edit-warring. Now you have shifted to complaining that I think I'm justified in edit-warring "because you thought doing so was justified by policy". PLEASE STOP, GoldenRing. What exactly are you after here? I edit Wikipedia to improve it, and I follow policy as best I can. Now your turn: what is your goal here? What would you have me do differently? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure Review

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

---

• Endorse close. GR's close was simply a warning for Xenophrenic not to repeat the actions which have gotten him a block log full of edit-warring blocks. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Closing statements should not have ex cathedra opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Close - Based on a skim of that discussion, I didn't see any actionable consensuses either. GoldenRing's warning was not even close to a personal attack. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close - I agree with it, and I've already thanked GoldenRing for it. Someone needed to end that little "bump every 71 hours indefinitely" lynch-thread. I do not, however, endorse GoldenRing's addition of personal commentary about me, disguised as a warning, insinuating that I somehow justify my editing because I am "right" about the content. I also do not endorse his additional little "think you are right" jab, which appears to be inserted only to convey that he disagrees with my content edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse close - a warning to stop edit warring is better than a block, and it's apparent that either were a possible outcome. Although the "when you think you're right" bit may have been better directed at a different editor, a warning that such activity might lead to sanctions is not a personal attack by a wide margin. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Clearly an appropriate close with no personal attack and no opinions. It was an accurate summary of the discussion and policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Sanction Discussion

• Support a block for Xenophrenic for (A) repeatedly trying to very blatantly mistakenly argue that a warning against edit-warring even when he thinks he is right was a "personal attack", (B) unilaterally removing that admin-close warning (already archived!) as a so-called "personal attack" (which it very plainly wasn't) even after endless explanations why doing so would be against policy, and then (C) edit-warring to keep that admin-warning close removed solely because he thought he was right (yes, irony is dead). Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• This is rubbish. GoldenRing is welcome to post in a section at ANI with their views but closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right. The whole discussion was a trainwreck with commentators pursuing bureaucratic see-no-evil purity when any consideration of the issues would show that Xenophrenic, while very misguided about processes, was entirely correct about the underlying issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how GR's closing statement included "ex cathedra" opinions? The thread was about Xenophrenic's edit-warring. Your defense of Xenophrenic in that thread focused solely on content, not on Xenophrenic's behavior (edit warring), and in effect you simply thought Xenophrenic was "right" on the content side -- which in fact is the problem, as GR clearly pointed out: Edit warring is against policy even if you are right. GR's close cut to the meat of the problem, according to policy, and left the content issues out (since ANI is not for content issues). Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, you just highlighted the core problem here with your question. Do you see where you admitted it was Johnuniq, and not me, that argued I was "right" about the content? Bingo! If GoldenRing would simply address his warning about "being right doesn't justify edit-warring" to Johnuniq, the problem would be solved. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm torn on this. On the one hand, repeatedly editing a closed discussion about yourself is completely unacceptable even if it contained a personal attack (it doesn't). On the other, WP:NOTPUNITIVE, and the disruption seems to have stopped for now. In any case, while GoldenRing can still claim only administrative involvement, I'd strongly encourage him not to be the one who applies a block, if it is decided that one is necessary. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. Did you just claim that comments about a fellow editor's behavior, made without a single shred of supporting evidence, is NOT a personal attack? Have I been reading our policy on What Is A Personal Attack (item #5) all wrong all this time? Seriously? As for your hesitancy to block me to prevent me from exercising WP:RPA, because the "disruption seems to have stopped for now" -- what "disruption", exactly, was that again (just so we're both on the same page)? I believe removal of unsubstantiated personal attacks to be normal procedure, but I am willing to listen to your view on that. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm no longer torn on this, this seems like a pretty straightforward block and is starting to move into WP:IDHT territory. That disruption was your "exercising" of WP:RPA, except what you were removing was not a personal attack, was not close to a personal attack, was contained in the closing statement of a closed discussion, and was contained in a warning issued to you. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:, in your edit here you modified one of my comments to change its meaning. Do not ever do this without the prior, very explicit permission of the author of the comment. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct on that point, Tazerdadof, and I'm sorry your "strike" HTML code was erased when I posted my edit. That was not my intention. I was getting "edit conflict" messages when I tried to post, so I instead edited an existing copy of the thread with the insertion of my text along with a copy&pasted addition of your comment, but I didn't copy (or even see) the "strike" coding you added. That was my mistake, and while unintentional, I am responsible and apologize for that f*ck-up. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• I do not support a block for GoldenRing in this situation. I feel he was acting in the interest of the Wikipedia project when he shut down the AN/I discussion, even though he appears to have confused the arguments made by participants in that discussion (which Xenophrenic never joined) about "being right about content" as originating from Xenophrenic, which they did not. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• 1 second block This wasn't an Ex Cathedra ruling. This was making clear that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT" is against policy. User appealed to the imposing admin and was declined. User was told exactly how they could appeal to the community at large the closing statement, but elected to edit the archives instead. It's quite clear where the disruption is coming from. No further disruption is continuing, so we don't need to punish but Pro forma 1-second block to put another notch on the shame stick to be considered the next time that Xenophrenic decides to willfully disrupt the primary purpose. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow. "The shame stick" indeed. Your comment indicates that you haven't read the discussion between myself and GoldenRing. If you had, you would have read that I am already aware that "edit warring in the service of being RIGHT is against policy", and I would never conduct myself otherwise, and I never argued otherwise. Duh. This discussion is about my removing, per WP:RPA, a personal attack made about my motivations. Would you care to comment about the topic of this thread? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow... Would you like to "demonstrate that the block is needed to prevent further disruption" even more? Cause the 14:27 post does exactly that. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't see it. (And no, I'm not being intentionally obtuse here.) Where, exactly (please be specific) does my 14:27 post demonstrate that a block is needed? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Xenophrenic, your BS and ridicule do not fool anybody, and are signs that you are probably headed for another block soon -- if not for this report, then for something else, such as a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Personal attacks or not, it's not appropriate for users to edit closes at all, let alone in archives. Doing it once is suitable for a warning; a second time should earn a short WP:IDHT block. If an editor has a legitimate concern about a closure or an archive containing a personal attack they should raise the issue with the editor who originally left the comment, and failing that ought to try AN/I. Nobody should be going around editing other users' comments without affirmative assent either from the commenting editor or a community discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Policy interpretation

1. WP:WIAPA is, or is not, a policy which defines a comment about an editor's behavior as a "personal attack" if it is made without evidence, usually in the form of diffs?
2. WP:RPA does, or does not, allow the removal of clear personal attacks, "anywhere on Wikipedia", and recommends the use of the {RPA} template when doing so?

• YES- those are both parts of our WP:NPA policy, and are accurate interpretations of our current policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OFFTOPIC 1. It was not a personal attack and editors in good standing have said as much and you have admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument. 2. You were reverted and told by the imposing administrator where you could go to appeal the closure. 3. You chose not to do that and instead edit warred instead and a second administrator had to step in. End of story. You want to request a clarification/appeal of the terms, make your appeal, otherwise stay away from editing other editors comments especially if they've reverted your change. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion that commenting about an editor's behavior, without providing evidence, is not a personal attack. The wording of our policy says otherwise, and I would like to hear from other Admins on that point. And no, I have never "admitted you were using the "But I was right" argument at any time about content, as GoldenRing has alleged. As for policy, I hope I am right, but I am here asking for input and guidance on my understanding of policy. As for "appealing the closure", I have no intention of doing so, as I agree with it. End of story. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: NPA was a policy created by community consensus, and thus it can be clarified through community consensus (which is that that was not a personal attack). Thus, even if it was a personal attack, the community is perfectly justified in doing this. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic Do not under any circumstances change annother editor's commentary without their explicit permission. per WP:TPO. I don't know how many times it has to be said. You just did it again with this posting and this entire thread is because you can't keep away from other editors postings. I am an experienced editor and I put the post exactly where I intended it to be. I ask for an emergency indefinite block until such time that you promise to never edit annother editor's comments (which includes changing indention) without their explicit permission. Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop with the hysterics. I absolutely did NOT "change another editor's commentary as you say, nor would I ever intentionally do so. If you'll check the diff you just provided again, but more carefully this time, you'll see that my whole edit to your comment was to add a single colon (:) to fix the formatting. Per WP:TPO: Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels.... If you have some secret personal need to disregard our standard WP:INDENT convention of keeping things readable, just tell me and I'll respect your non-standard wishes. You screaming for an OMG EMERGENCY BLOCK is indicative of other problems. And just so we're all on the same page, "this entire thread" is about whether or not GoldenRing is going to provide the evidence required to substantiate his accusations about another editor's behavior and motivations. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you for adding one indent level to Hasteur's comment (@Hasteur: come on) but please consider not doing so again, as other editors have asked you not to. Repeatedly doing things after you've been kindly asked to stop is disruptive and leads to blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You're in the dock for futzing with other editors talk page posts and you willfully mess with them over an experienced editor. Tell me how you would have dealt with this if it weren't you? Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably not call for an emergency indefinite block, lest indentations project wide be ruined in the interim. GMG^talk 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would ignore it. It's a fucking colon. It didn't change the meaning of your comment even a tiny bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No comment whatsoever on the substance of any of this, but a note about WP:TPO, which allows alteration of another editor's comments for:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels...

The addition of a colon to help readability would generally be considered to fit into this category of edits, with the caveat, of course, that if the original editor objects, then it's not wise to repeat the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: CIR block at this time for continuing to BS and waste everyone's time

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

---

Xenophrenic is clearly gameplaying here to the extreme, colossally wasting everyone's time. I propose a CIR block for inability to edit collaboratively and abide by community norms, guidelines, and policies. The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it. Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Xenophrenic has a long history of tendentious behavior on religion/atheism related articles and has wasted the valuable time of countless editors. He continues to push his POV through edit warring and large blocks of text, despite being repeatedly blocked. This block should be of a greater time period, such as six months or one year. desmay (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Seriously? Does anyone in good faith, honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent? Irritating perhaps, in his dogged pursuit of his principles and how he views he was treated unfairly, but certainly not incompetent. After the way his unblock request was mishandled (see User:Newyorkbrad's Need for timely unblock reviews section below), I think it's understandable he's upset, and we can cut him some slack. A boomerang shaped trout to the proposer for a shit-stirring, drama mongering proposal. And all I see is more axe-grinding from Desmay, who's in a dispute with Xenophrenic. Mojoworker (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Mojoworker, please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Softlavender:I have to ask again – seriously? The essay section WP:Competence_is_required#Social is all about working in Wikipedia's collaborative environment. It's an interesting coincidence that you, I, and Xenophrenic all began editing within months of one another in 2007. An editor doesn't last more than 10 years here, as the three of us have, without editing collaboratively. I don't recall interacting with you at any articles in the past, but I've run into Xenophrenic a handful of times over those 10+ years, and I've always found him civil and seen him provide policy based rationales when his edits have been challenged. It appears he may have edit warred at times, which certainly isn't a good thing, but you wanting a block, which, as Black Kite points out is generally indefinite, seems far too draconian and ill conceived. If you honestly think Xenophrenic is incompetent, and thus should be removed from the community, then I really don't know what to say to you. You characterize his behavior as "gameplaying" and "BS". I take a different and more charitable view. Really, how would you feel if your unblock request had been handled the same way? I know how I'd feel and I'm willing to grant him some slack, in part because of that. This place has gotten to be filled with so many venomous editors that I sometimes wonder why I still continue to participate here. And, as an aside, I'd wager that a good portion of the editors !voting here haven't even looked into the issue any further than what's here on AN, yet feel compelled to add their own 2¢ worth of bile. Sad indeed. As GreenMeansGo says, we should close this godawful thing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • You're totally misreprenting the section you're linking to, which was a general side note to a specific complaint about me not responding when pinged. The issue was quite simply not "mishandling" of the unblock request, though. Swarm ♠ 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm:I'm not singling you out here – no admin handled the unblock request – it appears the only admin who even looked at it was Houn (and as much as the community doesn't want to address it, there aren't enough of you admins around these days – this is just a symptom). Newyorkbrad said: "I am troubled that an editor posted an unblock request on August 27, which was closed as stale on September 7 (11 days later) because the two-week block had just expired with no administrator having reviewed the block. Unblock requests, even complex ones, are a high administrator priority and I hope this degree of delay was an isolated instance." I don't think I'm misrepresenting his point at all – I certainly think that rises to the level of being mishandled, and I'd sincerely hope everyone here agrees with that. As I said before, if that had happened to me, I'd be righteously indignant. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole sorry thing has certainly pushed patrolling CAT:RFU up my priority list and changed how I approach requests there. I don't think I looked specifically at Xenophrenic's request while it was open (I don't recall doing so) but I can imagine that if I had, I'd have seen an open ANI discussion regarding it and simply thought, "Too Hard." I guess some requests languish, not because no-one gets to them but because no-one wants to make a decision and I'm trying to get better at making decisions on requests rather than avoiding them. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is a perceptive assessment, GoldenRing, and your observation is spot-on. The backlog of "Unblock Requests" is not because of lack of available Administrators, but is due to lack of Admins willing to evaluate the "Too Hard" blocks. Those are often blocks issued based on very subjective discretion in the gray area between easy good blocks made because of clear policy violations or evidence, and mistaken or bad-faith blocks. As ironic evidence, note than an administrator was very available to answer general Talk page help requests and took the time to explain to me that there was a backlog in the requests for unblock -- but opted to not spend that time on the actual unblock request. That sparked my curiosity, so I spent the next few days watching that queue; request after request was added to, addressed and then removed from that queue all while mine sat there. I suspect plenty of patrolling Admins saw the request, decided they couldn't "decline" the request because it was reasonable, yet no one wanted to be the one to implicitly overturn a fellow Admin colleague by accepting the request. I admit I am at a loss as to what can be done to remedy that kind of situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can we just close this entire god awful thing? We need to do better with unblock requests. We need to do better about actually talking, whether it's about closes, blocks, unblocks, or what have you. We need to do that before it ends up here. We need to all probably dial it down a touch on the hysterics. And most of all we all need to go find something better to do. GMG^talk 20:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Amen. Mojoworker (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support To answer Xenophrenic's question above - "What exactly are you after here?" - I'd have thought my request made it perfectly obvious what I was after. I asked two quite specific questions of the administrative community. Xenophrenic found it necessary to stick his oar in and he has the right to, but nonetheless I think I have my answers. The close was appropriate - endorsed again by a community consensus above - and a short block is suitable for someone editing closes about themselves repeatedly.
  In a wider sense, what I'm after is for Xenophrenic to stop edit warring and editing against consensus, even when he is right or thinks he is right. He has been edit-warring over the content at the base of this whole sorry thing since at least January ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]) and seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content since at least February, when he was blocked for it ([87], [88], among many, many examples). He has a sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations and is perfectly prepared to edit-war over it ([89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104] and, well, it goes on - but note the ridiculous double standard here). He has an extensive history of editing other users' comments, moving other users' comments within discussions, and editing his own comments after they have been responded to ([105] [106] [107] (removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!) [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] and, well, I'm bored with this now). That's from a review of a period of less than two months of this editor's editing. Against that background, the requests here to include specific diffs in a warning and the one below for Swarm to justify their block are both either entirely disingenuous or an enormous case of IDHT.
  The problems have not gone away, despite being blocked twice in the course of the dispute; when I leniently closed a discussion with a warning, instead of taking the warning to heart, he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right, then started editing my closing comments because he perceived a personal attack and proceeded to edit-war over it (the irony is almost too thick to be enjoyable at this point). In this very discussion he has twice been admonished for editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most of what he had to say ([119]).
  I started to write this comment in a request to close with no action, but I've talked myself into supporting an indef block. This user has had the problems with their editing explained to them repeatedly but persists in crying, "If only someone would tell me what I'm doing wrong!" Can I have an hour and a half of my life back now? GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• And, if there's anyone else like me who finds copying links for 100-odd diffs somewhat straining on the good humour, they may be interested in User:GoldenRing/generate-diffs.js which lets you select the checkboxes next to revisions in a list and click a button to generate a list of diffs as wikitext and copy it to the clipboard. It also adds checkboxes to diff lists in user contribution lists. Completely untested in anything other than chrome-stable on Windows and whatever skin I have selected (Vector?). YMMV. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, holy cow, where to start? I asked you simply to add some evidence diffs to a warning you issued to substantiate your specious claim that I was justifying edit-warring because "I was right" about content -- no, worse, because I "think I am right" about content. What's that saying about "be careful what you ask for?" You've now posted a very intimidating 100+ diffs, so many diffs, in fact, that I would wager most people seeing them would simply blindly assume that whatever point(s) you are making must be well-substantiated just by virtue of the shear volume of blue links you've strung together. I wish to show that is not at all the case here. I do see where you have indeed managed to dig up just a couple legitimately problematic diffs, and while they don't establish your "persistent" or "ongoing problem" thesis, they do indicate I'm not a flawless editor, and they will get a response, too.

• "stop edit warring and editing against consensus"

Here you have collected a whopping 85 diffs, which all show me removing a problematic category (now deleted by community consensus) from 40+ articles, first because they were added wholly without reliable sources in violation of WP:CATVER. Then after the category was spammed back into the same 40+ articles, again without any reliable sourcing and under the pretext they "were under discussion" - I removed them again through a manual rollback after generously waiting until the discussion ended, as they were still in violation of our verification policy. So how do you justify calling these examples of edit warring against consensus? Grabbing some of your diffs at random, this 6th diff is edit warring how? Against what consensus, exactly, to keep that unsourced category in that article? How about this 68th diff, where I actually removed the cat three times over the span of a year, again because it totally lacked the required verification. What consensus was edit-warred against?

• "seeking to justify that edit-warring because he was right about the content"

Here you provide just 2 diffs, presumably the strongest you could find, and you claim there are "many, many more". Neither one shows me trying to justify edit-warring on the grounds I was "right" about the content. To the contrary, those diffs show me justifying my edits to Admin Fram and BrownHairedGirl as purely technical removals per WP:CAT, which requires: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I could not make a determination of whether the content was "right" or "wrong" because the required reliable sources upon which such a thing could be determined were completely absent from the article. Since you claim there are "many, many more" examples, could we dig into those please, and locate just one to support your claim?

• "sense of what is a personal attack that is completely out of step with community expectations"

Here you provide 16 diffs of me replacing personal attacks accusing me of being a racist, block deleting, and canvassing, with the {{rpa}} template, as instructed by WP:RPA policy when the claims are completely devoid of substantiation. All of your examples are from the same now-banned editor, and same discussion, which was heavily discussed at AN/I. The result was the editor apologized for the "racism" personal attacks, the "canvassing" personal attacks were also indeed unsubstantiated. I believe our policy pages are the best indicator of what our "community expectations" are; do you agree? If not, the community would re-word them. We might disagree about severity of personal attacks, but I don't think there has been any disagreement that aspersions without evidence qualify. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you, me, and the community, are "in step" with regard to agreeing that your "warning" about my behavior should be substantiated with evidence --- you and I disagree, however, as to whether that evidence already exists somewhere in that discussion. Do I have that right?

• "what is a personal attack ... note the ridiculous double standard here"

Here you provide only 1 diff, this one. I assume you are talking about what appears to be me tagging a couple editor's signatures with the "canvassed" template, after I complained about another editor accusing me of canvassing? That looks like a double standard, I agree -- UNTIL you realize that I was just fixing my previous edits after I had inadvertently deleted those tags. They were actually added by a now-banned editor a few edits earlier here, and not by me.

• "removes a comment complaining about him refactoring others' comments!"

No, I didn't. I did, however, move an off-topic personal post between editors from a CfD Discussion to the appropriate editor's Talk page for further discussion and follow-up, as instructed by WP:TPO - (Off-topic posts).

• "editing another user's comments and then proceeded to edit his own comment above after I had responded to it, so that it appears I ignored most"

This accusation has some merit, but not as an ongoing problem, and not in any way intentional (i.e.; to make it appear that you ignored most of it). I don't intentionally edit other people's comments (with the exception of formatting for readability as explicitly allowed by WP:TPO, and removal of clearly personal attacks as explicitly allowed by WP:RPA). As you and another editor here have pointed out, when I add or expand a comment in a high-traffic discussion, with repeated edit-conflicts, and I resort to off-line editing followed by a copy&paste, I get that rare screw-up you pointed out. If you'll check, you'll see my edit to expand my comment came just minutes on the heels of your reply (and was initiated before your reply) -- it wasn't an attempt to sneak additional comments in without you knowing it. It is a rare occurrence, but one to which I definitely need a better solution.

• "he turned up at my talk page to yet again argue that the edit warring didn't matter because he was right"

I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT. AND I WOULD NOT. That is some gall you have; did you just assume no one would check? To the contrary, here is what I actually said, quoted from your Talk page: At no time did I ever express the sentiment: "I'm right, so therefore I'm going to edit war". I did, however, persist in requesting (or "badger", to use BD2412's term) that the editors proposing to add the contested content provide the required reliable sourcing and justification. The whole reason I came to your Talk page was to try to clear up this very misunderstanding of yours, and now you have demonstrated that I have failed miserably in that endeavor. But okay, I'll bite: please quote my exact words here where you think I've argued that "the edit warring didn't matter because [I] was right".

Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not going to respond at any length here; I think we've both had our say & there is ample here for people to judge for themselves. What matters at this point is not Xenophrenic and I slugging it out but the community coming to some consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Xenophrenic needs to either learn how to identify a personal attack in a manner roughly consistent with the broader community's views, or else he needs to stop removing personal attacks altogether. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

T'dog, I've been relying on the directions found at one of our core policy pages, aptly titled What Is A Personal Attack. To my knowledge, that is the broader community's view on how to identify a personal attack, is it not? Broadest, in fact. I realize that often when personal attacks are removed, somebody (or a group of somebodies) isn't going to like it - it's a bit confrontational. I've seen a few folks here rally around and declare "that's not a personal attack!", including you, but that seems to directly contradict our policy page. If you are saying I have it wrong, and the consensus among a limited group of objecting editors here actually represents the broader community view and supersedes our policy page, then you are correct that I have some learnin' to do. Do you think our NPA policy needs a rewrite or clarification to prevent this kind of misunderstanding in the future? I've asked for clarification of the policy in the thread just below this one, but an Admin rush-closed it before the question about identifying personal attacks was addressed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oppose Softlavender's proposal as it is based on the ludicrously bad-faith assumption that there is extreme "gameplaying" and no competence. Further, I've seen nothing but hyperbole from her, zero productive suggestions, and this & this - which I'm sure will spark the appropriate admonishment (ha). GoldenRing at least made an attempt to justify his call for sanctions, but he did so by dredging up a bunch of diffs from January to demonstrate edit-warring, personal attack removal and Talk page formatting. Perhaps he doesn't realize that I was already grilled and poked on all of that at the drama boards, and the majority of his EW diffs were already cited as part of a block rationale by Fram. I'm sure all the same diffs will be dredged up and mischaracterized yet again a few months from now, and squeezed to see if yet another sanction will pop out. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Mojoworker, you nailed it (yeah, even the "irritating" part). Very much appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, after that latest wall-of-text above. If Xenophrenic won't drop the stick, then the stick needs to be taken away until they agree to stop. --Calton | Talk 06:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess you haven't been paying attention, Carlton. I don't have the stick. I dropped the stick 5 days ago and walked away from this discussion, and returned expecting to find it archived. Instead, I find that GoldenRing has not only picked up the stick, but is trying to beat me over the head with it. My concise 8K byte "wall of text" reply is dwarfed by GoldenRing's 16K "great wall of endless diffs". And if that obsessive action isn't disconcerting enough, he's building script tools to facilitate such behavior. Apparently, it wasn't enough when GoldenRing said "I think I have my answers" regarding this AN/I. Now he has declared his new "wider" mission to see me indefinitely blocked for all manner of alleged improper behavior backed by (__insert 100+ stale, unrelated, already-adjudicated and punished diffs here__). So I guess he has dragged me back into this mess. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you understand basic arithmetic? "I dropped the stick 5 days ago"? That comment came ONE DAY after your latest goddamned whinging wall-of-text. And, frankly, I find your officious "I guess you haven't been paying attention" attempt at an insult hilarious, considering that you IMMEDIATELY get my name wrong: so who, exactly, is not paying attention?
• But thank you for the confirmation that you need to stop or you should BE stopped for wasting everyone's time. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It still appears that you are not paying attention, or you are misunderstanding. This "waste of time" wasn't filed by me, it was filed by GoldenRing. He filed this mess over just two policy-compliant edits (count them, two) I made -after- first thoroughly discussing those edits and alternative solutions with him. So I added my input here, and on October 10 I walked away from this discussion (some call that "dropping the stick", but I say I never had a "stick" to drop) and expected it to close. For 5 days, until October 15th, I quietly watched as other editors chimed in. I even stayed quiet as Softlavender proposed weird sanctions for nonexistent reasons. But once GoldenRing decided he was done with his initial complaint here, and now wanted instead to start a whole different mission by digging up and re-litigating ancient history, I returned and left a brief refutation of his mostly false allegations, which he has decided not to challenge. So my math, and my attention to the details, are fine. If you address me again, I will again try to productively respond, as that is the respectful thing to do. Please keep in mind, however, if you feel you are wasting your time, that no one can force you to engage in this matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This thread is predicated on a mess, and this is clearly still about that mess and not just the editing of the closing statement, as shown by the mass of diffs linked above. Xenophrenic saw a whole bunch of allegations thrown his way in the previous thread (some questionable, some exaggerated, some with some merit, some that needed more context, etc.). He was immediately blocked for those allegations, had all of his objections and unblock requests completely ignored for the duration of the block, and never received a response to his challenges to the accusations, as far as I know. This is all separate from GoldenRing, of course. I'm not trying to reopen the thread below this one; this is just to say that I can understand, in a powerless, frustrating situation, trying to at least address the insinuation in the close of the discussion in which he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. In other words, I think GR may be receiving a disproportionate amount of X's frustration because he is one of the few in a position to fix an aspect of this perceived injustice.

Xenophrenic, I think you're very unlikely to find satisfaction going down any of these paths, and will wind up simply preventing a scab from forming (or worse). I completely get feeling frustrated and/or hurt by the close (and think it would be a stand-up thing to do for GR to go back and remove that part, since though not quite a PA, it also wasn't a necessary part of the summary), but it was an acceptable close given the content. IMO the most positive outcome at this point would for all to drop it. You may have received a raw deal, but for better or worse, the community rarely expresses much of an interest in rehashing the past, unless in the context of the present. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: As someone who has conflicted with Xenophrenic several times, his behavior (irrespective of the particular position he advocates for) has been very unconstructive and quite deserving of discipline. As other editors have already pointed out, he has excessively edit warred, blatantly disregarded established consensus numerous times, and exhibits a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND personality. His behavior in discussions has been very aggressive and unconstructive, as I think BD2412 has pointed out well (also, see this), and it is persistent behavior, nothing new.[120][121] Xenophrenic has a long block log, and has been blocked so many times that his latest one was two weeks long (it seems that blocks are gradually lengthened if an editor persists in bad behavior). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not going to !vote in this discussion, because I think that would run counter to effective participation. However, I do not think that Xenophrenic is incompetent. I do, however, think that he falls rather instinctively into a battleground mentality, replete with instances of refusing to drop the stick, and refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of positions contrary to his own. It is my preference that editors with these problems be corralled and corrected rather than blocked. bd2412 T 03:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • BD2412, CIR covers these behaviors, which are endlessly on display in these two threads, in WP:Competence_is_required#Social. Read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his actions. Call it WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, or WP:DE, whichever you like, he is clearly and deliberately wasting the community's time trying endlessly to derail or invalidate GR's thread here. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Manipulating a closer's comments (which do not look like personal attacks, but just a strict warning over edit warring) is simply unacceptable behavior. This does look like more disruptive and, even disturbing, behavior on Xenophrenic's part. My goodness, it seems that there is much difficulty on the part of Xenophrenic to accept any consensus or any decision by anyone that does not align with his view on any matter. The fact that other admins like User:BD2412 and User:Swarm recently raised an ANI over his conduct for similar reasons of disruptive and tendentious editing which included a block over the same type of "I am right and everyone else has to see it my way no matter what" battleground mentality [122], means that the behavior has not been self-corrected since the last block and ANI. The constant, and sometimes long, commenting by Xenophrenic still look like filibustering and are not really helpful since everyone knows his position - there is little reason to repeat or to constantly defend oneself since if the evidence is strong people will naturally agree with the defense on their own. (Not sure why Xenophrenic has self-voted "oppose" above when it is obvious that he opposes a block considering the long response to GoldenRing above - who started this ANI). When it comes to discussions, other people's opinions are what we are seeking - views from others in the community. We already know the views of the accusers and the accused (both have already exchanged comments) so let the jury discuss the matter as they see fit. Things like endlessly arguing over closures over categories, constant edit warring over article content, and even now manipulating closer comments on ANI's does look like a lack of self control when dealing with dissenting comments by editors.

All decisions on wikipedia are all imperfect since everyone is a volunteer but to contest every decision that one disagrees with with disruptive editing has consequences. Refusing to drop the stick so often is simply not good and in the end people will make their votes and decisions as they see fit - as imperfect as that is. If one thinks one is right, it does not mean that everyone else will see it that way (sometimes some will never be convinced no matter what), but one has to be able to drop the stick and move on without fighting so much. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the simple reason that whilst some of "Support" comments above are good faith, a number are still from editors who are on the opposite side of an editing issue with Xenophrenic and this is another attempt to have them removed. I am not a big fan of removing people in this way. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: There's no "removal" involved; the proposal states "Length of block to be determined based on length of previous blocks." The proposal is to stop Xenophrenic from deliberately wasting the community's time. His last block was for 2 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • As we all know, though, CIR blocks are generally indefinite (anything else would be ridiculous, after all - practically no-one who is incompetent enough to receive one suddenly gains a clue after a couple of weeks). And that's my other issue here - Xenophrenic isn't incompetent. They may be a number of other things, but not that. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: I am curious about this. Why is the possibility that some of the people supporting the proposal are doing so in bad faith a good reason to oppose it? That says nothing about the merits of the case (and the problems and ludicrous bad faiththe problems and ludicrous bad faith continue). GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I had some dealings with this area when I closed that shitfest of a CfD a while back, and whilst doing that I read quite a bit of the background round these disputes. I'm not disputing that some of Xenophrenic's editing is not optimal, but there were/are a hell of lot of others in the same boat at the same time. There is no CIR issue here, but there surely is a lot of hypocrisy from the editors who are trying to dispose of him (and incidentally, I don't include you in that category, if you were wondering). Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Black Kite: Please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per the bludgeoning behaviors we're seeing at ANI and the apparent lack of good faith associated with this user's behavior. Part of CIR is the simple notion of not being more trouble to the community than you're worth, and these ANI timesinks are symptoms of this user being either unable or unwilling to understand that. This is certainly the inevitable result of Xenophrenic's recent behavior. If it doesn't happen now, it's going to soon if they don't change quickly. Swarm ♠ 11:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? You blocked him for two weeks just 30 minutes after a huge ANI complaint was made against him, didn't respond to his objections, didn't respond to his questions about your block, apparently missed (???) multiple pings on multiple days despite pings being activated, and apparently see nothing wrong with any of this. Now he's bludgeoning when someone else opens a thread about him, relitigating all of the previous thread, too, and he responds with a lot of text? If you responded to him and allowed him to respond to the first thread, whether or not that ended up in a block, we probably would not have seen either of these subsequent threads. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose CIR block. I don't necessarily oppose a block for some preventative reason if there's a valid one, but not for CIR - this is not a competence issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee: Please carefully read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I already know how to suck eggs, thank you. Please carefully try not to be so patronizing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously - I wasn't following this anymore until I was pinged, and I wish I had never commented so I could close it myself. But for the love of God, someone please put this god forsaken waste of time out of it's misery. GMG^talk 00:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose further sanctions, support close. Xenophrenic jumped the shark and did a bunch of silly things. However, a two-week block for the edit warring was served so diffs showing old edit warring are no longer relevant. Xenophrenic should have seen that their approaches to the two admins were not going anywhere and should have accepted that it's not always possible to have one's views heard when there has been a great deal of background noise. The underlying problem is the abuse of Wikipedia to spread the word about atheism being evil. Xenophrenic will need to develop much more patience while dealing with that. For the record, the ANI archive behind all this shows a request for a topic ban that was unsuccessful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do. At this point (here and numerous cases in the archives) they are just wasting everyone's time. They show all the behavior of someone who is unable to accept they are wrong and that other people do not agree with them. This is also why they edit war repeatedly. So they can either be given a final warning to drop the stick or as someone points out above, it can be taken away from them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Only in death: To clarify my own support, it is very much predicated on Xenophrenic not dropping the stick. It's not looking likely, since he thinks he already has and I caused this whole thing somehow. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er I feel that diff doesn't show what you think it shows. :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Er, no, quite. Looks like the script could do with more testing. Correct diff here. GoldenRing (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

*Oppose as framed I share Black Kite's sentiments. Xenophrenic should, and must, drop this, but that's an attitude they should adjust, certainly not a competence issue. Johnuniq talks a lot of sense, just above, as does BSZ. -- Begoon 11:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

At what point does it stop being an attitude issue and become a competence issue? Take a look in the archives for here and ANI. I severely doubt this is a case of 'they have an attitude problem which can be changed'. There is zero evidence from their editing history they either want to, or are actually even able to. Which puts it squarely in the competence area. If an editor is unable to change, or even acknowledge they have to and are going to attempt to change, we are just prolonging the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thinking about it, I guess I mostly agree with whoever said "Support if they don't drop it, oppose if they do.". I don't feel like we're too far apart here. I'd just rather CIR wasn't invoked in this way (hence my "as framed"). WP:DISRUPT works just fine if they don't drop it - it's then a deliberate thing, not incompetence. -- Begoon 12:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Begoon: Please read WP:Competence_is_required#Social. And then read Xenophrenic's non-stop BS and ridicule in the upthread. And then note that Xenophrenic waited 5 weeks after his block expired (7 weeks after his pings to Swarm) to open the thread below, and did so less than 5 hours after GoldenRing opened this thread about his repeated TPO violations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Errmm... What Boing! said above in response to this, really, (although I note you somehow made me exempt from your "carefully" proviso while c/pasting.) No real need to ping me for this kind of thing. Thanks. -- Begoon 10:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Support block, but per WP:DISRUPT. Changing my position based on most recent contribs. Dropping it obviously isn't happening. -- Begoon 11:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• • @Begoon: I find this disappointing. Xenophrenic was blocked and ignored by everyone for two weeks. Whether or not you think that block was justified, he's right to raise issues about the thread about him in which he was not permitted to comment. He changed GR's close once after a long discussion, then once again which indeed wasn't a good idea. What is the other disruption? This thread is relitigating a range of issues, including what he's already been blocked for. It seems like people don't want him to type long responses to the massive number of allegations thrown his way (with, what, 50 diffs?), including those that he wasn't given an opportunity to respond to last time around. Surely replying to things in this second thread about him, which he did not start, when he was unable to respond to the first thread, is not disruptive. About half of the supports I could've predicted would show up no matter what the reason given for the block was, but I don't get the others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, you convinced me that was too harsh, so I struck it. -- Begoon 22:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. He has a history of being a bad faith editor and a history of edit warring. He has been blocked 10 times at Wikipedia. He has been incorrigible for an extended period. His edits often do not make sense and a CIR block is warranted.Knox490 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment? - An odd sequence of edits in this thread just now... Legacypac closed this and removed this presumed accidental duplicate text. Softlavender reverted the close with edit summary "rv involved non-admin closure" (how is Legacypac involved?) and reverted the latter as "rv TPO violation" (so this was intentional copy/pasting the same text to AN five times just before proposing a CIR block?) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac violated WP:TPO by removing my comment; he has been violating WP:TPO repeatedly and was brought to ANI and warned about that just within the past 3 weeks. He then also closed this AN discussion, which clearly needs to be closed by an administrator (if at all) -- this is the Administrator's Noticeboard -- not by an non-administrator with a block log for DE and a history of disruption and who has just violated TPO in the same thread. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why Softlavender wants to attack me - we used to nearly always see things the same way until I VERY inadvertently evidently offended them. I'll AGF and stand by my assessment that their comment was duplicated by accident (I presumed by another editor) and believe that removing an exact duplicate accidental comment is not a TPO violation but should be treated as welcome housekeeping.

My attempt to close down these proposal is correct. The debate that remains nearly evenly split with support/opposes and is itself wasting time now as it is unlikely to lead to any sanctions. Ironically the proposal itself includes the rational "colossally wasting everyone's time. ... The community should not need to waste time on this, and clearly should not waste any further time on it." I was closing the entire thread as a waste of timr but was edit conflicted out by the Softlavender reverts, so I left it. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not INVOLVED in this dispute, I just read the entire thing and came to the conclusion it had run its course - an assessment shared by several other editors in this thread. Admins are NOT necessary better at closes than regular editors and, as my block log shows, are perfectly capable of making mistakes like the rest of us. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: This has been opened for 7 days but no clear consensus has formed, and an extension might not be helpful as the oppose votes are strongly based CIR being possibly not the best reason. I will take a look at this later when I get home, but for now I think an alternative option to the original proposal would probably generate a clearer consensus. Alex Shih^Talk 07:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Please not a "close this and let's have the whole discussion again with slightly different wording" type of close. Finding that there is consensus for an indef but not the type of indef originally proposed and so actually finding no consensus would be mindless bureaucracy, surely? It seems to me (who is no doubt biased) that if there is consensus for a block, then it's for an indefinite one until we see a change in X's ways. If there's not already consensus for a block on the basis of the above, let's drop it for now and wait until the next round adds another straw to the camel's back. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think you accidently misworded your comment when you said "if there is consensus for a block, then it's for an indefinite one until we see a change in X's ways". You do realize if I'm blocked (i.e.; not editing at all), there is no way to "see a change" in anything about me, as I won't be here. Did you perhaps mean "topic ban", so that I can demonstrate productive editing "elsewhere"? If so, what topic would that be? AN/I discussion pages? Also, blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive -- and there is no ongoing disruption to Wikipedia that requires blocking. It is evident that a few folks here are trying desperately to push the false narrative that my mere presence on Wikipedia is a disruption that needs to be "blocked", but no reasonable justification has been given for such a draconian action. (And then there are the four editors above who routinely join in any discussion about me, yelling "support sanction", not because I am a disruption to Wikipedia, but because I've been a disruption to their personal agenda, as noted by both editors and Admins in the discussion above. I don't even bother to respond to them anymore.) I don't want to see this discussion extended or rehashed any more than you do, so at least we agree on that. But if your ultimate goal is genuinely "to see a change in my ways", can you please explain to me why when I asked you to please point out what I did wrong (point out the actual edits) so that I could understand your "warning" and make appropriate changes, you declined and came here instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No I did not mis-word my comment. It is perfectly routine to indef editors until they can convince us that they have changed their ways. It is a flat-out lie that "when I asked you to please point out what I did wrong (point out the actual edits) so that I could understand your "warning" and make appropriate changes, you declined and came here instead." You came to my talk page to ask me to revise my close on the grounds you hadn't done the things you thought it implied. I discussed it with you and gave a detailed and reasonable response. You refused to hear the answer, edit-warred over it and then emailed to continue your IDHT ways. In the face of that, I brought it here, as a marginally better option that just blocking you for disruptive editing. GoldenRing (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional clarification; your rewording of "until we see a change" to "until they can convince us that they have changed" with promises and such, makes much more sense now. That sounds like our WP:Standard offer, which requires clear delineation of a problematic behavior, and a promise to not continue that behavior. May I ask you what clearly delineated problematic behavior (not the hyperbolic, false accusations put forth above) you see as warranting an indefinite block and a promise to change?

As for your assertion that I have just "flat-out lied", I'm going to ask you to please retract that. It is 100% factual that I asked you to please point out what I did wrong, per your 'warning', by providing the diffs/evidence/examples so that I could understand and make appropriate changes, but you declined. (Show me just one diff you provided before you initiated this shitfest and you will have me apologizing profusely!) Are you now denying that I implored you, "I am always willing to discuss", and "If you want to argue, for example, that I misjudged consensus, or that I misunderstood a policy, I will listen attentively to your reasoning", and "If you should find actual evidence to support any of your accusations (which will astonish me), then by all means do share it, and let's examine and discuss it so I can learn what improvements might be made. Does that sound like a workable solution to you?" and "I get that as a "closing Admin", you want to add "warnings" and such to demonstrate that you aren't taking sides. That's fine, but there isn't going to be a lot of utility in warning me to not do what I haven't done in the first place. Please tell me, what useful cautionary advice am I supposed to glean from your warning when you don't refer to anything I've actually done, or would ever do?" Rather than give "a detailed and reasonable response" as you claim, you instead doubled-down on your unsubstantiated "warning message" attack by repeating, "you think you are right and it excuses "edit warring ... what you've written above is simply an explanation of how you were in the right. You don't seem to understand that being right and editing disruptively are not mutually exclusive ... the argument is about whether your edits were excusable because you were right on the content underlying it". And once again, you didn't offer a single pointer to actual supporting evidence. And I "heard" it perfectly, thank you. Then you edit-warred to keep your "unsubstantiated commentary about an editor" in place, and I briefly joined you in that edit-war by reverting you once. How much easier would it have been to simply redact or rewrite your problematic warning once you discovered your "when you think you are right" speculation about an editor's motivations to be not only unsupportable, but actually offensive? Nobody likes to be told they are wrong, I get that, but I'm having difficulty understanding all this vitriol. It's not like I'm launching a Rubin-esque action against you (or Swarm, for that matter), I simply requested that you guys either let me in on this apparently top-secret evidence you are using to justify your comments about a fellow editor's character and motivations - so that something productive can come of it, or redact the attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, just above you said, To clarify my own support, it is very much predicated on Xenophrenic not dropping the stick. It's not looking likely, since he thinks he already has and I caused this whole thing somehow. So, if I understand you correctly, you'll withdraw your support for sanctions if I stop insisting that you provide substantiating evidence and (again) step away from this discussion? Is that a path for closure here? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say this with a straight face while also, above, describing editing a closure of a discussion about yourself to change the terms of a warning in that closure as "just two policy-compliant edits." You have obviously heard nothing that anyone has said here. Have you found anyone yet who agrees that my close was a personal attack? Have you found anyone yet who agrees that, even if for the sake of an argument you accept the close did contain a personal attack, editing the closing statement and not asking for review at this noticeboard was the correct way forward? As far as I can tell you have not. I explicitly asked for review on those two questions since you refused to do so yourself and the consensus is pretty clear that (a) the close did not constitute a personal attack and (b) editing it yourself was completely inappropriate (if there is someone other than Xenophrenic here who doesn't agree with those two points, please do say so). And yet you continue to describe your actions as "policy-compliant." We have a behavioural guideline that addresses exactly this point: WP:IDHT. GoldenRing (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Since you say you can't understand, I will try to shed some light on the several questions you've raised. Starting with your last comment, could we please dispense with throwing around WP:IDHT? I know it makes a nice sounding talking-point to repeat, but no reasonable person here thinks I'm incapable, or refusing to, get a point. WP:IDHT instructs us to "consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement", which is what I am doing. Some people tend to forget about that part, and simply use the guideline to try to chill dissenting discussion. You asked if anyone agrees with me regarding your "Closure Review" and "Sanction" questions. I recall someone referring to your call for sanctions as "rubbish" -- I recall another person saying about your "warning", "it would be a stand-up thing to do for GR to go back and remove that part" -- while another editor noted, "the 'when you think you're right' bit may have been better directed at a different editor" -- and also about your "warning", someone admonished, "closing statements are not the place for ex cathedra opinions even when you are right" -- and about unsubstantiated comments on behavior being personal attacks, an admin said, "I don't think you're necessarily misinterpreting WIAPA" (but also said it is taking it too far to require that every statement between two editors be backed by diffs, and I agree). As for my 2 removals of personal attacks, of course they were policy-compliant, but just to be sure, I opened a section ("Policy interpretation") above to clarify the matter, and there has been zero informed discussion of the matter thus far (although one person seemed to suggest a few editors with a local consensus could override core policies, and another editor had a fit over a formatting colon). And just so readers aren't confused by your clever word-play, let's be clear, I didn't try "to change the terms of a warning", I removed a personal attack and clearly noted the removal with a template as instructed by WP:RPA. And I never "refused" to ask for a review here, I explained to you, "I don't object to the terms of the closure, I actually agree with them ... so your suggestion that I request a review at AN or Arbitration seems nonsensical." I was merely working with you to bring your "warning" comment into policy compliance, with hopefully minimum drama. (Between you and Swarm, you are driving me nuts: he berates me for addressing his behavior at WP:AN instead of Talk page & email, while you berate me for sticking with Talk page and email instead of running to WP:AN.) Can you answer just one question? What specific action of mine prompted your warning to me? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

So the actual answers to my questions are (a) Did anyone agree with you that my close was a personal attack? No. Apparently one admin said somewhere, "I don't think you're necessarily misinterpreting WIAPA" which is not exactly a ringing endorsement. And (b) Did anyone agree that edit-warring a close about yourself was the right thing to do? No. Even those arguing for you here are describing editing a close about yourself as "unheard of" and "not a good idea." You are literally the only editor who thinks this was the right thing to do. But you go on, arguing that your interpretation of policy is right and there-fore your edit-warring was justified - in other words, you should be excepted from the policy on edit-warring because you think you are right. Thank you for making my point so very neatly. Even if the warning wasn't justified then (which I don't accept) it certainly is now. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agreed just below. Calling it an 'attack' is a bit extreme, but references to a contributor's character (as 'justification', no less) have no place in a closing rationale. And why hammering only these two trees in this forest of much-amiss? And, again, what did editing the closing statement affect? What harm was done? TP ✎ ✓ 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"just two policy-compliant edits" is a partial reality (removing references to personal traits or character is indeed compliant; doing so to a closure is... unheard of, and did the edits change the closure outcome?), as are your accusations and presentation of 'facts' (one can call any edit or revert 'edit warring', and your 'thinks he is right' accusations are made without any examination/presentation of the 'right' in it (if the position/acts are indeed supporting policy, then that would make the accuser even more in the wrong).

This discussion is a prime example of why 'just the facts convenient to me' never works, and will most often result in a 'my gang is bigger than yours' attempt to out-whatever the opposition.

Start with the article content (was it indeed contested or non-policy compliant), and work up from there: this AN accusation (and the entire campaign against Xenophrenic, actually) is an exercise in the opposite. TP ✎ ✓ 09:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I see lots of claims, accusations and selective/partial-truth 'interpretations' of events from the accusing parties, but few seem to want to examine/paint a complete picture (which involves examining the policy offenses indicated at the base of all this).

As already noted by Johnuniq, User:Xenophrenic is alone against a fairly-well organised group of apologists/evangelists seeking to use Wikipedia to trumpet to the world the 'truth' about the 'evils of atheism'... not only is one contributor no match for them, they don't play fair at all, which must be rather frustrating to anyone seeking to uphold wikipedia policy against this.

One cannot demand sanctions against a policy-upholding contributor because they are 'annoying', especially when the accuser is too lazy/biased/'saving-face'-entrenched to examine/present the whole picture.

Question/verify everything; even this. TP ✎ ✓ 22:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς

Proposal: topic ban Medeis / μηδείς from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user on any of the reference desks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 105#Proposal for a self-imposed ban on closing threads
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 126#WP:BLP and WP:NPOV in regard to controversial figures
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#User's many deletions and hats
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#Why has the RD become so quick to hat people's questions?
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#Where Do We Go from Here ?
• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 128#This is not a BLP violation
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk

Medeis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last 30 deletions by Medeis / μηδείς --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

[01] [123] Edit summary: is it legal legal advice? {{WP:DISCLAIMER]]. WP:NOTAHOWTO, WP:DNFT Does the OP even care? Note: Edit warring. Classifying a question about setting farts on fire as a request for legal or medical advice is controversial. [02] [124] Edit summary: we don't speculate or give medical advice, there is no source on a 100% salmon no water diet Note: Medeis answered this, then deleted the thread. Classifying a dietary question like "what if a person ate only salmon?" as a request for medical advice is controversial. [03] [125] Edit summary: no need to archive Note: At the time Medeis deleted this, it had been hatted (by Medeis) for three days and was about to be auto-archived. Classifying a "does this cleaning method make a surface clean enough to eat off of?" question as trolling is controversial. [04] [126] Edit summary: we do not answer and may remove requests for loegal[sic] or medical advice Note: Classifying a question about setting farts on fire as a request for legal or medical advice is controversial. [05] [127] Edit summary: not a forum Note: another example of deleting a thread that was already hatted. [06] [128] Edit summary: spam not to be archived Note: The actual spam had been deleted four days before. This deleted good advice discouraging future spammers and a comment saying "we don't delete, we hat it" [07] [129] Edit summary: no point archiving spam Note: The actual spam had been deleted four days before. [08] [130] Edit summary: delete as no point archiving Note: Another deletion of a hatted discussion just as it was about to be auto-archived. [09] [131] Edit summary: remove doxxing--seriously, we have no reference on Monty P. Burns Note: I cannot find any doxxing in the removed section, and in fact Nil Einne documented the relation between the named individuals and mining in the material that Medeis deleted. [10] [132] Edit summary: remove trolling by one-day user who posted and deleted same "question" on many different boards Note: The user in question appears to have made a good-faith effort to delete the questions from the other pages before asking at the refdesk[133][134][135] [11] [136] Edit summary: redact unsourced critical BLP violations Note: Removal of part of a comment. Does Medeis intend to delete all the negative comments that were posted about Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein today, or is it removing criticism only for some public figures? [12] [137] Edit summary: remove irrelevant comment by sock of blocked IP user Note: While removing posts by banned user Vote (X) for Change is allowed, in this case Medeis has a COI , because the post in question disagreed with an answer she posted. She should have let someone else do the deleting. [13] [138] Edit summary: this is a BLP and needs balance, which is not helped by comments from non-notable authors and sources Note: Another case of removing criticism of a public figure. Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. [14] [139] Edit summary: remove crap Note: Another removal for reasons not listen at WP:TPOC. [15] [140] Edit summary: rmv puerile trolling Note: Classifying a question about why dogs go into heat but humans do not at as a request for medical advice is controversial. [16] [141] Edit summary: : blatant BLP violation, unsourced speculation and derogatory remarks re living person Note: Does Medeis intend to delete all the negative comments that are posted about Donald Trump every day? [17] [142] Edit summary: entirely unsourced BLP violation Note: See above. [18] [143] Edit summary: Russian interference: remove repeated violation of BLP; we do not speculate on people's secret motives and intentions Note: Another case of removing criticism of a public figure. Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. /Language&diff=next&oldid=781331054] [19] [144] Edit summary: we don't make judgments here Note: Edit warring, Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [20] [145] Edit summary: Undid revision 776767014 by JackofOz (talk) take me to ani, jack - we do not decide such nonsense Note: Edit warring, Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [21] [146] Edit summary: we don't make judgments here Note: Removal of a perfectly reasonable question. [22] [147] Edit summary: what if conspiracy theories were never posted? Note: Another removal for reasons not listed at WP:TPOC. [23] [148] Edit summary: remove obvious WP:BLP violation Note: Criticism of published statements by public figures is not a BLP violation. [24] [149] Edit summary: WP:BLP speculation and opinion by editors does not justify discussion unproven criminal activity by Barack Obama Note: Edit warring. Removal of "Removal on grounds of WP:BLP reverted; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. This is a well-documented allegation and the source is directly noted without sensationalistic adjustment." comment. [25] [150] Edit summary: speculating on the possible criminal activities of living persons violates WP:BLP Note: See above. [26] [151] Edit summary: WP:RD/G Note: Another removal of an already-hatted question. [27] [152] Edit summary: either a banned user or should not be closed; but bad links incline toward summary removal Note: Another removal of an already-hatted question. [28] [153] Edit summary: BLP violation at best, not to mention there's not a ref in the entire thread Note: Edit warring. What BLP? "my teenage granddaughter from Florida"? And since when do we require refs in refdesk questions? [29] [154] Edit summary: removing defamatory speculation involving personal legal and financial matters, we have no answers Note: Edit warring. Who is being defamed? "my teenage granddaughter from Florida"? Some coffee shop that accepts credit cards? [30] [155] Edit summary: remove request for personal financial and legal advice Note: Reverted with comment "Defend your position on the talk page, where your behavior is being discussed."[156] That discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 127#User's many deletions and hats, listed in the "Previous discussions" section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017

Poll

• Support: as proposer. The previous discussions and the link to recent deletions say it all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, the reason I am not replying to Baseball Bugs is that I do not want to have any interaction with him. Responding only encourages more WP:BLUDGEONING. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous reasoning. There are posts that should be removed ASAP and no argument has been presented to jusitfy M's ability to do that. OTOH this WP:HOUNDing of M needs to stop. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's look at one "problematic" deletion by Medeis as presented above, shall we? this discussion goes against all basic talk page guidelines we have, and Medeis should get a barnstar for deleting this. If this discusion is what most refdesk regulars want, then it is past time to simply delete the refdesks instead. Fram (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram failed to give the number of the edit he refers to on the above list. It is #11. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

One unintended purpose your list serves is to demonstrate the lack of vigilance by yourself and certain other members, for questions that have the potential to compromise Wikipedia itself: BLP violatons, requests for professional advice, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha, that's a good one. That is a discussion. BLP does not apply, and the deletion was absurd. --Viennese Waltz 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

BLP does not apply? Strange, and here I was thinking that BLP applies everywhere on enwiki. And of course, discussion of living persons and our opinion of them and their idiocy or greatness is another thing we don't do at enwiki, as we are not a forum. I'll take that as "strike one" for abolishing the ref desk then? Fram (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, that's what you're gonna do anyway. (More seriously: If you really believe you can take this response as a "strike one" for your plans of abolishing the ref desks, then there's not much more to be said. One diff chosen from one list from one user's allegedly problematic actions, and one response by one user to your one criticism to one diff is apparently all that's needed. Knock yourself out). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram is dead wrong on this. Nothing in our BLP policy even hints at deleting commentary -- even negative commentary - about the published statements of a public figure. I think that such commentary is a waste of time, but it is not deletable under WP:TPOC or WP:BLP. I believe that Fram's oft-expressed personal dislike for me may be clouding his judgement and causing him to take a position about BLP that is not found in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's you that's got it wrong. Yakking about a public figure's mental health is a blatant BLP violation, and removing that garbage was totally the right thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It is black-letter Wikipedia policy that BLP applies in every nook-and-cranny of Wikipedia, including talk pages, and the commentary on them. From WP:BLP:

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 ... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

I don't see how the policy can state it any clearer than that. Contentious BLP material must be removed immediately, wherever it appears on Wikipedia. The Ref Desks are not excluded. Anyone arguing otherwise is misinformed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You are actually claiming that asking "Is Donald Trump saying outrageous things a clever tactic meant to manipulate the media into not focusing as much attention on his actual policies?"[157] is a BLP violation? Yes, one reply called Trump an idiot, but Medeis / μηδείς didn't delete just that one comment. She deleted the entire thread. The essays WP:BLPZEALOT and WP:CRYBLP have some excellent advice about what you are doing here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Please at least attempt not to make more of a fool of yourself than you are already doing, for your own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Evasion noted. Your personal attacks won't distract the reader from noticing that you made a factual claim that is untrue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No evasion, and none required, since the policy directly and correctly applies to the situation. That you apprarently cannot see that is actually kind of sad, for an editor of your experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't seem to be able to recognize a trolling question when you see it. The OP's premise assumes facts not in evidence, and an answer to his actual question would require knowledge of what's in Trump's head. It's a ridiculous, POV-pushing, BLP-violating question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The desks need more regulars working together and respecting collaborative process and consensus, and less of what amounts to shoot-from-the-hip vigilantism. Years of attempts to reason with Medeis have produced little improvement that I can see. It's her way or the highway, and that never flies with me (never mind that it violates Wikipedia policy). While her policing actions are not all bad, they are a clear net-negative in my view.
  As for unsubstantiated accusations of Guy Macon's hounding: Seven experienced editors, including four admins, have recently stated that WT:RD was the wrong venue for this discussion, even if non-binding.[158][159][160][161][162][163][164] I fail to see how it can be hounding to follow their advice. Never mind that 8 experienced editors at WT:RD voiced support for a TBAN, lending significant legitimacy to the complaints against Medeis. Unless someone wants to allege a hounding conspiracy and call for sanctions against all 8 editors, such accusations are an abuse of WP:HOUND. In any event, such an accusation is pointless and unconstructive outside a separate boomerang discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is nothing more than the usual scapegoating (or bludgeoning, to use Macon's term) by certain users who look for a target every few months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram. I have noticed quite a lot of inappropriate forum chatter at the ref desks, and Fram's diff along with others I have seen shows that ref desk regulars often lack judgment about what is an appropriate usage of Wikipedia. It's likely that Medeis is wrong or stubborn on occasions, but the same applies doubled to many of the enthusiastic regulars. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you appear to be ignoring multiple violations of WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• And you ignore the importance of not violating BLP rules and not allowing professional advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't look like Guy captured all of the many times many people have raised objections to Medeis's self-appointed refdesk curatorship. I don't think basing a support/oppose on the list of the 30 most recent is so helpful here, since some removals are appropriate. The problem is more visible in the discussions. If you search the refdesk talk archive and administrators' noticeboards archives for something like "medeis + hatting", you'll find an awful lot. I encountered it repeatedly shortly after stumbling across the refdesks 4-5 years ago. My frustration with not just Medeis's hatting but her persistent dismissal of objections is one of the reasons I couldn't bring myself to put my time there. Though, to be fair, it's less of a problem than the tendency of a couple other users to either answer every possible question with an inane response or to use the refdesks as a joke-around-with-friends social networking site. ...And that's why I wouldn't support a straight topic ban for the reference desks, since Medeis's responses to questions deemed acceptable are not the problem. Disclosure: I became involved in a couple of the threads from a few years ago and started this one (already linked above). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would also oppose a topic ban from the reference desks. Medeis / μηδείς should be allowed to ask and answer questions. It is the violation of WP:TPOC and the constant WP:CRYBLPing that is the problem, and a narrow topic ban from deleting, collapsing, or otherwise editing any comment posted by any other user is the correct solution. There are plenty of other editors who will remove any actual trolling, vandalism, and undisputed BLP violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Removing BLP violations and requests for professional advice does not constitute censorship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've no idea who or what you're replying to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like it's time for my annual eye exam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the reference desks are not a general forum, and curating them is a good thing (and if curation of the ref desks isn't covered by WP:TPOC, then that can be easily fixed). I am quite happy to see speculation on the motives of certain politicians removed, although I would prefer to call this "offtopic" instead of making this about BLP. —Kusma (t·c) 11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: This has been an ongoing - for years - issue, if nothing else, it would stop pointless fights over questions that aren't really causing problems. In the event that this user thinks something needs hatted/deleted, they can use the talkpage; it isn't like there aren't enough other regulars around for when something is an actual issue, and this would remove her from dealing with borderline cases, cases where she has been over zealous. The issue is not that none of her removals are good, but that a good bit are questionable; so that she has removed some questions that were worth removing does not seem to me to be a reason to support her having the ability to continue hatting/deleting - and, as this doesn't stop her from answering, it still enables her to make useful contributions. I would say that the average vandal/troll causes less issues because they are gone quickly, so I would make the case that despite doing some good, some of the time, the repeated problematic actions have, probably, caused more aggravation (over time) than 95% of the posts she removed/hatted legitimately - in short, she is, over time, more of a problem than most of the problems she has fixed, thus, if they were worth removing, then I think this power is worth removing from her.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - prefer the solution to cut the Gordian Knot and just eliminate the ref desks. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• It isn't an either/or situation. You could support eliminate the ref desks and support topic baning Medeis / μηδείς from comments posted by other users. that way, even if your preferred solution doesn't get consensus, you would at least have done some good. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support for the topic ban. She's never shown any competence in knowing when to delete things, and shows no interest in learning, either. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Opppse - All I get from Guy's list of diffs above is that the ref desk is out of control/apparently overrun with junior high school boys. This editor should be commended for placing some limits & trying to keep a lid on the nonsense, not topic banned. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Fyddlestix - Most school districts in the United States have rebranded the schools as middle schools. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I have long thought that Medeis was a difficult editor of the Reference Desks. However, it appears that Guy Macon is over-reacting and is causing more trouble than Medeis. I would suggest closing this with a warning to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good idea. Have you noticed that Guy Macon (talk · contribs) has been forum-shopping like crazy, in order to try to impose his will upon the ref desks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Stop pinging me. I do not want to have any interaction with you. Leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have never pinged you. I don't use that function. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Are you really that ignorant after 10 years and 100K+ edits, or just being deliberately obtuse in order to further bite at Guy Macon's ankles? You coded a {{User}} template with Guy Macon's username in it, thereby generating the very same notification generated by the {{ping}} template. For your newbie edification, there are numerous ways to generate that notification, and we commonly refer to that facility as "pinging" regardless of the method used, and that fact is clearly stated in the first sentence at Wikipedia:Notifications. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• It is bizarre that Mandruss fields questions that are posed to Guy Macon while Guy Macon created the thread to restrict Medeis. Yet Guy Macon doesn't want to be pinged by Baseball Bugs. It is enough to make one's head spin. Then Mandruss hats the "offending" area of the discussion. I am removing the heavy-handed hatting from this group of posts. I don't think this particular wrinkle in the discussion needs to be hidden. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• It turns out that Macon and Mandruss were right about this "ping" that I didn't know was invoked by template:user. I was unknowingly pinging him. Now I know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• That's news to me. I've used template:user countless times and had never been told that it contained a built-in ping. Nor do I see that in the template documentation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• You're welcome. In the template documentation: "This template is used to create a link to a user's user page (unless using Example (talk)), talk page, and contributions, and generates a special notification." Regardless, why would Guy Macon ask you to stop pinging him if he didn't receive a ping from you? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Why would he? You'd have to ask him. I've been on his enemies list for several years now, and I figured this was just one more shot he was taking at me. Thanks for the info. It would be nice if the word "ping" actually appeared in that document. "Generates a special notification" is kind of vague. I guess if I want to point to any user's contribs, I'll have to link directly to the user's contrib page rather than using that convenient template. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell you're the only person who reads it that way. For your comparison, multiple editors including me have objected quite strenuously to your disruptive harassment campaign against Guy Macon. You seem unable to stop despite a complete lack of support and significant opposition. There is only one word for that: stupid. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's Macon who's doing the harassing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Evidence is not persuasive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. While in broad strokes, I generally support Medeis' policing of the RefDesk, I have found some of this editor's removals contentious in the past. I think a less aggressive approach would be welcomed by all. But I don't think the aggressiveness in itself rises to a level warranting a ban. On balance Medeis' work in this area is definitely a net positive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Medeis has been too disruptive over the years and that they also do some good does not compensate for it. Other people can do a better job of anything they have done that is anywhere useful. There have been enough complaints and warnings. They should be banned from the reference desk. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• How does tolerating BLP violations qualify as "doing a better job"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I can't say I think your presence has been useful either. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I must admit I don't hat or delete rule-violating questions as often as I should. But I do occasionally get thanked by OP's for providing useful info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. User consistently provokes controversy by closing/hatting/deleting content against policy. User has been informed politely, many times, over a period of several years of this, by a variety of editors. User pointedly ignores pleas to act according to published guidelines and community consensus. So when we see that asking/informing does not work, topic ban seems like the only option left. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. User is a continual thorn in everyone's side. Has single handedly changed the Ref Desks from a place where people supported each other and had a pride in providing the service into one where this self-appointed pseudo-moderator will step in and trash entire threads, delete perfectly valid questions and generally behaves as judge, jury and executioner of things the (s)he doesn't like. This has been a pattern for YEARS and it's time to take a stand and end it. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find Medeis at all a problem. I've only seen Medeis act on threads that were problematic in some way. In the case talked about above, we have an opening question containing the terms "outrageous things", "clever tactic[s]", and "manipulat[ing] the media". Those are highly subjective terms. In my opinion they are a recipe for debate. Bus stop (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I get that you don't like that question. I even agree with your reasons for not liking it and in fact I don't like it either. The problem is that you are perfectly fine with violating WP:TPOC and replacing that policy with "I can delete anything that I don't like". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• BLP rules override talk page guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• The reference desks are not a chat room. WP:FORUM might be applicable. You can't have a pristine, upstanding reference desk without people doing "housecleaning". It is not just Medeis who steps in to WP:HAT a part or all of a thread. My feeling is that I am OK with that as long as personal animus is not the motivation. In this case it is the sloppy political gibes that do not belong on the reference desk. What I see in that instance is Medeis trying to keep the reference desk operating within the realm of answering questions that can be answered, not on general discussion in which people alternatively defend and skewer the president. A thread like that could have gone on for a long time. Medeis had the wisdom to end it. This is a matter of opinion and sensitivity. You are citing WP:TPOC as if it spells out every possible situation that can arise. We have conflicting aims here: to not touch another person's writing, and to keep a reference desk functioning as it should—free of wandering "conversation". The problem was, as it often is, in the introductory question, because it serves as a reference point for all that follows. Bus stop (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Medeis has over several years acted in a a high-handed and anti-collegiate way, has repeatedly proved unwilling or unable to engage in constructive debate about her actions, and seriously harmed the Reference Desks. SteveBaker puts it very well above. DuncanHill (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Allowing BLP violations to stand is much more harmful to Wikipedia than anything Medeis has done over time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you want me to bring up the time she violated BLP by making false statements about me? I will, if it would help you Bugs. DuncanHill (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Haven't you heard? BLP is only for deleting things you don't like, whether they are actually BLP violations or not. See WP:BLPZEALOT and WP:CRYBLP. They just twist the rules and keep asserting that things that are not BLP violations are BLP violations. If they tell that lie often enough, maybe someone will believe them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, Guy Macon, you misstate what the BLP policy says. I won't restate it to you again, since you simply ignore me and take it as an opportunity for BATTLEGROUHDing, but you really need to read and understand this very basic piece of Wikipedia policy, because you obviously do not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not responding to you is the opposite of WP:BATTLEGROUND. See [165]. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I actually kind of liked the Trump thing. But it's a BLP violation and had to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: Special:Permalink/805458887#Straw poll: Ban Baseball Bugs from the Reference desk. 5.69.234.241 (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.170.141 (talk)

That oppose was removed by zzuuzz (talk · contribs) but restored by the ip. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That is banned user Vote (X) for Change. As a banned user, they don't have a voice. I have struck the comment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Whatever you do, don't use the term "rabbit hunt" [166], [167] The shortsightedness of this poll is illustrated by what happened yesterday. A question from the Nazi troll sat on the Humanities desk for over an hour and a half. If Medeis had been topic banned it might have sat there for much longer. 31.52.216.53 (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Did you think nobody would check? The last time Medeis / μηδείς edited the humanities refdesk was 22 days ago. The only deletion yesterday was this one:[168] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• That seems a reasonable question to me, there's been literature and TV programs about that and it could be answered factually with references Was it from a known banned troll? If a troll is suspected but not fairly sure I think that would be a good candidate for marking a question as possibly controversial so only factual answers with references should be given. As to 'throwing the first stone' that's a silly argument and ANI is a correct place for some stone throwing, the purpose of Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopaedia not to be a cuddly social forum where we say aw diddums about disruptive behavior. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• • • There were no edits in between the addition and the removal. The ref desks are not necessarily monitored 24 x 7. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram, Johnuniq, and Kusma. There is a very large amount of irrelevant questions and equally irrelevant answers at the Ref Desk. WP:NOTFORUM. Someone needs to police it, and anyone who tries gets my approval. The best solution would be to close the ref desk down - it's got little to do with the encyclopedia and it generates more heat than light and encyclopedia editors have to sort the mess out here at AN instead of going about their work on the content.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose--Mainly per Fram and Kudpung.(Though I choose to believe that the RefDesk shall not be shut down at it's entirety, due to it's potential benefits).Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Time to close down the ref desks?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?

 – ―Mandruss ☎ 18:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Call for close

It is now 25 October 2017. The last comment was posted on 21 October 2017. I believe that the time has come to close this and make a decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I have undone your disruptive refactoring above. Furthermore, the last comment was apparently at 14:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC), not on 21 October. The last vote may have been on 21 October, but this is a discussion, not a votecount. Fram (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I too think there has been enough time now, Is there any limit or do things nobody wants to deal with just get archived and join a list like that at the top of this discussion? Dmcq (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not everything requires a formal close. The purpose of this thread was to have Medeis banned from doing certain things at the Ref Desks. An uninvolved admin could evaluate the commentary and formally close it, but - I think it's fair to say - it's likely that the close would be "no consensus", so admins simply allowing it to be archived without action is the functional equivalent of that -- sort of like the pocket veto in the American governmental system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If no decision is made regarding this proposal, I will be filing an Arbcom case on the grounds that this is a situation that ANI is unable or unwilling to handle. This situation has gone on far too long. ANI has three choices: Either decide that Medeis / μηδείς has special permission to violate WP:TPOC, decide that she doesn't and apply an appropriate sanction, or do nothing and let Arbcom make the decision.

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis / μηδείς vioating WP:TPOC again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I see: "If you don't do what I want I'm going to tell ArbCom!"

Good luck with ArbCom. A quick look in my crystal ball predicts that they won't take the case. But - as always - when you're on a crusade, you'll do whatever you want to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You mean "ANI can do three things: decide that a bunch of Refdesk regulars may violate WP:BLP, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP and Medeis or anyone else shouldn't interfere with that, decide that these policies do apply to these pages and warn or sanction these editors accordingly, or do nothing". You are free to take this to ArbCom, but beware of the boomerang (for you and editors like StuRat) in that case. Fram (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Echo Fram except for the usage of boomerang.(I think ArbCom will not accept the case) And Guy, it's high time, you spend some time off opening frivolous AN/ANI thread(s).Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fram, there you go, making up your own rules again. Nothing in WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP allows an editor to delete comments that he or she decides to be violation of FORUM or SOAP, (the list of deletable material is a WP:TPOC and the question "Is Donald Trump saying outrageous things a clever tactic meant to manipulate the media into not focusing as much attention on his actual policies?", which you picked as your example of a good delete, is not a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The question was an invitation for comments in violation of these three policies, which of course appeared left, right and centre. Deleting all replies and keeping the question would have been a useless and probably counterproductive action: and in any case, that such a highly leading question is not' a BLP violation in itself is debatable, but that it has no place anywhere on enwiki should be clear to everyone who wants to work at the refdesks or any discussion page here. My reading of TPOC doesn't indicate any problem with the deletion by Medeis, only problems from the people actually posting in that thread. Fram (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's actually Guy that's Macon up his own rules. BLP rules override nearly everything, because violating BLP can result in harm to Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a perfectly reasonable question and it can be answered with perfectly reasonable citations like for instance Donald Trump Out of control? Or is Trump's tweeting designed to distract?, on the other hand the article Donald Trump on social media does not say anything on the matter so it may be false sorry it does say something under "covfefe".. I think having a tag to avoid forum type answers on contentious questions might be an idea but removing questions like this is just disruptive behavior. Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is unanswerable unless Trump or his staff have made such a declaration. Otherwise it's just somebody's opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate simultaneous RFC

• September 9: An RFC was opened[169] at Talk:Plimpton 322.
• October 9: That RFC expired,[170] but has not been closed yet.
• October 18: A second RFC on the same issue was opened on the same page by another user.[171]

I request any uninvolved individual immediately place a procedural close the new duplicate RFC.

It would be beneficial, but not immediately essential, to evaluate consensus on the issue for a full closure. Alsee (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been no consensus so far, however the editors opposing inclusion of content are the most active at that page. I wasn't aware of the previously made RFC, and since it is considered expired would ask to keep the new RFC up, and close the expired RFC. prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ping involved editors: Nine-and-fifty swans, 9and50swans, Sasuke Sarutobi, Barryriedsmith, Garald, Jimmaths, 128.68.56.38, David Eppstein, Wcherowi, Salix alba, Staszek Lem, Alsee, ScrapIronIV, Keira1996, 80.72.90.183, Tigraan, EEng prokaryotes (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  prokaryotes, why would you ping everyone to come here? We do not want to start a debate of the Plimpton issue on this page.

  This is a purely procedural matter. You didn't realize there was an open RFC on the topic, fine, a simple mistake. We don't run duplicate RFCs on the same issue. We close the duplicate, and any responses on the new RFC should simply be considered as additional contributions on the original discussion. Alsee (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the previous RFC had just two editors involved, and is sort of buried in the vast spaces of the talk page. I see no reason to take this AN post here in regards to RFC not as a wake-up-call to ping editors who have previously engaged in relevant discussions. Ofc, it would be prefered to comment on the current RFC (not the expired), and may be someone wants to chime in here at AN, and add to it. prokaryotes (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The first RFC has been closed.[172] However the closer is hesitant to close the duplicate RFC[173] because the initiator has suggested they may challenge the close. This has been through an excessive number of Article_talk sections, accusations of "a conspiracy", "suppression", attacks against administrators, and wild accusations of COI against editors opposing inclusion, an RFC, NPOV/noticeboard, twice to ANI, and it has failed every time. And now a simultaneous-duplicate RFC. The WP:FORUMSHOPing is way overboard. Can someone please place a procedural close the duplicate RFC? All-but-one of the responses on the duplicate RFC are respondents from the original RFC. Alsee (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Appeal of TBAN

I have been helping on many articles on Wikipedia: University of Paris, Sorbonne University, Sorbonne University group, Paris 1, Paris II, Sciences Po, San Diego State University template, Pierre and Marie Curie University, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris Descartes University. I was subject to a long-term abuse regarding one of those university and I made an ANI request: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

I see now that there is a special page for WP:LTA, and it explains why admins were not used to such a long list of examples of abuse toward me. It led to a difficulty to see the issue. Because I also showed the last disruptive edits from the user (last three links), he was topic-banned on top of having a warning, but the discussion was closed with a topic-ban (not an IBAN) for me too, and from all French academic institutions, in spite of the fact it was recognized that I clearly improved the articles.

I was mentioned in the close with the other user as topic-banned for a poor english and a difficulty with Wikipedia policies. I find difficult to see where I violated such policies or I could not interact with other users correctly. Here are the recent discussions I had on talk pages (except with the long-term abuser and in the recent context of the TBAN or ANI request):

• Talk:Sorbonne_University_(group)
• Talk:Pierre_and_Marie_Curie_University#.C2.A0UPMC_is_the_name_since_2007
• Talk:Sciences_Po#Partners_in_lead

Regarding content of articles, I always respected consensus, for example (among many) with that recent edit where I reverted to the consensus to a phrasing I voted strongly against, in a RfC I initiated. Another example of conciliatory attitude: KPBS: Revision history

In spite of the fact I always answered politely to very strong personal attacks from the other user, due to the difficulty to clear out the situation, I would understand an interaction banned with him (even though I think I would need to report future abuse from him). But a topic ban seems at very least really exaggerated.

After the close, the other user came out with a diff from April [174] that would be ambiguous. I do not think so, because the sentence "On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, Sciences Po is accused of being" is in the criticism section, so it was clear it was a criticism, but anyway, I corrected the possible ambiguity only 4 days later [175]. It would be very unusual to TBAN, 6 months later, a user for one supposed ambiguity that he corrected himself 4 days later. That diff being brought forward by another user so much time later because of the discussion regarding a WP:LTA he had committed.

Thank you.

--Launebee (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• To my knowledge there is no LTA case page on any of the editors involved; I think the reference to LTA is merely an accusation that XIII's conduct constituted "long term abuse" towards OP. It has been ten days since the TBAN was instituted, and only four days since Launebee's last thread about XIII was closed at ANI (link).
  This appeal is directed towards the discussion that instituted the TBAN, rather than claiming the TBAN is no longer necessary because Launebee's conduct has sufficiently improved. Because Launebee doesn't raise any new concerns that could not have been raised during the original TBAN discussion, I oppose lifting the ban. The underlying TBAN was put in place to give both XIIIfromTokyo and Launebee the opportunity to edit productively in other topic areas. Launebee, from all appearances, has spent the ten days since the topic ban was instituted trying to continue the dispute with XIII. I don't think we should reward this behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The LTA is a reference to the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo. I made a new ANI request because there were new attacks, and at least Calton thought it was not improper to raise so soon a new issue. This discussion is not about my dispute with XIII anyway.

Indeed, it is an appeal, so I am not claiming that something changed, but that a TBAN was not justified in the first place. --Launebee (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Because you could have presented all this information during the initial discussion but failed to do so, I see no reason why we should revisit the topic ban discussion. I see no error in the consensus that imposed your topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The ANI request was about the LTA and personal attacks, the discussion got blurred and the TBAN was not properly decided.

1. An admin cannot impose a TBAN, and I see no mention of a consensus. (He had only one clear support.)

2. Even if a TBAN could be decided, there is an appeal procedure precisely to check things again.

--Launebee (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the first point in this appeal that you're challenging the consensus; above you merely protested that the discussion did not consider certain matters that you failed to bring up. In any event, the TBAN was rightly decided. The discussion remained open long enough and the consensus was clear. Consensus is not a matter of voting, and there is no quorum. Even then, there were at least three in support of the topic ban, including the proposer, and the only opposition gave no rationale. You were properly topic banned, and should remain topic banned. If anything, your conduct since the topic ban was imposed is clear evidence that you should be topic banned. I encourage you to edit Wikipedia in some other topic area so that you can become a productive member of this community. You could edit in just about any topic area: civil law, the French language, literature... just so long as you do not edit in violation of your topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - It seems that the TBAN was implemented because you and XIII were warring over French university articles. Thus, the reason for the situation is one of combat: you and XIII couldn't get along and sort it out among yourselves. So, going back to ANI about XIII doesn't really support your case. Infact, it argues against it. Also, it seems that, at least with you, your dispute with XIII is getting in the way of contributions from both you and those involved. Because of this, I think that there should be the addition of a standard IBAN so that people can contribute productively. Also, I think that the IBAN should have to be lifted before the current TBAN, to see if you will fight again. Hopefully that can help things. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 01:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that an IBAN would be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, thanks for your take on this, but I beg to differ. "We" were not warring (except a long time ago), he was attacking me repetitively, as you can see in the ANI threat, and, outside of the context of this ANI where I exposed things, I never attacked him in such a way or another. It seems unfair to me to TBAN me because I have been for one year unjustly accused of antisemitism and homophobia, and I dared bringing this to ANI. It would mean that any victim of shameful attacks on Wikipedia should beware before going to ANI, and it would be some kind of victim bashing. I made a new ANI because within 2 days I was already attacked again, and it was closed, not because there was no new attack toward me, but because the majority (notCalton) wanted to let the other user some time to calm down. You can see in the links I provide my constructive attitude on Wikipedia, and you can see that I never answered the other users' attacks by personal attacks. --Launebee (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the TBAN per RileyBugz, though I would also oppose placing additional sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit War/Harassment between User:Mike Littlejohn & User:Digifan23

There is a constant amount of edit warring between the two users and harassment coming from User:Mike Littlejohn. Mike has constantly vandalized Digifan23's userpage after a conflict between the two of them. -glove- (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't caused any disruption since receiving his most recent level 4 warning, so I don't intend to take any action. I'll keep an eye on him; if he causes any further disruption he'll be shown the door. ‑ Iridescent 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

::Checking again there seems to have been something that happened again that made Digifan23 report Mike on ARV, although I also saw Mike apoligize to Digifan23 on their talk page, might be worth a look. -glove- (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Checked the edit that Digifan23 reported them for and it doesn't look like vandalism? These two users seem to have it out for each other and might be best to have an interaction ban and/or topic ban to keep them apart? -glove- (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind that, blocked due to checkuser -glove- (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a new editor and created a new article, not sure if my editing and other editors reaction is correct

I have created article Catalan supremacism after a couple of weeks of translating from Spanish wiki with a lot of primary and secondary sources and in a manner which I find very NPOV. Sadly, due to what is probably now political tension in that region it has created a lot of hassle including, IP blanking and a lot of what I thought was unnecessary tagging of the lead (fringe theory etc.). I'm not complaining about anyone in particular but could it be possible for some "administrator" to follow the article and guide us on policy, what is acceptable and what is not and maybe help mediate. I'm not familiar with how things work so I'm struggling a little. Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Article now at AfD and heading towards deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for RFC review

Recently a RFC was closed here, with concluding that there is consensus to exclude a reliable sourced study. However, while that RFC was already expired, and because it was posted within that discussion without sub section heading, I've missed that RFC, and started a new one. Meanwhile one of the recent opposers supported my RFC, and I did not commented in that RFC, which when factored in means that there isn't a consensus to exclude that source. Hence, I ask to reopen that RFC, to either factor in the newly made RFC comments, or to open it another few days to offer involved editors to comment. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The commentary in Science magazine, by actual experts of Plimpton 322, wasn't previously discussed, instead opposers cited a polemic opinion piece. However, the Science article basically says its mathematical robust, but speculative. The closer himself wrote on his talk page "The close tie in the number of people supporting and opposing the disputed content is indicative of no consensus." (Yet MrX closed with consensus to exclude.) The source is authoritative (published in Historia Mathematica) If we factor in all editors who commented in regards to the inclusion, there is what appears to be a majority for a mention. Literally every news outlet covered the story. People posted several times on the talk page, perplexed why the article doesn't mention the new theory. prokaryotes (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV has been backlogged for ten hours

 Administrator note As of now there are 0 open items. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Currently about fifteen reports or so. Many are old though. Can an admin sweep by to reduce or remove the backlog please? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 23:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It was at least 12 hours on Sunday too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It gets backlogged because people report things that aren't vandalism. It's not administrator intervention against unsourced content, POV pushing, sock puppets, or edits you don't like. Reports of genuine "blatant vandalism" are usually handled within a few minutes. I'm not blaming either of you, but that is the reason for the backlog. And with that off my chest, I'll go and have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well WP:VAN goes on to say "or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies...", citing verifiability - "is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". So the addition of unsourced content would come under that, for example. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No it wouldn't; unsourced additions don't change any existing content beyond all recognition. Besides, the longstanding and mostly agreed-upon interpretation of that is that an edit is vandalism iff it's obviously and actively malicious towards Wikipedia. Unsourced content additions, by and large, aren't. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced fails WP:V, esp. on BLPs. That sounds like vandalism to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you should review WP:VANDAL, because that's not what vandalism is. (I will push back against HJ Mitchell's inclusion of sockpuppetry in that list, though. It is completely fine to report editors who are engaging in vandalism at AIV, even if they happen to also be sockpuppets. That is actually the preferred venue for quick action against active disruption by sockpuppets, as SPI is slow.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So adding unsourced text to a BLP isn't vandalism? I'll have to remember that one for next time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No it is not. The BLP doesn't even prohibit unsourced material, it just says unsourced material that is challenged or likely to be challenged has to be supported by an inline cite per WP:V, and extends that in biographies to "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" - but that is not vandalism just because it is unsourced. On a daily basis plenty of clearly vandalistic material is added to BLP's, but it is not the lack of sourcing that makes it vandalism, it is the intent behind it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV does get a lot of reports of "blatant sockpuppetry" which are really only blatant if you know the sockmaster, and most admins don't. As a result they often sit there for hours waiting for an admin who knows that sockmaster well or who is willing to do the research to establish that it's definitely a sock. Hut 8.5 21:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with HJ Mitchel and Rob. I've been at AIV recently mainly to get a feel for how the different admin areas work and the one thing that's shocked me the most after getting the tools is how many good faith users or other non-vandals get reported to AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

As one of the more active admins at AIV, I've definitely noticed a recent increase in the number of inappropriate reports at AIV. A few more admins willing to decline (rather than ignore) inappropriate reports would definitely be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll try to work AIV back into my routine. A Train^talk 08:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've also noticed that some IPs like to report other "users" when they have only done 1 vandalism edit in a month. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 18:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's an LTA-ish case. If you see an IP mass-reporting like that, just remove their report. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution question

Admins, I've come across a redirect which was validly deleted WP:G5, which I want to restore because I think it's useful. The deleting admin (Tavix) has already consented, so that's not an issue. However, since the entire history of the redirect is two edits by a confirmed sockpuppet, is it necessary to restore the history or would it be preferable to just recreate the redirect as a new page? I don't know if a redirect with categories added is sufficiently creative to require it, and though I'm of the opinion that we needn't attribute sockpuppet contributions that view is not currently supported by policy. However Tavix wisely observed that simply restoring the history leaves the article open to being re-deleted under G5, since I won't actually be making an edit, just an entry in the deletion log. So what's best practice here? I could just recreate the redirect in place even though I'll be copying a sock's edit, or I could restore the history and make a null edit, or ... what? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that a redirect is probably not enough to constitute a creative work, so copyright wouldn't apply, and you'd be fine recreating it yourself. There's only one way to say it. I'd like to hear others' opinions though. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Ivanvector, I do recall you asking a similar question before, back when the Neelix saga flooded RfD. Here is a response from Newyorkbrad to a very similar query you had on an RfD discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the same response I'd give this time. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Occasionally a redirect might have some associated content, either as an html comment, or in the edit summary of the edit that created it – say something that explains why the redirect has been created, I do that when the connection to the target isn't obvious. This is useful informaation and we should strive to preserve it. Of course, this situation arises only infrequently, and otherwise I agree that keeping redirect histories isn't necessary for attribution. However, there is one type of information that all redirect posses: that they were created at a certain date and that for such-and-such period they targeted such-and-such article. This is minimal but can still be useful, so in the absence of further considerations we should preserve redirects rather than delete and recreate them. The concern in this specific instance however is that the redirect might get deleted again per G5. Well, admins aren't supposed to speedy delete stuff that has been kept at XfD, are they? Still, it might be useful to have a way to flag up a redirect (or any page) as G5 exempt – something (a template or a category) that says in essence "This is a page created by a blocked user, but it has been examined by a trusted editor who has deemed it worthy of keeping. Do not speedy delete." – Uanfala 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• {{G8-exempt}} exists for orphaned talk pages that shouldn't be speedy deleted, so what you're describing wouldn't be completely unprecedented. If something like that is desired, it shouldn't be too hard to whip up a {{G5-exempt}} template. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughts. I restored the redirect's history and made a null edit to make an edit summary saying what I did, which should prevent it from G5 deleted again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Slow Edit War - topic ban needed for Syrian Civil War/ISIL

User:Ferakp continues to repeatedly insert unreliably sourced extraordinary claims about citizen journalist group Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, which myself, an IP and most recently User:Harpoon6 have removed. Specifically this editor wants the page to say the subject supports ISIL - but RBSS formed to tell the world about ISIL atrocities in their city. ISIL has murdered various members of RBSS in Syria and Turkey so the claims from a single website that they are in any way supportive don’t ring true. Arguably this page falls under Syrian Civil War/ISIL discretionary sanctions. Could an Admin please review the article history and talkpage discussions as well as this editor’s contribution history across other SCW pages and do something like issue a Syrian Civil War topic ban or stern warning or something? Harpoon6 provided some good rational for Admin action on the article talk. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Too many empty accusations against me. The user calls the Aranews something bigger than a blog despite its popularity among the Syrian civil war experts and international organizations. Also, the user didn't explain how Aranews is unreliable. I've answered here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raqqa_Is_Being_Slaughtered_Silently#Criticism_section Ferakp (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB. The content added here is always "According to ARA News", and nobody is a better source for ARA News' statements than ARA News itself. However, this has several issues, including (1) Except in literature and other artistic topics, where you have professional critics, "Criticism" sections are virtually always non-neutral — either they present elements that could be integrated into the rest of the narrative, drawing inordinate attention to those elements, or they present elements that can't be integrated into the rest of the narrative, so these elements don't belong in the first place. (2) Who are ARA News, and why do their opinions matter? If Shawn Christian offered an opinion, and it ended up being reported in some media outlet, you could add something saying "According to Shawn Christian, RIBSS is [adjective]", but why would that matter? Opinions virtually never matter unless they're the opinions of movers and shakers, so you need to present evidence that ARA is a major force in this dispute. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to bring the bias of the RIBSS to the public. It's criticized in the region for pursing Arab chauvinism and attacking non-opposition groups in the Syrian civil war. The group tries to sell itself as an independent and neutral source but with the criticism section I wanted to show that their members are even criticized by some opposition groups, so I think my edits were appropriate.Ferakp (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ferakp, am I correct in thinking you have tried to add essentially this same content to the article eleven times now? MPS1992 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not the same content and I didn't add anything eleven times, I reverted unexplained and inappropriate edits by Legacypac. The user failed to prove the ARANEWS is not a reliable source. I would like to hear what the administrators are thinking about the ARANEWS. Ferakp (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ve not counted, but they keep trying to insert the same material and various editors remove it. The claims are far fetched and based solely on one questionable source. Legacypac (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor making mutiple trivial categories

I like someone to look over Tokyowaterfront recent edit history, specially the creation of multiple trivial categories with only a few members (WP:SMALLCAT, as well as adding unsourced categories to articles, like here, here, and here. I have already successfully nominated a number of these categories for deletion and even asked the editor to stop making these trivial categories,[176] but the editor keeps creating more despite the results without any further discussion. —Farix (t | c) 10:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a competence issue here. However he/she has been with us since 2009 and has a clean block log. I wouldn't want to block without fully exploring all other options. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix: you do not appear to have notified the editor which is a requirement when starting a discussion here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Actually, I did notify the editor. You probably missed it for all of the CfD notifications. —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I did miss that. I wonder if they will come to add anything to this discussion? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this editor has ever engaged in any discussions about their edits. It is like that they stopped making these categories because this matter escalated to the Administrators' Noticeboard. But judging form their early article creations, it is highly unlikely that they know English because those articles appear to have been the result of a Google translation. —Farix (t | c) 23:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Compiling DIFFS from username AND IP account for AE/DS filing.... is this outting?

Today I started compiling some diffs to make an AE complaint on a page subject to DS. The edit history strongly suggests that the ed in question repeated their pattern both logged in, and at other times, not logged in. I only suspect the username and IP are the same person. How do I document the DIFFS in a way that provides full info in the filing and yet stops short of inappropriate conduct on my own part? My only interest is prevention of future problems. Help please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If compiling diffs in this way puts one in violation of the OUTing policy then I am forced to conclude that the policy might need improvement. Be careful though, I have seen editors get banjaxed horribly for errors in this area. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Diffs per se are not outing and neither is a compilation thereof: They only indicate that an IP and an account have similar edits, not that they are actually connected. If the diff is of someone inadvertently giving away non-public information then it could be considered outing to raise it in a public noticeboard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIN wars

Several editors, most prominently BlackJack (talk · contribs) and Rhadow (talk · contribs), have been engaged in heated disputes regarding Wikipedia's coverage of Sri Lankan cricketers. I have tried to propose a consensus solution, and have failed to do so. I intend to withdraw from all discussions on this topic for the immediate future.

I suggest that an admin should close all the currently-open cricket AfDs (the most recent nominations being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janitha Hewawasam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players) as No Consensus. There is clearly a wider dispute for which no clear consensus exists at this time.

Further, I propose that the involved editors be prohibited from making any cricket-related AfDs until a wider consensus is reached on the existing disputes. I am unsure of the correct forum, but WT:CRIC will probably work. I would prefer to let someone with a vested interest in the debate open any voluntary mediation process. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed -- I shant make any more cricket-related mainspace edits until there is is consensus. No prohibition is required. Yes. I have PRODded and sent to AfD articles with database-derived articles (no English press found) on cricketers that have made only one appearance. When put to AfD, others agree these articles fail WP:BLP1E. I posted two model articles I believed would meet everyone's needs. One was deleted. The second one likely shall be. The subject is getting plenty of discussion at WT:CRIC. Let someone else propose a workable solution -- one that does not assume that all subjects are notable and that cricket is not subject to WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that these two slapdash stopgap solutions are being seen as unacceptable is proof that they are probably unhelpful to the project. I would like opinions from someone not involved with the cricket Wikiproject to tell me - would an article based on a team which no longer plays first-class cricket be likely to be deleted as long as it was complete? Eastern Punjab has not existed since 1966, and last played Ranji Trophy cricket in the 1959-60 season. If I set up an article on List of Eastern Punjab players, in the same vein as List of Evansville Crimson Giants players, would this be likely to be deleted as long as it was comprehensive? Bobo. 23:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And you are probably 82% of the problem because you persistently misrepresent guidelines like BLP1E and, shall we say, state blatant untruths about sources in such a way that some inexperienced or unknowledgeable editors at AfD could easily be misled into supporting your recommendation. Would anyone like to see the long list of instances? For now, I'll give a couple of quick examples. BLP1E expressly excludes anyone subject to NSPORTS and yet, as he is still doing here, Rhadow insists that BLP1E is actionable in those cases. The CricketArchive site, which is tertiary in terms of its content, is widely used by WP:CRIC for convenience and it is entirely WP:RS for matches, teams and players in the 20th and 21st centuries. Rhadow has on a few occasions, despite being corrected, declared that it is a primary source. Whatever his agenda is, it is not being presented in accordance with site principles. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how many people would complain "but we have no idea who put cricketarchive/cricinfo together therefore how can we have any kind of knowledge over whether the information is independently verifiable by a named source..?" Surely that's true of any American sporting database too..? Bobo. 22:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

All they have to do is look at the sites to see they are independent, They are news and information collation efforts with tertiary content. Similar American sites do likewise. Indeed, isn't ESPNcricinfo an American site itself? Jack | ^{talk page} 22:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Why not name all the "prominent" editors? I think the discussion should include User:Bobo192 on the one side (with me) and User:Reyk, User:Blue Square Thing and User:Dee03 on the other (with Rhadow), plus an open invitation to all members of WP:CRIC via WT:CRIC. The essential problem is how to interpret the totally ambigious GNG which is completely at odds with subject specific criteria right across WP, although the issue has come to a head in terms of GNG vis-à-vis WP:CRIN, specifically re cricketers in Sri Lanka who need WP:NEXIST given a shortage of pre-internet English sources and their reliance for "notability" on Sinhalese sources.

And I propose that no one with less than, say, 30k edits should be allowed anywhere near AfD, CfD, TfD or suchlike. Seriously. We have a major issue around people who are bent on deleting articles and justifying their desire by means of guideline misrepresentation. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

If people simply had kept to the insultingly simple rule of WP:CRIN (especially since the two main notability "guidelines" contradict each other), we wouldn't be in this mess. It's that simple. If someone who knew nothing about baseball or American football were to AfD an article on a onetime baseball or American football player, they would be shouted at from all sides, probably blocked for disruption, severely castigated and topic-banned from the project.

If someone is going to come along and say that CRIN isn't perfect, the fact that it is single-rule bright-line criteria proves that it is the only logical criterion to work to. CRIN has served us well for (ten?) years and hasn't done us wrong until now. People have been complaining all this time the cricket Wikiproject has been pushing an inclusionist agenda, but if this were any other sport this wouldn't be an issue. Bobo. 22:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

CRIN complies with NBASE, NFOOTY and others re a single top-level appearance. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade will not accept that or the fact of WP:NEXIST re non-English sources for qualifying cricketers in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc. whose sources are Sinhalese, Bengali, etc. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

People complain that Cricket Archive and/or Cricinfo should not count as links by themselves, I wonder how many American footballer bios quote just https://www.pro-football-reference.com (or similar) and none other. Bobo. 22:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking only from considering notability issues, as long as there is 1) agreement that CRIN (which I believe is part of NSPORT) has generally been accepted as a subject-specific guideline, and specifically the one criteria that allows one pro game to presume notability and 2) that Cricket Archive/Cricinfo or Pro-Football-Reference.com are RS that meet WP:V, then the presumption of notability is met and we allow the standalone article. However, these can be deleted if someone shows that there is no additional sources (ideally secondary) about these players, following the required steps at WP:BEFORE. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that two independently compiled sources, two of the most comprehensive, most reliable, independent websites on the Internet may be considered "not enough" is proof of how far backwards this project has come. Bobo. 22:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It's prove enough to meet the presumed notability by CRIN (the base verificaiton the player played a pro match), but not enough to meet a quality article, so a valid WP:BEFORE challenge to show no additional sourcing exists or is likely to come into existence is completely fair to challenge the presumption of notability and have it deleted.

To that end, one then needs to ask how much of a search needs to be done. To take the lead example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janitha Hewawasam, this is a player who's pro career was all within the "Internet age" - if this was an American pro footballer, and otherwise the same situation (only sourced to respected stats pages), and I cannot find anything about in on a thorough Google search, that meets WP:BEFORE. However, we're talking someone from Sri Lanka, and I believe they aren't as connected as the US or Europe. So in that AFD, the claim no sources exist without evidence of doing a paper search (eg going to local Sri Lanka libraries) is not a valid BEFORE claim, so the AFD can be considered bad. If these editors are engaging in such a pattern - where they are not following BEFORE properly to demonstrate a lack of sources, that's a problem. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Presumed" is a tricky word because it has two opposing meanings depending on precisely who is "presuming", and on what grounds. If the claim is that we are asserting without proof, (sense 3), this is clearly untrue, as long as "proof" incorporates "secondary sources". Admittedly this is only one sense of the word and renders the other senses tricky to assert. Bobo. 00:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:N establishes "presumed" as equivalent to rebuttable presumption. If you can minimally prove a topic meets the GNG or SNG, we allow the stand alone article to give it time to develop into a proper article, as we presume this possible. If someone else shows that that expansion effectively cannot be done by showing a thorough lack of any possible source (eg WP:BEFORE) , then our presumption was wrong and we allow for deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Masem, one of the biggest issues we have is the refusal of Rhadow and his ilk to accept WP:NEXIST. As far as Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi players are concerned, they are top-level players about whom the needed information is in Sinhalese or Bengali sources. We even proved, via a contact in Colombo, that information about one player could be enhanced by reference to a Sinhalese newspaper. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I know Facebook is a crap "source" but I wonder if I wonder if I were to contact some kind of page on Assam cricket team, they would be able to provide me with sources to find the name of a player who made a single appearance (making the assumption that a player who played in the 1995-96 season is still alive and therefore traceable). Bobo. 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And I would add that I have found a THIRD source re all these players in a book published by a cricket history society who are themselves RS. Needless to say, the don't like it mob are trying to ignore that one. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not complaining towards you Jack, just thinking of something that makes me smile, I wish WP:NEXIST didn't exist as an abbreviation because it makes it sound to me like the guideline is "subject must exist". ;) Bobo. 23:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bad acronym or whatever. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a question. It's been claimed in the past that the cricket Wikiproject exhibits something of a "walled garden" (list of articles whose only internal references within the site are to each other), but wouldn't that be true of everyone? After all, if we were to claim that the former NFL player Dave Smith (name invented for purpose) liked birdwatching, this would be considered simply trivial material... Bobo. 23:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• As I have been named here, if any progress is made on resolving this could someone let me know please. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I do not believe that many of these articles are suitable as stand-alone articles if they are based on purely statistical entries, and especially if they don't allow for the player's full name to be determined. I have several reasons for that. Firstly, this approach dilutes minimal content over a multitude of unnecessary articles. Secondly, and more importantly, inflating raw numbers into prose has the potential to introduce factual errors. I've seen some of these microstubs assert that a player has retired, or is still living, when there's nothing in the source to say that. I've seen ambiguous cases where it wasn't clear whether it was two different people playing one game for two different clubs, or the same person switching teams. All of this is a problem from a WP:BLP standpoint. Thirdly, I maintain that a better way to get use out of these statistical entries is to present them in the form of lists of players by club, because all the data could be presented and nothing new would be introduced by trying to write prose around raw numbers- and you'd also get the ability to compare players quickly and easily which you can't currently do with the diffuse cloud of microstubs.

Unfortunately, much of the problem is behavioural. WP:CRIC is rather toxic, with most of the hostility coming from Bobo and Blackjack. Anyone who disagrees with their views on inclusion is presented as either malicious or stupid, and usually both. I think this discussion on WT:CRIC is illuminating; at the first sign of disagreement Bobo taunts and belittles the dissenter until he succeeds in provoking an outburst, at which point he proclaims victory. If I took my concerns to WT:CRIC it would certainly end up the same way (except that I know not to allow myself to be baited this time). That's the primary reason this dispute is played out at AfDs and ANI- you can't go to the WP:CRIC people with a contrary opinion without them hooting and throwing poo at you. Meanwhile BlackJack is placing bogus warnings on people's talk pages so he can then flood AfDs with frivolous points of order and yelling "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED!", and spamming the mainspace with what can only be described as wikiproject propaganda. Seriously, this drivel is three times longer than the article. If you need to devote three times as many words to explaining why a subject should be exempt from WP:N and WP:V than you can actually say about the subject, then it does not belong in the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 06:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere - if people were able to follow insultingly simple-to-understand inclusion criteria, none of this would have become an issue. Bobo. 09:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the "guidelines" are basic or not. It's that they lead to a proliferation of very low quality articles and the inevitable introduction of errors into the mainspace. The problem isn't that people don't understand your "guideline", as you keep incorrectly insisting, it's that they quite rightly disagree with it. From what you've said below, it seems that you intend to keep ridiculing and insulting people simply for having different opinions and, what's worse, you state that merely disagreeing with you is enough to make them a net negative on the project. Obviously, this is ludicrous. Reyk _YO! 10:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If the articles are "low-quality", improve them. If you are unable to improve them, then there is no need to complain about their quality because, judging by the sources available, the articles are of the best quality we can get with the information we have right now. There are hundreds of Test cricketers(!) with crap articles including dozens without sources, as I've pointed out on WT:CRIC. Aren't these what you should be complaining about? Bobo. 10:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, all of that deserves a full reply but I don't have time right now and will be back later. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankly if they don't deserve articles based on simply "statistical entries", and those who complain are unwilling to do the work to fix this, then as a project we are not the problem. If you are unwilling to improve the project then the project itself is not the problem.

As for my behavioural problems, I apologized back in mid-September when I first snapped and I can do nothing but apologize now. A couple of things were going on then which I wish hadn't been going on when the issues themselves had initially flared up, and if the two hadn't coincided, nothing of this mess would have occurred in the first place. A friend of mine had passed away, I was going through crappy medical issues, and everything got on top of me. I don't respond well to outside pressure and unfortunately, it exploded at the wrong time and in the wrong place. I genuinely wish it hadn't.

Secondly, an article is never to be based on its content but on its suitability for the project. And if we are agreed that the article meets standards according to guidelines (from now on I'm always going to apply WP:5P - thanks Jack for pointing this out - as the two most often-quoted guidelines are essentially contradictory nonsense...) this wouldn't have turned into an issue.

Thirdly, it's odd that a lot of people who say, "This is unsuitable for Wikipedia, get rid lol!" have been prepared to offer an alternative solution which is workable and involves no form of NPOV breaching. Frankly if these people are unwilling to offer an alternative solution, then I don't think their argument stands up and I think we're absolutely fine working to the guidelines we've been working to for all these years (worth noting that those who disagree with this guideline are suspiciously new to the project and had no say in the curation or upkeep of any guidelines - which have changed over time, so it's not as if we're resistant to change).

The solution to the argument over cricketing articles is simple. If people worked to a single, simple, NPOV guideline, one single major cricketing appearance, this wouldn't have even become an issue. As I've quoted elsewhere, I truly believe that if those who were offering up cricketing articles which they full well know reach inclusion criteria, were doing so for an NFL, NHL, NBA or MLB article, they would be severely castigated and ostracized by the project.

As for "taunting and belittling", I'm not sure of a polite way I can put this, but it basically comes down to the same thing I said above. If you are unable to conform to insultingly basic inclusion criteria guidelines, then you are a net deficit to almost any part of the project and are pushing POV on the Internet's most high-profile NPOV resource. Bobo. 09:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How does your last point tally with WP:5P4? If someone doesn't agree with you, it does not mean they are a deficit to the project. You cannot justify your comments by further use of pejorative language Spike 'em (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Last point"? "If you are unable to conform to insultingly basic inclusion criteria guidelines, then you are a net deficit to the project"? We are trying to build an encyclopedia. To do this you need guidelines based on bright-line criteria. If you are unwilling to work to bright-line criteria in order to create an encyclopedia, you are a net drain on the project because you are here to push an agenda. Bobo. 10:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your last point where you justify insulting people because they disagree with you, which is in direct contravention of the Pillars you are newly fond of. Spike 'em (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. "If you are unwilling to work to bright-line criteria in order to create an encyclopedia, you are a net drain on the project because you are here to push an agenda." I said nothing about "disagreeing". Bobo. 10:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And as far as being "newly fond of" something, that is true but irrelevant. That's like saying I'm "newly fond of" the latest Super Mario Bros game and thus won't come out of my bedroom to do anything else for the next 17 hours. Bobo. 10:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

You throw insults at people who disagree with you in discussions about these bright line criteria. Spike 'em (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I like the fact that you still think I've insulted anyone. Bobo. 10:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

So how would you describe these two comments if not insulting or belittling: "Any adults with opinions on this matter please? Bobo. 11:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)" and "Usually I would argue that by acting like an ignorant thug you are insulting your own intelligence. Sadly in your case I don't think that's true. Bobo. 21:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)" Spike 'em (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I said both of those things. I was looking for opinions from other people. And I received them. Job's a good 'un. Bobo. 10:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And you don't think they are insulting then, or do you only apply policies when they suit you? You are quite disparaging of others when they fail to follow mere guidelines. Spike 'em (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

They are fairly simple guidelines to follow. First-class, List A, major cricket, in. Not first-class, List A, major cricket, out. How much simpler do you want them to be? Bobo. 11:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The simplicity of the guidelines is not the issue, it is your attitude towards people who disagree with you. I will repeat the question : Do you think your comments are not insulting, or are you ignoring policies you don't like? Spike 'em (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. This is what this whole conversation is about, as per the topic subject. If you're not willing to engage in this conversation, then please exit. Bobo. 11:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. It is clear you don't want to answer my question, from which I am choosing to infer that you only apply policies which suit you. Goodbye Spike 'em (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice knowing you. See you. Soon, no doubt. :) Bobo. 11:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I'm still short of time, I'm afraid, but I will say that Bobo has no need at all to apologise to this editor (i.e., Reyk) who is, as usual, twisting the facts and blaming everyone but himself. Where did all the bad feeling begin re the Sri Lankan player coverage? Well, it was with this statement by Reyk, including: "I'm honestly starting to wonder if this whole article and DRV is not just an experiment to see how much bullshit one can get away with around here". He was warned about his attitude by one of the senior admins and, soon afterwards, he responded to another CRIC member with this and restates his bad faith accusation by saying that he "can genuinely only wonder what games are being played here". That is bang out of order. No one else was accusing us of bad faith so what was his agenda?

Moving on to the next section of the Perera AfD, opened by Dweller with this comment. All perfectly reasonable and yet it produces first, this response from Reyk in which he sarcastically states: "I think I made that clear earlier, but since you weren't paying attention I'll repeat myself". He goes on about NCRIC being "strongly disputed" and I would ask who by? Apart from him, nobody. Others, like St Anselm who was CRIC's main opponent in the discussion, raised questions about that particular player but certainly did not strongly dispute a project guideline that was created by WP:CONSENSUS, is maintained and updated by consensus and exists (through NSPORTS and numerous AfD cases) by consensus. Dweller then challenged one of his statements and finds himself being called a "jerkass" in the edit summary of this odious response which includes "really fucking petty, even for you". Dweller justifiably responded with this ANI warning, including the sound advice that "ad-hominem stuff doesn't belong anywhere on WP". Surely no one would disagree with that. No one except Reyk, that is, who replies to Dweller with this. The most offensive part of that is actually "erroneous sources". The sources are genuine. No argument about that at all. As, indeed, Dweller tells him.

Reyk's attitude to consensus is then highlighted by this instant endorsement of an unauthorised (and ludicrous) change of WP:NCRIC by someone called Müdigkeit. This amendment had the effect of declaring all first-class cricketers including the likes of W. G. Grace, Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers to fail WP:NSPORTS and so rely on GNG only for notability. Absolutely ridiculous and this is where we might begin to think in terms of WP:CIR, unless of course something more sinister is afoot. It is at this point that Lugnuts puts himself into the Reyk firing line because he reverts NCRIC "until there's a consensus to change it". The change was reverted and the resultant discussion at the NSPORTS talk page resoundingly opposed the change (note that the precise wording of NCRIC was later modified to be in synch with CRIN).

I could go on with plenty of other examples of Reyk's "behavioural" activity, including recent wikistalking, but I think anyone who reads what he has to say above should be aware that poor little Reyk is by no means the innocent party.

As I say, I am rather short of time today because of the good old real world but I do have much more to say about Reyk's accusations. I would, in the meantime, challenge him to find one single "microstub" (what a ridiculous piece of jargon – a stub is a stub) created by me personally in which I have "inflated raw numbers into prose" and in which I have asserted that a player has "retired" without a source. The "retired" thing is a typical example of Reyk's tendency to misrepresent the facts. Every biographical entry in ESPNcricinfo includes the player's first-class career span and this is only incomplete if he is, obviously, a current player. If ESPNcricinfo says the span was 1992–1994, then we know that the player retired from first-class cricket in 1994 having debuted in 1992. This does not mean he has retired from ALL cricket and the guy might still be playing for his local village club as a fifty-something leg spinner. See the difference and see how Reyk is trying to twist the facts to suit his WP:POINT?

I'll be back later. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We can only go by information based on our secondary sources and if they say that the player retired from first-class cricket in 1994, this is what we quote. Is there still such a thing as the over-50s County Championship? Perhaps the cricketer will later play in this tournament. Does this render them still "retired"? Bobo. 10:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack, the basic definition of a "micro-stub" according to the people using this term is "an article which only states known facts and statistical data based on the two main sources we have available to us, and doesn't include any nonsense point-of-view expansion". It's sad that this has become a problem. Bobo. 10:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack, when you get back can you help me out with something? Can you think of an example where the "status" of a match or group of matches has changed over time? I'm thinking of matches which within "recent-ish" times have been upgraded from non-first-class to first-class status - thereby meaning that certain cricketers, let's say, A. Smith, have become retroactively "notable". (Now that I think about it, I'm assuming this guy is an example). Bobo. 10:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do you remember in the Back to the Future trilogy how Marty McFly would get irrationally angry if someone called him "chicken", causing him to do all sorts of stupid, self defeating things? Especially puzzling, because Marty was definitely not chicken. It used to be the same thing with me and being called a hypocrite. But Marty got over it eventually, and so did I. Realising that the goal is typically to get me riled up helped, of course. Now, what we had in the Perera AfD was another editor implying that I was a hypocrite for remaining a member of WP:CRIC while disagreeing with one of its directives. Completely preposterous, of course, but my response to this snark was less than ideal. I certainly wouldn't respond in the same way today, though I still think it was petty, opportunistic gotcha-ism (and from an arbitrator, no less. astonishing). Also, this extremely long, boring, and erroneous shopping list of my alleged crimes had precisely zero impact when you were trying to get User:Black Kite to block me, so I'm unsure why you think it would have any traction now. At least you've stopped trying to get me banned for such crimes as having a lower edit count than you, or leaving WP:CRIC, or asking to be left alone. Reyk _YO! 10:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of Back to the Future, I think (copyvio link removed) is important. It has nothing to do with this thread, but I think this went off the rails (when it hit 88mph - chuckle) a while back. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: please don't link to copyright violations. Fram (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't going to click on it anyway. For all I knew it was a rickroll or NSFW. Reyk _YO! 15:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing the subject, are we? Bobo. 10:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to make my point for me. If you haven't figured out by now that I cannot be baited anymore... Reyk _YO! 11:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, if you have to change the subject in order to try and prove a point, then that's your own choice. Bobo. 11:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Don't have the time to go through the entire conversation here, but Reyk has quite succinctly made the point I wanted to. These articles clearly fail GNG and most do not have the rudimentary information which the readers would be expecting to find in a biographical article. There is no source to even verify if we have their correct names, except for the routine coverage in statistical databases like ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive. If the scorers made a spelling mistake during the only match of the player, we'd be reproducing the same misspelling here on a grander scale. These sources do get the spelling wrong all the time especially for players from the Indian subcontinent. I remember moving Brainder Sran to Barinder Sran a few weeks before he made his international debut. Keep in mind Sran had played multiple first-class matches at the time both these sources had his spelling wrong. I found the spelling to be extremely unusual and did some Googling to confirm my suspicion that both these "reliable" sources had made the same spelling mistake, and moved the article to the spelling I found on newspaper sources (which is now reflecting in these two sources as well). There are multiple similar instances which come to mind. Now here we have hundreds of single-match player articles which are turning mere database entries into two lines worth of prose. User:BlackJack has been throwing around his WP:NEXIST argument in every discussion. If he actually READ the whole thing, he would have noticed the line at the end which says, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Surely 9 years can be considered enough time passed for these sources to surface? Dee03 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also linking recently closed AfDs in which the closing admins agreed with these points and concluded that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Amaranath
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid Saleem
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Indika
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Bandujeewa

P.S. I have nothing against the cricket project. In fact I am a member of the project and have written hundreds of cricket articles. Dee03 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

GNG is, sadly, rendered nonsense by the fact that alternative guidelines exist elsewhere which directly contradict it - including WP:N itself. "If the scorers made a spelling mistake", then we'd still be working towards secondary source material, which is the whole point of Wikipedia, as you have quite rightly noted regarding Barinder Sran. As for "whether we have the correct names", how is that different from any article on any other person? As a sidepoint, I remember having to check several different sources to get the accurate spelling of Michael Bolochoweckyj, as there were a ridiculous number of misspellings elsewhere on the interwebs... As for single-match players being turned into prose, this is because the guidelines say that single-match players are notable, and in the 13 years I have been contributing this hasn't changed. I'm not sure what people expect to see other than prose. Like Jack, I was very confused by WP:NEXIST at first! I expected something with the abbreviation of WP:NEXIST to say that "notability is based on whether the individual exists"! ;) But I'm digressing.

NCRIC is the only logical yardstick to work towards, and to do otherwise is working directly against NPOV. Bobo. 15:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point you raise regarding "Brainder" Sran. It proves my point that both Cricinfo and CricketArchive are not as infallible as we keep getting told, as well as confirming my suspicion that one source cribs wholesale from the other. So much for "independent". Copying the same errors is kind of like a trap street of bungling. As for Jack's long-winded point that a person's reported first-class span definitively determines whether they're retired or not, I say "what rot!" Consider a fringe player who made it to the firsts, perhaps as a teenager, for one match and then got dropped again. Five or ten years later he might still be toiling away in lower leagues hoping for a second call-up. It wouldn't be fair to describe this person as "retired", but that's exactly the kind of error that can be introduced when you try to turn a couple of cells in an excel spreadsheet into prose. Reyk _YO! 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that depends precisely what that first-class span is... if there was a cricketer whose first-class span was from, say, 1947 - 49, I think it's safe to say they will have retired..! As for "a fringe player who made it to the firsts, perhaps as a teenager, for one match and then got dropped again. Five or ten years later he might still be toiling away in lower leagues hoping for a second call-up", would you mind citing an example please? Bobo. 16:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Outdenting (convenience break)

Okay, let's drop this subject because it's clearly not going anywhere. There are hundreds of Test cricket players with crap articles, including dozens with zero or unsatisfactory sources. Let's get back to improving those instead of constantly having the same discussions about the same issues about the same articles which still conform to the same inclusion criteria we've worked to for the last decade. Please may I suggest, Reyk, that you work on these? If you're complaining about one set of niche articles which meet inclusion and citation criteria but are not complaining about our most basic subset of biography articles, then something is sadly amiss. After all, improving articles is much more therapeutic, right? Bobo. 11:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I am glad you agree that BlackJack's weird litany of complaints against me is off topic and not requiring a response. But I don't feel that I need to be actively working on one set of articles to be allowed an opinion on the poor state of others. I don't want to cricket articles because I don't think WP:CRIC is really open to collaboration given your track record of screeching relentlessly at anyone who doesn't toe the line unquestioningly. If you acknowledge that a lot of important cricket articles are rubbish, why not improve them instead of creating another bunch of terrible, unimportant ones? I've often observed that, the worse the article, the more ridiculously overblown the defense of it. Reyk _YO! 11:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. One major cricket match. That's a very simple rule to understand. That is all the "defence" which is needed. If there are bored exclusionists out there who refuse, out of stubbornness, to understand basic, consistent, article inclusion criteria, this isn't the fault of the project. If you don't believe WP:CRIC is open to collaboration, then please don't collaborate on it any further. And don't prove yourself a hypocrite by doing otherwise... Bobo. 13:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Point of matter: we do not have any inclusion guidelines. No topic is guaranteed an article on WP just by virtue of that topic (the sole excepting being geographic places by nature of us being a gazetteer). It is all about sourcing, and that's why we have the presumption of notability to allow for a standalone article on these types of players in hopes they can be expanded in the future. It is definitely not good to think of WP:N or the GNG or SNG as inclusion guidelines, that leads to many mistakes in how to handle such articles. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources exist on all these articles, and therefore that is not an issue. If you would rather "External links" be replaced with a heading entitled "Sources" or "References", then this is easily fixed. We now have much more pressing issues to face than arguing article notability, and that's sourcing on articles which are obviously notable but have no sourcing. Bobo. 14:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of meeting the SNG (CRIN here), we just need something that meets WP:V that proves the criteria is met by a reliable source. It appears we're assuming these cricket stats sites are RSes, so while the link to said individuals are currently ELs, that should be sufficient for the V-meeting SNG to allow for the stand-alone article. Once that article is credits, the proper means to challenge the presumption at AFD is to show a valid search through possible sources to show no further coverage exists, eg the WP:BEFORE metric. That requires those seeking deletion to make a reasonable thorough search of where these players may be covered (which, for Sri Lankan cricketers, is most likely going to be local Sri Lankan newspapers, most likely; Google searching is likely not going to be sufficient). If one does not do this but still nominates articles based on lack of notability, that's a bad faith nomination. The onus is one those nominating to show they can't find sources. If they have shown an exhaustive attempt to find source and legitimately come up with none, then the onus falls to those wanting to keep to find sources, but the nominator has to do the bulk of the heavy work first before that point. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems I have seen come up especially in recent PROD debates is WP:ONESOURCE. If the person who had sent the article(s) to PROD would simply point this out quietly, then every article could have a second source added, quietly and with zero controversy. Bobo. 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive me, Masem, I hadn't fully read this point and you make a good point. If "the onus is one those nominating to show they can't find sources", and if those sources are right in front of their nose, there is something wrong. Bobo. 15:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgive my lateness, I had a life to lead... You don't want to what cricket articles? Verb please. Once again you have demonstrated an unwillingness to help with the project, which is very disappointing. As for "toeing the line", I think you should be slightly less believing that there is any kind of "line" to be toed. If the general complaint is that the cricket articles are rubbish, rather than that they don't belong, we are in the wrong place, addressing the wrong topic. Let's address the fact that we have articles to improve, or admit that we have no interest improving them. Which, after months of random attacks on articles based on the same boring WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria, are getting old. Trust me. They're getting old. I have no interest in pursuing this further. Bye. Bobo. 13:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there are "hundreds of Test cricket players with crap articles" should be more the reason to NOT have thousands of crappy single first-class appearance cricketers' articles which are nothing but WP:PERMASTUBs and orphans. The time spent on searching for sources and debating whether or not such unverifiable players are notable is better spent on improving articles of those hundreds of Test cricketers who definitely meet GNG.

In case anyone is wondering if there are literally thousands of such single first-class appearance cricketers' articles, please have a look at my sandbox. These are just the players I found whose first names and DOBs are unknown. And it's just for players of two countries. I didn't even look for those articles which do have either or both, first name and DOB, but still fail GNG, and, trust me, there are literally thousands of those. We have a serious problem here. Dee03 15:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely, though, we should be working as much towards making all these Test cricketer articles, some of which haven't been improved in as long a time as it took people (up to twelve years) to decide they didn't approve of the articles that people are, apparently these days, foursquare against. Bobo. 15:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This type of concern was raised years ago when someone observed there were literally 10,000s of articles on association football (soccer) players that were stubby, some created by bot from stats tables. While that latter is problematic, the main issue basically came down to a core SNG in NSPORTS, that a player that has played at least one professional game is going to be presumed notable, due to the assertion that to get to a professional level requires some career merits of note prior to being a professional (college/higher education sports teams, or notable performance in amateur/minor league teams). This has been a point of contention at NSPORT for some time, but the editors there, at least for association football, American football, and baseball, have generally show that if you give them a stubby article, they can find sources to push it more into line with the GNG. What should be done here if this is of concern for cricket (which , from my observations, is big in countries like India and that region where they do not have a strongly digitized media nor a wide amount of media, in contrast to the UK, Europe, and the US), is to randomly select 20 or so stubby articles on cricketers from across the board and see if interested editors are able to improve them. If most can, then CIRN is reasonable. If most can't, then CIRN is not reasonable and should be removed, even if it was meant to align with the main NSPORT guidance. This experiment would need some time (a few months) and make sure to be coordinated with editors that can find and work with local sources to make sure that side is met - can't just do this from Google. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sadly it was not raised strongly enough as, after all these years, there are still so many of the most essential cricket articles with these problems, let alone every single article which has been sent to AfD recently which is fully sourced as per our usual sources. Bobo. 15:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Masem, I have addressed a point you made above just in case it gets lost in all these other conversations! Bobo. 15:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) Dee, please consider retitling those lists on your page. Those cricketers are not of "dubious notability", as you claim. They simply do not have their full names and dates available. There is a significant difference there, and to describe them as "dubious notability" is... dubious. Every single one of those articles meets WP:CRIN. If it's CRIN you have a problem with, then we're not dealing with anything to do with "dubious notability". As per tags such as {{nofootnotes}} - if people would rather these articles of "dubious notability" had footnotes instead of external links, please edit the articles to fix this. Force of habit from me, and I am willing to apologize for this. But not for making and defending articles for which it is insultingly obvious that they reach CRIN. Bobo. 15:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I like Masem's idea of running an experiment over a period of a few months. I think it would give a much clearer picture of how good a guideline CRIN is than spamming AfDs which seems to have been done in the last little while and only gives editors a week. I reckon those in the cricket project who agree with the current standards would be able to make a fair go of it. I once wrote most of Ken Hall (footballer) which got to GA to demonstrate WP:AFL's notability guidelines. If such an experiment were run it would great if we have an equal emphasis on all cricket-playing regions, not just Sri Lankan players from the 1980s where sources do exist but are so hard to find online and in English. Otherwise we are just amplifying our systematic bias. Jenks24 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• List of some of the open discussions in which the issue is precedence of WP:CRIN v WP:GNG
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dhanayake
  • Liyana de Silva
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujith Fernando
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenura Caldera
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janitha Hewawasam
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players

TheTimesAreAChanging is still harassing SPECIFICO

Here is the history:

• In December 2016 I brought an ArbCom case against TTAAC. The outcome was that he was "admonished and strongly warned" by User:Dennis Brown.
• On January 12, 2017, TTAAC was sanctioned per ArbCom and indefinitely TBANned from U.S. politics articles by User:Sandstein. The major issue was his persistent personal attacks on User:SPECIFICO.
• On July 12, Sandstein lifted the TBAN based on an emailed promise from TTAAC, in which he acknowledged that his TBAN had been because of "incivility and personal attacks", and said he had "no intention of returning to the vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble".
• Less than a month later, August 2, he filed an ANI against SPECIFICO. There was some suggestion he should be boomeranged, but the discussion was closed without action.

Recent diffs:

• October 26: [177] "SPECIFICO is simply flaunting her refusual to read the source in question and/or making things up… SPECIFICO "challenged" this material under transparently false pretenses, part of her long-standing and systematic WP:GAMING of Discretionary Sanctions to purge content she doesn't like and get editors she disagrees with blocked or banned."
• October 15: [178] "Unfortunately, editors can and do abuse the "do not restore challenged edits" discretionary sanction to effectively override RfC consensus and cherrypick the content from sources. SPECIFICO, who has done this systematically across numerous articles, knows what she is doing—as does everyone else familiar with her Wikipedia history.
• October 2: [179] "Since December 2016, SPECIFICO has made numerous incomprehensible edits denying that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD in order to paint the CIA as infallible…. She is only able to generate this remarkable conclusion by way of deliberate cherrypicking and misrepresentation of sources, similar to her misquoting of Thucydides411 above. Her false, unsupported assertions have been repeatedly debunked on this talk page."
• October 1: [180] "Undid revision 803263212 by SPECIFICO (talk)WP:WEASEL revisionist nonsense; debunked repeatedly at talk, but this user insists on not hearing what other editors or RS say."

It would be tempting to look at this record and say "oh, that's not so bad, it's not very frequent, look how spread out they are in time." The truth is that TTAAC rarely edits the same pages as SPECIFICO, but when he does, he invariably turns his talk page comment into an attack on SPECIFICO. That is the very behavior for which he was previously TBANned.

I am looking for at least an IBAN: that he is forbidden from talking to or about SPECIFICO, either directly or by reference, unless he is specifically addressed by her. Others may prefer some other outcome and I am OK with whatever people want, but I do think this harassment has to stop - especially since he was previous TBANned for it, and got the TBAN lifted by promising not to resume the "vitriolic talk page rants that got me in trouble". --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm an iBan seems reasonable. Also reasonable: a block next time there's a personal attack. I think we have a policy against personal attacks. [I wonder if I had an edit conflict while posting this; with luck it was just a forum post that I overwrote accidentally.] Drmies (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Melanie that there is a pattern here, but the solution sounds like a one way iban, which can be a dangerous thing, as they are easy to game by the other party, so it needs to be clear that any antagonizing by Specifico would results in action. The bad faith ANI was about an article that falls under US Politics, which is what the previous tban was for. Restoring the tban is probably a good idea as well, same terms as the AE. That can be done here unilaterally by any uninvolved admin as an AE action, btw. American politics (and particularly, as of late) is a poisoned well that not everyone should be drinking from. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Good point. I agree that any iBAN should be mutual. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the point is that his TBAN should be reinstated. Clearly, it was lifted on the basis of a promise that it was no longer needed for prevention. Clearly that turned out not to be the case. All this behavior happened under the ARBAP2 articles covered by and in violation of the discretionary sanctions. I am not comfortable with a 2-way iBAN, which I feel would restrict me from ordinary editing, in effect punishing me for for having been the target of this harassment. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll go with whatever people here decide. It's true the TBAN was lifted on the basis of promises that have not been kept. But IMO a TBAN may be overkill and in any case does not address the real problem, which is his attacks on you. If he is prevented from talking to or about you - including by implication or reference - I don't see why he couldn't continue to edit in this area. And I don't see how it would "restrict you from ordinary editing" if you could not talk to or about him. (Your response might appropriately be "I didn't want to talk to him anyhow.") I assume an IBAN would also prevent you from reverting each other, but aside from that I don't see how this would be a problem for you. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure one way or another on the rights and wrongs of this or sanctions, but I'm a bit concerned by how the evidence is presented above. In every case but one they are excerpts from longer comments where TTAAC backs up the statements made with numerous diffs. There may well be an argument to be had over whether those diffs show what TTAAC thinks they show, but the way they are presented here makes it look like TTAAC is throwing around evidence-free aspersions when in fact this is not the case. @MelanieN: would you consider please quoting whole comments? GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: In the interest of brevity (nobody likes TL;DR complaints), I quoted only the parts that I considered to illustrate a pattern of harassment. The entire comments and context can be seen by clicking on the links to the diffs. Yes, it's true that the portions I quoted are excerpted from larger posts about the article's history and/or content. The problem is that he can't seem to say anything about the content without also bashing SPECIFICO. The fact that he cites previous diffs to support his aspersions does not take away from the fact that they are aspersions - appropriate for an ANI report, but unnecessary and inappropriate for an article talk page. At the very least, this promotes a nasty tone and battlefield atmosphere on the talk page. Anybody can make unpleasant posts on talk pages now and then, but this is a pattern going back the better part of a year - one for which he was previously sanctioned and which he promised to stop. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• The comments are sharp but ultimately are a content dispute. Personalizing it in edit summaries is bad form but hardly justifies a topic ban. If the attacks are disruptives or heated, then short blocks are in order. TBANS or IBANS, though, seem to be an attempt to win a content dispute by silencing alternative views. --DHeyward (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• For context: I participated in the Russian Interference article one of the pages linked above. SPECIFICO's behavior there has not been ideal. Since Oct 3 SPECIFICO has made 26 comments. Of them approximately half have been either partially or wholly unconstructive and personal. Thucydides411 and Humanengr are frequent targets.

1. Boys and girls why do you jump in for another episode of dancing with the trolls every time a drive-by throws up this same kind of diversionary BS? (in response to a discussion started by a 12 year old account)
2. And, like flat earth skeptics, 9-11 skeptics, and the JFK's alive in Tanzania crowd, there are virtually none of that ilk represented in published discourse
3. How very rude of you! I have no views about your American politics. Maybe that's why it's easy for me to edit according to WP neutrality policy. I have no opinions. It's pure process -- like flipping flapjacks. One up, one down, one to go, on to the next.
4. The intelligence reports are not of lasting significance. (SPECIFICO is referencing the "17 agencies" report, the basis of the article's lede sentence and central to official claims of interference)
5. Since all the RfCs and other discussions here have rejected your POV, maybe you need a new approach. Wait a couple of months and mount another RfC. That would be sensible. Maybe your ship will come in.
6. Let's pull out Dewey Defeats Truman and Lincoln Shot by Unknown Assailant.
7. Not only is such repetition unconstructive. It also violates of our WP guideline with respect to disruptive editing
8. This article is not about the report. It's about the Russian attack. Undue opinions of the unclassified report is irr[links picture of elephant]elevant (Again referencing the "17 agencies" report)
9. Welcome home, Rodney Dangerfield.
10. Human, it's hard to know what you're driving at with these extended interrogations. Frankly it reminds me of Inspector Clouseau, "so you ate the popsickle but discarded the stick! A-HA!!"
11. Nobody seems to understand what you're trying to say.
12. Nobody seems to know or care what you're talking about at this point

These comments seem intended to frustrate and encourage sanctionable reactions. The pattern repeats in other contentious political articles. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hard to say which of SPEC and TheTimes is harassing the other...[181] I'll just point out that SPECIFICO has an uncanny propensity to stir drama in AP topics. Trouts all around, please. — JFG ^talk 09:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

All the more reason for a mutual iBAN? --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

How's that? A diff, out of context, that has nothing to do with TTAAC is reason to ban me from interacting with TTAAC? Here's a weird one I just found by accident when I looked at another Politics article -- Lo and behold TTAAC is disparaging me about some edit of mine and announcing in his edit summary that I "abused discretionary sanctions" 3 months ago!

I presume everyone's aware of the dossier he kept on his talk page [182] for months, even after he was TBANned for harassing and attacking me. This really isn't very pleasant and whatever the outcome of this thread, it should not be an IBAN that limits my editing as if I am the cause of TTAAC's behavior. This is an editor who, after he was TBANNed, then used a sockpuppet account to evade the ban, resulting in a block. Then after the block expired he promised @Sandstein: not to resume his battleground behavior if his TBAN was lifted. That didn't happen.

ARBAP2 calls for escalating sanctions on repeated breaches. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Jonah Bryson

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

---

We should start a page for Jonah Bryson (film Director, Activist). Links below for credibility:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/planet-in-focus-film-festival-establishes-rob-stewart-youth-eco-hero-award/article35863702/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/jonah-bryson https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2015/08/05/15-year-old-jonah-bryson-asks-for-your-help/

Verified social media:

https://twitter.com/JonahLBryson https://www.facebook.com/JonahLBryson/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceJedi (talk • contribs)

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

@Blackmane: The article title in question is titleblacklisted, so this is the "right venue". A block (or at least an SPI) of the requestor may be in order. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Signed the request, it comes from a single edit account created 3 days ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104:If SpaceJedi had been requesting creation of the article because they were trying to do so and failing, then this would be accurate. However, the context of their post was that this Jonah Bryson merits a page here for whatever reason, which is not what ANI is for, hence my NAC close. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

Tobias Conradi is now back again with some vigor, I've blocked close to a dozen of his active IPs in the past hour. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. The SPI links to the global ban and somewhere in the archives of the SPI are also links to the many ban community ban discussions on here. He's also likely to cause disruption at Wikidata to affect articles at projects. Pinging Goldenring who, if I remember correctly created some sort of script to identify Tobias socks a couple of years back, and The Blade of the Northern Lights who is a revert target of Tobias, and Pkbwcgs who seems to have identified a lot of socks earlier this month. This mess will affect a lot of geo articles across all continents and also MOS and policy pages related to geography.—SpacemanSpiff 01:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging the right GoldenRing. —SpacemanSpiff 01:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SpacemanSpiff: IIRC my involvement was merely searching some page histories for all users who introduced a specific string. But if there's anything I can do to help, please do let me know. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• He should get an award, fighting for The Truth for over a decade. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sock

User:Drmies - no evidence provided he is doing it, but the IPs have been editing in accordance with Wikipedia:Five pillars, while User:SpacemanSpiff and User:CityOfSilver reverted these edits and you protected them in that state. WP:VANDAL: "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia" Category:Jagannathpur Upazila https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Jagannathpur_Upazila&diff=807288635&oldid=807288555 WP:OC upazila categories go into the district-specific upazila categories, not 1) whole country 2) district 3) division WP:3RR violated Boalia Thana https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boalia_Thana&diff=807289385&oldid=807288922 / protected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boalia_Thana&diff=807289614&oldid=807289385: WP:VANDAL / MOS:UNDERLINK removal of type parameter from infobox including link MOS:CAPS capitalization of term of art "thana" WP:LEAST / WP:LINKCLARITY / WP:SPECIFICLINK change piped link under label "thana" from specific target "thanas of Bangladesh" to unspecific "Administrative divisions of Bangladesh" MOS:SEEALSO insertion of section "See also", with three links to article that are not specific to the article WP:3RR violated Fultali https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fultali&diff=807289384&oldid=807289343 / protected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fultali&diff=807289487&oldid=807289384 WP:CAT miscategorization, categorizing this village as upazila WP:CAT removal of location category, although the village is in that district WP:3RR violated Hum Hum https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hum_Hum&diff=807300539&oldid=807295633 MOS:UNDERLINK link removal replacing proper name "Rajkandi" with an unsupported name "Razkandi" Bellinzona (district) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellinzona_(district)&diff=807289386&oldid=807289266 WP:LEAST removal of class name "district" in infobox WP:LEAST unbolding of class name "district" in article intro WP:LEAST mismatch of bolded name "Bellinzona" and local name (Distretto di Bellinzona) Calvas Canton https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvas_Canton&diff=807289383&oldid=807288866: WP:VANDAL Flag removal MOS:CAPS capitalization of term of art "canton" WP:3RR violated Template:Cantons of Ecuador https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cantons_of_Ecuador&diff=807287281&oldid=807287122 / protected https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cantons_of_Ecuador&diff=807311383&oldid=807287281 WP:NAV#Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative: replacing standard color for footer navigation with "background:#FCF75E;color:navy;" without justification, not even the most similar Template:Provinces of Ecuador uses this color WP:3RR violated 80.171.234.197 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Several days ago, after blocking a dozen of their IPs, I asked here whether it would be possible to renge-block them. The answer I got (my apologies, I do not remember from whom) was that they use the major German provider, and there are no obvious ranges to block.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Over the past couple of days I've blocked socks in at least three different /16 ranges from this major German provider, so I don't think a rangeblock without significant collateral damage is likely. —SpacemanSpiff 11:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand anything in range blocks, I am merely translating what I was told. Btw they are recently very active at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, one can safely assume that all IPs posting there are used by Tobias Conradi.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Good grief, I did not see that. I've semi protected WP:CFDS now. Pinging Fayenatic london as the last time (a couple years back) it was he(I think) who fixed a lot of the category mess caused by Tobias. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: I don't remember doing that, although it's possible as I was one of the few admins active on category work for some periods about that time. I have added a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_25#Category:People_from_Pietrykaŭ_District, a technical nomination originated by IPs. However, I'm not sure it's helpful to protect the CFDS page; the IP socks may still be tagging category pages, and they might as well also do the work to list the nominations at CFDS, otherwise it leaves more housework for CFD admins to clear up later. The nominations should only be processed on their merits (currently they are usually checked by me, Ymblanter, Explicit or Black Falcon). – Fayenatic London 20:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised there's no WP:LTA page. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Block review

Nfitz (talk · contribs)

Nfitz was blocked indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE by Berean Hunter at 18:31, 14 October 2017. The situation that led to the block can be seen here, and the assessment for this block was explained at 1 and 2. The subsequent discussions can all still be seen at User talk:Nfitz#October 2017. I have discussed with the blocking admin about a possible block review (see User talk:Berean Hunter#About Nfitz), and came to an agreement that a review by the community to obtain a consensus would be a reasonable idea.

So the question here is, should Nfitz be blocked, and if so, what would be the appropriate block length? Alex Shih (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Please voice your opinion here.
• Endorse block The wall-to-wall nonsense behind ANI September 2017 and User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 and User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 shows the editor's presence is a very strong negative for the project. As I wrote in the ANI archive, who cares if it is good-faith questioning or trolling? Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block Nfitz has been a problematic editor for almost a decade, particularly around football-related deletion discussions where they have wasted a huge amount of editors' time over the years. The recent violations of their Wikipedia-space topic ban by editing football-related AfDs means the block was fully justified IMO. Number 57 09:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block - based on talk page. Never heard of this person before now, but they certainly don't need to be near any BLP or political article, and their feigning ignorance on BLP violations (after being warned by multiple admin beforehand) strikes me as disingenuous. That would be consistent with the block rationale, that their motives are not in line with our objectives and their presence is a distraction for good faith editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Commute to 3 months per Alex Shih below. I don't think Nfitz deserves a NOTHERE block. They are undoubtedly time-consuming to deal with (read their talk page if you dare) and they have indisputably violated a topic ban only implemented in early September (diff, diff, diff). I think on those grounds a longish block is in order but it hasn't reached the point where they should have to come back, cap in hand, to beg the opportunity to edit again. The TBAN violations need to stop and the time-wasting needs to stop; give a decent-length block a chance to have its effect. GoldenRing (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Halfway through that interminable talk page, I've passed the fruitless arguments over what does and does not constitute a BLP violation, but got mired in what appear to be copied and pasted walls of text about IP blocks or whatever, OH YEAH those are the things that were indicative of the NOTHERE part. I find plenty of positive spirit in easily misunderstood edits like this one, but it's just not worth the fuss.

  OK I read all the way up to 18 October. Sigh. I have a proposal in case this gets voted down: Sitush, keep away from Nfitz; Nfitz, don't ping Sitush anymore. Nfitz, work on economy. Wait a while, so we know you had time to read Hemingway and channel him, though not with that same sexist bent of course. File a beautifully phrased and mercifully brief request to have talk page access restored so you can file an equally beautiful and brief unblock request, after archiving your talk page. Unlike some others I have faith in you, and I believe you are sincere in your efforts to make with Sitush, for instance, but I think everyone is just overwhelmed with the amount of verbiage. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• The situation is nothing to do with me: the problems long precede any interaction between me and Nfitz, which are really minimal in the scale of things. I'd rather not have my name put in lights here for no credible reason: you need to a lot do more than read part of a single talk page, eg: where they were digging into Doug Weller some weeks back. There's a problem, it is very likely health-related per their own statements and it is a symptom with which I am particularly sympathetic because I am a fellow-traveller in that regard. They're also on record as saying they have very recently (last couple of weeks) received a diagnosis for that symptom and I know it is a treatable cause, so at some point there seems no reason why they should not be allowed to edit again. The question is just when. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Commute to 3 months per Alex Shih below. It took me a while to arrive at "commute", and I think I need to go and lie down now. My initial thought was that a WP:NOTHERE block was not appropriate for someone who has been here so long and made so many edits, and I still think Nfitz is actually here with constructive intentions - but is channeling all their energy completely wrongly. I've read that talk page (yes, all of it - though I sometimes feared my brain was liquefying and running out my ears). My overwhelming feeling for most of my reading (escalating as I read further) was "Nfitz... just... shut... UP!!!" Whoa, I've never seen anything like it - the repetition, the failure to listen, the inability to understand, the unceasing practice of writing enormous screeds where only a few words are needed, the escalation of the tiniest trivia into massive drama, and, above all, the total lack of self awareness. That all has to stop. If an indef block is the only way, then that's what it will have to be. But I'd like to try something less drastic first - a fixed-term block to make Nfitz go away and try to get things into proportion. And then a commitment to never get involved in anything that doesn't directly involve Nfitz. No attempting to be the civility police, no trying to fix things for others, no efforts to put things right re policy or other editors' behaviour, and if Nfitz honestly can't understand a piece of policy they're told they're violating, just stop the described behaviour anyway and let it go - that BLP saga was ridiculous. And then, just edit some articles, keep away from all WP: pages. And, above all, just stop talking so much. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Boing, you're certainly right in saying that Nfitz isn't really completely "NOTHERE", but that's also a question of balance, and as you know that talk page counts for a lot. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Very true, but I'm really just wondering if something like "Archive that talk page and go away for a bit, then try again" might work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, B!sZ says here exactly what I was trying to say above. Can I say "per Boing! did Zebedee" retrospectively? GoldenRing (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think you just did ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block - per Dennis Brown, Johnuniq. This editor's problematic argumentation has been the subject of several ANI discussions already, he's lucky to have been indef-free this long. I do not agree that a 3-month reduction is a good idea, better to allow him to apply for the standard offer after 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse Block w/o prejudice to a possible standard offer at some point (not less than six months) in the future. First I agree that this is not a case of NOTHERE. However after taking a look at their record, or as much as I cared to go through, I think Nfitz can be fairly described as a tendentious editor with a track record of disruptive behavior that makes me wonder why they were not indeffed quite some time ago. Oh wait. They were, after a slew of shorter blocks. But they were let off the hook. Their talk page, which I am inclined to label the example par excellence of TLDR, shows an editor with an incredible capacity for wiki-lawyering but not so much for basic good editing. As for their time at ANI, the less said the better. A virtue apparently alien to Nfitz. All in all this editor is simply more trouble than they are worth. In short, a net negative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block with an option for standard offer. The numerous threads at ANI that wasted the time of many editors including one where he was repeatedly asking for CU evidence to be made public, the deceptive unblock requests from the IPs (one of which I got sucked into), the BLP vios related to Trump and the unwillingness to accept their error soon enough, the wilful tban evasion etc all point towards this block being necessary and preventative. I still don't see an understanding of the errors other than a boilerplate "I was blocked for this so I'll avoid it" in any of the posts on the talk page or on the UTRS appeals. —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Commute to 3 months The editor made over 9500 contributions to the project. After reading his replies at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nfitz#October_2017 it seems he argued in good faith, and was misunderstood. At above given link for the reason to indef https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:8D80:681:3DAE:F4A4:901D:745B:6D2E I read that the user states he did not made claims he was accused of "an ENTIRE COUNTRY". Without knowing this editor and his edits, in regards to good faith and his record, I think a 3 months block should be considered. prokaryotes (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note that it's rather misleading to say that Nfitz has "over 9,500 contributions to the project." Strictly as an unadorned fact, it is true, but only 3,191 of those edits (34.4%) were to Mainspace -- i.e. improving the content of the encyclopedia -- while 3,029 (32.6%) are to Wikipedia space, with another 20% (1,880) to User talk. [183] Those are not good ratios, and are indicative to me of what I also have seen for myself, that Nfitz appears to be more interested in discussion and argumentation to the detriment of our primary task, improving the encyclopedia. It seems more appropriate to me to say that Nfitz has "over 3,000 edits to the encyclopedia in 12 years". Certainly we need editors who improve the encyclopedia at that kind of pace, so it's in no way a reason in and of itself for an indef block, but since an indef block has been imposed for other reasons, I don't see his number of contributions as a mitigating factor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Beyond My Ken for pointing this out. It is incredible difficult to make a judgement on an overarching conclusion. When I look at his block log it seems he was blocked in 2008 and then again once or twice in 2017, so I rather have a timed block, instead of indef. I know this from editing for a long time too. When I started I sometimes overreacted and know that you can change and be productive and good in contributions. There is no real incident pointed out above which would justify a indef to my knowledge. A three months block should serve as a wake up call. prokaryotes (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think their topic ban from all of Wikipedia space, issued just last month (IIRC), should have been that wake up call. As with some others commenting here, I have no objections to Nfitz applying for the standard offer after 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on above input by Beyond My Ken i have insufficient information to take part in this survey. prokaryotes (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse block Indefinite per Eggishorn's reasoning below. Blocks that just expire based on some guess of when things might be different don't work well in these circumstances. When the user actually understands the block reason and is ready to correct the behaviour and return productively then that will be apparent. That could be next week, or next year, or longer. We don't know, and that's why "indefinite" exists as a block length. Arguments to "reduce to 'x' months", while understandable, miss this basic point. A 6 month block can be lifted after a day. We have this hangup about block logs and "lengths" and an illogical, communal misunderstanding of the actual meaning of "indefinite" that makes even saying this tricky. -- Begoon 17:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block with an option for standard offer, per Spaceman Spiff. Perhaps NOTHERE was not the best explanation for the block, but the full array of well documented bad behavior by this editor means that I am not at all comfortable with the prospect of their automatic return to editing in 90 days. Their TLDR wikilawyering by itself is unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Indefinite does not mean forever and I would expect to see Nfitz back at some point per the standard offer. However, there seems to me to be at least as clear a desire to engage in wiki-arguments as there is to build an encyclopedia, so NOTHERE is in my mind partly true. Given the huge escalation in screeds over the last few months. I think a minimum 6 months is needed for Nfitz's sake as much as anyone else. If an appeal per the standard offer shows the necessary understanding of how we got here I would not oppose it, but I would still expect to see restrictions on non mainspace editing to remain in place for sometime after. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

•  Comment: There is no doubt in my mind that the account of Nfitz should remain to be blocked. The editor have admitted himself of blatant violation of his current topic ban, and considering the circumstance, an extended block would be perfectly justified. The question that I would like to ask is, is it appropriate to block an editor for WP:NOTHERE that have been with this community for 12 years and logged nearly 10,000 edits? In my discussion with the blocking admin, I have noted that there are many, many reasons to block Nfitz, but I think at the very minimum the rationale should be changed. I also disagree with mentions of standing offer, since this is not a community-based indefinite block (and if we are going to block a long-term editor indefinitely, let's make it community-based here). Nfitz is not a vandal nor sockpuppeteer, the concerns were about the incredibly frustrating time sink that continuously wasted the time of this community for the past 3 months with all the irrelevant verbose rambling. But when I think of the human behind the computer, I can sympathize with an editor that was not involved in any sanctions from 11 August 2008 to 8 August 2017. In terms of damages being done, I just don't see it on the same level with the sanction that are commonly reserved for long-term abuse. I propose a block reduction to 1–3 months, with further restrictions (suggested by the editor in his UTRS requests) implemented. Alex Shih (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Seems like a reasonable solution to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, to my non-admin eyes, reducing to 3 months seems like the exact opposite of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. An editor who, as recently as this August, had to be explicitly told that labeling people "sexual predators" based on "common knowledge" was wrong is a danger to the project. Their subsequent history has largely been one of attempted self-justifications. BLP is one of our most important policies for reasons we're all aware of. Reduction of block length due to long-term presence in the community turns this into a punitive block. To put it in the simplest terms possible, reduction of this block sends the message: "You were bad, go sit in the corner and think about what you've done." Endorsement of an indefinite block sends the message: "You keep throwing all the sand out of the sandbox, go away until you can stop wrecking the sandbox for everyone else." When they can show that they will stop kicking out the sand understand and abide by policies, they can return. I would think only a psychic can tell at this point if or when that future date will be. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Just a Comment that I've spoken to Nfitz briefly by email, and in my view I see understanding of the problems and a genuine desire to avoid them in the future - and the interaction was pleasant and brief. Nfitz might choose to comment at their talk page, and if so it will be copied here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Again to note: Nfitz has shown "understanding of the problems" before, at the time of his Wikipedia topic ban, which he violated within weeks of its imposition. I don't think that anyone would deny that Nfitz seems like a well-meaning person who is probably pleasant to be around in real life. but he's also undeniably afflicted with logorrhea as far as Wikipedia commentary is concerned, as well as a predilection to get much too involved in too many controversies which he unnecessarily extends with his incessant verbosity and his inclination to support the most contrary position. That he is a net negative to the project isn't a reflection on whether he's a good person or not, it's an observation based on an evaluation of his Wikipedia editing. If I (personally) didn't think he was salvageable as an editor, I wouldn't be supporting his ability to apply for the standard offer after 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Nfitz

In view of expediency, as I won't be able to fully edit for near 24 hours (so that I don't autoblock my workplace), here's some points. I assume someone will activate the tags.

• User:Number_57 discusses problems with me at AFD; but doesn't mention that this resolved years ago; and a more recent complaints about my Prod removal was resolved by an agreement I made in Spring 2014 to be more discerning about my PROD removals.

• User:Dennis_Brown, I was never feigning ignorance on BLP. Don't mistake stubbornness and stupidity for cunning. But even I'm not stupid enough to feign something until I'm doing unblock requests on an indef!

• User:Sitush refers to medical issues. It's hard to assess one's own condition, it's possible that circumstances have arisen where it's more difficult to bite my tongue when I see things that bother me; and I've never had much tact. As I stated earlier, I had no intention of violating the topic band, and after working carefully to avoid WP, I suddenly on two occasions in three 5 AM edits forgot I couldn't comment at AFD. While this initially greatly troubled me that I could be so stupid. Once I realised the timing, I can only assume that sleep deprivation significantly clouded my judgement. I'm guilty as charged, but there was not intent, or even awareness(though I remember doing the edits). I was as shocked as anyone when I read Berean Hunter post; perhaps more shocked. I appreciate Sitush's understanding at least - though I'm still not sure what this Weller incident was.

• User:Beyond My Ken made good work out of talking User:prokaryotes including the stat that 33% of my edits were in Wiki space. But he forgot to mention that most of them are at AFD, mostly for articles in the football area, where I've been contributing for a decade, trying to rescue and reference articles for borderline notable subjects. I wasn't aware that this could be used against me!

• User SpacemanSpiff said I repeatedly asked that CU evidence be made public; I don't believe have never done that, let alone repeatedly. Is there a diff to support this - if it's what I think it may be, it was about IP information already public? Spiff also notes that the IP block requests were deceptive; how? (see below) and if I thought I was being deceptive, I'd have never edited from my own username and said that I had done the 3 requests! Also, there was no wilful tban evasion, I've explained the accidental edits a few times now. Spiff doesn't see my understanding of the errors - though I thought the BLP screwup I'd been very clear about along with the Tban error. And my admission that my ANI contributions were often poor. I'll admit I never said I understood the NotThere block (ignoring my history, how is asking for an IP block to be lifted so it's easier for me to make quick minor mainspace edits and typo fixes from my mobile not here? Seems like DoublePlusHere to me.)

I'm troubled - there seems to be consensus that the block I'm currently under shouldn't have been NotHere. What is it then? What policy did I violate with the IP unblock requests that deserved an indef, with no questions asked? They weren't repetitive (despite claims to the opposite when IP talk page access was pulled). They weren't deceptive (I'd even indicated in the second one I had other ways of editing). Making minor inconsequential edits by IP is allowed. So why? Yes, I screwed up BLP, got an indef for that, sorted out the issues, and haven't repeated them. Yes, I had verbosive and excessive ANI contributions - which is why I have a topic ban. The only other issue that's come up with most editors is the tban violation; isn't a warning normally customary for a first-time accidental violation 6 weeks later? Those AFD edits were dumber than fuck - what can I say? I'm sorry.

Yes, I've made some screw-ups and I apologize for wasting anyone's time. I'll expand on that later. It's late and I need sleep, so I should stop here. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• (Copied from user talk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC))

User Talk page

I see Nfitz had talk page access revoked a week before this AN discussion was started, and it's not right that an editor should not be able to engage in a discussion about their block and their future here. I have, therefore, temporarily restored talk page access, and it can be revoked again when this discussion is closed. I've let Nfitz know by email that I have done this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV backlog

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

---

There is currently a backlog on WP:AIV.

About a 5 hour gap between oldest and newest report. 1 hour gap between newest and last-responded-to report. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposing community sanctions on Catalan independence

I would like to propose community sanctions on the Catalan independence topic. These could either be a 1RR restriction on all articles and other pages related to Catalan independence, or a fuller range of remedies, such as those found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Zeitgeist Movement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ETA: I've created a proposed sanctions page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Catalan independence, based on the ZG page mentioned above, since this seems to be getting a good deal of community support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support full range of general sanctions 1RR is a blunt tool, and while I think it is a good rule in general, giving uninvolved admins more leeway to deal with the issues surrounding this topic is a good thing, and could prevent editors who might otherwise be blocked and get turned off from Wikipedia leaving. It would not prevent 1RR from being imposed, and would allow more flexibility, which I consider a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, if it was not clear, I would obviously include 1RR as an option within these and would expect it would utilized. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • SarekOfVulcan, it might also be worth spelling out in the proposed sanctions that any uninvolved admin can place page specific sanctions (such as 1RR). I think there is general support for that here, but my reading of the draft would have it apply only to editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Question - SarekOfVulcan Can you point us to examples of disruption to the point that warrants some community sanctions? I would support it (given what I assume is nationalistic and POV editing issues), but I personally am unaware of disruptions surrounding it. Edit: I just saw Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes_on_Catalonia.2C_please... I'll review that first. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support after reviewing the ANI post and the pages linked therein. Reminds me of the Crimea stuff. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my suggestion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support full range of general sanctions, with much credence given to 1RR This is as an indefinite emergency procedure to stem the flow of the potential problems ahead, which do include POV editing. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per (Not) Dave above. This is going to be a contentious area for the immediate time being, and we need to be sure that the articles we have stay NPOV as possible. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as it's going to be quite awhile before the waters settle. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Would prefer if these were time limited to something on the order of a year, and reconsideration at that point. But that's just because I'm not a fan of the creep of special rules that make it even more difficult for newer to moderately experienced users to figure out what the standards are and where. GMG^talk 20:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'd prefer not to time-limit this, because we don't know how it's going to play out. I don't think there'd be much of an issue revoking them in the future, once they aren't needed -- WP:SANCTIONS lists obsolete sanctions as well, and the first one I checked needed only about 4 people supporting, and nobody opposing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean, sure, but it also seems just as likely we get something like WP:GS/BI, which fails to get consensus to revoke, and is still hanging around even though it hasn't been enforced in five years. Anyway, it's probably not worth arguing about. I'm still supporting. GMG^talk 20:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This is a very high profile sensitive issue which effects users in Catalonia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support although I'd like to see them time-limited with a renewal discussion in six months to a year, to avoid creating another situation like Ancient Egyptian race controversy in which the sanctions are still in place a decade after the editwar in question because nobody's ever bothered to ask that they be lifted. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on a time limit. This is very likely to be a contentious subject for some time to come, likely years. Obsolete sanctions don't usually cause much harm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If the subject is still contentious and causes problems in six months, it shouldn't be a problem to renew the sanctions by then. But given that removing unlimited yet unneeded sanctions has proven difficult in the past, it's best that we get a consensus on their end date now, as not having sanctions is the natural status to which we should aspire. Having lingering unneeded sanctions is a recipy for arbitrary enforcement, which should worry us deeply. Diego (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Will be very helpful. --Lingveno (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. A very good idea. Although not sure how it fits with User:Floquenbeam's anarchic WP:AN/Honeypot proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. It's a very good idea. Mr KEBAB (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I was alerted to this proposal at a discussion on my talk after I raised the protection on Catalonia from semi to full.

As far as I can see, full protection on that page is working well, and it seems that several related pages are doing fine with semi-protection. Have I missed some outbreak of drama elsewhere?

Unless there is evidence of some problem which is not being addressed by various levels of protection, then this proposal for sanctions is pre-emptive, which is what I oppose.

I agree that there is a non-trivial risk of things getting here. However, I think it's important that we give the community a chance to conduct itself well, rather than rushing directly to sanctions without clear evidence that the community is struggling.

If there really is a consensus to proceed with these pre-emptive sanctions, then please time-limit them to a few months, per Iridescent's suggestion. We don't need another set of zombie sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What about good edits that the full protection is locking out? Not everybody finds their way to the talk page. Also, "risk of something happening" is no worse a reason to impose a sanction than as a reason for fully protecting an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus We don't fully protect an article because of a "risk of something happening". We fully protect to stop an ongoing edit war; it is a responsive measure, not a pre-emption. I want the same principle to be applied to sanctions: impose them only when other measures, fail, and apply them for a limited period.

Full protection may lose us a few good edits. However, I'm not persuaded that there will be much value lost, because a highly-scrutinised, contentious topic like this has many eyes on it anyway, not all of which will be deterred. Plus, full protection does drive at least some editors to the talk page, which is a Very Good Thing™; consensus-building complex topics is exactly what we want to encourage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Weak support because it's clear we're going to need to do something, but not full support because I cannot get behind broad-based indefinite sanctions, which will in all likelihood be effectively permanent. This should be revisited, not merely in terms of whether they're still necessary (some form of sanctions probably will be necessary for many years), but also in terms of effectiveness and unintended consequences of specific aspects of the sanctions, and whether the scope can be narrowed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • General sancations require a person (the admin imposing them on a page) to use their discretion, so its not like these are automatic and imposed against editors without thought. I agree with Iri above that we don't want an ancient Egyptian race thing where we still have discretionary sancations a decade later, but the fact that these will likely be needed for years is a good reason not to set a time table for expiry now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Two points in response: First, while you're correct that an admin needs to use his or her independent discretion as to whether the sanctions should result in an action, I believe the existence of sanctions can risk chilling legitimate discussion. I have, for example, seen AC/DS warnings used for apparent intimidation purposes in the past. Basically I'm concerned about more sophisticated POV pushing editors using sanctions to squeeze out less sophisticated newbie editors. Second, I should clarify that I'm not suggesting an auto-expiration date, but something more along the lines of a point at which the community will revisit and reevaluate the sanctions and determine whether they're still necessary. As I say, I do believe some degree of sanction will be necessary for the foreseeable future, but the whole zombie sanctions thing makes me concerned. I really want to see necessity and effectiveness reevaluated because, at a certain point when they're not necessary or are ineffective, I suspect the community will just be so used to their presence that we'll presume they're still necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Pages of notable Catalan figures are targets of vandalism and politically biased edits. --DewyBukiaPeters (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support the idea. I don't handle this kind of area much at all, so I don't know what kind of implementation would be best. Support a time limit of a year (although I'm open to other time periods), because this ought to be able to sunset if it gets to the point of being forgotten about. (GreenMeansGo makes a good point about British Isles; I expect that requesting reauthorisation at a big community board would have been less likely to succeed.) If the area's still a problem, it will likely be reauthorised before expiration. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support both a 1RR restriction and general sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, under the general principle of giving admins the tools they need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• weak oppose such measures can only be a proxy for potential outlets of dissatisfaction from both sides and I see it difficult to "police" and reliably identify. Immediate targets will be articles on Catalonia, Spain, Spanish history, etc. but this will proliferate as "steam" in the political debate remains. We will probably see valdalism to articles of Spanish companies, politicians, living and historical people. etc etc. I fear that sanctions will be readily imposed for edits to high profile articles (such as the Catalonia or Spain main articles), while vandalism to more obscure articles may remain unsanctioned. We see similar tendencies with articles in the China/Taiwan/Japan/Korea complex _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Jake Brockman: Are you implying, therefore, that the sanctions will cause lower profile articles to be ignored, in the sense that dubious edits will go unseen with those articles? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: That's sort of my thinking. Sanctions would appear arbitrary if they cannot be (properly) enforced across the spectrum for all potential violations as violations at the fringes will just be part of daily vandalism fighting. This is just a concern because the complex of topics is so vast. I believe Nicotine has heightened sanctions, where I think this would work as the complex of related articles is a lot narrower. Sanctions should IMO always have the effect to a) capture without (too much) discrimination and b) have some kind of learning or lighthouse effect. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• After thinking about this for quite a while, I think I'm actually much more ambivalent than I was at first consideration. There are some good points raised above, and as was pointed out on the ANI thread, we haven't actually tried ECP yet, which seems entirely too simple of a solution on the face of it to not at least try before we look to institute a complicated, and potentially indefinite bureaucratic solution. GMG^talk 13:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose without aforementioned time limitation. — fortunavelut luna 16:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• No one can really know how long the Catalonian crisis is going to last, so I think it makes more sense to leave things open-ended for now, and when it becomes apparent to an editor or editors that the worst of it has passed, a proposal to end the discretionary sanctions can be made. The community will either agree with that or not. Putting a time limit on them just opens up the possibility of an unnecessary repeat of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support 1RR, per other similar contentious subject areas (Palestine, ISIS, etc). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2RR I think a 2RR rule is in order, to prevent heated disruptions. 1RR seems over the top, because there could eventually participations which are new to Wp and are not used to 1RR. prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• General comment. Some editors in this discussion appear to assume some or all of these priciples: a) sanctions should be applied as a preventive measure; b) sanctions come at little cost; c) sanctions should be open-ended by default; d) political controversy is sufficient of itself to justify sanctions.

However, I contest all those assumptions.

a) we don't pre-emptively protect pages, or pre-emptively restrict users. On the contrary, for example, today's featured article is unprotected, even tho we know that it definitely will be vandalised. We encourage potential editors to learn and to try, and we accept a degree of disruption as a price worth paying for encouraging participation.
Here we have a topic which we know will attract new editors keen to contribute ... so why is there a rush to restrict them unless we are sure that restriction is needed?

b) sanctions have a chilling effect on new editors. We know that potential new editors are deterred by a (partly true) perception that en.wp has become a bureaucratic maze of rules and jargon. Sanctions escalate that fear by accompanying the rules and jargon with the en.wp equivalent of martial law: stern warnings and summary punishment. I know we are all keen to avoid the disruption of POV-pushing edit wars, but scaring off newbies from the topic-du-jour is also something to avoid if possible. We try to encourage newbies, rather than bite them. We warn before sanctioning, and give a lot more leeway to inappropriate good-faith edits than to intentional disruption. We readily forgive editors who repent of misconduct. So when newbies come to contribute on Catalonia, shouldn't we do as much as is possible in the circumstances to avoid deterring them?

c) the presumption of open-endedness to avoid a repeat discussion is bizarre. Protection policy for individual articles is based on entirely the opposite presumption: we try to apply the lowest level of protection for the shortest possible time, and when that expires we watch what happens before reinstating protection. Countless pages are routinely reviewed in this way, with no great drama. Yet here we have some editors insisting that it is too burdensome to apply similar caution when sanctioning a whole topic area. That's perverse. Surely all sanctioned topics should go through a similar process of periodic review on an exponential backoff timer, with a default presumption of a trial period of re-opening before we eventually adopt indefinite restrictions?

d) there are plenty of deeply controversial topics where we survive without general sanctions. AFAICS there are no topic-specific sanctions on long-term POV-magnets such as homosexuality, vaccine, Islam, Jeremy Corbyn, Momentum (organisation), Marine Le Pen, Alternative for Germany, or Black Lives Matter. If such bitter controversies as Black Lives Matter — which is on the front line of one the US's most bitter faultlines — can settle down with only semi-protection, why do some editors assume that this long-running clash of Iberian nationalisms has suddenly turned into a permanently unmanageable POV-warzone? Why not wait and see? And if sanctions do seem needed right now, why apply them for a short trial period, keeping open the possibility that like BLM this may be a controversy with brief and intermittent flashpoints which can be handled through much lighter and more transient measures? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support a 1 year DS, extendable if in next October (or even late September) the need still seems to exist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support general sanctions, including the ability to place 1RR, for 1 year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC close review: Algerian War

This is a request to review the close at Talk:Algerian_War#RfC_about_the_result_parameter_in_the_Infobox to determine whether it was an appropriate summation of the discussion. I discussed this with the closer here.

It is my understanding that the role of the closer is to ascertain consensus by judging the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, and that the policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable and avoid being original research is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

• I explained the guideline's requirement and presented a large number of quality WP:RS (including two books about this war that won the Wolfson History Prize and George Louis Beer Prize) describing the result as either a "FLN victory" or "French defeat".

• Looking at the actual !votes, it's clear that all 6 of them have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy (they're all based on either personal opinions or WP:OR), with 5 of them clearly disagreeing with the scholars without bringing a single valid source to back up their claims. The one and only editor who attempted to proffer countervailing sources failed: first, they misrepresented a source by claiming it said something it clearly didn't, and when challenged, they brought 3 irrelevant sources and shamelessly highlighted bits of text about the battle of Algiers (an event that happened 5 years before independence).

Yet, the closer decided that none of !votes should be discounted, writing in their closing statement there is a clear consensus opposing a change to FLN victory; with an underlying consensus that this would not accurately reflect the complexity of the sources, ignoring the fact that the editors who alluded to the so called "complexity of the sources" presented no sources and discussed none of the ones I put forward.

Unfortunately, the explanation given by the closer as to why they didn't discount the !votes, and their clarification that followed our discussion, left me none the wiser and even more confused by the following related statements which appears to rest on a circular reasoning:

• I further found while the parameter documentation is clear that the term used should reflect the sources, there is no guidance within the parameter documentation as to how editors should decide whether to use the "See Aftermath" (or equivalent) option; how they should decide that the "X victory" or "inconclusive" options are not sufficient to accurately describe the outcome. 1) The documentation is clear, the term used should reflect what the sources say. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about it. 2) I still have no idea what the closer was hoping to find in the documentation, but I can't think of any possible outcome that hasn't been catered for in the guideline. 3) Reliable sources "accurately describe the outcome", not the options within the guideline (this is a content issue).

• Without any such additional guidance, such a decision is a matter for consensus (agreement) among editors - that is: opinion, not on the article subject itself, but on where to draw (or ignore) the lines of the parameter documentation (particularly the "See Aftermath" provisions), if it is neither fallaciously reasoned nor demonstrative of a lack of understanding, is within the discretion of a consensus of editors. This is the core the problem, since the wrong conclusion (that turns every !vote that has no basis in policy into valid one) is based on a false premise.

From this, one can reasonably conclude that the closer failed to apply the content policies and closed the RfC based on their misunderstanding of the project's guideline.

References

M.Bitton (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse Seems to be a good close to me, especially as not a single editor supported your proposal. The real issues appears to be your WP:BLUDGEONING (which is continuing here) and inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK when consensus is clearly against you. This report will only end in a WP:BOOMERANG if the stick isn't dropped pretty quickly. Number 57 21:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Looks like an accurate assessment of the consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse and sanction bad-faith proposer. When everyone who participates is opposed to your suggestion, there's no possible way that one could conclude that consensus is in your favor; don't waste our time with such an absurd request. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong endorse--Just drop the stick and move on.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong endorse No one so far has reasonably concluded that Ryk72 failed to apply the content policies, and I'll wager no one who comments after me will so conclude. You harangued every editor who commented, you harangued Ryk72 when he didn't throw out the !votes you didn't like, and now you're here because you didn't get your way. Take the advice of the previous commenters and back away right now. Katie^talk 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse well-explained closure by User:Ryk72. There is no way that this could have been closed as a consensus for M.Bitton's proposal.
  I recommend multiple WP:TROUTings of M.Bitton: for bludgeoning the RFC, and for a failing to drop the stick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hoax Image

This image at Commons needs to be deleted as its simply a hoax insignia.[184]. This was created for an article called "Flag Admiral" which, a year or so after writing it, it was discovered the entire thing was a hoax using false document copies to make it appear as if the rank had existed. See "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag Admiral (United States Navy)" for further details. The image in question has been inserted into the Admiral of the Navy (United States) article twice [185] [186] apparently spurred on by this image. The image should thus be deleted but my knowledge of Commons is very limited. -O.R.^Comms 08:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

We seem to be backlogged again at WP:RFPP, with 20+ requests, some going back for more than 24 hours. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody, not yet exactly cleared, but at least we are back to acceptable size/delay.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass copying into sex offender categories

I have blocked Maria Matveyevna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because they were doing mass copying of actors into categories like Category:American sex offenders. The user looks relatively new, and not sure if the account has been compromised or not. I don't have time to undo all the edits, or am hoping that someone is aware of some tool to undo the edits.—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a necessary block, whether it's compromised or a sleeper-vandalism account isn't really relevant. @TAnthony: looks to be some of the cleanup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

All the edits have been rolled back now. - Nunh-huh 04:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a User:INeverCry sock. He does the exact same sort of vandalism on Commons. Sro23 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not all of them, there are around 600 in total. Matt Rippy hasn't yet, for one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like there are still many left to be undone - Leighton Noble is another. Chubbles (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize there was more than a page of changes. -Nunh-huh 08:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I an wondering if the edits and their summaries need R/D or even oversight since they are WP:BLP violations. Another question does this post merit talk page revocation. Thanks to anyone who can take a look at these. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm rolling back and revdel'ing as I go. This is definitely a BLP violation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are a lot. I have reverted a few too. But hey will need revdel'ing too. Eno Lirpa (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost crushed my browser doing mass rollback, and turns out I rollback-conflicted. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I assume it was conflicting with mine. Sorry about that. DMacks (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think they're all revdel'd now. Excellent teamwork ladies and gentlemen. Handshakes and cigars all 'round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

On Commons, we've been using User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js to quickly clean this up. —Guanaco 08:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This .js page should be G4d too. — fortunavelut luna 13:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How to deal with this?

This is a request for advice, not a request for any type of sanctions. At Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site, there has been since 2 October a section RfC: revert back to non-Wikidata version? which I started. Until 27 October, this had received (apart from a lot of discussion) 9 supports and 2 opposes, heading for a rather clear consensus. As is usual with RfCs, voting was intensive the first few days, and all but died down near the end (one vote 14 October, one vote 25 October).

Until suddenly, between 16:03, 28 October and 09:32, 29 October, there were 4 oppose votes in a row, out of the blue, three of those by editors otherwise not active on enwiki recently (and the fourth one by a "retired" editor I have been in conflict with).

It turns out that the discussion was mentioned by User:Mike Peel (creator of the infobox version about to be reverted) mentioned this RfC at Wikidatacon 2017, a conference where you get (with regards to discussions like this one) a rather one-sided audience of course. See here for the slide with the mention. This was disclosed by Mike Peel when asked where the sudden influx of votes came from, with his remark that "Note that I did not WP:CANVAS for votes"[187]. While I believe that Mike Peel didn't explicitly ask anyone to vote "oppose" at the discussion, it is still a clear (but probably not intended as a policy violation) breach of WP:CANVASS point 3, Vote-stacking.

The end result is that suddenly an RfC which headed for a support is now looking (purely based on votecount only) as a no consensus, based on the opinions of users recruited from a pre-biased group.

How is this normally being dealt with? Adding a note to the RfC that all opinions post date X are canvassed? Hoping that the closing admin will take this into account? Striking the late votes seems harsh, but just doing nothing and letting this influence our decision making process seems unfair as well. All opinions, ideas, help are welcome! Fram (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Off topic

Please note that this goes in the direction of stalking. May be Fram should be topic-banned on mentioning Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't speak for all of Fram's edits in that topic area, but that one individually seems reasonable and raises a serious concern about Wikidata. Maybe it would be more suited to Wikidata itself, but in the context of the RfC which seems to be the impact of Wikidata on enwiki it doesn't seem unreasonable to have raised it on this project. Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to write that I "promote spambots and no one checks their history or contributions either before or after this promotion"? Especially when this is clearly not the case, aka fucking lie? Especially for the audience which is not familiar with the subject?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Any reason to you defend your first personal attack ("stalking") by adding another one ("fucking lie")? Anyone can check the linked discussion to find out what "lie" that is supposed to be; you promoted a bot on Wikidata which sources soccer statistics to the website owned by the bot operator, who has no other edits, and where the "source" page doesn't contain statistics but promotion of a new cryptocurrency, where the bot owner claims collaborating with Wikipedia as credentials. So you approved a bot which uses as only reference on all the pages it creates a link to its own commercial site (selling their own new cryptocurrency), but your only problem is with the person reporting this. And somehow reporting this is "stalking"? You may be right that getting your bureaucrat flag removed on Wikidata would be impossible, but getting your admin flag removed here can happen quite suddenly if you keep up these unfounded accusations to defend your own mistakes. Fram (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, go fucking ahead to arbcom and try to removed my admin flag here, which the community gave me with 99% support. Go agead.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I'll give you a chance to cool down, check you allegations, and retract them first. You are clearly very upset now, which won't last. Fram (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ymblanter, "stalking" who exactly? I noticed the activity of that bot when checking some claims made by DannyH(WMF), for which I checked multiple bots who had edited very recently then: [188]. This specific bot I then checked a bit further, and I noted my conclusions. Please kindly explain what in that report is "stalking", or withdraw that rather serious personal attack. Perhaps also indicate what the relation is between that "stalking" edit and the RfC on another page I was discussing here, as it escapes me completely. The edit you are now complaining about doesn't deal with either Mike Peel or any of the four canvassed editors, so why bring it up here? Fram (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I gave a precise quote above to what I believe is stalking. And at the very least a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I brought it here because you apparently unable to write about Wikidata without breaking English Wikipedia policies. Which means you should just stop doing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what "stalking" is, which is worrying for an enwiki admin. But indeed, you at the very least leveled a personal attack or two, I'm glad you admit it. Fram (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not admit this, which everybody can check by just inspecting this section. So you are lying again. However, I came to the conclusion that the best way of communicating with you is to stop replying, which I will now apply to this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I was sarcastic about your multi-interpretable writing: "I gave X and at the very least a personal attack". You have not shown any personal attacks in that quote, where the second part is about Wikidata in general (the bit starting with "no one"), which leaves only the first part. The bot is clearly a spambot, which was obvious from the three (3) test edits it required to get approval (contrary, by the way, to Wikidata's bot policy, which states "The bot operator should do a test run of between 50 and 250 edits, so that the community can observe that the bot is working correctly."[189], so your claim that approval followed policy is mistaken as well). And you approved it. So which part of the claim that you "promote spambots" is wrong? You know, that bot you just blocked for "Spamming links to external sites" (your text). Thanks for taking that action, but please withdraw your personal attacks here now. Fram (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And this one, to be honest, reminds me "Pls remind me why I should care about your opinion", after which one user was indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)