Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Copyvio in timed text[edit]

I've tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio (its a verbatim transcript of a BBC radio programme), but because it's timed, text, and has no associated video, the tag is not showing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

☒N Deleted. I won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding of what was going there, but obviously it was a huge copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
TimedText-space is basically just captions for audio/video files. If the file itself is in the public domain or under fair use, then any transcription of the same content should be considered to fall under the same copyright classification, no? In any case, Sladen is an experienced user and should've probably been asked about this upfront. I can't seem to find the associated file, though, so I won't restore the TimedText just yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, it was quite clearly the entire text of a BBC program from the last few days. I can't imagine it being PD or fair use. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This would be the source material. Note the copyright notices. Please don't restore it. I don't know why such an experienced editor wouldn't know better but it is quite clearly a copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Salvidrim! thanks for the heads up, I guess the mandatory {{AN-notice}} must have gotten lost. I would hope that those whom "won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding of what was going" on could restore this transcript in the mean-time, then pop-by WP:ANI#PM (BBC Radio 4) and ask any further questions thereafter. Beeblebrox: hopefully it's clear from the huge gaps in timestamps that the transcript covers ~5 minutes out of 60 minutes (ie. only what is needed for our purposes). Neither is it merely a direct transcription of audio: significant effort has been put into providing 50-millisecond resolution timings again to lessen any doubt. May I draw attention to the guidance at WP:G12 starting at the wording "For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria …".
All-in-all, seeing the handling of the above reminds me of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Media coverage#BBC Radio 4: Today Programme incident from a few years ago where we had enthusiastic admins diving in without context and threatening blocks/bans/deletes left-right-and-centre, all in the middle of other editors trying to get on and collectively deal with the resulting meta fallout and coordinate media appearances whilst other people were still wondering why they couldn't even edit (yes, IIRC I did the original reference transcripts for dealing with that incident too, and yes IIRC they got deleted randomly too, and yes they've been there just fine ever since). Please, take a deep breath, look around the relevant noticeboards, and if you "don't know why" ask other editors first. —Sladen (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It wasn't deleted "randomly" it was deleted as a copyright violation. Which it is. Fair use of small bits of copyrighted material is usually ok, but five entire minutes of a copyrighted broadcast is excessive. The fact that it has to do with WP seems to be your underlying reason, but I am not aware of any exception to our copyright policies in cases of a user wanting to "deal with the resulting media fallout and coordinate media appearances." I am equally unaware of any requirement that I check every possible noticeboard before evaluating whether or not something is a copyvio. So I don't believe I will be restoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Indeed, while nobody can force a requirement to read admin noticeboards before wielding the wheel bit (hence the polite "please"), it may assist communication with other editors to at least more carefully read what is being responded to—prior to replying—as this would in-turn allow accurate quoting which may be helpful all-round. …I'm still puzzling over the juxtaposition of the preceding "I can assure the entire functionaries team is well aware of the situation."[1] with the following "won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding"[2].
As a proponent of libre content it pains me to to highlight's policies for its own management, but; "Exemptions from non-free content policy are made for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia" (WP:NFEXMP). In terms of fair use, in the UK this falls under "criticism, review and reporting current events" as defined by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (plus enabling access by deaf and hard-of-hearing people, and the study by those with dyslexia or English as a second-language).
Now, at T+72 hours I think the immediacy of the people requesting a transcription has been served. It's now an ex-event. Thank you for having taken care of the deletion; I hope that should an occasion arise to restore it, the assistance will be equally helpful and …speedy. —Sladen (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You may have a point about the apparent cotradiction. When I said I didn't have the slightest understanding, that was because I had basically no experience with the "timed text" wikispace, but what it looked like to me was text that was supposed to be attached to an ogg audio file that was not in evidence, so no idea what was going on with that specifically, while being very aware of the broader situation as it had been under discussion on the functionaries mailing list (and apparently the checkuser mailing list before that) before moving on to an arbcom matter.

As to the matter of whether this was a permissible exception to our copyright policies, I don't think it was. I don't think it is at all a good idea for the volunteer community to even attempt to manage and respond to press attention. The WMF has staff who are paid to do that, and it is one area where the paid staff is undeniably better at the job than the volunteers. I can't see why simply linking to the original material would not be sufficient. Obviously we have differing opinions on that and I would have liked to see more participation here so that we could determine which of us was closer to the right answer, but you're right, this seems a non-issue now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably not in disagreement about those best placed to respond on behalf of the project… any/all people formulating a response (admin/arbcom/bureaucrat/_(WMF)/…) are still going to have the same premise/questions in order to inform themselves: who/when/where/what.
The radio boardcast of the PM piece accompanying the corresponding edits went out at ~17:28‒17:30; plus ~17:41 & ~17:49 BST—going-home-time for corresponding UK office-based people. Archive audio became available after 18:00 BST (17:00 UTC). There are other PR/WMF staffers which available in the US, but BBC Radio 4 GeoIP-based streams are unlikely to be as universally available; …and for the reasons you've quite rightly outlined above, distributing an entire … BBC program[me] out-of-band as audio would be a non-starter (a "huge copyvio"). Hence creating a copyright-compatible, minimally-relevant of transcript in textual form covering a sum of 325.4 seconds out of 3600. Precise contextual details were credited within the filename. Both approaches were wishing to protect the encyclopedia: one focused on protecting a staunch approach to libre content, and one focused on protecting the project itself.
I happened to have been the initial person who did the rollbacks/warnings, so my intent was probably pretty similar to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's actions: do the deed; document the details for others; and duck-out to allow distributed takeover. As it stands hopefully anyone who "needs" a copy can still fish it out of the logs. But yes, I completely agree, more input would certainly help to provide greater clarity as to whether one now needs to review the previous consensus/policies covering NFC non-article-space policies and I'm disappointed that others haven't chipped in. —Sladen (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFPP backlog[edit]

We are (unexpectedly) badly backlogged at WP:RFPP. Some help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I think only more appalling than the backlog is the kinds of articles being abused... "Vandalism orgy in Olympiacos B.C." --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I request a restructure of my current TBAN[edit]

TBAN is maintained as is for now per discussion and Kosh's agreement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Brief history of the ban[edit]

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

* Six months elapsed and my ban was lifted.

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

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

* Record of the topic ban can be here .

More details are here .... condensed and hatted for easier reading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

History of the disruption[edit]

* My disruption (the one that initially got me topic banned for six months, and blocked), consisted of my [leaving an edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter]. Even though I never did edit war, I understand and accept that my edit summary very much constituted disruptive behavior, and therefore my block and six months TBAN was fully earned ..

* This incident started with a vote on the page that was at that time named Talk Bradley Manning. It's since been renamed to Talk Chelsea Manning [| this is the original version of my vote ]. [| This is (named admin's) edited version ].

* My original vote consisted of an oppose statement and my rationale, rather than just a straight "Oppose", as it's been my observation that just stating "Oppose" or "Support" is treated as an "I Do Like / I Don't Like " statement. Rationale matters.

* Pretty quickly, my talk page filled up with requests to re-word my rationale, which I declined to do as I saw nothing wrong with my statement, the page asked for an opinion on a move, and I gave one and included reason in policy for the move. None of my post violated BLP, V, POLEMIC, nor could the post be considered Vandalism , nor could it be considered Copyright violation, nor even trolling. Therefore, I saw no valid reason to remove or refactor my post.

* Fluffernutter took it upon herself to alter my post . Note that talk page comments can be removed if they contain libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, violations of blp or banning policies , personal attacks, trolling or vandalism. My post contained none of these, therefore removal of my comments violated TPO which states: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. Fluffernuter did not do this, she simply removed my comments, changed the meaning of them and refused to accept that TPO was ,in fact, being violated. She instead used "Discretionary Sanctions " as a rationale, however, TPO doesn't allow editing or removal of comments for "discretionary sanctions", nor does discretionary sanctions give any admin the right to remove or alter talk page comments, except for the exemptions given in WP:TPO.

* At this point, I went to Fluffernuter's page to discuss and as you can see here I wasn't alone . I will state for the record, I didn't invite anyone into the discussion, those that were there came of their own free will. As you can also see, consensus was against this admin's change 3 to 1. The admin dismissed consensus and in fact, referred to it as a "consensus among cohorts", This is not the case, as I invited none of these people, they came of their own free will, and are certainly not cohorts. My history will show, they have not interacted with me regularly, nor I with them, especially not in any way that shows any kind of friendship between us, therefore her claim is invalid, the consensus was indeed neutral, and thus should have been accepted. Consensus is, after all, primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia. Further, this admin, in no way, backed up her claim that it was a "consensus of cohorts" with anything, thus making her claim a claim of bad faith.

* During the time I was discussing it with her, her actions were reverted [| by MzMcBride ], and the [|admin promptly reverted] him.

[| Also by Dolescum ] who was again, reverted by the same admin.

[| Here] , I didn't revert Fluffernutter however, by this time, it had become clear the this admin was not going to accept consensus, nor TPO, but was going to do what they wanted irregardless, and I was pissed off, so I changed her redaction message, and no , it wasn't at all helpful, yes, it was me being a dick, no if, ands or buts about it, and no excuses either, I was a dick and flat wrong to alter her comments. [| A different admin] reverted.

[| At this point ] I'd had it, to my eyes, policy was being ignored for admin preference and I did revert here (note I'm at 1RR, the original admin at 2 RR ). Yes, my edit summary was wrong, and yes, I promised to edit war with her, and yes, any such edit summary has to be treated as disruptive. Bear in mind that at that point, I'd done BRD, ANI, pretty much any dispute resolution that was available to me and even had other users supporting my position (both at ANI and on the admin's page) and the only response the admin would give anyone is that they can take it to arbcom. So as you can imagine, I was pretty incensed at that point. I don't say this as an excuse, merely as explanation for my actions. Either way, my actions counted as disruptive.

[| At this point] Fluffernutter reverted placing her at exactly 3RR.

At this point Fluffernutter then topic banned me for six months.

* An ANI request was opened up on the same day, starting before my ban , again, with consensus against Fluffernutter. Fluffernutter's response was to say , essentially, "Take it to Arbcom" thus ignoring (once again consensus ). To be sure, my responses were not civil, however, bear in mind, I believed then, as I believed now that my vote was legitimate and did not rise to the level of having to be edited or partially removed.This was not taken to Arbcom, as Arbcom is the court of last resort, and before Arbcom would accept a case, all other avenues would have to be exhausted, and they were not, therefore, had I or anyone else did what Fluffernutter asked, Arbcom would have rejected the case, and would have kicked it back to ANI.

An appeal was filed on my behalf at AE, which was declined , I believe this appeal was handled impartially and fairly.

My ban was over in April, and yes I did edit the page I had been topic banned from (since it was over, there was no more topic ban ), it was to respond to a discussion [| here]. I started a topic called [| consensus check] and when it was determined that consensus was against me, per my agreement with Floquenbeam [[[| I voluntarily] dropped the subject and stayed away from that page.

I'd also started a discussion on MOS:ID, and again, [| three people disagreed with me ] so I dropped it.

After I dropped it, Fluffernutter dropped [| this ] on my page advising that I had been topic banned indefinitely, thus creating a punative block, rather than a prevantive one, in the form of a TBAN.

Salient points[edit]

My disruptive conduct in Talk:Chelsea Manning (and yes, this really was disruptive, no question about it ) consisted of 1RR with an edit summary promising to edit war. I never did edit war with Fluffernutter, and yes, I was blocked after that edit summary, and I definitely deserved it. That I didn't continue the edit war was beside the point, any promise to edit war is , even if not done, disruptive, and therefore, my block was fully deserved fully earned . However, this only happened on one specific article, not a whole swath of like (or even dissimilar) articles, thus the only disruption so far (either then , or within my history from day 1 to this moment ) existed in that one article only, for that one subject only . Thus it can be shown that I have no history of disruption across the topic of (to be filled in when this goes live ).

Fluffernutter unequivocally violated WP:TPO in removing a chunk of my comments, and was further wrong to ignore the consensus on her talk page and on ANI, and even further, was wrong to advise the community to "take it to arbcom". She claims "Discretionary Sanctions" as her defense, and while there were Discretionary Sanctions on the page, in no part of the guidelines for Discretionary Sanctions does it state the admin can ignore consensus, nor does it say that the admin can violate TPO. Further the admin's actions were not neutral, the actions supported only one set of beliefs and nothing else

Lest there be any dispute as to whether the votes on that page were re-written to subscribe to one set of beliefs on the subject, note that there were (and still are ) comments on that same page that give an argument counter to what I gave,(and note, per my ban, I cannot state what my argument was, but if you'll look at the references I'll provide momentarily, you'll see the counter argument still on the page and from that you should be able to deduce my argument ) and Fluffernutter not only let them stay, but failed to take any action on those comments, showing her to be partial to one side. Combat Wombat made this point clear to (admin's name to be inserted later ), and note that on the page in question Comments remain to this day (Specifically, "Support" # 11,14,17 & 25, "Oppose" # 1,7,12,14,16,36,37), that show the counter argument I mentioned a moment ago, any that were made were with a counter-argument similar to my own were removed by (admin's name to be added later) and still remain as such on the page to this very day, proving partiality to one side only, rather than her suggested aim of .... my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. Her next sentance is even more telling denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, (emphasis is mine ) which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue. . (Combat Wombat's comments and Fluffernutters are on the same link, referenced above on the comment "...Combat Wombat made this point....)

The first topic ban was far-reaching and had little-to-no evidence of any conflict except in one section of one talk page, in one article, there the ban was deserved. However, rather than ban me from participating in that one article, I have been TBAN'ed - broadly construed from ( will be filled in just before I file ) thus the ban reached beyond the article in question and is punative, not preventative.

The second (indefinite topic ban) was placed after I'd agreed to drop my argument, thus this ban was also punitive and not preventative.

My proposed outcome[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed, let's. I'm still opposed, for the reasons I gave above, but open to persuasion. You didn't answer the question about what edits you want to make that you're currently prevented from making. Maybe I didn't phrase it that well. I'll rephrase it: What edits do you want to make that you're currently prevented from making? Thanks for adjusting the sig. Begoontalk 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Begoon Sorry, I missed your question the first time. At the moment, there are no edits that I need to make, however, I do vandal runs and my restrictions prevent me from removing vandalism on any transgender articles, also, my restrictions make it impossible for my to participate in any way on any issues that touch transgender issues. If allowed I to edit and particpate I would observe the agreement I have with Floquenbeam (0RR, no hatting anyone's stuff except mine, 3 users in good standing tell me to drop the stick, I drop it ). Thank you KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
KoshVorlon Tagging on to the response of 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC), How frequently are you hitting TG articles during your vandal runs? What is the mean time to someone else noticing the vandalism (after you've spotted it) to being reverted? What specific topics would you have participated in had the restrictions on TG issues not been in place for you? I'm trying to establish a feeling for your influence/impact before I give my view. Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hasteur I don't hit a lot of articles on my vandal runs, I can sometimes go a few runs with no Transgender topics being hit. Keep in mind, it's not just articles I'm restricted from, any place on Wikipedia where a transgender topic is mentioned, AN, ANI, BLP, V, etc... I literally can not say a word about it. As to your second question, what topics would I have participated in? Well, Leelah Alcorn, specifically this section in the talk page comes to mind, also this talk page discussion on Leelah Alcorn as well as the very next message in the talk page, also here on a BLP board message called Women and Video Games. If you're asking , would I continue the same argument I had before, no, in fact, I'm still asking that I be banned from the topic of Chelsea Manning, broadly construed and I'm also asking that for now, I remain banned from MOS:ID, also broadly construed to prove that I'm not looking to re-hash the same argument. Does that answer the question ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why the restriction should be relaxed in the face of the few incidents in which your restriction is prohibiting you from participating. Given that there's a great amount of volunteers who can (and would handle the issues you raise as the justification for relaxing). Seeing that the case was decided a little under 2 years ago, and you were warned again less than a year ago about the ArbCom case I see relapses of poor judgement. Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Kosh, I'd like to ask you a question. It's a long time ago that you made that agreement with Floq. Why, instead of moving past that, and growing to a point where that kind of thing would be unnecessary, are you still the kind of editor that needs such a restriction? It's been a long while. Sorry if you think that's presumptuous, but I often wonder why people don't basically change and grow. This should be a thing buried in your past by now. Yet it's not. Begoontalk 15:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Begoon I kept the restriction because it worked well for me. I'm a believer in the phrase "If it works, dont' change it " :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'm going to stay in the "oppose" camp, for now, then, because "If it works, dont' change it " [sic]. I think the restriction has been working quite well, but I encourage you to appeal it again, after a reasonable time, if there are good edits which it is preventing which are not getting done. Begoontalk 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
(So this is how things end up appearing in the archives twice... I've often wondered. Fixed.) Begoontalk 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The project will not be harmed if the existing restriction is maintained. There's reason to believe it might be harmed if the restriction is restructured. Townlake (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I really don't like complicating restrictions or unnecessarily relaxing them. I'd have been open to agreeing to providing an exception for obvious vandalism only, but well...that can wait. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for arriving much later than my notification; I've been on (and am still on, actually, but I've finally gotten a bit of internet access) holiday the past few weeks. So, to catch up: as Kosh says, I am the admin who imposed this set of restrictions, back in 2014. My initial inclination upon reading the opening of this thread was "Hm, well, Kosh has been doing pretty well lately, let's give this some thought", but after reading the collapsed portion of the thread and the discussion so far here, I'm going to oppose changing sanction (inasmuch as I can oppose changing my own sanction, anyway). My main concern with Kosh's editing pattern is that when things get heated, especially in an area where he has strong opinions, he reacts by becoming more heated, more disruptive, and sometimes more expansive (i.e. taking the Manning issue to the MOS when doing it on the article/article talk didn't go his way) rather than backing away. This has happened not once, and not in only one place, but multiple times, in multiple places, over years, and it has kept circling back to happen in the topic area of transgender issues - not just to Chelsea Manning, but to multiple pages extending out of article space under that topic's umbrella.

    In a hot-button topic area under Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions, like transgender issues is, that's something we need to minimize where we reasonably can. It's not enough to even say "well, after X people complain, I might then back away"; Discretionary Sanction policy is especially formulated to allow us to quickly head off, and prevent, disruption before that point. Kosh's repeated episodes of disruptive editing in this topic area indicate to me that whatever drives his behavior there, it's a long-term issue rather than one that can be dealt with (as my initial efforts tried to do) with requests, warnings, or even short-term sanctions; therefore, the best solution is to keep him away from the topic entirely unless and until there's reason to think the behavior will change. That's not to say that I'd never be willing to remove or modify this restriction, but I would need to see some commitment to avoiding - recognition of "yes, I see how that led us here, I am going to consciously focus on not doing those things from now on" - those behaviors in the future before I'd be comfortable doing it. Instead, we're in a situation where a) the user does not actually wish to make any particular edits to the area of transgender issues, b) their summary of the situation shows continued, significant misinterpretations of the policies that govern areas under discretionary sanctions (many of the admin, DS, and talk policy misunderstandings that plagued both of our original discussions of the topic bans are repeated, nearly verbatim, in Kosh's comments above), and c) the user shows no particular recognition that their initial behavior was problematic in the first place. That's just not enough for me to take the leap of faith given the history here.

    That all said, as Ncmvocalist has also suggested, I would be fairly agreeable if Kosh wanted to request some sort of exemption for reversions of obvious vandalism to related articles - I'd hardly be inclined to throw the book at anyone for reverting "So-and-so is a poophead", anyway - as long as a hefty dose of common sense is applied to the definition of "obvious". "Poophead," yes. Anything requiring significantly more editorial judgment than that, no.

    Note: I'll be in transit for pretty much all of tomorrow/Monday and probably unable to respond to anything here unless the wifi gods are being particularly benevolent; I will check back in Tuesday in case anyone has responses or questions about my comment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

* Reply Fluffernutter I appreciate your reply. I'll address your comments one by one: You write here

It's not enough to even say "well, after X people complain, I might then back away"

That's actually not a might it's a must and that's also an agreement Floquenbeam Floquenbeam suggested to me, which I accepted. I will point out that there's an example of me doing this on this AN case, my signature, three people complained about my signature, and rather than arguing or digging in and saying "this isn't about my signature", I changed it and even changed it again when the signature was still deemed unacceptable.

Here you write My main concern with Kosh's editing pattern is that when things get heated, especially in an area where he has strong opinions, he reacts by becoming more heated, more disruptive, and sometimes more expansive (i.e. taking the Manning issue to the MOS when doing it on the article/article talk didn't go his way) rather than backing away. This has happened not once, and not in only one place, but multiple times, in multiple places, over years, and it has kept circling back to happen in the topic area of transgender issues - not just to Chelsea Manning, but to multiple pages extending out of article space under that topic's umbrella.

That I'm aware of, (and I admitted to this in the collapsed section above ) I changed your message stating you'd altered my message per discretionary sanctions, and I admitted it was a dick move, which it was. I also admitted reverting you on the talk page of Chelsea Manning and promising to edit war, I also admitted this was disruptive and that my block and subsequent T-Ban for it was deserved. I also admitted getting blocked on MOS:ID. So, yes I did admit to where I went wrong. I don't recall any incidents where I carried the same behavior to any other article within the transgender umbrella, if you do, will you show examples ?

Here you write That's not to say that I'd never be willing to remove or modify this restriction, but I would need to see some commitment to avoiding - recognition of "yes, I see how that led us here, I am going to consciously focus on not doing those things from now on" - those behaviors in the future before I'd be comfortable doing it. Instead, we're in a situation where a) the user does not actually wish to make any particular edits to the area of transgender issues, b) their summary of the situation shows continued, significant misinterpretations of the policies that govern areas under discretionary sanctions (many of the admin, DS, and talk policy misunderstandings that plagued both of our original discussions of the topic bans are repeated, nearly verbatim, in Kosh's comments above), and c) the user shows no particular recognition that their initial behavior was problematic in the first place.

I actually did state that promising to edit war was disruptive and that changing your hatted note was dickish, so I have already have recognized where I went wrong. Yes, I realize you believe my vote was wrong, I disagree that it was or is, I'm not arguing, just stating that's what I believe. Further, I am offering to stay away from the Chelsea Manning article due to my disruptive behavior, and stay away from MOS:ID because I have strong feelings about it that consensus didn't support and don't want to re-hash them. My disruptive behavior was confined to those to spots only, to the best of my memory, no where else, but I would welcome examples of such. Also, misinterpretations of policy ? Can you show examples ? I don't see any, when I mention policy, I mention it as it's written. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You say That's actually not a might it's a must. Which is great, except that your 0RR and "back away" restrictions were already in effect at the time I originally topic banned you ignored them, which is why I had to fall back on a topic ban in the first place. You reverted my redaction of your comment a number of times, going so far as to flatly say "Revert me again fluffernutter and I'll revert right back" ([3]) while your talk page displayed, in a large box, "I limit myself to 0RR. I will observe both the letter and the spirit of this rule.". Your "back away" restriction includes a clause that it's only valid when "no one has supported my position", which rather moots the whole thing as far as you listening to the judgments of experienced users. The fact is that you only seem to abide by your restrictions when your temper isn't heated and when they match what you already think, which amounts to not following them at all given that the whole point was to keep you from digging into heated situations disruptively.
  • I actually did state that promising to edit war was disruptive and that changing your hatted note was dickish, so I have already have recognized where I went wrong. Yes, the reverting was disruptive. But it only got as far as reverting because you were failing to recognize that your original conduct (BLP-violating, inflammatory commentary about a living person) was a problem. I realize that you see nothing wrong with anything you said in those discussions, and I can't make you agree that there was anything wrong, but from my perspective, as long as you don't get why your pre-reversion behavior was a problem to begin with, I'm not comfortable letting you return to making commentary like that in topics like that.
  • Also, misinterpretations of policy ? Can you show examples ? I don't see any, when I mention policy, I mention it as it's written. Well, at the risk of being glib: exactly. You have repeatedly stated, for example, that I violated "WP:TPO" by redacting your comments (1, 2, 3), but your belief in that values the literal wording of one part of the guideline ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning") over what the guideline says a few lines down ("Some examples of appropriately editing other people's comments: [...] Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies"), what WP:BLP says ("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. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."), and what Discretionary Sanctions policy allows ("Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." - emphasis mine). It also ignores that 3RR, which you claim I violated, contains an explicit exemption for reverting BLP violations. All of those things, especially BLP, overrule TPO.

    Similarly, when I implemented your longer-term topic ban, you argued that such a ban couldn't be imposed because transgender discretionary sanctions could not apply to pages outside that direct topic area ("WP:MOS is under a different sanction, not sexology, therefore [transgender DS] can't apply" - sentiments expressed here and here) As far as I can tell, you remain convinced of that fact. So when I say that you appear to misunderstand policy, it may be more accurate to say that you misunderstand policies: you seem to have trouble reconciling how the wording of one policy/guideline interacts with the wording and intent of others, and it's leading you down the garden path of disruption because you're taking actions that you believe are just fine, but which are actually completely inconsistent with a number of policies, and then you're struggling to understand why the rug just got pulled out from under you when someone tells you you can't do what you were doing. My concern is that as long as you're having trouble understanding how talk policy, NPOV, BLP, and Discretionary Sanctions interact, we can't be sure that you're going to be able to govern your behavior properly in this area, even if you 100% perfectly intend to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fluffernutter I appreciate your reply. What you said here You say That's actually not a might it's a must. Which is great, except that your 0RR and "back away" restrictions were already in effect at the time I originally topic banned you ignored them is 100 % correct. I didn't live up to my agreement, I totally admit it. Here I intend to. By my count (and I realize because I'm involved my count is unofficial ) there are at least 3 users who are against changing my T-Ban in anyway. I'm ok with this request being closed and having the T-BAN stay as it is. If that happens I will continue to obey it as I'm doing so now.

However, you made a claim you hadn't backed up yet, it was this comment This has happened not once, and not in only one place, but multiple times, in multiple places, over years, and it has kept circling back to happen in the topic area of transgender issues - not just to Chelsea Manning, but to multiple pages extending out of article space under that topic's umbrella. As I said, my conduct took place in the Chelsea Manning article , it's talk page and MOS:ID only, no other area, what other areas do you see this same conduct appearing in ?

Regarding TPO, I did actually read all of it, and don't believe my vote violated BLP at all, you believe otherwise, now understand, I'm not going to get into a big-long winded screed about it, I understand you believe it, and because you believe it, you believe your action was justified under BLP and TPO. I hear you loud and clear on that. Remember too that it wasn't just me saying nothing was wrong with my vote, in my hatted section, I note that three other individuals agreed with me , no I won't get into a big screed about that either, it's done and history, just to say, it wasn't me alone that disagreed with you.

Like I said, I'm willing to have this closed and I will stick to the T-BAN as you laid it out with no bitching about it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone[edit]

Nyttend is on it. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Would an admin please put a stop to this post-haste? Both editors involved seem to have dirty hands and the discussion is getting pretty heated. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Help please[edit]

Can someone help clean up the mess made at Jack Meakin by a persistently disruptive editor that I've dealt with over the past few months? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two articles that Accy192 (talk · contribs) has been editing. The JM that Connormah has linked to and Jack H. Meakin. They do seem to be about two different people but the moving of the one to the other may take some untangling. MarnetteD|Talk 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Connormah MarnetteD - Hi, It is not vandalism, I have merely located them to the right locations and added relevant information. They are about two totally different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accy192 (talkcontribs) 01:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Accy192: How did you determine that the middle initial of this obscure Calgary Stampeder CFL player is "H"? I was unable to find that information online anywhere, including at the Stampeders website. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This user has persistently hijacked the article over the past few months, even after my talk page note and multiple reversions. The article they're creating has also been deleted twice. I'd semiprotected it a month or so ago but obviously forgot to move protect it too. Right now it's a mess and I'm not too sure how to go about reverting this... Connormah (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Accy192 Please read my post. I did not say that your edits were vandalism. All I did was provide a couple of links to help others examine this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 02:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Connormah if I remember correctly Keegan (WMF) knows the ins and outs of merges and moves. If my memory is faulty my apologies to Keegan. MarnetteD|Talk 02:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Connormah (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]

Dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 08:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, could somebody please look at the WP:AIV backlog. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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

UAA backed up[edit]

Can we get some ADMIN brand drain-unclogger there? BMK (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User violated personal attacks[edit]

Enough has been said here. Kuniwa has already been blocked for other reasons. (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) and now Beeblebrox has indefinitely blocked Scaravich105nj so case is really closed. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Procedural note: Scaravich105nj was CU blocked as a sock of Cali11928. Blackmane (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A user by the name of Kuniwa egregiously violated Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks on my talk page, with profanity no less. He just told me to "go fuck [myself]". I'm demanding he be blocked. Thanks. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to this no doubt. Harry Let us have speaks 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Who's side are you on, Harry. If you take a look at Kuniwa's edit right here, you'll see he's nothing but a vandal. He added that over 11,000 people had been killed in the earthquake, when everybody knows nowhere near that many were killed. And then he violated WP:NPA. He should still be blocked. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not obviously vandalism. 11500 could be a typo for 1500. Your response is over-the-top and unwarranted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks he's a vandal. Kuniwa just got blocked indefinitely for his disruptive editing. Do you still think my response was "unwarrented", DrKiernan? :) Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm on the side of civility. If you expect civility you have to be civil yourself, even in the face of vandalism. IME using profanity on someone else's talk page will often lead them to respond in kind. Neither is right of course. Harry Let us have speaks 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. You think it acceptable to call someone a prick and tell them to get a fucking life and then complain when they respond in kind. Look to your own behavior first. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I've made an additional request of User:Scaravich105nj here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The irony here is hard to miss, complaining that someone said "go fuck yourself" and demanding they be blocked when you just got finished calling them a prick, goddamn vandal, and a douchebag in a single edit. You are lucky not to be blocked yourself right now, so I hope your agreement on your talk is something you take to heart and actually do. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, to each his own, Beeblebrox, to each his own. You know the old saying, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You aren't seriously trying to defend that edit, are you? This doesn't fill me with confidence that you understand why that was wrong and are sincere in your promise not to act like that in the future. You have drawn attention to yourself with this ill-advised thread, as I'm sure you must realize by now. Acting like that again would not be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Can a blocked user enable the email facility in their account[edit]

user:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (MMAR)is currently blocked including access to user talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger. As can be see on the history of the talk page MMAR has allegedly let it be known that (s)he has read some messages and wants them deleted. Is it possible for a blocked user to edit their user profile and enable email so that (s)he can contact other users via email sent from that user account (as proof that they control that user account)? -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, MMAR is blocked and his talk page access has been removed, so other editors should not be proxying for him by acting on his requests for changes to the talk page. I see you restored the deleted material, and I would have done the same. Second, I'm not sure if blocked editors can access and edit their Preferences or not, but are you sure MMAR didn't have e-mail enabled before the block? I do know that blocking doesn't automatically stop access to e-mail, that has be be specifically selected in some way. (Not an admin, so I don't know the specific procedure.) Third, if MMAR is using e-mail to recruit other editors, his e-mail access should be cut off. BMK (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A blocked user can still change their preferences and set an email address. However email access can be blocked as well. Normally it is not blocked, but if a user is abusing it then email access can be blocked. user:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger is currently permitted to send email from their Wikipedia account. Also we should have notified the user in question that he is being discussed here, even if he cannot join in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's the case, since the requirement for notification is based on the presumption that the subject should be able to respond to the report. But if the user is blocked from editing, and has talk page acccess revoked, how would he be expected to respond? IN that situation I would think that notification would not be mandatory. BMK (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The box at the top of this page says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"; it does not mention any preconditions or qualifications. Anyway it is a courtesy so that the subject of the discussion can read what people have to say about them. They can always response by on or off wiki email or via IRC if they want to. I have notified the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Good points. BMK (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
However MMAR was not the subject of this discussion. The subject of this discussion was whether a blocked user could alter their email preferences. By your reading of the statement at the top of this page BMK every single blocked user who has not enabled their email option ought to be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"They can always response by on or off wiki email or via IRC if they want to." How do one know that an off wiki email or an IRC message has come from the a person who controls a Wikipedia user account? -- PBS (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about IRC, but emails from WP's internal email function always say "this message was sent to you by Wikipedia user <username>" or something like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No idea about the technical aspect, but if the user (or someone impersonating them) is asking to have messages removed from their talk page, why not just blank the users's talk page and move on with life? This is way too much energy expended on the state of a blocked user's talk page. If he makes another request for unblock, the previous notices can be restored. --B (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A currently open CfD which would interfere with a not-yet ready mass CFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 29#Category:Churches in Ukraine, a discussion which is still open, discusses renaming a few categories from "churches" to "church buildings". I voted against, since the whole tree of Category:Church buildings needs to be handled; and then started to work on a nomination for the whole tree. Assuming that the current discussion isn't closed when I'm ready to start my planned discussion, would it be reasonable toclose this discussion as "Procedural close in favor of a wider discussion" along with a link to the new discussion, provided that I explicitly notify all users from this discussion? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a very good solution, particularly as you have expressed an oppose, and you would be closing the discussion with a de-facto result that is the same as your position. I think there are 3 options: try to find someone willing to close it with some result, get the supporters to all agree to withdraw it in favor of the wider discussion, or to just wait for it to end naturally. Best would be to hope someone reading this decides they are comfortable closing it. You could also post a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure asking someone to close it promptly so that it doesn't interfere with the broader one. Monty845 21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would have gone with the third option you suggested (and not even bothered asking here), if not for the fact that we have a 3-month backlog at CFD; and I doubt the second would be likely to work here. The first may work out; however, the advantage of my proposal is that it would deal with the question of of which goes first (I could close the open discussion and make my planned CFD go live, once I'm done getting it ready, saving both within a couple seconds). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please open the new discussion, and I will close the old one as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I expect to open it tomorrow between 3:30 and 4:00 UTC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I just openned the new nomination (at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings) - can someone please close the old one? (Ymblanter promissed to, but other admins are welcome to beat him/her to it.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Close review at ANI[edit]

Discussion re-opened by User:Ncmvocalist. Please opine there if desired. --B (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please review the close of the Doors22 matter here. I asked Jusdafax to self-revert his non-admin close, and he said no and instead asked me to "extend the hand of collegial understanding to Doors." In my view neither the close nor that response deals with the heart of the matter. From Doors22 first month here, he stated that: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same" His edits to date have been dedicated to that one mission as the evidence I presented showed. I have never seen a more clear case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:Civil POV pushing (not so civil quite often) and do not understand how the close could not recognize this. Doors22 has rejected all advice to stop over the 4 years of pushing his POV. Extending a hand of understanding could not be less relevant: Doors22 has no interest - at all - in building an encyclopedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

JYTDog, it looks like you forgot to notify me about this on my talk page but anyway it seems like you will continue to protest in new forums each time the community disagrees with you unless you get your way. I think it's pretty from the statement that you quoted that I have been interested in abiding by Wikipedia standards since I've joined. I admitted on several occasions I've made mistakes and will continue to improve accordingly. As I have gotten acquainted with MEDRS sources, you will see that all of my references are completely legitimate and credible.
If you look at the finasteride article, the adverse events section is for the most part reasonable and in my opinion it is written with a neutral point of view. It seems to me that you don't want there to be any mention of adverse events which does not seem to be neutral to me. For any admin who may read this, JYTDog has been aggressively going after me for almost two weeks straight now and I'm not sure how to handle this situation appropriately. I've been pursued on talk pages, after which he filed an ANI incident report that was closed after over a week of inaction, and now he is trying to reopen it. Several editors in the incident reported that he is "extremely aggressive". I have tried to make peace with him and suggested we be more collaborative in the future but he does not seem to be interested in doing so. Rather it feels like he wants to continue battling (which I do not) and has challenged me to a slam dunk competition. I would prefer to put this behind us and move on. Doors22 (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I want to add, that for those concerned with the corrupting influences of COI or advocacy (which should be everybody), the community needs to be able to address cases like this. I brought this thing to ANI to address Doors' behavior in particular -- but this is exactly the kind of case that should have - and could have - been brought against Wifione two years ago'. Doors was a kind of a test follow up case to Wifione, chosen carefully because the pattern of Doors' editing is so, painfully, obvious, including a goddam mission statement from him. There are a couple other editors with a clear pattern of long-term POV pushing for companies (very probably paid editors but no disclosure) that I will bring to ANI in the next six months or so (and i will not mention paid editing. Just long term POV pushing, just like Doors). The cases I have coming will be less crystal clear than this (no mission statement). All those people wringing their hands over our helplessness about long term COI editors and long term advocacy, should be very unhappy about this close. We have the Wifione precedent. We need to be able to use it. Which means some admins have to be willing to actually look at the evidence provided. (if some admins did and saw no case, that would have been useful to know. i cannot believe anybody who actually took fifteen minutes to review, couldn't see it, but maybe i am a crank; but then again there were ten editors who voted to "support". Ten.) We editors can do all the work in the world to tee things like this up, but if this case cannot get closed with action, the community is, in a word, dead meat. I am somewhat hopeful the close will be over turned, and the correct close made. I will add here that I had some concern about bringing this to ANI, where the peanut gallery jumps in and distractions arise. If long-term POV pushing can only be handled at Arbcom, that would be... a bummer. But maybe that is what it has to be. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
i'll just note again, that even in his comments above, doors give no sign that he understands that his behavior to date adds up to SOAPBOX and NOTHERE and that this is not OK. Not a twinkle of self-awareness. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • (multiple ec) Needless to say, I disagree with Jytdog about my non-admin closure. Jytdog describes himself on my talk page today as "controversial," which may explain why not one administrator chose to take action of any kind at ANI or from the request here. The ANI filing included edgy irregularities that included pings of involved editors (hence the questionable claims of community consensus) and charges of !vote stacking, all of which were ignored by administrators. One is forced to conclude that every admin that reviewed it saw it as a colossal time-sink, which unfortunately I am finding to be the case. After days of looking at the bloated, unreadable thread languishing at the top of ANI and then reading this statement by Doors 22, found above on this page, I decided to take action and close, urging the two parties to work together. Instead, not getting the type of closure he wanted, Jytdog has continued his efforts to topic ban Doors22 by going to my talk page to ask me to reverse my closure, and when I declined, now here.
I would ask for consideration of my carefully-crafted statement in the closure, then ask the question: just who is it who is currently uncollegial and disruptive at this time? Jytdog's request on my talkpage appears to me to reveal a disturbing equation of this case with basketball games. I request that he be reminded by an administrator that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and give him a piscatory comeuppance should he continue to fail to drop the stick. Enough is enough. Let's move on, to ArbCom if need be, where the edits of all concerned will be reviewed. Jusdafax 04:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
JYTDog has a history of misusing and misquoting wikipedia guidelines. So many times he has repeated I am here to use wikipedia as a soapbox but that is entirely untrue. The edits he has questioned do report on scientific/medical matters but they are all written in an objective voice backed by MEDRS sources. There is no opinion about this and the language that is in the article is actually very conservative (this was also pointed out in the ANI incident). For unfamiliar users, please visit the finasteride section on side effects to see where he is mistakenly pointing to a pov/soapbox/advocacy platform or whatever you want to call it. It's very ironic that he claims to be focused on stopping COI/POV/Paid editing (a good thing) when he has been accused countless times of being a paid editor trying to clean up negative posts about corporations and GMOs. If you google JYTDog, the second link (outside of wikipedia) includes a very lengthy discussion on the notoriety of his own POV editing on wikipedia. He even used to have an essay on his userpage saying he was not concerned with COI/advocate editors since the process would naturally straighten them out. I have said this before (but was apparently ignored by JYTDog), it is misleading to say that 10 editors voted to support his proposal because 6 of them were pinged by him or involved in some way. The remainder is not large enough to form a consensus when there were many uninvolved editors who opposed the report. This is going in circles and really begs the question as to why JYTDog cares so much about this one issue. Doors22 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
we'll see Jusdafax. The case is a slam-dunk for long term POV pushing, an issue you completely - completely - ignored in your close.
for everybody (and only in light of jusdafax's effort to discredit me and again distract from the issue of doors editing) - jusdafax and i have bumped heads a few times - most recently Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks where he weighed in to !keep an essay that was overwhelming rejected by the community and said of those who !voted to delete, among whom I was quite vocal, as follows:

" I have felt for many years that Wikipedia is overrun by business, corporate and yes political interests with a COI to the mission of Wikipedia, who in some cases are protected by those inside the system. These people are organized, well-funded, and will do anything to anyone to get what they want. The Wifione case is just the tip of the iceberg, in my view, and quite small compared to as-yet unexposed examples of ongoing deeply problematic editing. And the effort to, as I see it, stifle discussion by deleting this relatively harmless essay is something I can't help but regard as worthy of contemplation and even suspicion." (emphasis added)

This is along the lines of comments he made on his talk page a couple of years ago about my editing at the GMO/Monsanto articles (i was the one being accused of being a POV pusher). he has apparently made up his mind since then.
Not a neutral closer. I wasn't going to go there Jusdafax, but you should not have closed this - by amplifying doors' transparent effort to distract from the issue of his POV pushing (and going further by throwing my own acknowledgement that i am a subject of controversy in my face), and dismissing clear evidence of long-term POV pushing, to grind whatever ax you have against me and the "friends" you referenced in your close, you have done the community a disservice. What makes it extra maddening, is that you just also told doors that he is a SPA and should stop. And he didn't heed your advice either, as you acknowledge here. all i can say about your close, is wtf. really. wtf. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
if anybody cares, the thing i used to have on my Talk page about COI editing referenced (twisted) by Doors was this. Here are my current thoughts. This is just ugly dramah-making. in other words, the BATTLEGROUND continues. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You are really the only one who is battling at this point, leading to harassment. This follow up discussion is getting too long so I'm hoping to not contribute again if possible. I have nothing in common with WifiOne you are trying to highlight as precedent. I am not a paid editor, I am not an admin, I have not lied about anything and I am not editing on behalf of a company. Please look at the finasteride article and you will see a neutral point of view (some even consider it conservative. You are in no position to complain of POV when so many other users have brought up this problem about you. If any admins here take the time to read this and can provide suggestions on how to get JYTDog to stop harassing me, it would be appreciated. I also find it very strange you are so strongly advocating to rid wikipedia of COI (in this very thread where it has no place) yet you voted to delete a COI Ducks essay. What is going on with you? Thanks. 05:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talkcontribs)
yes, its possible for you to not comment anymore doors. and please just stop throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. please. it is very obvious that you would like to put this behind you so you can go right back to POV-pushing, which you have yet to acknowledge is a problem. i have never said you have a COI. i have said you are here to advocate one POV on one topic, as described in your mission statement. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • First of all, Stop. This is a request for a close review. A close review is not for continuing the underlying arguments about the subject that was closed. Please limit discussion to whether the interpretation of consensus made by the closer, in the discussion as it was when closed, was reasonable or not. As a close is a quasi administrative action, it would also be fair to discuss any concerns about whether the closer should be considered WP:INVOLVED. But again, don't continue the underlying discussion here. Monty845 13:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. i look forward to comments. If I was dumb to bring this to ANI or the case itself was bogus, I am very open to hearing that, on my user page or here or via email, as folks feel is appropriate. But yes, the point of my opening this was to review the close. I won't comment further unless asked to. I do want to add that I realize that I am being fierce about this and am looking like an ass, perhaps. But the case is very clear, and I really did think this was a no-brainer to help the community establish a way to deal with longterm COI/advocacy. that is what is at stake. And i'll note that the finasteride article is actually fine; it has just been hell to keep it that way. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose closure - Support re-open. The close doesn't appear to address either numerical consensus or strength of arguments. As written, it reads as the closer's personal opinion that the filer should "extend the hand of collegial understanding" to the subject, and so is not a proper close. Maybe the closer only meant to say that there was no consensus. However, the closer didn't say that he had taken the arguments and comments into account. It is probable that the closer did take those into account, but it would have been a better close if he had referred to strength of arguments. Recommend that the close be reversed, and that a new close be done by an uninvolved administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose closure - Support re-open - Robert's analysis is spot on. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose closure - Support re-open - The closing editor had a beef with both Jytdog, as outlined above, and with myself as a secondary complaintant. During an essay deletion debate of a few weeks ago (I was the nominator), he called my nomination "suspicious". When I responded with a personal attack template left on his user page (admittedly an over-reaction on my part, for which I left an apology that was not accepted), he accused me of a "campaign of intimidation" on the project discussion page and banned me from his user page. I'm amazed that Jusdafax thought closing this discussion as an "uninvolved" editor was an appropriate thing to do. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 16:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose closure - Support re-open - the close does not consider the !votes that were made regarding the topic ban but in effect cast a supervote against the topic ban, saying, "the subject's recent comment at AN expresses notable contrition and growing and sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy to move forward as an editor without sanctions, in this closer's view." The job of the closer is to evaluate consensus, not to close with their own view. On that point alone, the close should be overturned. That the closing editor was not as uninvolved as was implied, given recent disputes with one "side" of the discussion as outlined above, only strengthens the need to overturn this close. Ca2james (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no opinion on the closure but just wanted to observe that no one "voting" on this closure so far is actually an administrator. Lately, there has seem to be more nonadmin participation on AN and ANI than admins. Do we need a recruitment drive? Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment(non admin) Yes, another non admin, but I have been closing. If a comment on a talk page years ago would stop someone closing, I fear not many would be done. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "comments made on a talk page years ago" should not be an impediment. Those under discussion here were earlier this month. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 20:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
My comment was in response to this claim diff. Where a diff from 2013 was used. As for the other diff used, it was in an unrelated deletion discussion that does not appear to be specifically directed at anyone. AlbinoFerret 21:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If non-admins, some of whom (like myself) are non-admin closers, think that this non-admin close was incorrect, then it isn't because the closer was not an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Robert, that is my understanding, that those opposing the closure are objecting to the closing decision, not that it was closed by a nonadmin. Still no admins weighing in here. Curious. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For deletion discussions, a non-admin close can be reversed by any admin, so I would assume that community sanction discussions would be the same (as a decision to sanction or not sanction a person is of more importance than a decision as to whether or not Wikipedia will carry an article on a new brand of toothpaste). That no admin has felt inclined to do so nor even felt inclined to do anything in the original discussion probably says that re-opening it would be a fruitless endeavor. (Please don't count this as a "vote" against opening it - just a suggestion. Everyone involved would get a few more days to argue with each other, but nothing is going to get resolved.) Among the reasons I don't think an admin weighed in to do something about it is that you need a whole day just to read it all. I see from looking at edit histories that there was a previous ANI thread just last month. I endorse what the closer of that discussion said - this needs to go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nothing is getting resolved here. --B (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
RE "For deletion discussions, a non-admin close can be reversed by any admin, so I would assume that community sanction discussions would be the same" - Sorry to say that your assumption is mistaken. I quote from WP:Closing discussions "The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator." (Footnote 3 gives a link to the RfC the consensus of which is referred to here.) Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kraxler: (1) That page references a discussion at WT:RFC about non-admins closing RFCs. The discussion felt that since no admin tools are required for closing an RFC, it's never a problem for non-admins to do so. That has nothing whatsoever to do with community sanction discussions where admin tools are involved in the process of enforcing the sanction. (2) The consensus was that RFCs should not be un-closed solely for the reason that the closer was a non-admin. In other words, you cannot come along and say, "this was closed by a non-admin, so I'm reverting it even though there was nothing wrong with the decision." That isn't to say that an admin could not unilaterally reverse a decision for cause. --B (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
RE 1: To close as "no consensus" or "no action" does not require any tools, that's the same at AfD, and that was the particular case here. Even some RfCs may require the tools, but then the general rule "do not make a NAC if you don't have the means to execute the result" applies.
RE 2: I agree. If there's cause, there's cause. But then the reversal was not done because of the non-admin status of the closer, but because the closure was wrong. Kraxler (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Original Incident Vote Tally I figure I'd go ahead and do this since it will be hopefully be appreciated. JYTDog counts ten editors who supported his original proposal. That includes himself and Formerly98, Stalwart, Alexbrn, JFW, and Yobol who are all involved contributors. These six votes out of ten originally counted by JYTDog were either the original proposer or were pinged in the original complaint so these need to be excluded. After excluding myself (of course) and the aforementioned involved users, you have 11 uninvolved users who participated. Of these 11, only 4 actively supported the proposal (and you could argue it was biased because of the original WP:VOTESTACKING.
  • Current Vote Tally Even after being open for a full day, the current request to reopen the incident only has two supporting uninvolved votes. JYTDog, Formerly98, and Ca2james all participated in the original incident report so their votes need to be excluded. A couple additional editors are expressing the feeling that this is futile (I agree), and then there are two more uninvolved editors who commented on the closers talk page who agreed with the motion to close. Here is support #1 and the other is support #2. Hopefully this should help save new readers some time. Doors22 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose closure - Support re-open. I am an uninvolved administrator with respect to Doors22, my only interaction with him has been this discussion on his User Talk, where I notified him that I had redacted a bit of a comment he made at a content noticeboard discussion because it served no purpose other than to disparage another editor (Formerly 98), and gave him a bit of general advice about handling conflict. The noticeboard was WP:NPOVN, the redaction I made was this. I have not edited at Finasteride. Regarding Jusdafax's action at the Doors ANI thread, I hesitate to even call it a "closure." It totally ignored the overwhelming support for a sanction. Yes it's frustrating that no admin had taken action, but the way to handle that isn't to pseudo-close it. Zad68
  • I don't agree when you say you are uninvolved. Zad68, I believe you became involved when you participated in the original incident. If I participated in a vote and the outcome went against me, I would certainly interested in having that decision revisited or overturned. I also presented the tally which I think demonstrates there was no overwhelming support - in fact less than half of the uninvolved participants supported the proposal. Doors22 (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not WP:INVOLVED with you. The original incident is your editing at Finasteride and your personal engagement with Formerly 98. My comments at the ANI thread were as an uninvolved administrator. Of course my comments there make me involved at that ANI thread, so I could not close this thread because of that. Zad68 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit - To clarify, I counted you as one of the uninvolved participants in the original incident discussion but involved for the purposes of this discussion. In addition to yourself, there were 3 other uninvolved participants who supported JYTDog's original proposal - not much of a clear consensus. Once that discussion was closed, you had skin in the game and would be interested to see the outcome go your way. To that extent, you are involved as me or JYTDog in this re-opening discussion. I don't think it would be fair to count your vote in this request as I don't think it would be fair to count my own (which is why I have not bothered to vote although it would make an optical difference). Doors22 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another non admin comment In general, I make it a personal policy never to do a NAC on any AN or ANI threads where a !vote for sanctions has been called. The main reason for this is that I, as with all other non admins, do not have the tools to enforce those sanctions. It should be a matter of course that these sorts of threads should be treated like AfD's. I gnome a bit on the 2 noticeboards and close up anything where (1) admin action has been requested and received, (2) a boomerang has come into play, (3) editors request advice and have received it (4) other non controversial closes. Personally, I believe that should be what non admins should stick to. Blackmane (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for closure - no need to re-open to close then again with the same result but a different wording, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (well, yet another non-admin comment, but certainly uninvolved) The closing statement speaks for itself. No need to spill more water on the wheels of the drama-mill. Well, admins seem to be hiding from this noticeboard, one hardly ever sees one. The great exception is Guy, who comments regularly here, but since he voted in the thread under review, he has the ethics to not appear here to comment, thanks Guy. The !votes of Ca2james, Zad68 and Formerly98 are invalid, they voted in the discussion, and thus could not close it, and thus can not review the close, that's a question of logic, rather. Otherwise we wouldn't need any guidelines, if people could rehash everything everywhere ad aeternum. I suggest that the content dispute is resolved at the pertaining talk page or at any other proper place. Kraxler (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
comment breaking my promise not to comment. to both Kraxler and B - this is not a content dispute. It is behavioral - Doors is a long term POV pusher and has been treating WP as a battleground. DR will not resolve either behavioral issue. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:DR does include Last resort: Arbitration. --B (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
POV pushing used to be about content: the non-neutral apresentation of some subject, as written in the article. DR will resolve it if both parties agree to discuss and to consider third opinions. Actually, I gathered that both sides had agreed to try to come to terms. Kraxler (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
B yep for behavioral issues DR says ANI then arbcom. the point of my post is to get a valid close here at ANI. If I have to go to Arbcom I will but in my view the ANI thread is both close-able and actionable. I recognize the time challenge in making a valid close. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are two separate issues here. The first is whether User:Judasfax gave good advice to drop the issue, and several editors here appear to be saying that he did. The second is whether Judasfax acted appropriately in closing the ANI thread. It is my understanding that only the second is relevant in a close review. My argument, with which several editors concur, is that the close was out of process because it did not address the comments of the community. I think that Judasfax's comments would have been entirely appropriate, and I would largely concur with them, if they had been comments in the thread rather than a close of the thread. If I am mistaken, and if further discussion of the original controversy is in order here, will someone please correct me? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
yep, that is accurate from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've restored it from archive and removed the closure - leaving the closure as a comment. It's without prejudice to the closer's version of events, the people who say sanctions are warranted, and the people who say sanctions are not warranted. We have two admins in this review who appear to be uninvolved who have exactly opposite opinions on the matter from what I can see. It's likely this is going to have to go to ArbCom if any of you want to pursue proposed sanctions or defend against proposed sanctions further - a formal close is not needed to establish that anymore in view of this thread and my comment here, but maintaining the earlier close can cause problems on many levels. If no uninvolved admin wants to close the restored version, it will in its natural course re-enter the archive without a closing comment (which is perfectly fine); if an uninvolved admin still wants to have a shot, they're welcome to do so before the bot re-archives the thread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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


OnlyInYourMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appears to be an established account, looking at the user page, details of comments and so on, yet the account was only registered two days ago. For a two-day-old account to chide established users citing policy and guidelines in detail, is unusual. Does this account have any familiar interests or patterns, admins? Anyone see a duck? Guy (Help!) 11:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The account is clearly being operated by an experienced editor but unless someone can identify a behavioral match with another account, there's nothing to indicate yet that the account is WP:ILLEGIT. Zad68 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the talk page input speaks strongly to WP:ILLEGIT, but I agree that a behavioural match is really needed, hence the question here. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Since a large number of the editor's contribs have been to RfCs on article talk pages, don't overlook the possibility that the account -- if it is not legitimate (and I agree that it very much appears to be an experienced editor) -- was created in order to influence one of those RfCs by helping to create a false consensus, for instance. I've looked through their comments, but found them pretty inconclusive. The one which had the potential to look shady was the RfC on Talk:Female genital mutilation, in which their first comments appeared to be counter to those of the instigator of the RfC (PolenCelestial), but who later affirmed that editor's position. That's still pretty thin, though. BMK (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There's also the possibility of being another Zeitgeist sock. BMK (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Unusual is the story of my life :-). I don't mean to cause trouble or waste anyone's time. I am a mildly experienced editor who finaly decided to create an account. This is my first and only account. Apparently, participating in RfCs with my new account was a mistake. Looking back, obviously a new account posting in an RfC looks like a sock. I'll stop participating in RfCs for a while. I only meant to help. I totally solved the Horse Thief RfC though! So you see, I succeeded in helping :-) OnlyInYourMind(talk) 20:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Unless we've got any actual proof, we should assume good faith, and assume for now it's a legit account. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest an explanatory note on your user page. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

indef gun control ban for User:Lightbreather[edit]

No consensus here, and the arb case is likely to be accepted.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I happened upon this discussion on Talk:Nazi gun control theory, and saw this diff. I investigated further, and found that Lightbreather has a history of disruptively editing articles, as seen by [4], [5] and a multitude of other 3RR warnings. User:Ched has given Lightbreather a final warning [6] about her incivility, and I think it is time that action be taken. [7] Her uncivil "retirement" message where she talks about the uncivil discussions on gun control. I'd also like to reference her incivility towards Sue Rangell, which resulted in a messy conclusion, to say the least. She has also received a 6 month topic ban in the past.

User:Lightbreather needs to be topic banned permanently, as she has flagrantly disregarded civility, as well as 3rr, and has not learned from the last ArbCom case on gun control. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chess: These aren't diffs; you'll need to provide these instead of the page version. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@JethroBT: How? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Chess: For instance, with diff 104 instead of using a revision it's requested that you provide a diff. On the revision page, underneath the pink section you'll see: (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff). Clicking on the first diff link will provide you what you're looking for. Mike VTalk 04:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Chess, some of the links you provide appear to have nothing to do with the subject of your proposed topic ban - could you clarify why you consider them relevant, and/or why you are proposing Lightbreather be banned from that specific subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: They reflect that she has received numerous warnings that this behavior is not acceptable, and that she knows it is wrong. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but why are you requesting a topic ban from a specific subject based on evidence that doesn't all relate to that subject? If there is a general behavioural issue that needs dealing with (I'll refrain from expressing an opinion on this for now), a narrow topic ban isn't going to solve it - and if there is a specific problem with 'gun control' topics, we need to look at evidence that relates to it directly. Topic bans are a means to deal with a specific issue, not a means of punishment for broader infractions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if I can dig the desired diffs out of those links: [8] [9] [10] [11] (the last one seems to be referring to the box of big text at the beginning). That should do it for diffs of warnings, but I agree that it doesn't show her disruptively editing articles; if it shows anything, it's a pattern of general behaviour that may or may not need to be addressed (I haven't enough information to know). Disclaimer: I found out about this from IRC; Chess gave no names so as not to canvass, but the research required to find this discussion was minimal. ekips39talk 05:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

She got topic banned from gun control topics before, for 6 months. After her ban was over, the problems that led to the ban resurface on the same pages. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but we still need diffs of those problems resurfacing. Also, what constitutes incivility is a lot like the size of a heap of sand, as evidenced by many discussions that centred on that issue and went nowhere fast. This means that warnings aren't enough to show that she's intractably uncivil and needs a formal restriction -- we need diffs of her being uncivil, which is also necessary to show that she's persisted after the warnings. The retirement message link is the closest you've given, and I don't consider that to be uncivil, which highlights the heap of sand issue. ekips39talk 05:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the 3RR warning that Chess linked was posted by a contributor who appears from the edit history of the article concerned to also have been involved. Making it somewhat questionable as evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: it was still a clear violation of 3RR on her part, reverting content that I'm not sure she actually read. "If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others." Her preferred answers to the four issues at stake are all still the live version of the page because of the 3RR violation. I'm not saying my preferred version should be the live one right now either, but there's not even a compromise version up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This looks awfully like a case of trying to recruit admins to a cause. I don't see anything actionable in those diffs. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm definitely not Lightbreather's greatest fan, and I too don't see anything there. This looks to me like trying to remove your "opponents" from a subject. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it looks like someone trying to do exactly the same sort of thing that LB tries to do. This type of comment is not usually helpful but it is not going to be addressed through a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we of LB's "Fan Club" are pretty much of one mind on this — there's nothing here beyond the inevitable belly-bumping of activists on two sides of a controversy. Nothing actionable that I can see. @Chess should stop trying to crush opponents but rather should figure out how to find common ground and a path forward. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
So which comments have I made that insinuated that I am trying to "crush opponents"? Maybe you should actually learn about the dispute in question before throwing wild accusations at me. If you've read the dispute... Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: Please link to my comments in the gun control dispute where I "crush opponents". I haven't made any comments. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - As the other User that was involved in LB's 6 month Topic Ban, its not so much a disruptive influence as it is WP:CIVILPOV pushing and the inflexibility when it comes to exact wording of content and titles as well as source selection and usage in various articles. I will admit my own culpability and involvement upfront. As was noted in the ArbCom, many things that LB added, I challenged and/or reverted, hence our Tban for Edit warring. That said, here are some examples...

  • Assault weapons legislation in the United States - When LB created this article[12], they wanted this article to be titled Assault Weapons Ban and to focus solely on that subject with an emphasis on "ban". When others, myself included, tried to expand the article, LB resisted. This included changing the article's title to the above. It started with an RfC[13] then before that closed a Move Request was initiated[14] followed by a request to the closing Admin to review the Move Request because it didn't work out in LB's favor[15]. All the while, there was a WP:MOVEWAR going on.
  • National Rifle Association - This is a frequent recipient of LB's efforts. The article has existed since August of 2002[16], LB joined WP in March, 2007. So far there are 1,372 distinct Editors to the article, but yet Lightbreather is responsible for over 10 percent of the total edits. I'm not saying that LB has not made worthwhile contributions, but the arguing over how exactly to say it and which sources LB considers acceptable are relentless to put it nicely. The article Talk page pretty clearly demonstrates this currently IMO, but it goes back quite a while.
  • Topic & Interaction Ban and short term Block of the Firearms Project Coordinator[17] - I'm not defending the statements that Mike Searson made, but I feel that the situation happened because he was pushed to his limits and just finally went off on LB[18]. So now we have a Project Coordinator that is banned from addressing part of what his project is about. Another Editor and I have come up with a proposed solution for this, but that's off this topic for now.
  • Recent ANI - This is one of a number of instances where LB makes a request and when its ignored, rebuffed, or not immediately and completely accepted, LB is upset over it. In this situation there was the mitigating circumstance of an injured arm, but its not the first time that LB has told other Editors to not edit an article because either 1) LB is actively in the middle of editing and does not want to be interrupted, or 2) cannot be around to monitor the editing of others. There are difs that further demonstrate this, but I don't wish to devote a significant chunk of my day to track them down.
  • Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 - This example is IMO actually one where LB demonstrated restraint in what the article contained and how it was sourced. But what sets this article apart is that LB has nominated it for Good article status[19]. But even the selection of the Main image was not without its fair share of debate[20]. Some of these discussions, then bled over into Gun Control Act of 1968 where admittedly I picked up a WP:STICK I had waived around about 10 months ago[21] regarding one very specific detail in the History section of the article.[22] This time, after discussion on the Talk page I asked for a Third opinion which went against me. Accepting that outcome, I rewrote the section in question using all of the original references and attributing them sentence by sentence. It started out as this[23] and after discussion and the Third opinion, I edited it to this[24]. This included discussion and explanation on the Talk page of how I arrived at the most recent version.

All in all, its been a little easier to work with LB since our TBan, their subsequent Sock block, and such, but not a lot when they seemingly decide how an article and/or section should be and then works to force the issue. I'm leaving to do some work, so I will not be back for several hours. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

First, the preceding "comment" by Scalhotrod, is from an editor who was topic-banned (along with with me) for edit warring, and yet he removed a sentence containing the word "gun control" from an article[25] while he was topic banned from gun control!
Yep, I basically stated this at the outset of my comments. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You are publicly acknowledging that you intentionally broke our topic ban? Because you haven't done so before now. Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I stated that I was part of the Topic ban with you and then you restated it above. As for the dif you cited, I didn't even realize that "gun control" was part of it. It was "same sex marriage" that caught my attention. The sentence seemed like a weird somewhat POV addition made at the end of the Lead. I still have the same view of it now. I wouldn't have even noticed the article had it not come up on the Special:PendingChanges list. That was the immediately previous edit[26] and Pending Changes edits constitute the majority of my edits to that article[27]. Wow LB, wikihound much? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) with close.You made two edits[28][29] to the same paragraph of that article before you removed the simple, 14-word sentence that contained the words "tough gun controls" (that you claim you didn't see). The words "tough guns controls" immediately followed "same-sex marriage"! Lightbreather (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

As for his remarks:
1. Assault weapons ban To properly respond to this, I'd need to write a dissertation on the state of affairs on Wikipedia that has kept the average Internet surfer in the dark re the subject of assault weapons ban. In a nutshell, the pro-gun editors on Wikipedia - who are in the majority - do not want seekers to find anything except the expired-in-2004 (United States) federal assault weapons ban. Go ahead and google "assault weapons ban." What pops up on top? Federal Assault Weapons Ban! As I said, it expired 11 years ago. There are U.S. states that actually have active AWBs, and there have been numerous bills proposed at the federal and state level to create news AWBs, but the pro-gun editors here - including Scalhotrod[30] - do not want to use the word "ban" (which is the common name for all these... bans and ban proposals) in the title of any article about AWBs - except for the old, expired bill.
--Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but only after you started a "crusade" to add it, sometimes multiple times in a sentence, in the same articles you cite above. They are appalling examples of bad writing, but thank you for pointing to numerous examples of where I corrected horrific sentence structure and vocabulary usage. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an example of your frequent allegations without diffs: you started a "crusade" to add it. Don't just say it - show it. If you're referring to the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, it had 19 occurrences of the words "ban" or "banned" in it before I edited it - and the same number AFTER I edited it. That doesn't show that I or anyone else did what you call "bad writing" - it is unremarkable because the article is about what is commonly referred to as a ban. After your edits (5 of the 10 which I gave diffs for above), there were four occurrences of the word ban - in a roughly 1200-word article about a ban. I believe that might be called "scrubbing" by some WP editors. Lightbreather (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
2. National Rifle Association Some people make fewer, big edits, some people make more, small edits. I used to do the former, but somewhere along the line the pro-gun types I worked with asked for the latter. That's the simple explanation for my number of edits. Scalhotrod does not like criticism in the NRA article, even though at least 50 per cent of the mainstream coverage of it is critical or reporting, at least in part, on someone's criticism of it or its leaders. (There is maybe 10 per percent critical info in that article, and most of it buried.) From past comments Scal has made, I believe he may have a COI re the topic. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think criticism is perfectly fine, but I agree with Jimbo Wales that it should NOT be a stand alone section and should be intertwined throughout the article in its proper context. The article is about the organization. If you want so badly to highlight criticism of the NRA, then I suggest you write Criticism of the National Rifle Association instead of the redirect that points to the Criticism section. I'm just trying to keep the article on topic, neutral, and the content WP:DUE. As for a COI, I'm a member like you. If that's a COI, then we both have it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
3. Mike Searson's topic ban and 1-way IBAN - I'll keep this short out of respect for Mike, whom I actually liked sometimes. I didn't initiate that enforcement request, and no-one twisted his arm all these years to talk to me and to others the way he did. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Even the most seasoned Editors and reasonable people can be pushed to their limits. This is in my opinion an example of that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
4. The recent ANI I would have loved the opportunity to discuss Scalhotrod's behavior, but that ANI was shut down before more than just a few pair of eyeballs got to see it. Scal seems to enjoy messing with editors (me anyway, since he's done it twice now) when he knows they're on vacation or otherwise indisposed - say with a broken arm. (Oddly(?), two other pro-gun editors took advantage of my recent personal-business trip to get busy on some articles that I am a regular contributor to.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
First off, if you didn't announce so much about your personal and/or private life, no one would know that you are on vacation or sick leave or any other bizarre or inane justification you come up make an accusation like this. Second, your accusation is baseless and unprovable. You know this, but you're just trying to play the sympathy card as classic misdirection. People have figured this out, I'm seemingly just one of a few stupid enough to actually comment about it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
5. Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 I don't see the point of his comments on these except maybe to subtly canvass for help? If I'd written it, that's what I'd be accused of - but no further comment, unless an admin asks me about it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I was trying to provide an example that shows you can actually cooperate with others when you want to. But I can understand how you missed that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see anything actionable in the diffs provided. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, she has since (today) bandied around more insinuations of sockpuppetry and shows no sign of stopping, even though asked to either take it to SPI or desist. If nothing else, it has a chilling effect and seems somewhat hypocritical given the frequency that she has linked to WP:ASPERSIONS in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Hajme 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
For cripes' sake, I don't make a habit of it. We're talking about Nazi gun control. A subject that went to ArbCom and ended in FOUR editors who were pushing for inclusion of Nazi gun control material in gun-control articles so hard that it crossed into battleground conduct and resulted in their being topic banned. NOW, we've got a "new" editor (who is obviously not new) who made their "first" edit in December, showing up to push the same material again - and having never before contributed to a gun-control article? Nobody else smells a sock? So if you don't like me, fine, but the odds of a "new" editor making his "first" gun-control edits to the Nazi gun control article seems pretty suspicious. But everyone seems to be willing, maybe even eager, for that kind of disruption again? Not me, as I wrote on that talk page earlier today.[50] Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And now has just done this, which removes a website apparently at least in part because it breaches WP:ELREG, which it doesn't seem to do as I've just been able to access the news stories on its front page without registering. I've no opinion regarding linkfarms and adverts as pretty much everything in that section would probably qualify on those grounds but, well, this is not looking good. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually got a thank-you from another editor for that edit. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
All that means is there is another contributor out there who doesn't understand ELREG or didn't check the website. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Way to AGF, Sitush. Mudwater agreed with the edit,[51] and he is a pretty good editor. Please don't bait me, {{redact}}. And please don't make my edits out to be things that they are not. You aren't a lone authority on Wikipedia, even though you usually present yourself as such. Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I JethroBT, Mike V: FYI, I have read all of the above. I have in the past tried to respond to every editor who comments about me in these piling-on kinds of discussions, but it wears me out. As two admin whom I respect, I will answer your questions, if you have any. Also, I hope you will read Scalhotrod's comments keeping in mind our past and that we were BOTH topic-banned from gun-control for six months. I don't want to respond in detail to his comments, but there is another side to every story, and, again, if you have questions, I will answer them.

FWIW: I am making a good faith effort to improve the article under dispute, or at least to keep it from going backward. If there is an added urgency to my edits the last couple of days, it is because A) I have a broken arm and have less patience than usual, and B) This is a Nazi-gun-control dispute, which, as you know, caused a helluva lot of problems just one year ago. As for the SPI/SPIs, I have sought advice from Mike, and I'm making up my mind about what to do. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • STRONG SUPPORT its absolutely amazing that after all her shenanigans lightbreather is still allowed to edit, I find it totally unbelievable. 'less patience than usual' that's an understatement of the year or meybe an overstatement of your usual level of patience - lightbreather you're as completely out of control as always and i cantr believe to still see you editing wow! (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You are currently blocked and this was your first edit. Hajme 11:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I wasn't going to comment here because I thought LB was improving. I now feel that assessment was wrong. In order to win a minor RSN discussion related to gun issues she reached out to the publishers of a media company and involved them in the RSN discussion, an act that resulted in the change of the corporate disclaimer designed to make the source appear more reliable. That is way over the top. When editors start manipulating outside publishers to win minor arguments at Wikipedia something has gone wrong in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a heckuva accusation. No link to the RSN in question? Here it is: Walter Hickey / Business Insider. I don't see anyone there accusing me of that - not even you (until today)! Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Did you even catch the difference between the URL for the "disclaimer" that you shared and the legit disclaimer? Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose - Granted, LB and I are wikifriends, but rules are rules, and I have no qualms in agreeing on a correct course of action for people that do not respect the process on WP. That being said, the "plaintiff" here has not provided enough information or justification, in my opinion, for this measure of punishment. To be perfectly honest, I think it's no coincidence we have editors here with pitchforks in hand that have had disagreements with LB in the past. Not to mention the likelihood that they, themselves, have been guilty or accused of a 3r, or tendentious editing, at some point, possibly by LB. Darknipples (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I JethroBT or Mike V: Could you close this thing? I'd like to take it off my watch list. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Procedurally, I believe that they can't - precisely because you have pinged them, they become involved by default. We don't get to pick and choose admins to close cases against us. I would oppose their actions if either of them came and closed this now; everyone has to wait their turn for an uninvolved admin to do it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, Lightbreather is difficult to deal with and agenda driven with respect to firearms. WeldNeck (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose (uninvolved non admin) I have read through this and see nothing that merits an indef topic ban. What I see is a content dispute, and some problematic actions. But nothing that rises to the level of the requested action. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural Oppose action here on grounds that disruptive editing of a topic subject to discretionary sanctions can be better dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lightbreather has been requested to look at Lightbreather's conduct. I propose that this section be closed. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Could someone remind Catflap what an "IBAN" means?[edit]

Two weeks ago Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I became subject to a mutual IBAN.

During that two weeks, I have again become involved in a dispute on the Kenji Miyazawa article that initially involved him, but now involves me having unilaterally added a sentence to the lede and trying to self-revert. I added the sentence as a compromise with two other users, not Catflap, because at the time the dispute had been muddied and the users who agreed the sentence didn't belong in the article were less active than those who disagreed (that situation changed).

A few hours ago Catflap shows up again suddenly and comments on the dispute, saying he "waited quite a while" to comment (indicating that he was aware of my involvement in the dispute, and didn't just happen across the RFC that started only 48 hours earlier) and repeating the same lies ("His affiliation with Kokuchūkai is the only known with Nichiren Buddbism") and half-truths ("[for some reason on English Wikipedia we can't call him a nationalist but it is] an established fact ... he was a member Kokuc