# Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

## Useitorloseit unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Useitorloseit

This user requests a WP:OFFER unblock:

I'm requesting the standard offer. It says to contact willing admins by e-mail/IRC but I can't find a list of the willing admins nor anyone's e-mails, so I'm just posting this. I have stayed away for over 6 months, and while I am not the world's most frequent Wikipedia contributor (I am not an expert on a lot of things), I believe I have made helpful contributions and can make more, and I'd like to move past the drama that took up all my time/attention before. 129.174.252.6 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What went wrong: I made a textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. 1000% guilty there. After that point (mid-February 2014), I think I was a lot better at keeping to the rules, but by then there were understandably very few people who had the time/inclination to bother with me. One person who did, retired admin SGGH, noted the before/after split by saying my earlier behavior was "not particularly good" but later I had been "appropriate and diplomatic." But arguing about changing consensus for a contentious edit that is not that important was not going to convince many other editors, for obvious reasons. Going forward, to avoid a repeat of the situation I would: follow the rules very closely and ask if I was uncertain about the proper etiquette; work collaboratively and if faced with contentious editors, use the dispute resolution process and let the chips fall where they may; understand that not every edit is worth a huge amount of time fighting over; and remember that there's no time limit on improving an article so some things take time and that's fine. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts. Max Semenik (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know what the sanctions mentioned in the block log were, and where we can see any discussion that may have resulting in your final block. Chillum 22:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Assuming that the IP 129.174.252.6 is assigned to Useitorloseit, the claim that they have stayed away for 6 months may be a tad premature([3]). However, the edit done under that IP address ([4]) was not disruptive and appears to be a good edit. That being said, I weakly Support the user's petition for unblock. User has owned up to their past mistakes and I believe that the user has demonstrated that they understand why they were blocked in the first place. In addition, editor has promised to strive towards following Wikipedia's editing guidelines and to follow WP:DR in the future. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Stabila711, the April usage of this IP address is irrelevant: it's assigned to George Mason University. It's highly likely that these edits were made by other people, especially if it's a dorm address. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well then, let my comment be stricken. Thank you for clearing that up Nyttend. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for striking it. I found my on-campus IP addresses changing almost daily when I was in graduate school, so I know how unlikely it is to get an address you had months ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• User clearly acknowledges what was wrong before and what will be different this time if they're given a second chance. Yeah I'd have no problem accepting this request per the standard offer, WP:AGF and WP:ROPE. Swarm 05:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OFFER. 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, all the right noises being made here. Worth giving them another chance. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose, He was reblocked in august for abusing alternative accounts so i dont think he should be unblocked
• That wasn't a reblock. That was a change in settings done so the user can edit his own talk page to request WP:OFFER. The last time he was actually blocked was in July of 2014. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Lankiveil, WP:OFFER and WP:ROPE Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The worst that happens is that we end up coming back here in a few days. Second chances are cheap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. All water under the bridge - give him another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

## Appeal against Topic ban

With a sense of disappointment and most humbly i wish to appeal against a topic ban enforced against me at the article Bhumihar, here. I must admit that i could see the ban coming for some time, or may be some harsher sanction, given an administrator's continued displeasure , expressed at all times, at any suggestions made at the talk page Talk:Bhumihar and some previous unsuccessful effort of his to get me sanctioned for similar reasons at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CIR_at_Bhumihar. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The eagerness to ban me could be gauged from the fact that the last edit i made at the talk page Bhumihar was partially accepted , although grudgingly. The other part of the edit , which was rejected and is the apparent reason of my ban (apart from some perceived POV pushing) consisted in my removing a vague reference made in the article sourced from a book by Jeffery Witsoe (citation no 16 ). The reference in question commented upon the official categorization of the Bhumihar caste as Shudras by some "earlier British colonial censuses" conducted in India (Earlier here implies - prior to 1889 A.D.). The colonial census in British India is a well documented , systematic, annalized historic record which can be easily accessed and is not so inaccessible so as to be left to speculation and guesses. The administrator instead of appreciating the records made some unrealistic speculations as to the date of the census without ever giving the catual date or the exact census in question.

The edit and removal act i did at the article was at least 4-5 days after i requested all editors to clarify the vagueness of the reference in that it neither gives the date of the census it refers to , nor it's number nor anything about it that could make it identify which exact census it was referring to.

The reference to categorisation of Bhumihars as Shudras is wholly incorrect and unfounded as they were never categorised as Shudras. Many people had pointed out the same thing on the Bhumihar talk page earlier than i, but none was replied to.

The same administrator has dismissed authoritative sources such as James Prinsep as every Tom , Dick and Harry unworthy of being quoted and didnot even bother to reply to my suggestions insofar as i did not edit the article.

That i did not edit the article after the warning and yet the ban.

That i should be 'judged' for my last edit which was partially accepted and is worthy of full explanation and eventual acceptance should anybody bother to verify.

I call upon all the reviewers in supplication if any to afford me a just hearing.

rahila 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talkcontribs)

Note: The above may be a little confusing, but I've followed this user somewhat, and so I know that by the references to an/the administrator they mean User:Sitush. Chrishitch, Sitush is not an admin, just an editor like you, and he didn't topic ban you. Abecedare did. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
What Bishonen said. Some relevant links for reviewers:
If there are any questions, feel free to ask. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Acknowledging the ping from Bish. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

They strive to see a pattern in my editing (disruptive) with the intent to push a POV but what they can't see is the simple fact that each one of the suggestions i made on the talk page (yes precisely the talk page) were different from the other.

I raised some very relevant issues , few of which were addressed very reluctantly and after repeated pointers at my incompetence ,tendentiousness ,disruption and the rest.

They say it's been a long circular effort on my part to push my POV. Well, there was a series of efforts ,linear in shape and undefined in dimensions with many marked by article improvements and marred by warnings and complaints which was as is solely aimed at pointing out the flaws in the sources and vagueness in the content.


If anybody wishes to research a bit in order to help the article , go through the fallacies i have pointed out; because i follow the errors , not any patterns -neither circular nor rectangular.

User:Chrishitch rahila 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you having problems, signing your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban. There are competence issues here, exemplified by the inability to learn how to sign a post, despite attempts to educate. The request for overturn is phrased in such a strange manner that it does not give confidence in the opening party's ability to contribute constructively. DrKiernan (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

May i hope there could be issues more important than the One about my signature ? The particular wiki article is spreading lies and whosoever points at it is met with a stern warning not to indulge and is accused of being a POV pusher. The new editors are scoffed at and reminded about their incompetence subsequently. I don't deny i am taking time to get used to wiki methodology and technicalities to say the least . However , i am very sorry to say that the other editors seem so much more concerned about my inability to contribute Constructively ( i don't know if pointing out the specific misinformation or lies in the article, albeit with trusted sources qualifies to be called so) that none appears to have had the time to read the talk page or even spare a few minutes to get into the details of the article.

Is anybody interested in going into the details of the ' dispute ' ? Or is my incompetence the biggest issue facing the article Bhumihar on wiki ? Can anybody spare some time and efforts to check the veracity of article ? rahila 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ruse (book)

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ruse (book)? The MfD template says, "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." I would like to move the page to mainspace, but the MfD notice says to wait for a close first. Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can move it anywhere until the MfD has been closed as "Keep" or "No consensus". And if it's closed as "Delete" there won't be anything to move. BMK (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I am asking for a close instead of moving it. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, an admin should close it on the basis of whatever the consensus is, not because you want to move it, so that's pretty irrelevant. Why is it so darn important that it be closed right now? Are we on deadline or something? BMK (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been open for 17 days, I don't see the harm in asking for a close. Jenks24 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. BMK (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

## Copyright cleanup help

At articles for creation we have a category of submissions declined as copyright violations. Many should have been deleted under G12 but were instead simply declined and retained. Many of those that were not proper G12 candidates should have been sent for copyright investigation or the violating material removed and the history assigned for RevDeletion using {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Regardless, it is a bad idea that we have a category that amasses an index of copyright violating drafts with the copyvios retained in most of their page histories. Anyway, I have spent the past few days cleaning out the category in various ways, and created a new template function and category for the CV cleaned drafts. The CV declined category had 657 entries when I started and I have it down to just 232 left.

If everyone reading this will do just five, we can clean out the majority in no time. Here's my suggested procedure, if anyone is willing to help:

1. Go to the category and choose five (maybe use the third letter from your last name or something like that to select what letter in the category to take from, so randomness will avoid duplication of efforts);
2. The AfC reviewer's copyvio decline will state what page they found text copied from (in some you will have to click edit to see the url);
3. Compare the draft against the page flagged by the AfC reviewer and delete copied text. Then, as is often the case, the balance of the text will also be a copyvio, but from one or more other sites. Take a few small but unique snippets of the remaining text and throw into Google in quotes. It's fairly fast if you delete and save as you go. See the history here for an example;
4. Delete under G12 if appropriate (no non-infringing revision to revert to and substantially all is a copyvio);
5. If G12 is not appropriate, Revdelete the history to hide the infringing content;
6. Change the decline parameter on the page from cv to cv-cleaned – that is, the existing decline template will appear in edit mode as (parameter you will be changing in underlined red):

{{AFC submission|d|cv|URL|u=username|ns=118|decliner=Username|declinets=some numbers|ts=some numbers}}

to (change in underlined green):

{{AFC submission|d|cv-cleaned|URL|u=username|ns=118|decliner=Username|declinets=some numbers|ts=some numbers}}

7. Go to the talk page and add {{subst:Cclean|url=URL(s) copied from; just place a space between URLs if more than one}} (note template automatically signs for you).
That's it. For each admin that does not help, God will kill a kitten. Please think of the kittens.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I did some! It's not hard. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

## Articles Utigurs/Kutrigurs vandalization

Hello,

Since 28.8.2015 the user 78.159.147.70 is vandalizing the articles "Utigurs" and "Kutrigurs" with his edits of the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utigurs&oldid=678429983

He/she is constantly adding a statement to the articles which:

1. is not supported from the cited sources - in the cited books there is no such conclusion on the referred pages, it is completely imaginary thinking

2. it is off the main topic, the articles are for particular Bulgar tribes (Utigurs and Kutrigurs), not for the Bulgars as a whole

3. it is copy-pasted from the article Dulo/Origin - the last sentence

4. the statement is illogical - by what logic " claiming Attilid descend" should means that the Bulgars were Turks? Probably the guy who wrote this sentence was not very sober. (As if I claim Habsburgs' descend should this mean that I am from Spain? - no logic here)

5. It contains a blatant grammar/spelling mistake.

Thank you 93.123.105.178 (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

## Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talkedits) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talkedits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

## Business picking up at WP:COIN

This is a heads-up, not a request for admin action at this time.

COI editing is picking up over at WP:COIN. The latest generation of COI editors mostly follow Wikipedia rules. They disclose their COI, they don't edit war, they add references, and they write well. The end result is heavily promotional. Writing by COI editors is not from a neutral point of view, and presents WP:NPOV problems. Such articles contain only positives for the article subject; negative info is not mentioned. Advertising-like language is used. (My current favorite: “Our design is an integration of volumes that flow into each other and, following a coherent formal language, create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble.” - article about a proposed condo for sale in NYC.) Subjects of marginal notability are pumped up with weak references to give the subject a Wikipedia presence.

All these problems can be dealt with within Wikipedia policies. It's a lot of work. Balancing an article written by a PR firm requires searching for references and writing substantial amounts of text, and may require subject matter expertise. It's not a quick "delete" or "block" action. Toning down promotional language per WP:PEACOCK is quite possible but time-consuming. Dealing with paid editors is a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Deleting a promotional article where notability is marginal means a full AfD, which requires the attention of many editors, especially when the COI editors argue strongly against deletion. For uninteresting articles, getting enough votes to close the AfD may take weeks.

We also seem to be developing an ecosystem where PR firms use a pool of paid editors recruited on freelancing sites, so that no one editor is associated with many articles. (Many ads for such editors are showing up on freelancing sites).[5][6][7] There are people advertising as their portfolio the actual Wikipedia articles they edited for pay.[8].) This is probably sock/meat puppeting as Wikipedia usually defines the term, but it's hard to detect and deal with. This is a growing problem. See the last few weeks of WP:COIN. Somehow we need to get a handle on that. Suggestions?

It was easier when the paid editors were incompetent. Their actions were blatant and obvious. Eventually, they'd be blocked for disruptive editing or sock puppeting. The new generation of COI editors present new problems. We have no way to block a PR agency and all its minions. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that this pulls people off quality article writing to instead having to clean up the COI editor's mess, in order to get it to Wikipedia standards, so we are essentially working for the PR firm, for free, instead of on core articles. Allowing COI editors to edit if they disclose is better than trying to disallow it and forcing it into the shadows, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that WP:CORP has the bar too low for many of these, which get just enough mentions on marginal sources to slide by. The only way to deal with it is to change GPG/CORP to a higher standard for inclusion, from what I can see. Then we AFD the fluff off the site. Changing GNG (and by extension WP:CORP) in regards to corporations would require an RFC and would be a fairly large undertaking with plenty of contention. Personally, I think we have the standard for WP:N too low as it is. Yes, we are digital and there is no risk of running out of space, but the manpower to police every song, every minor band, every minor company is huge and takes away from our core responsibility. The entire encyclopedia suffers due to all this marginal baggage. Dennis Brown - 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dennis. Since policing is becoming impossible, raising the notability bar will help. Miniapolis 20:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Darn! I was just looking for a NYC condo that is an integration of volumes that flow into each other that follows a coherent formal language to create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble. The place I am living in now has a really incoherent formal language and no overall ensemble sensibility at all.
Seriously, though, other than what we are already doing (COIN, encouraging the good guy paid editors who create encyclopedic and non-promotional articles) there is another method that Wikipedia has not tried. Now I am just throwing this out as an idea, not a polished proposal, but what if the WMF used a tiny percentage of the millions it has in the bank to run some sting operations and get some lawyerly cease-and-desist action going? We could pretend to be a customer, contract for a page that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, study how they respond to our current anti-POV efforts, then sue the bastards. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
We might not need to change policy, just interpret it more strictly. WP:CORP, WP:PRODUCT, WP:GEO (which covers buildings) and WP:BIO set out tougher notability criteria than Wikipedia generally enforces. WP:CORP discusses whether all NYSE-listed companies are notable, and says even some giant companies might not be. WP:PRODUCT discourages product articles separate from company articles unless the product is really well known, as with Diet Pepsi. We could take the position that, in the presence of promotional/COI editing, Wikipedia's existing rules should be strictly enforced. We need to think this through, to keep it from being used as a bludgeon. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. A major problem is that people take a way-too-loose interpretation of policy in many cases. Nominate an article for deletion because it's gotten nothing but flash-in-the-pan news coverage, and all the keepers claim that they're secondary sources because they're not affiliated with the company. Close a different deletion discussion as "delete", ignoring the keepers because they make the same argument as in the first discussion, and you get hauled to DRV and shouted down by the Randies who call you an idiot and idiosyncratic when you attempt to explain slowly and carefully (using academic sources) that their precious newspaper articles about the subject's latest activities are primary and unable to demonstrate long-term significance. We need to begin more systematically ignoring "keep" votes at AFD from people who haven't a clue about the actual meaning of the terms they throw around. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• It is entirely within expectations that as WP becomes the major place people go for information, every commercial and noncommercial organization in the world will want a page here. We have various mechanisms to deal with the undeclared paid editors, but we will never eliminate them as long as we maintain that the principle of anonymity is more important than anything else. For declared paid editors, we need to deal with the articles, not the editors. I have three suggestions, which would help individually, but would help best in combination:,
One This requires no policy or guideline change, just a change in our attitude: At afd, accept the argument that Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion.
Two Increase the notability requirements for organizations, particularly new organizations. That's not where all the problem is, but its the key area at present. The problem is how to do it fairly across all organizations. I like a previous suggestion, I think by Kudpung, that the presumption for a new organization is that it is not notable. This would be a change in the WP:Deletion policy or in the guideline WP:ORG.
Three accomplish the same effect by a change in the guideline for WP:ORG or WP:RS that Sources primarily giving information about the motivation for founding a company and its initial financing are not reliable for notability on the basis that they are inevitably PR or inspired by it. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I concur entirely with everyone here. However, the major problem that everyone is missing is that we only have one firewall against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. It's called NPP and it's the most important single operation on Wikipedia; anything that slips through, 'patrolled' and untagged, is safely and securely in Wikipedia for ever. The total paradox is that unlike Rollback, PC Reviewer, or the AfC that persistently creates more talk than action, NPP requires absolutely no prior experience and no demonstration of maturity or clue whatsoever to check 1,000 pages a day, and the New Pages Feed & Curation Toolbar which I/we fought tooth and nail to get the Foundation to build for us is only as good as the people who use it.
In order to seriously address the issue of professional spammers, we would have to start by significantly racking up the criteria for AUTOCONFIRMED, insisting that all non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs create their articles through the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard in the non-indexed Draft space, merge AfC to NPP (we already have consensus for that), add a couple more boxes to tick in the Curation Toolbar, and merge Rollback and PC Reviewer together with NPPer into a user right with a suitably high threshold of competence. What's left of AfC which is basically a minor project, could be merged to WP:ARS.
It still wouldn't completely solve the problem of spammers who apply for and get those rights in order to patrol and pass their own articles (it happens more often than one would care to believe) but it would be a major step in the right direction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
DGG's proposal, "Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion," sounds like a good start. That would presumably apply to AfD, deletion review, and proposed deletion, and would make it much easier to remove promotional material. How can we make that formal policy?
We might also want to reconsider who can remove a PROD. Right now, WP:PROD policy says "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag". That's an old policy, and predates newer restrictions on article creation. This forces many promotional articles to AfD, which takes a lot of editor time. Many such AfDs fizzle out, simply because few editors spend time on the boring process of voting on AfDs for uninteresting articles. Perhaps PROD removal should require the same privileges as those required to create an article without going through Articles for Creation. Also, at present you can remove a PROD on an article you created. Is that a good thing? This requires a bit more thought. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
And who tags articles for PROD, BLPPROD, CSD, and AfD? The NPPrs. Some of them (far too few) do an excellent job, but far too many of them don't fully understand what they are doing and haven't read WP:NPP or WP:DELETION before starting to use the Curation tool as a MORPG. If I spend an hour a day at NPP, I find myself spending more time educating the patrollers and correcting their tags than actually patrolling the new articles myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Pinging User:CorporateM who I suspect may have some valuable insight on this. 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
DGG and I are on the same page about promotion or misrepresentation of the total body of literature being a factor at AfD. This guide is useful for identifying promotion or coatrack in org pages and already discourages separate articles for companies and products under WP:ORGVANITY. Most promotion is pretty obvious if you know what to look for. Axe dedicated Awards sections, remove promotional quotes lifted from the source, remove primary sources, remove off-topic information about executives, and question articles that contain no negative material at all. If the article is say B class, it is better than what most volunteers write and marginal bias is tolerable. However, I'd say about 85% of requested edits fall under the categories mentioned above (adding awards, primary sources, etc.) and they can be politely rejected, pointed to WP:ORGAWARDS, etc.. Disclosure: I am a sponsored editor. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• In addition the article side points that many bring up (and I'm mostly in agreement with), there's also the user side stuff that Nagle brings up. As a first step I think we should start changing our SPI titles in such cases to the names of the PR companies itself, and not the first user. Take a couple of SPIs -- Smileverse and Kabir Vaghela. The former includes a bunch of freelancers who have been working together for multiple PR firms but typically coordinated under the Bangalorean name, while in the latter it is from "EveryMedia Technologies" and the sock farm is plain ridiculous and they've covered everything from Hyundai to Hindi films. Getting the firm names provides COIN patrollers easier identification marks and also a list of clients is more easily accessible to do the spot checking here. At the end of the day this is wasting the time of numerous good-faith editors because these sockfarms are relentless. In less than a week I've had to block a dozen socks for just one article, most of them off SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps not entirely related, but there is also an issue with inaction. Regularly I see or I nominate article for deletion that are promotional or plain advertising but not entirely scream that of the roofs. Unfortunately, those article are hard to deal with. Quite often there will be comments like "this can be solved through normal editing". Comments that are blurted out and that nobody, not even the commentator, will act upon. And the article is kept afterwards. This inaction is also allowing a lot of advertising in Wikipedia... 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
When we know the PR firm, that's reasonable enough. It's been done before; look up "Rockwick" in the AN/I archives. But often, we don't know, or are not sure. There's also may be a WP:OUTING issue. The inaction problem is a big problem with AfDs. AfDs on promotional take a lot of editor time, and often close as "no consensus" due to lack of interest. There, I'd suggest "Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion," and "You cannot delete a PROD on an article you created" as policies. This would make it easier to delete promotional articles via PROD, which is mostly automated. I can't speak to the Articles for Creation end of the process; I mostly work WP:COIN, and once something gets there, it's already been created. John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

## Coat of Many Colours

[Cross-posting in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Noticeboard_and_cross-posting.]

Coat of Many Colours (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the English Wikipedia. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting: Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, Yunshui

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Coat of Many Colours

## Motion: Longevity

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

 Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Longevity

## Whoops

Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 31 August 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 inadvertently made an edit without logging in at Shooting of Michael Brown, then made a dummy edit saying the edit was mine. For the edit where I inadvertently didn't log in, could someone remove my IP address from the history? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 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.

## Motion: Activity

[Cross-posting in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Noticeboard_and_cross-posting.]

In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of:

and the oversight permissions of:

are removed. The committee thanks them for their many years of service. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Thryduulf

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Activity

## Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

 Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History

## Blanking stale warnings from IP talk pages

Seeing stale warnings for edits they didn't make is confusing to IP users. I would like to use AutoWikiBrowser to blank the warnings from any IP talk pages with no warnings from 2014 or 2015. Notices regarding the identity off the users' ISPs would be preserved. I am posting here before starting this task to ensure that it has consensus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to read the related essay, WP:OLDIP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Since about 2010, I have been replacing the content of stale IP pages with an {{OW}} tag. This removes harsh and accusatory language, and leaves a minimal footprint and a clear message, while preserving (and pointing to) the edit history of the page for further information. This was actually approved as a bot task in a Village Pump discussion, but it has not been undertaken. bd2412 T 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EllisBot is started. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And withdrawn, since hundreds of exclusion rules are apparently required if this task were to be run in fully automatic mode. If I proceed using AWB, I will be careful to avoid the removal of open proxy, sockpuppet, and active block notices. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I frankly don't see why a bot can't be programmed to follow those rules. Surely we can generate a list of IP talk pages that meet the criteria for templating (long unused, long unblocked) and have a bot run through that list. bd2412 T 17:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this going to remove Shared IP address templates? That would not be a good thing. Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm leaving the Shared IP address templates, if any, intact. While there's no doubt that in principle a bot could be written for this task, I'm not the one to write it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

## Should we allow IPs and socks to file requests for arbitration enforcement?

There is broad support for Bishonen's proposal. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 9 September 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.

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement redirects to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, which is a low-traffic page. Putting this proposal there would hardly generate sufficient discussion, let alone a reasonable consensus, so here I am. A couple of WP:AE requests against Collect have been filed recently by IPs: 20 August and 23 August. (The second link is just a diff, sorry. Unfortunately I can't give the most helpful kind of link, to a section, since there's an absurd number of recent requests against Collect, all with the same headers.) People have complained in the discussions:

Neverthess, the requests have essentially been discussed in the normal way (then declined), which I believe is noticeboard creep and a waste of time. Of course there have also been earlier AE requests by IPs and new accounts — I think I blocked one of those for abuse of process myself once.

### Proposal

We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (=IPs and less than four days old socks, I'm sorry, I meant to say new users) filing AE requests. I propose that we don't allow it, and that any user in good standing be encouraged to remove such requests. People should use their main account to complain about others. If indeed that main account isn't blocked; if it is, they shouldn't be posting at all. To believe that a user who genuinely doesn't have an established account would know the background of arbcom sanctions, would find their way to WP:AE, and would comply with the requirements and templates there, is AGF run mad. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

• Support as proposer. I'll add that IMO, if a request is filed by an account that is gaming the autoconfirmation requirements, or is otherwise an obvious sock (on this particular board it's not really that hard to tell), it shouldn't be removed, but the AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
• Support While I suppose it is possible a new user would know enough about our proceses and how to find out if an editor is subject to AbrCom sanction it is so unlikely that any potential 'injustice' suffered by the 'new user' is far outweighed by the injustice of bad faith enforcement requests. The same can be said for IP editors although I have heard of, but never seen, a few long time editors who edit only as IPs. Those people have been around long enough to know that there are some things that IPs can not do. Again, the potential 'injustice' of not allowing IP reports is far outweighed by the actual injustice and potential harassment suffered by those who the anonymous report would be made. JbhTalk 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Additional comment. - Disagree with "...AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly" as per the recent AE ArbCom case this would be an Admin action and not easily reversed. If an out of process case is opened by an new user or IP it should be closed but that should not be a bar from an established editor filing an Enforcement request based on the same issue. Otherwise false false reports could be easily used to game the system. JbhTalk 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it absolutely shouldn't be a bar to an established editor filing an enforcement request based on the same issue. I didn't mean to suggest it should. Do you mean re-filing the same complaint would be a reversal of the admin action of declining it before, Jbhunley? I don't think so — it seems far-fetched to me. Certainly, if it was declined for the reason that the filer was not respectable, a refiling by a user in good standing wouldn't be a reversal of that decline. But, anyway, that was just a side comment of mine — not a part of my proposal. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen: thank you for clearing that up. My concern was really just how closing/dismissing a request would be effected by section 4.1.5.1 Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate) of the recent ArbCom AE case. I am not familiar enough with the 'usual and customary practices' at AE to know how things would actually pan out but I think any new procedures should explicitly address the matter. Rationally I would guess that a procedural dismissal would not be an 'administrative judgement call' so 4.1.5.1 would not apply but I can see disputants claiming otherwise. JbhTalk 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support only when it's obvious that the IP is acting in bad faith. IP users are users and some people don't want to register accounts. If they make a good faith complaint, that should be treated as such. If it's not, close and dismiss it as a bad faith filing and sanction anyone else who tries to hold it against those named in the filing. If someone else involved in the dispute wants to refile under their account, that would be acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I suggest a threshold of editing for at least 30 days and at least 100 edits before an IP can open an AE request, or something similar. Also, we shouldn't ignore the ubiquitous elephant in the room. ← If you don't know what that means, just ignore it. - MrX 13:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - although if an IP wants to comment or add evidence, I assume this would (and should) still be allowed. Regardless, if a registered user logs out just to file a request, that is the definition of evading scrutiny, thus shouldn't be allowed. As a safeguard, preventing all IPs is a reasonable step as the necessity of an unregistered editor needing to file doesn't exist...they can ask an admin to file or take action at ANI/AN. Dennis Brown - 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't pointless complains like the ones mentioned already covered by the AE rules? In that big red box at the top is the following line, "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." So wouldn't the vexatious complains qualify those requests to be rejected anyways? I have an issue with banning all IPs from filing with the Arbitration Committee. Some of them have been around a while, edit from static IPs, and are useful contributors. Should they not have the same avenues that registered editors have? Perhaps we should just change the "may" in that warning to "will" and be done with it. If you make a frivolous complain you will be blocked. But banning all IPs from using a part of the dispute resolution process seems a little harsh. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• I believe the idea here is to keep the targets of anonymous complaints from having to answer them. If we say no new/IP editors can file complaints it short circuits the kind of crap Collect just had to go through because the presumption will be that anonymous complaints are not valid rather than the target being required to spend time and effort showing the complaint to be vexatious. The very few static IP contributors can add a note to their filing linking to their contribs. We can then use the oft miscited WP:IAR for what it was meant for - to keep big picture rules from hurting the encyclopedia - and let the request continue as an exception. JbhTalk 14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would support contribution restrictions much more than a blanket ban on all IPs. I like how the autoconfirmed restrictions are set up. IP exempt users on a TOR network have to have 90 days and 100 edits before they are autoconfirmed. Perhaps those same restrictions can be used for AE? --Stabila711 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• There are a lot of things we could do by adding something like a 'voting rights' group or raising the bar for 'autoconfirmed' that would address more issues than just this. The problem is that it still depends on some static identifier (Read UserName) to grant/log those privilages to. IPs change - sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly and in some cases several people are editing from a single IP at the same time - so there is no way to track an editor without an account through IP changes so there is no way for them to build trust. JbhTalk 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as it would restrict filiers who are avoiding scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly - IP editors are WP:HUMANs and not second-class users. We only restrict IP access or editing abilities on a page when there are clear patterns of abuse, and only then temporarily unless there's years of abuse. Two filings in a week is not an "absurd number" and does not warrant such extreme restrictions. Frivolous filings should be closed as such, not because of the account status of the user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support If an IP or user is truly new to Wikipedia then they just do not know enough to make a valid case. If they somehow know enough about Wikipedia to make a valid case then it is likely they are hiding their identity through or evading a block through sock puppetry. Chillum 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support to prevent abuse of process and gaming the system by those who would avoid scrutiny.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - If a new user wants to file an AE, but are incapable of doing so themselves, they can always contact on the AE enforcers on their user talk pages, or, for that matter, pretty much anyone else, have that other individual look over the request for merit or lack of same, and, if they see fit, have the complaint taken care of in that way. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's the scrutiny aspect for me. AE is a heavy hammer. It shouldn't descend by anonymous denunciation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support While it should be obvious if an IP is acting in good faith, the examples Bishonen has provided indicate that some threshold is needed so that this process isn't misused to hound others via a throwaway account or IP.--MONGO 16:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Being able to edit as an IP can't be compared to being able to bring something to AE. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support While one might dream up a plausible counterexample it is so rare that it isn't worth worrying about. In addition, a legitimate counterexample will know how to find ways to arrange for a filing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support No brainer. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support The only concern is that we may stop someone who has a real problem from solving it. But, getting an account is trivial or waiting four days, and if thats all that stands in the way, its a no brainer. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment First, this same issue came up months ago with Gamergate controversy editors so it's not a situation limited to the current complaints. Secondly, reading the instructions for the page, it appears as though the procedures have been instituted and changed by the Arbitration Committee and I'm not sure a proposal on AN can be used to revise the filing procedures. Finally, I suggested that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement not to be redirected and to have its own talk page a few months ago but since I was just a AC clerk, I had no authority to make this change. But I think AE warrants having its own talk page to discuss issues that emerge in enforcing arbitration decisions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Regardless of the red tape needed to change procedure I find that arbcom is always open to the input of the consensus of the community. This discussion has value even if ANI does not have the authority to make this change(I have no idea if this is the case) because it will inform arbcom of the community's desire. Chillum 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• If this discussion results in consensus for the proposal, it should IMO be added to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header as well as to the instructions in the editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement). I know you're the arbcom Kremlinologist here, Liz; could you clarify where you see an implication that community consensus wouldn't be sufficient authority to modify the AE instructions? It's not strictly an arbitration page, as far as I'm concerned, and arbs rarely have any input into the business conducted there. A look at the history tab of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (=the AE page instructions) shows editing it isn't restricted to arbs and clerks, the way some arbitration pages are. It would be civil to ask the committee first, no doubt, since this would be a big change and no mere copyedit, and maybe they'd like to pass a motion or something. Though, appearances sometimes to the contrary, I've always assumed they're no fonder of busywork than the rest of us. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
• P.S, speaking of the devil, an arbitrator can be seen supporting the proposal in this section, though I presume not as arbitrator. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
I've unredirected Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and left a note there, and the arb committee has been notified of this discussion via their email list. NE Ent 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
And it turns out it takes an Act of Committee to change to ... see notice below. NE Ent 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Just pointing out the obvious, which should have occurred to even you: AE is not a "Wikipedia site", that would be Commons, Meta, Wikiquotes, another language's Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, stuff like that. AE is an area of this Wikipedia site, which IPs normally have access to unless the community or admins decide that IP editors should be barred, as happens everytime an article is semi-protected. Saying that IPs "cannot use" en.wiki because they can't access a specific part of it is exactly the equivalent of saying that a non-admin "cannot use" en.wiki because certain pages are fully protected. It's a bogus argument, as the suggested change does not violate the quoted WMF policy.BMK (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• You've also conveniently neglected to quote the end of the sentence "...except under rare circumstances." Clicking on the link provided explains what "rare circumstances" means:

I thought I never needed an account to read or contribute! Under what circumstances would I need to register to read or contribute?

You never need an account to read a public Wikimedia Site. And in most cases, you don't need an account to contribute to a Wikimedia Site. However, there are a few rare instances where you will need to register an account if you want to contribute. A local community of editors or contributors (for example, the English Wikipedia community or the Malay Wiktionary community) or the Wikimedia Foundation itself may decide to place temporary or permanent restrictions on what you can change. For example, a specific page may be temporarily restricted from editing to allow only experienced or administrative users because of vandalism or copyright concerns. You may also not upload content such as images or videos without being logged in because we need to verify that proper permissions have been obtained from the copyright holder (if the media is not already in the public domain) in order to post the content.

So, there is no WMF policy restriction to this proposal. BMK (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support with suggested amendment IPs should be allowed to report at AE if they're involved in the situation related to the request and have made substantial edits in the topic area. IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside AE on the other hand... Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside are probably on a dynamic address anyway. The existing scary pink box at the top of the page says "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions," which should be sufficient authorization for admins to deal with bogus IP complaints. On the other, what if an IP posts a totally righteous report after "the rule" goes into place? Are ya'll going to to ignore a AC violation because the reporter didn't have standing? NE Ent 02:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm very sorry to see that you've decided to return to your self-appointed position as contrarian and ombusdman-at-large, as it was rather nice when you had absented youtself from that role. BMK (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• In one of my more ridiculous moments, although, granted, given my history, it's hard to decide what goes higher and what lower on that list, I actually more or less presented the case of an individual who was the subject of an arbitration case because that individual chose not to do so herself, and added my material based on my e-mail exchanges with that person. I think it would always be possible to maybe add a comment, somewhere on the arb pages or in the box, to the effect of "if you find yourself unable to edit this page, there is a list of editors [here] who would be willing to act as intermediaries and post evidence they consider reasonable and appropriate for inclusion that is conveyed to them by others through e-mail, provided, of course, if there are individuals who would be willing to do so, and I guess I might count myself as one of them. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a good idea. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Assuming good faith is fine, but perpetual disruption from obviously tainted sources such as a throw-away account or IP proposing AE action is unhelpful. Knowing that an attack is being mounted on someone accused by an IP is corrosive for the community—if the accused needs to be taken to AE, someone in good standing will notice. IPs can't edit semiprotected pages and cannot vote in Arbcom elections, and the WMF don't care about arbitration so long as they don't have to do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users. I've made up my mind, and I feel IPs are still just human beings behind a keyboard, and have as much "propriety" as anyone else. i.e. none. Shame on an experienced user allowing such wooly thinking even close to AN. 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Pedro, that's a crudely misleading way of quoting a fragment of my sentence "We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (…) filing AE requests." Shame on you for pretending I've been putting the "propriety" of non-autoconfirmed users in question, whatever that might mean. You're a native speaker, I believe, so surely the syntax wasn't beyond you. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose. You do not have to have an account to edit. IPs are already abused by the regulars and the admins, now they can't complain about it either? 20:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless the IP's are shown to be socks or some banned editor evading their block, then the case should be allowed IP user or not. Outright dis-allowing IP's to post, just because they're IP's is straight up ABF (again, with the exception previously mentioned being the exceptions!) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, that is not the proposal. IPs are welcome to post at AE—the proposal is to require that an AE request be started by a logged-in editor. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I read the proposal, and again, dis-allowing an IP to post just because they're IP's , anywhere on Wikipedia, even to open a case, except if they're socks or banned users is ABF KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support People who bring cases here should have something to lose if it is judged that the report is not in good faith. I'd restrict filing of cases to autoconfirmed users. Others can add their comments after the filing. Zerotalk 12:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Piling on, for the many good reasons given above. It beggars belief that good-faith IPs would even know about WP:AE, let alone know the proper procedure for filing there. In any case, they can easily create an account, or let other people know, who can assist them in this. IPs are of course human, nobody is preventing them from writing content, this will simply reduce drama. Kingsindian  13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed, for the reasons outlined here: [9]. There are, indeed, good faith editors who choose not to create accounts but have made useful and insightful comments at AE. I think there are about 3 of them. To my knowledge they've never initiated an AE thread. All the rest are people with accounts evading scrutiny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - IP's creating anonymous AE requests clearly has more negatives then positives. This is not only matter of IP user rights, it is also matter of rights of accused editors who are being dragged to AE. Most obvious reason for such anonymous requests is filing party fearing a potential WP:BOOMERANG action.--Staberinde (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The set of users who happen on one of the topics where an Arbitration remedy is in place, that would recognize a violation of the sanctions, that would know where to report said sanction, that were either newly registered accounts or IP editors with little edit history, that needed to file a new ArbEnforcement petition is so astronomically small compared to the overall set that I feel this rule is reasonable. I would seek one caviat that if the petitioning "editor" has a valid cause that we not close it because they didn't fill the Form 22-B cover in triplicate the right way. Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - IPs should have their editing priviledges on Wikipedia severely curtailed, not enhanced. Guy1890 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Because we really need to make these pesky IPs know they are second-class wikipedians. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Of course brand new users won't have a clue what AE is. Simple common sense should apply. Jusdafax 08:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

### Discussion: IPs and socks

I realise now that although I support this personally, I should have pointed out that at Arbitration Enforcement we pointed out that "Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action." As it is an extension of ArbCom, it seems to me that we are the only ones in the end who can revised the instructions. Doug Weller (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reason to expect that Arbcom would not assent to a consensus here, assuming that one will be reached? - MrX 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That was my thought when I voted. I expected it would take Arb to make the change, but if a large enough showing is made, you would hope that Arb would see where the consensus was, as as agents for masses, would make the change, or at least hold a public vote on it. If it doesn't pass an Arb vote, we should be able to see who supports it and who doesn't, just as they can see who does here. Dennis Brown - 00:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I would expect and hope. Doug Weller (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's an example of where an IP brought a successful case to AE (even though the IP was quickly blocked).[10] I know for a fact that both the editor sanctioned and the topic area are the target of an off-wiki campaign and the IP was clearly a banned or blocked editor still able to reach out to AE successfully. Doug Weller (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

### Amendement request

I've requested the committee give AE its own talk page. NE Ent 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In the extremely unlikely event that as an IP editor I should ever need to initiate a report at AE, I would expect to be able to so, unless the page was temporarily semi-protected due to ongoing vandalism, in which latter case I would hope to be able to submit a semi-protected edit request on the talk page as with any other semi-protected page. Presumably no confirmed editor would approve a frivolous talk page request. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 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.

## Example

There is absolutely zero reason why anyone who isn't autoconfirmed needs to edit User:Example or User talk:Example. The amount of vandalism and test posts from new users isn't large, but it is steady[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] and there is absolutely zero advantage to the encyclopedia to allowing it to happen at all, and the posts are highly visible because so many pages link to these two example pages. So before I go to the effort of posting an RfC, could we please just decide to indefinitely semi-protect the pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• User:Example is already semi-protected. As for the talk page, I don't see why not that can't be semi-protected as well. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Done. Semi-protecting the talk page seems eminently logical and uncontroversial. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Not sure about this. I would rather someone vandalized there than on an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
• What makes you think that a vandal is going to hit that one page and stop? "Whew, I'm glad I got that out of my system!" BMK (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, although if they're caught early a surprising number either stop after a warning or get blocked after 4-6 edits. If some of those are wasted on User:Example, there's that much less damage elsewhere. GoldenRing (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

## I need experienced editors to comment

Hi guys. Sorry for spamming this, but it's for a good cause. I would like to encourage editors to comment on my idea lab request here. Input would be greatly appreciated.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

## Sock abuse under protection

BOOMERANG
Sock has been put back in the drawer. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. How do you look at this abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biruitorul&diff=679140123&oldid=679006619 ?

The suspected sock master forced admin to defend him User_talk:Drmies#Good for a laugh, I guess

Is there any non-involved part to analyze this case?

--220.255.3.185 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look that suspicious to me. @Drmies: was not the only one to deny the investigation [22]. 00:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Biruitorul didn't force me to do anything. Your alternate IP/meat puppet/internet pal thought they knew better than the people running SPI. Go troll elsewhere. Thank you Orduin--but the next troll is going to say that I made you say this. Also, I just dropped off the \$20 at Western Union. Y'all, what does "confirmed proxy server" mean? Drmies (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that what is considered a 'confirmed proxy server' by whatismyipaddress.com is actually an open proxy, without more study. But I've filed this IP for checking at WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Where it was confirmed. Making sockpuppet reports using open proxies is never going to end well. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:41, 3 September 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.

## Reliable Source Question

PROCEDURAL CLOSE
Wrong venue; discussion moved to WP:RSN. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:24, 3 September 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.

Need some other admins' opinions on some confusion I am having regarding a reference and if it is a reliable source or not. On the WBCM-LP article, I was previously using the station's official Facebook page to cite their official launch date. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) removed it saying it wasn't reliable since it is a Facebook page. Understandable. Later Harrias (talk · contribs) that it could be used, per WP:SOCIALMEDIA since "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Harrias said while "it is still not considered reliable, but a special exception can be made for limited use of such references."

That's where the confusion for me lies. Can the source be used, once in the infobox and once in the text (citing the same thing) and still be be in line with all the various rules. I am considering taking this to GAN, so I kinda need to be certain. Thanks...NeutralhomerTalk • 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I notified both users mentioned of this discussion. Just for the record, I am not upset with either of these editors. Just contradictory information has me confused. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Why does this discussion need to involve administrators? Does anyone need to be blocked? Does any article need protection? Does any article need deletion? If the answer to these three questions is "no", then you have no reason to involve any administrators at all. --Jayron32 01:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Better to ask the people who are knowledgable on policies, rules, guidelines and such and those people are admins. Plus, it doesn't hurt to ask. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If that is all you wanted to do, WP:RSN exists for that purpose. This board is for issues that need to involve admins acting as admins, using their admin tools. The harm is this is the wrong venue, and isn't suited towards attracting the best responses. RSN is, and will do that for you. --Jayron32 02:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

## User:Kalakannija's derogatory comments

MOVED
moved to ANI--Jayron32 02:23, 3 September 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.

Kalakannija has made several personal attacks/disrespectful-comments over the past few months and has been warned adequately. Diffs:1, 2, 3, 4 (This is a serious vulgar attack against against the other party in discussion which states he/she should be a Norwegian slave instead being a Sri Lankan. After being warned multiple times he still continue to make personal attacks. Diff: 5. He recently broke my talk page with this edit to reply to a discussion (sparked due to this warning by me) that has been archived a long time ago. I had to revert him back and comment on his talk page instead. Initially I thought I could resolve this dispute by a talk page discussion, but I'm unable to, and I have no idea what I should do next. He also claimed that I should not participate in a discussion if my nationality is irrelevant to the topic, which is ridiculous. -- Chamith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried inviting uninvolved editors to mediate the dispute through one of the methods listed at WP:DR? Unless someone needs blocking or an article needs protecting or deleting, I'm not sure what admins have the power to do to help you, I agree that derogatory comments are verboten, and we should not tolerate it, but we need to separate the issues of "how to solve the dispute" versus "how to encourage users to behave civilly". Your post seems to indicate that the former problem is the major issue, and the latter problem is the symptom of not handling the first problem correctly. If there is a block needed, WP:ANI would actually be the proper venue. --Jayron32 02:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jayron32: The thing is, I'm not sure whether a dispute resolution might help as this is not a content dispute rather an issue related to personal attacks. I agree that my post made it look more like a content dispute. It's just I didn't want to be rude saying Kalakannija should be blocked outright. And I'm in no position to give orders either. What I wanted to suggest is that he/she should only be blocked if it seems necessary to admins. -- Chamith (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Like you said I'll move this whole thing to WP:ANI. Thank you. -- Chamith (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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

## User RHB100 and GPS article/topic

MOVED
This issue is resolved. User:RHB100 will no longer edit articles relating to GPS. bd2412 T 18:48, 11 September 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.

As per WP:CBAN, I'd like to respectfully suggest that RHB100 (talk · contribs) impose upon himself (or herself) an article ban on GPS and its talk page, and possible a topic ban on related articles. Several different users have tried to interact with him over the last couple of months years but he doesn't seem pleased and insists on controversial edits. It's detracting potential contributors to the article -- e.g., I'm about to unfollow that page. The situation brought by his 332 edits is vastly documented in Talk:Global Positioning System and many of its archives. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Pinging users who have edited Talk:GPS: .) Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have provided competent, honest, and objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page. In proposing that the section "Geometric interpretation" of the GPS article is a disaster and should be removed, I have discussed what is wrong with the section and why it should be removed without mentioning any editor. It is important to look at the article and judge it objectively without biasing the judgement in any way by who may have written and edited the material. This is what I have done. I have noticed there has been a systematic deterioration in the quality of some of the sections in the GPS article and the Geometric interpretation section is one of the worst. This criticism is desirable since it can lead to a better quality GPS article. I have pointed out in "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article that there are statements made attributed to a reference which are in no way supported by the reference. I have pointed out that there are misleading statements which are incompatible with good quality GPS references. The "Geometric interpretation" section of the GPS article is terrible and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place for this discussion. I think you want WP:AIN. Having said that, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that such a ban would be best for WP. I know I would engage more at the article and on its talk page if things were less hostile there. RHB100 agreed to stay away from the GPS article, and although he has toned it down a bit, his hostile attitude continues on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, criticism of the GPS article does not imply a hostile attitude. The criticisms I make of the GPS article on the talk page are in no way motivated by hostility. Your accusations of a hostile attitude are in no way justified. I criticize the Geometric interpretation sections of the GPS article because this section is bad. This section involves the use of a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point this out. This does not imply a hostile attitude. RHB100 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:CBAN says: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." Fgnievinski (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel forced to agree with User:Fgnievinski. As I discussed a few months ago in my post to WP:ANI/3RR, the situation has been uniformly frustrating for years now. User:RHB100 has an extremely narrow view of how the GPS article "should" be written, and primarily reinforces it by questioning the credentials and intelligence of his fellow editors. Additionally, he has shown very little interest in familiarizing himself with wikipedia policy or making any attempt to work with his fellow editors, insisting that they are not "licensed engineers", and has no regard for the uniform and consistent consensus against his narrow view. I have essentially stopped contributing to GPS, despite GPS being the main subject of my professional work, since it results in nothing but frustration and repetitive arguments over the same topic. siafu (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have engaged with other editors in debate after debate. I have the view that the GPS article should be written correctly and in accordance with good quality references. I have stated my own qualifications but I have never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors. My focus has been on the content and not on people. We should continue to remind ourselves what is wrong with the Wikipedia article since that is the first step toward improvement. RHB100 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors". Really. Just a couple examples: [23][24] siafu (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and this just in: [25] siafu (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I make no apologies for these statements, siafu. These are honest, objective, and true statements. There is nothing wrong with these statements. The section, Geometric Interpretation, in the GPS article involves using a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point out this misrepresentation. RHB100 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As you do not regret any of the offences below demonstrates your incivility and why your long-term violation of Wikipedia's conduct policy deserves a topic ban. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• "Well if you people say [...] then you do not have the level of competence characteristic of a licensed Professional Engineer." [26]
• "I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right" [27]
• "The fact that the equations in the Problem description are equations for spheres is certainly well known and should be obvious. Nevertheless, I have provided a detailed explanation of what should be obvious. Authors may not always point out that these equations are spheres but this is because it is obvious." [28]

What these people are calling hostility is valid and much needed criticism of the GPS article. I am not criticizing people, I am criticizing a part of the article which is wrong. We should never censor valid criticisms of the article. If you check the references I have given rather than the expressions of resentment of siafu, Fgnievinski, and Kendall-K1, you will see that my criticisms are valid. My attitude is based on improving the content of the GPS article. These other editors are just expressing resentment over my criticisms. We need free and open criticism of the article on the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that a situation can arise where one editor is right but is in the minority. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority as pointed out by de Tocqueville. This is the thing that we are experiencing in this discussion where these other editors are trying to censor me just because I make valid and correct criticisms. This problem should be fought against by making sure we have the talk page open for valid criticism. RHB100 (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the folllowing list of archived talk sections, dating back to 2010, speaks for itself:

and finally:

Nothing seems to have changed: persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS. Unless he gets his way, RHB100 does not back off, so I tend to avoid both the article and its talk page. - DVdm (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The example I looked at, from the list above, Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations, does not show this so-called persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS accusation that DVdm makes. I look at this and I see my remarks as quite reasonable. So DVdm own reference shows that I am engaging in rational and reasonable editing and that the above accusation of disruptive editing is false. RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with DVdm. He has accused me of doing personal research when I have merely stated the obvious. Some may have gotten a little contentious and the heated nature of the discussion may have resulted in some unflattering remarks. However, we should concentrate on what triggered the complaints. And that is my writing of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article.

Here is a copy of the "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" section from the GPS article talk page. This is what triggered the accusation of disruptive editing. This is what we should be concentrating on. Now tell me, what is disruptive in this post? Keep in mind that critical editing in no way implies hostile or disruptive editing. Some editors may be slow to see what is obvious to me. This post contains new information showing false use of a reference. Tell me what is disruptive about this post? RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Fgnievinski, I have investigated your accusation that I do not follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and I read the post below that I made on the talk page of the GPS article. I claim that I do follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines completely. A criticism of a section of the article and pointing out that the GPS article can be improved by removing the section is not a hostile edit nor a personal attack on anyone. I am using the talk page in exactly the manner in which the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say the talk page should be used, to discuss how to improve the article. RHB100 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't even follow Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Not to mention all the rest -- WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:MULTI, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, You make this trivial comment about this so-called not indenting. This shows just how pathetically trivial your complaints are. You fail to mention the dishonest use of a reference by some editor, possibly you, who refers to hyperboloids. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

### Geometric interpretation section is a disaster

The Geometric interpretation section is a disaster and should be removed. It would be more correctly titled if it were called the Geometric misinterpretation section. It looks like a forum for people to enter their favorite shape. All we need to have in the Navigation equations section is a statement of the equations to be solved as in the Problem description section and methods for solving these equations as in the Solution methods section. In the Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation, there is a statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is a completely misleading statement which is incompatible with the need for four or more spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the Problem description section.[1]

It is also stated in the paper, [2], that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias".

The Hyperboloids sub-section does not in any way enhance the understanding of GPS. The paper by Abel and Chaffee referenced does not even mention the word, hyperboloid, in any form.[2] The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.[1]

For gaining an understanding of GPS, the concept of four dimensional spherical cones contributes nothing but instead only adds confusion. You don't need to know anything about four dimensional spherical cones to understand GPS and you should not waste your time on this unrelated topic. RHB100 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) . .

"We have discussed this several times already. See Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)"
[Please note that the above line, although written by me on a different page, was inserted here at WP:AN by User:RHB100, not by me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)]

Well what I have said before is absolute truth and what I say now is absolute truth. Although I clearly understand the incorrect and misleading nature of this section, there are some who don't seem to understand. I am here presenting the great disregard for honesty and integrity which characterizes the writing of this section. No one has ever presented good arguments why this section should be retained. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degree from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. When you say, "We have discussed this", that is a very vague and ambiguous statement. There are several points that are made in what I have said above, you don't say whether you are talking about hyperboloids, three spheres, spherical cones or what. RHB100 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

1. ^ a b Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [1], 1991
2. ^ a b Abel, J.S. and Chaffee, J.W., "Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol:26, no:6, p:748-53, Sept. 1991.

### Discussion (User RHB100 and GPS article/topic)

This looks a lot like WP:SYN and WP:TRUTH. There is substantial evidence of behavioural issues. A topic ban seems likely. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you say a topic ban is likely. Based on what? I have done just what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the article, without a clear consensus on the talk page, as I have agreed to do. I have concentrated on making clear and objective statements on the talk page in order to show what is wrong with the GPS article. I make an objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page and you want to put in a topic ban for that. Look at the section "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the GPS talk page and tell me what is wrong with that. This is honest and objective and correct criticism of the GPS article. My writing of that section is what triggered the complaint. You tell me what is wrong with that. RHB100 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• In my exchanges with user RHB100 (s)he has often been rather insulting, not willing or able to actually discuss the matter on hand cooperatively and technically, and refusing to accept well sourced alternative views. −Woodstone (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodstone has consistently refused to engage in a reason based discussion. He has insisted on putting material on spherical cones which have nothing to do with GPS into the GPS article. He regards any disagreement with his views as insulting. He seems to be motivated by the desire to make the GPS article confusing. RHB100 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the reference (my emphasis):

P4P is the pseudo-ranging 4-point problem as it appears as the basic configuration of satellite positioning with pseudo-ranges as observables. In order to determine the ground receiver/satellite receiver (LEO networks) position from four positions of satellite transmitters given, a system of four nonlinear (algebraic) equations has to be solved. The solution point is the intersection of four spherical cones if the ground receiver/satellite receiver clock bias is implemented as an unknown.

No more comment necessary. −Woodstone (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well this is an obscure reference. The better quality references such as the Langley paper explain GPS clearly working with ordinary three dimensional spheres.[1] Since it is explained quite clearly with three dimensional spheres there is certainly no need for these four dimensional spherical cones. It appears, Woodstone, is trying to make the article confusing as seems to be his habit. RHB100 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• We're here to discuss user behaviour, not article content. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [2], 1991

Fgnievinski, you complain about my edits on the talk page saying they are controversial. But edits on the talk page are quite often controversial and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My post on the talk page of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" is what triggered your complaint. But this is a valid criticism of the GPS article. Your attempt to stifle criticism of the GPS article is very harmful to Wikipedia. RHB100 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

### Closure of RHB100 - GPS

• I now count three of us who have been driven away from the GPS article because of this. Is there some way to expedite a conclusion to this issue? Is there some more formal process we should pursue? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• WP:CBAN says: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours... If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator [emphasis added] notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed..." I kindly request JzG (talk · contribs) to close the present discussion, as he/she seems to meet the requirements and has commented here before.[29] Then if he/she is unavailable, it'd seem we could request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• I did briefly contribute to the discussion, and have been watching since, reluctant to get involved. I support the consensus proposals above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I don't know what you are talking about here. But criticizing a section of the GPS article and proposing its removal so as to improve the article is the way the talk page should be used. I am very proud to be a licensed professional engineer and I am very proud that I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I know that I am well qualified and I know that the section, Geometric interpretation, in the GPS article is definitely incorrect and should be removed. My edits are good and I am very proud of that. RHB100 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

### Examples from the talk page

Here are a few examples of things RHB100 has said on the article talk page after his voluntary restriction was imposed on 23 June:

"On the other hand if you want to degrade the GPS document make it less understandable, you may oppose the inclusion of this explanatory material. So let's find out who the good people are and who the enemies of Wikipedia are or otherwise explain your position."

"What you say, Fgnievinski, is idiotic nonsense... You don't have the competence to decide what will be taken and what will not. I don't believe you even possess a license to practice engineering."

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?"

"We should devote our efforts to maintaining the superiority of the GPS article over the inferior GNSS article. GPS was developed by Americans using the money of American taxpayers. GPS shows American technical superiority in navigation and position finding. This should give us the incentive to maintain that same technical superiority of our GPS article over the GNSS article."

"Woodstone, nothing you are saying is of any value for the purposes of GPS, as far as I can tell. And it's certainly not interesting."

Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is sometimes necessary to be honest and objective in discussions on the talk page. Several of these statements were made long before 23 June 2015. The honest and objective statement made to Woodstone was made after 23 June 2015 as was the statement about the superiority of the GPS article. The two paragraphs made to Siafu were long before 23 June 2015. According to Wikipedia guidelines that I have read, you are allowed to say that someone has made a stupid statement but not allowed to say that someone is stupid. I have followed Wikipedia guidelines in all cases. RHB100 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 is correct. These quotes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are timestamped after the restriction of 23 June. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, this conversation with siafu was more recent than I recalled. I made the mistake of relying on memory rather than looking up the dates. But I think these remarks need to be put in context. Here is the context, "For n satellites, the equations to satisfy are:

${\displaystyle (x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}={\bigl (}[{\tilde {t}}-b-s_{i}]c{\bigr )}^{2},\;i=1,2,\dots ,n}$

or in terms of pseudoranges, ${\displaystyle p_{i}=\left({\tilde {t}}-s_{i}\right)c}$, as