Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive277

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Mishae[edit]

Normally, I'd refrain from closing a discussion where I !voted or was involved in. There has been no further discussion on this thread for 10 days and Mishae has not further contested the block since 27 November. In this case, I'm boldly closing this on the rationale that there is a solid consensus the decline was good and that Iridescent acted appropriately. As always, should an editor feel that this close is inappropriate, they may feel free to revert it without notifying and continue the discussion. Blackmane (talk) 00:05, 4 December 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've just declined an unblock request here from Mishae (talk · contribs). By a strict reading, I could theoretically be considered WP:INVOLVED as I once had quite a snappy exchange with Mishae after I proposed an article he'd written for deletion; per my comment on his talk, I explicitly abrogate the wheel-warring clause regarding my decline, if anyone feels this is an unblock request that ought to be accepted. ‑ iridescent 10:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Good decline. --John (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Horrible decline. You were involved and you had no business declining. Caden cool 10:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good decline. Mishae is fond of mouthing pretty words and sweeping generalizations and then after being unblocked going off and doing whatever the hell he pleases, including disruption, incivility, general incompetence, and outright deception. His last edit summary before TPA was revoked was so vile it had to be revdelled. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I had to deal with some of Mishae's behavior in insect articles and finally got a large number of vandalism-like edits fixed (removing Wikiproject tags from thousands of articles even when the project said they should remain). Coupled with attacking editors who disagree with their edits and overall demeanor described above, the unblock decline is very appropriate considering the history of going right back to the problem behaviors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah Mishae. I wondered why this name was so familiar especially after a quick refresher from the ANI back in April. I had made a comment at the time with the intention of joining the discussion but a job and city move prevented me. Reading back over his unblock requests, I get the sense that he never has truly understood what it was he was blocked for. While we should give all editors regardless of race, religion, creed, or ability the benefit of the doubt when it comes to contributing, there comes a time when we have to say enough disruption is enough especially when it's impacting the editing health of other editors. The needs of one cannot be placed above those of the many. @Mishae: your inability to fully understand the circumstances that led to your block are the reason why many, including myself, will endorse your continued block. This has never been about your disability, just your inability. Blackmane (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I didnt realise being racist was a disability... While technically having a past disagreement with an editor might fall foul of the involved (as you dealt with them in a negative manner on a content issue) I would hardly say it disqualifies you completely. Otherwise, decline is fine given their patten of behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good decline. I can't see that INVOLVED is part of the equation. That said, at the risk of being INVOLVED I've just warned Mishae that he's verging on TPA withdrawal again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Block of Thewolfchild[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • No more admin action or discussion is required on this topic. It is time to finish up this discussion before more trouble breaks out Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Legitimate block. I saw the baiting and general IDHT on Liz's talkpage and was preparing to do the same thing if it continued. ‑ iridescent 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I got flack for simply closing an ANI discussion that was clearly over when all parties received 48 hour blocks. But MSGJ got the brunt of the IDHT treatment despite their patient explanation on why the three editors received blocks for edit warring. At a certain point, you find yourself just repeating yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks fine. Legit block, they absolutely don't seem to be able to disengage and move on. Lots of rage flying around. --Errant (chat!) 20:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A sensible response. Being criticized does not make you involved, if it did then it would be pretty simple for a user to make any admin they wanted to "involved". HighInBC 20:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Legitimate block - and even rather lenient all things considered. I'm also surprised that Cassianto hasn't already been blocked a long time ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw this and thought of this - should Cassianto bring his duelling pistols, or his swords? Anyway, this is okay as a cool down block, but for a week? Can we please shorten it to 24 hours? They're making themselves hot and bothered but not actually disrupting any other bit of the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • We generally don't block to let someone "cool down". Given that the dispute between the two users has been going on for weeks now I don't think 24 hours is going to be significant. HighInBC 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we're just going to have to accept we have different views on blocks and that's just the way of the world. I guess my stance comes from stopping my kids from quarrelling with each other, I can't "block" them! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well when I was a kid and being a little shit I was sent to my room. If I was really bad I was sent to my parents room(no toys there). HighInBC 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Good block. And you only got sent to your room? You got it light. I used to get a thrashing with a bamboo switch, or a feather duster, or a ruler or even an open hand. Nothing teaches a rowdy consequences as fast as a thrashing. Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thankfully my parents took a more modern approach. HighInBC 00:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I got whupped with a piece of rebar while I was walking 5 miles to school through the snow. And when I asked to have the Rolling Stones play at my 16th birthday party, my parents just sneered and booked Herman's Hermits instead. BMK (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at 6:00 in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, work 20 hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I have removed talk page access from Thewolfchild as they were using their talk page to further provoke Cassianto. As always my actions are open to review. HighInBC 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Given my and MSGJ's experiences, HighInBC, I'm pretty sure you will face questions once this block expires. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If you look at my talk page you will see I am no stranger to that sort of thing. I am always happy to answer questions. HighInBC 01:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I saw this brewing on your talk page, Liz and the sad thing is that there is a long history of this sort of thing from this editor. See the last block review discussion for reference. I do not understand how the mentoring that this user was supposed to be receiving from TParis has been allowed to be twisted into such a mockery of itself without comment. Obviously both parties to this particular set of blocks are in the wrong, and the blocks are warranted, but I think this situation needs to be monitored. It's only possible to look the other way and kick the can down the road spooling out more and more WP:ROPE for so long. Severely anti-collegial behavior doesn't only make the perpetrator look like a fool, it drives away good editors who have to suffer the abuse. -Thibbs (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: It has been brought to my attention by Thewolfchild that my comment about severely anti-collegial behavior can be interpreted as a veiled suggestion that his behavior is to blame for the retirement of Cassianto. For the record I wanted to note that I was unaware that Cassianto had retired when I made my above comments. I was not thinking of Cassianto as a victim but as a party equally as anti-collegial as Thewolfchild. The victims I had in mind were new editors who are likely to be driven away by caustic aggression of the sort we have witnessed here. Of course it's also a shame whenever an experienced editor is provoked into retirement over something as trivial as the matter these two editors have been squabbling over. -Thibbs (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, if they do their IDHT thing again, they'll be blocked again. BTW, I also advocate some leniency for Cassianto here, who is much more of a net positive and (Redacted). Drmies (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Drmies: advocate leniency for one party by all means, but probably better not to insult the other party ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If we're going to redact that we got a long way to go. And if we're going to be picky, I think blocking someone and removing talk page access is a much bigger "insult" than a few mild words. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • An indignity perhaps, but not an insult. The thing to keep in mind is that people are perfectly capable of being insulted at something that was not an insult. HighInBC 03:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me. For the most part it is largely a useless exercise, as your block log is permanent and regardless of how questionable, or just plain bad a block may be, it will always be there to be thrown in your face, or even used to support further (and lengthier) bad blocks. Further, I now also see that questioning an admin per WP:ADMINACCT is now apparently a blockable offence per WP:IDHT. Lastly, I'm not interested in conflict, I'm really not, nor am I here to disrupt. I am here to contribute, in my own way. I may not churn out dozens of FA/GA articles, but I do contribute. I'm not trying to build a resume for adminship, I just look to improve articles of interest to me or fix small errors that I come across anywhere in the project. Sorry if some of you don't see any value in that. Anyway, I come away from this bearing no ill will nor carrying any grudges. This whole experience has certainly been... enlightening. - theWOLFchild 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Just be a bit nicer and you won't get personal attack blocks. It is directly connected to how you choose to act. HighInBC 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's certainly one of the more positive comments you have made in recent days. I think it may be time now to move forward and leave the past behind? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We apparently can't ever take him at his word. When he wrote, "For the record I will not be challenging either of the blocks or questioning any admins on their actions in recent weeks as they pertain to me.", he lied. Would it be considered disruptive that he responds like that here but turns around and does just the opposite? He just keeps on trolling...
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly why I posted those comments. I did not challenge or question your block. I simply requested that we go our separate ways and that in the future you refer any admin actions towards me to another admin. I also listed my reasons for this. I did this is a respectful fashion on your talk page, instead of here in the open. The fact that you, again failed to respond to me, (or respect my request) and instead come racing back here to call me a "liar" and "troll" in front of everyone, underscores the fact that that you still carry a grudge and are biased, and certainly supports my wp:involved concerns. This clearly shows that in the future, you have no business taking any admin action against my edits or my account. I will ask that you remove these highly insulting and very un-admin-like personal attacks and disengage from any further behaviour like this. I can assure you, and the community I will also be disengaging, as I want nothing further to do with you. - theWOLFchild 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
TWC, you posted falsehoods in that and I do not accept that garbage. Trying to get in the last word as if you were correct and make like it is a cordial post...please. I'm not getting into it with you because you have such a bad case of IDHT that I won't waste my time with you. No one believes your twisted logic...not even you. I don't accept your attempts to buy yourself insurance with the involved ploy. I reserve the right to block you if you do something wrong again which it sounds like you are planning since you are so concerned about it. Truth is that if you could behave yourself, you wouldn't need to worry. You tend to be all heat and well, no light. You bring these blocks upon yourself but don't seem to be able acknowledge that you are the one in the wrong. That lengthy block log of yours is one of your own making.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, well the question that kicked off this thread appears to have been thoroughly answered now. Thewolfchild is to be commended for attempting to drop the stick and to step away from this obvious sore spot, however it might also be worth his while considering that a lengthy 3-bullet-point outline of why he believes Berean Hunter's block to have been biased might easily be understood to constitute a "challenge or question" to the validity of the block. No doubt it would be putting too fine a point on it to recommend that Thewolfchild could look to Steelpillow or even SchroCat and Betty Logan for examples of how to step away from the sore spot gracefully, so in lieu of that perhaps a kindly admin could just close this tar baby of a discussion to forestall any accidental resumption of the flogging? -Thibbs (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The "3-bullet-point outline" was simply reasoning to support my request that we go our separate ways and that he refer off any future admin actions. The persistent hostility and personal attacks in his two replies above also clearly support this measure. That's all I was asking for, some distance to avoid any future issues. I don't see how that merits such bitterness and rancor, from an admin no less. But, I certainly agree with closing of this... section. There's really nothing left to be said. - theWOLFchild 05:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
To me that post looked like you were asking to stop further conflict with one side of your mouth while continuing to engage in it with the other side of your mouth. Like you were trying to get the last word in while stopping the conversation at the same time. It did not look like an honest attempt to de-escalate. HighInBC 05:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
What a shock. Don't do or say anything about the admin displaying an appalling lack of good faith, while at the same time openly posting hostile personal attacks. Just rag on me some more. Good work. - theWOLFchild 10:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Closure review at Talk:Martha Jefferson[edit]

ANI is not the venue to carry on a spill-over discussion based solely around the discord between the two disputants. There's nothing at all useful in keeping this open, also as noted, per WP:SNOW, not a single person would overturn the discussion and enact the opposite decision. There's nothing to be gained by keeping this open longer--Jayron32 02:22, 3 December 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.

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

Boomerang: Fine, somebody can confirm that it was appropriate to close a discussion that was FIVE-TO-ONE in favor of retaining Martha Jefferson, with only Snuggums dissenting and nobody making any comments in two days. The discussion was also closed because Snuggums was shouting everybody else down, often by repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Snuggums needs to just let it go! Surprise, surprise, most people want the wife of a VERY prominent American who became President of the United States kept! BTW, Snuggums was so adamant that this be merged or deleted, he even went around removing all the links to Martha Jefferson, which is going to cause the community a great deal of trouble since Martha Jefferson is being retained. Frankly, Snuggums needs to disengage himself from Martha Jefferson, as he is too adamantly fighting clear consensus and is making too much work for everybody else. pbp 01:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Not a boomerang at all. I wasn't exactly "shouting", either, only stating and emphasizing points. Five-to-one isn't necessarily consensus per WP:NOTVOTE. WP:Notability (people) is against having pages on people solely noted for family connections. Even if consensus was against me, closing such discussions when you were WP:INVOLVED is not at all appropriate and frankly no better than anything I've done regarding the article. See WP:BADNAC for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that BADNAC is about deletion discussions and INVOLVED is about administrative actions, right? Things aren't as stringently enforced when it's a general discussion. Also, you've mentioned the notability guidelines dozens of times, first at the talk page and now here, and it's clear that nobody else agrees with your interpretation of them in Martha Jefferson's case. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean you get to override five editors. pbp 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said I got to override five, only that five-to-one isn't necessarily WP:Consensus, which is not solely determined by votes. My point in citing those pages and their premises is that involved users have obvious biases and therefore should not close discussions when they've already given input as a clear conflict of interest. Best to wait for uninvolved users to come along and make closures even if it takes a while. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The argument against a stand alone article based on WP:Notability (people) appears to have been rejected by everyone on the sound basis that in accord with that guideline, there is significant coverage of this woman's life. Thus, the bio supported 5 to 1 appears to be a WP:SNOW. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

2015 San Bernardino shooting[edit]

Admins are aware. There is semiprotection in place and discussion on talk. Thank you for reporting. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 5 December 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.

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

As noted here, the article has already been placed under semi-protection; a wise choice. Given the number of admins. who have either contributed to the article proper, and/or the talk page, I suspect that there are quite a few eyes on this. I appreciate you bringing this here; but personally, I'm not seeing anything actionable beyond the protection, so I'm not sure there's anything we can, or should, be doing at the moment. If something specific that you're concerned about arises, a new thread can be opened at that time. — Ched :  ?  11:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding note: Admins. alone, nor this notice board, determine content; although admins are free to contribute to it. — Ched :  ?  11:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I urge any admin. to close this upon passing. There is discussion on the talk page. — Ched :  ?  12:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Planned Parenting shootings[edit]

Requested moves need to be closed before a move is made per WP:RM. HJ Mitchell has already move protected the page in response to involved !voters, including the original poster here, moving the page in advance of the discussion being closed. For the record, Muboshgu has not !voted and was upholding proper RM process.—Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 7 December 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.

User:Muboshgu and User:George Ho are blocking the move of 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting from 2015 Colorado Springs shooting per talk page consensus[[1]], can an admin intervene? Cheers. Artw (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • HJ Mitchell is already there, suggesting it stay open for a couple more days, which sounds like good advice to me. Dennis Brown - 02:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, singling out these two editors is odd as there are more editors opposing the move. --NeilN talk to me 02:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of Scope for the Administrator noticeboard All I see is an ordinary editing dispute. The editors mentioned by name have done nothing improper at all. They have merely taken a contrary position in a move debate. They have not been disruptive in any way. There is no reason for this discussion, unless and until an editor breaks policy. This is not the place to complain about ordinary editing disputes. I support the move, but respect their right as Wikipedia editors to stridently voice their opposition. Safiel (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Self-defense I'm not blocking a move. The RM that I saw was ongoing and hadn't been closed. No admin or non-admin had presented a closing rationale determining the consensus or lack thereof. You might notice I didn't post in the RM discussion because I don't have a particular opinion on what should be the article title. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

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

RFA2015 Phase II RfC[edit]

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

Rescinding unused community sanctions: WP:GS/BI[edit]

There is no consensus to remove the community sanctions --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 04:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

You'd be taking away the sanctions on an area that is still quietly simmering, on the grounds that it hasn't exploded lately. Note the intensity of the arguments in Talk:British Isles/Archive 39. A typical comment there was "Is there still an article on Wiki called "British Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it." And see the current discussion at Talk:British Isles which is reminiscent of many that have occurred in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"British Isles", like many other topic areas, will never stop being controversial. That doesn't mean that a sanctions regime that hasn't been used in more than three years should remain in place. Plenty of controversial topic areas survive without such systems. If a volcano does truly "erupt", sanctions can be reauthorised. There has been no indication as such, however. Keeping unused sanctions regimes around merely because a topic area is controversial is byzantine. RGloucester 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove/revoke/whatever you want to call it. Support RGloucester's suggestion. Long-unenforced sanctions shouldn't be in place, if nothing else because they're not friendly to the uninitiated. Imagine that several new-ish editors engage in a good-faith content dispute on this topic: a longtime editor familiar with the sanctions can come in, play the sanctions as a trump card, and win the dispute. This flies in the face of standards such as WP:NOTBURO; we have too many rules, and getting rid of never-used rules is a good way to simplify things. As already noted, they can be reactivated if truly needed, but merely responding to intense arguments such as "Is there still...believe it" is no reason to have broad sanctions in place. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, leave in place It's rather silly to remove a sanction because it's working. The fact that it hasn't needed to be invoked doesn't mean that the problem has magically disappeared, it means that the sanction is doing what it's supposed to do, discourage people from editing in a way that invites invoking the sanction. BMK (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This is hard to believe, given that there are no notices in place on any related pages that inform users of these sanctions (not even on Talk:British Isles). No notices regarding their existence have been given to users in more than three years, either. The purpose of general sanctions is to curtail disruption. If there is no disruption worth curtailing in more than three years, it is hard to believe that these sanctions should continue to exist. How can users be discouraged from editing in such a way if no one even knows that the sanctions exist? The only way one would find out is by visiting WP:GS, and that page is not a frequently viewed page. All in all, there is no evidence that an extraordinary regime is presently necessary in this topic area. General sanctions exist for extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the standard manner in which disruption is dealt with, and I do not see how an unenforced, unknown sanctions regime is aiding the encylopaedia. RGloucester 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
So ... if a public swimming pool posts prominent signs about no diving in the shallow end, and the number of injuries from diving at the shallow end drops down to nothing, your advice would be to remove the signage as it's clearly no longer necessary? If reducing the posted speed limit on a dangerous curve cuts down the number of accidents significantly, you'd tell the authorities to put the speed limit back up to where it was, since it's no longer needed? BMK (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a similar circumstance. First of all, there are no prominent signs indicating the existence of these sanctions. That's what I just wrote above. Furthermore, if it were a similar circumstance, we would have general sanctions by default in all topic areas. We do not. We only use them as extraordinary measures. If they are not used (or useful), we remove them. RGloucester 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The comparison to posting a sign would be to put a notice on related articles, whether by an ordinary template or an editnotice or something similar. Here, we're just pulling over drivers who infringe an unposted speed limit, giving them a warning, and arresting the ones who re-infringe...except for the fact that we're not doing this, because there's been no enforcement in three years. We don't need to maintain this policy of pulling them over, because infringing the unposted limit is a lesser included offense to dangerous driving, and we can still arrest people for that: editwarring over the inclusion of "British Isles" on pages, or willynilly removing "British Isles" from lots of pages, is outright disruptive and obviously nationalistic, and we don't need the sanctions in order to block someone who does that. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per BMK - sanction warnings appear to be working МандичкаYO 😜 02:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If we're not using them and haven't been using them for three years, by all means lift them! KoshVorlon 11:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per BMK. Sanctions exist both as a measure to take afterwards against problem editing, and to deter future problem editing. I am not persuaded that removing a sanction that is performing its job in preventing problem editing is a good thing. I would support say a 3-month suspension to see how it goes, if it kicks off again, it should be able to be reinstated without need for another long discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, how can these sanctions deter disruption editing ("preform their job") if no one even knows they exist? There are no posted notices of these sanctions anywhere, and no one has been notified of their existence in more than three years. However, the three month suspension is acceptable to me. If there hasn't been a use for these sanctions in more than three years, I hardly doubt that there will be in three months. RGloucester 14:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Request for closure[edit]

Would an administrator please close this request? RGloucester 18:18, 12 December 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.


Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles[edit]

Subject is CU blocked so there is nothing further to do here --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 04:38, 16 December 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 propose a community-discussion with regards to implementing a topic ban on User:Thor Lives that would prohibit them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of Heathenry. This is to deal with the fact that they are responsible for disruptive editing on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by their self-professed adherence to Odinism (a typically right-wing, ethnic-oriented form of Heathenry). More specifically they have a) carried out a range of disruptive edits to the Heathenry article entailing damage to the article and attacks on other editors, b) usurped the GA process to further their aims, and c) created a coat rack article.

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

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

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

Initial discussion[edit]

Two comments, and I'll ignore everything else. (1) All GA reviewers have to start somewhere, but GA reviewers must be "unaffiliated" with the article; if you've previously been active in the article and/or its talk page, you have no business reviewing it for GA. If you keep it up, you need to be sanctioned. (2) The two outing diffs aren't outing; he's saying basically "From your editing, it looks like you're this guy". If he were outing you, he would say "Hello, name", not "Hello, name (or one of his acolytes)". Looking at a user's contributions and guessing thereby at the identity of its owner isn't fundamentally different from identifying sockpuppets by behavioral evidence (both are WP:DUCK), although of course it can be done in a harassing manner. No comment on whether it's non-outing harassment. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't see anything about outing? Am I missing something? Otherwise I think it is time for a sanction, three attempts to usurp the GA process following a history of edit warring should be enough. The coat rack article really needs to be nominated for deletion. ----Snowded TALK 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that you see no evidence of outing in Midnightblueowl's links, or you're confused about my comments? If the former, I agree. If the latter, look for the word "serious" (it only appears once in this section, as of now) and follow the diffs immediately after it. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
ThorLives' opened a conversation with me starting with "Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes)", and continued with "you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers". That seems like a clear attempt to establish my 'real world' identity (correctly or not, it doesn't matter) and thus a breach of our anti-Outing policy. As our policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment... Personal information includes legal name... Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts". ThorLives tried to identify my 'real life' identity and make it public here on Wikipedia. That seems like a contravention of the Outing policy to me, but I appreciate that other editors here might disagree with me on that. Either way, it is merely one component of a much wider campaign of disruptive editing, the evidence for which is abundant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I concur that it's a clear example of attempted outing. --Errant (chat!) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec). I stand to be corrected if it was more than just a wild accusation. Thor seems to throw out accusations based on assumptions about people who oppose his view. I didn't take that too seriously. So no evidence of outing (the former Nyttend). The overall point is that we have a very disruptive editor here - there is the need for some sanction of restriction ----Snowded TALK 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
With regard to our outing policy, I'm not sure that it really matters whether it was a wild accusation or a more concerted and deliberate attempt; either way, it was a contravention of the policy. The intent behind it is not of particular importance, imo. However, I certainly concur with your latter point, Snowded; the issue of outing is not the main issue here but merely one aspect of a wider problem which needs to be dealt with through sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure where Thor got the idea that you're Stinson; your times-of-editing patterns are in line with your claim to be in western Europe, and they're quite bizarre for someone who lives in Kansas City, Missouri. Acolyte isn't made impossible by geography, but it's a stretch unless you've declared such a thing. Either way, it's obviously not some private information; he's guessing from your editing patterns. Meanwhile, if I'd looked at the GA reviewing more carefully before commenting, I may well have blocked for that alone, although (by itself) intentionally messing up the GA process is no grounds for an informal topic ban (e.g. "Make more edits in this field and you'll be blocked") or an outright indefinite block; you'd have to have a discussion like this one. No support because I don't feel like investigating enough to support, but definitely no opposition. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: would you therefore perhaps support separate action to deal specifically with the GA disruption issue that is independent to the wider debate surrounding a topic ban to deal with the persistent disruptive editing problem? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It depends. If your proposal passes, there's no need for separate action. However, sanctions are definitely needed somehow, so definitely supporting sanctions for the GA only, if the same thing isn't accomplished for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If I may, I shall divide this section into two then; one to deal specifically with the GAN issues, and one to deal with the possible topic ban. That way editors such as yourself can contribute to the former without having to commit themselves to the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

GAN specific sanctions[edit]

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

  • Hesitant to do this, as it's a potential distraction from the potentially bigger issue. I was suggesting GA-related sanctions basically as a backup to the other: if sanctions are warranted for the heathenism issue, the GA-related issue will be trivial, while if they aren't, we can deal with the GA after that. Let's just stick with the side suggestions that Snowded and I have made, along with others' similar suggestions if they get made. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I am happy to put this discussion on ice for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban[edit]

  • Support Topic Ban from Heathenry, religion and anything remotely related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator: My recommendation would be a topic ban on Heathenry, all forms of modern Paganism, and ancient/medieval Germanic society (three subjects closely interlinked with Odinism). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose check the talk page completely, Odin has made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page, not all of them , to be sure, but some of his contributions were positive. Also, he seems to be having the same problem a lot of researchers have when they first come to Wikipedia, I'd hate to seem him T-Banned over it, rather, if he'll accept a mentor, he could learn and become a positive contributor.KoshVorlon 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect Kosh, I disagree. It was not claimed that ThorLives' edits were 100% negative, because they aren't: he is not a vandal and no doubt wants to "improve" the encyclopedia as he sees fit. However, the patterns of constant, recurring disruptive editing are very clear, and surely that cancels out any meager positive contribution that he has made? At what point does some small positive contribution redeem both the damage to the articles themselves and all the stress and annoyance caused to constructive editors who have to make repairs and put up with abusive remarks as they do so? (You note that he has "made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page" but from what I can see the only time this happened was when he recommended in passing that we add more information about Ragnarok into the article, which I myself endorsed. Everything else has been non-constructive at best, often disruptive, and sometimes abusive). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I disagree with your presentation of him as a newcomer who just needs a bit more gentle guidance in how to use Wikipedia. He has been an active user since at least November 2011, which is more than enough time to learn the ropes and gain an understanding of policy. Further, if you read through that talk page, related user talk pages, and the page edit summaries, you will see that he has been made aware of how his actions contravene policy again and again and again (by myself and others). We keep linking him to the specific policies and explaining what he has done wrong and how to avoid it next time, but we're just being ignored; this can be seen for instance in his repeated attempts to incorporate primary sources by Odinist authors into both this article and related ones (namely his coatrack at Odinism), despite the fact that we have repeatedly explained how and why this is against our reliable sourcing policy. I could cite multiple other examples, but I don't want to bore you. He just doesn't appear to care about adhering to Wikipedia's policies, as is reflected in such statements as "Wikipedia jargon does not interest me." Frankly, I don't see how someone who has no interest in learning how Wikipedia operates and who is repeatedly disruptive is going to change their tune all of a sudden and become constructive and civil. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To be fair, it is okay to use primary sources in an article on the primary source if they are being used appropriately to reflect what it is the primary source believes. However from taking a quick look at the talk page Thor is not doing that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as an infrequent contributor to the article, and a witness to ThorLives' repeated efforts to impose his personal views on the article. Stormkith (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per nom and recommend mentorship. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban unless editor agrees to mentorship ----Snowded TALK 03:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. I've been musing over this for a couple of days, and the more I have looked at this, the more sure I have become that ThorLives is a problem editor. His claims to be an academic in this field are (I am around 90% sure) a lie, which strikes me as exceedingly bad form and a clumsy attempt to have others protect him and help him push his view. His battlefield mentality, disrespectful behaviour (insisting on calling MBO "he" despite her frequent polite requests to the contrary is, alone, problematic), wikilawyering (see the "outing" discussion below, for example), continual refusal to get the point and abuse of Wikipedia processes (edit warring, GA nominations) are typical of POV-pushers. He does not seem to be here to improve Wikipedia, which is regrettable, as he does have at least some knowledge of the subject matter to which he is contributing; with a clearer understanding of Wikipedia policies and, most importantly, a more respectful attitude towards other Wikipedians, he could have been in a position to make very valuable contributions to this area. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a regrettable but necessary topic ban on the editor in question. I've looked into this and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, I've seen enough. The editor in question is exhibiting all the typical characteristics of a POV editor pushing their own personal non-neutral, non-academic, and in this case, right-wing views. The fact that they are averse to the policies of Wikipedia is particularly disturbing. Their disruptive edits speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am familiar with the nominator Midnightblueowl, whom I have worked with off an on here on Wikipedia over a period of many years (we have written a few Featured Articles together) and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, am reassured of her usual high-quality ethics and expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

You could request a closure here, perhaps. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I have just done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Alternate restriction The editor has made some useful contributions. I suggest they be page-banned from Heathenry (new religious movement) but not its talk page, and topic banned from the subject of Midnightblueowl. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • With respect Rhoark, what are those useful contributions? The only example that I can see is a single comment recommending that we could expand our coverage of Heathen beliefs about Ragnarok in the article. And even if you believe that there are a few more, how do these outweigh the constant disruptiveness? Does 5% constructive behaviour counterbalance 95% disruptive behaviour? Further, I don't see how a page ban would help at all; the editor has shown that they are also disruptively editing on other related articles (such as their coatrack at Odinism) as well as on related Talk Pages and GANs. A page ban that purely protects one particular article would offer little benefit and would not deal with the fundamental problem at all. It would be like trying to deal with a freshly severed limb by applying a band aid. A topic ban is completely necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The Heathenry article is quite good. The Odinist coatrack borders on being unreadable. The Heathenry talk page also displays an editor that simply doesn't get RS or consensus and seems unwilling to learn it. One also has to question the claimed expertise of a supposed academic that is unaware that Germanic refers to historic peoples who shared Germanic languages and a certain commonality in culture as opposed to modern day Germany. Capeo (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

ThorLives' response[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've made it quite clear to you that I use female gender pronouns, ThorLives. You can convince yourself that I'm a man and that my profile is a total ruse all you want, but at least show me the respect of using the pronouns that I ask you to use. It is basic courtesy. Further, while your statement that you have "never tried to block or ban" me might be quite correct, it also brings up an important point: I have not done anything to warrant being blocked or banned. Conversely, you have.
As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one. This, coupled with several observations made by both myself and Bloodofox here, cast strong doubt as to the claimed academic credentials of ThorLives. An academic with a specialism in the subject matter would not make the basic errors of fact that ThorLives has made. They would be accustomed to structuring their argument in a logical and well-thought out manner, which is quite the opposite of ThorLives' rambling, disjointed, and poorly written style of commenting. They would be intelligent enough to master the comparatively simple rules and regulations of Wikipedia in a short period of time. If well acquainted with the field of religious studies, they would not make such an erroneous claim as "When studying a religion... an academic would rather talk to a pope than someone sitting in a pew in Philadelphia" (ever heard of the anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, or psychology of religion?). They would surely be more likely to refer to colleagues like Michael Strmiska and Jennifer Snook as "a religious studies scholar" or "sociologist of religion" respectively, rather than as "a pagan who studies the subject" and a "left-wing Norse pagan". Further, I very much doubt that they would condemn the citation of some of their colleague's publications simply because these individuals were "left-wing".
All in all, ThorLives has not exhibited any trait that I would associate with an established, older academic and university professor; instead, they have exhibited many traits that I would associate with a (possibly quite young) individual who has little or no familiarity with academia beyond perhaps reading a few scholarly books or, at best, a basic undergraduate course. It would certainly not be stretching the imagination to suggest that the "I'm an older university professor with a PhD" claim which ThorLives has repeatedly employed is simply a ruse to gain recognition as an intellectual authority from other Wikipedia editors. I can't help but suspect that there might be some relevance to a comment that they made on my talk page in which they declared that they admired editors who used "cunning" and "disinformation trick[s]" on Wikipedia. After all, what better way to try and gain kudos on an encyclopedia than to declare "Trust me. I am a published academic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's be fair. A PhD isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless the person holding the degree gets to beat you on the head with it like a weapon in every discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

My edits are being totally misrepresented here. Similarly, ThorLives has omitted key details regarding these events in order to present their own actions as innocent and constructive, which they demonstrably weren't. All of the information that I deleted on the Heathenry article was either a) un-referenced, b) referenced using non-reliable primary sources, or c) otherwise referenced inappropriately (for instance using sources about pre-Christian belief systems to support claims being made about new religious movements). As policy dictates, it therefore required removal. Further, I did not unilaterally change the page name from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry" but rather (at the suggestion of another editor) initiated an RfC discussion on the subject, which resulted in a group consensus to move the article name to that most commonly used in academic reliable sources. Thor Lives then embarked on an edit war to restore his favoured title until multiple un-involved editors stopped him.
Hence, claiming that I have "hijacked" the article and am somehow a problematic editor is frankly preposterous and is simply a tactic to divert attention from Thor Lives' own disruptive actions and total disregard for policy and consensus building. Similarly, his claim that he is being threatened with a ban simply for "complain[ing] about the quality of the article" is again flagrantly (and, I believe, deliberately) ignoring the real reason why sanctions are being sought against him, which have been laid out ever so clearly. Once again, he is knowingly playing the innocent, presumably in the hope that this well help him to evade sanctions so that he can go right back to his disruptive editing ways. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Several new points (before I leave.)

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

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

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

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

Again, I've asked that you please use female pronouns when referring to me; in doing the precise opposite, you are quite clearly setting out to annoy and offend, once again reflecting a total lack of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Of course I am aware that many of the academics operating within Pagan studies are practicing Pagans (including Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, and Blain) as all make that clear within their publications, and the fact that I have included virtually every academic study on Heathenry ever published in the sources of the Heathenry article testifies to the fact that I am fairly well read within that field (it should be noted that in no way, shape, or form has ThorLives demonstrated anywhere near the same level of academic reading). Similarly, if you check my edits, you will see that in no way did I mention Odinists merely to call them "racists"; your claim to that effect is demonstrably false.
Moreover, if you want editors to compare the articles on Heathenry (new religious movement) and Odinism for themselves, then I would be happy for them to do so. They will see that the former is informative and well constructed; the latter poorly written and messy. The former is based on an exhaustive use of almost all academic publications on the subject; the latter has been put together using whatever unreliable references ThorLives happens to favour. The former is a useful article that will benefit those interested in the subject; the latter is simply a coatrack. Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the former will be recognised as a Good Article for its adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; the latter makes a total mockery of those, serving simply as a platform for ThorLives' own perspective on the religious movement to which he belongs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Edit request backlog[edit]

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

Challenging ISIL community sanction[edit]

There does not seem to be an consensus here to roll back the community sanctions as a whole. Things are fuzzier in terms of the November 2015 Paris attacks and there really isn't an agreement in one direction or another. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 04:48, 16 December 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 motion to challenge WP:GS/SCW&ISIL with respect to ISIL in general, and the November 2015 Paris attacks article and directly related articles in particular. These community-imposed sanctions were progressively expanded starting from, if I understand things correctly, arguably-related ArbCom-imposed Israel-Palestinian sanctions, first [Syria] and then to ISIL, by allowing the "broadly construed" specification to let discussions with little participation ratify the broadening of scope.

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

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

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

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

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

  • They were approved before

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

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

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

  • Comment - the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions ARE NOT related with WP:ARBPIA. There is similarity in concept, but that is it.GreyShark (dibra) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought, by reading the archived discussion, that the Syrian sanctions were created because there was uncertainty as to whether the ARBPIA sanctions applied to the Syrian war (they were applied in that way, but then successfully challenged). If I'm mistaken, can you clarify? LjL (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe that to be correct. What it seems happened was gradual de facto broadening of scope, caused by the slippery "broadly construed"-type language that is often used. Some administrators originally applied the ARBPIA sanctions to Syrian Civil War stuff, thinking that stuff related in a "broadly construed" manner. This became confusing, so ArbCom established a temporary 30 day sanctions regime specifically for the Syrian Civil War, which was then replaced with community sanctions that mirrored the ARBPIA remedy. Following this, with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and their entry into other fields, administrators began applying the SCW community sanctions to all ISIL-related articles, on the basis of a "broadly construed" connection to the Syrian Civil War. For this reason, I requested a clarification at AN, whereby the relevant administrators confirmed that they believed that this linkage was correct. RGloucester 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That is my understanding, too. I read that the first community discussion was started "to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions", the restrictions in effect being the impromptu 30-day ones made by ArbCom after the ARBPIA sanctions were deemed to have been incorrectly applied as the disputes did not "fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes", so it seems to me the restrictions are very directly related. LjL (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm one of the people behind the installations of Syrian Civil War sanctions. Originally, the community demanded a sanctioned regime for Syrian Civil War articles and some administrator incorrectly applied ARBPIA, even though there is no direct relation. Then i asked to clarify this and answer the demand of the community by creating SCW sanctions and not trying to bend other sanctions. Syrian Civil War sanctions were then initiated following a community motion, with a wide consensus. Later, without my involvement another group of users expanded the SCW sanctions also to ISIL with the intervention of ArbCom. This is how SCW&ISIL sanction regime was created. If you ask me - it works great: much less edit-warring as a result.GreyShark (dibra) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
But possibly also much less editing, at least on articles like the one in question where sanctions can have a chilling effect. This is my greatest concern. LjL (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Support pulling back on over-application of the "discretionary sanctions" that are "broadly constructed," as prescribed in the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL guidelines. With no disrespect to the original folks who implemented them – the fact that we cannot even agree on whether it is an Arbcom or WP:AN edict should give us a clue that the entire situation is not very well understood or constructed. Also, only a small number of users were involved with that discussion that has massive impact across EN.WP's 5 million articles. We should open up the discussion for better context.
A summary of the main conflict as described above:
  • For breaking news articles, it is extremely problematic to have the pall of the discretionary sanctions hanging over the page, which amounts to a one revert rule (1RR) being imposed on an article in flux. Whether it is intended or not, it creates a low tolerance, "assume bad faith" climate where it is very easy to accidentally run afoul of the guidelines, and wind up as a user block.
  • If we consider the November 2015 Paris attacks page, which was the #2 most visited page last week, you get lots of visitors and even returning editors. You also have a number of admins monitoring the page. The vast majority of the article is not about the Islamic State per se, and instead hosts a lot of experienced Wikipedians trying to sift fact from fiction in the news cycle. Things were going fine, until the discretionary sanctions template was put at the top, and then a flurry of accusations about 1RR started to fly. It turned into a wiki circular firing squad.
  • Out of WP:COMMONSENSE, I removed the template and proposed that we do away with the hair-trigger application of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. There was generally positive response from the editors on that page that it was removed. There was another exchange of adding the template to Talk, and subsequent removal by me.
  • That's we are now. I offer that it's a very bad mismatch to try to impose remedies suited for long form historical articles onto fast-moving, obliquely-related current events articles. I'm assuming good faith by believing that there was a decent rationale (with limited scope) for the discretionary sanctions, but I think this is a classic example of Hard cases make bad law, and we should have a chance to fix the overly broad application of this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Two points. First of all, there is no question of "agreement". These are community sanctions, not ArbCom sanctions, even though ArbCom was briefly involved at the start. That's crystal clear. Secondly, you must understand that we are not a newspaper. Our job here is not to write articles as if we were covering breaking news. All of our articles should be in a "long form historical" style. Slowing down editing on a controversial current events article is something to be applauded, not rejected. Finally, I wonder whether you oppose the 1RR or the discretionary sanctions, or both? Perhaps the 1RR could be pulled back, whilst maintaining the discretionary sanctions. RGloucester 21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's broadly construed, not constructed. That's the extent of my competence in this area, and of my contribution to this discussion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing the sanctions. Yes, the presence of discretionary sanctions and the 1RR restriction might slow down editing. That's a good thing. Per RGloucester's comment we are not a news wire service, we're an encyclopedia. We can approach the subject calmly and thoughtfully. And the restrictions will prevent the usual nonsense that occurs with high traffic, current event articles. Volunteer Marek  06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
And, uh, to try and argue that this article is NOT Syria or ISIS related is... um.... disingenuous, to put it nicely. Volunteer Marek  06:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per VM. The argument that it is preventing rapid updates on current events is not a bad thing. Likewise arguing that this is not Syria/ISIS related is... interesting to say the least. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Having thought about it more, I have to oppose any proposal to pull back the community sanctions (1RR and DS) in this area. Frankly, this topic area is one of the most fraught on Wikipedia. The sanctions have shown to be effective in preventing disruption across SCW and ISIL articles for years. We should thank the administrators who have worked to quicly enforce these sanctions, as well. There is no reason to provide an exception for this one article, which is ISIL-related, and attracts the same kind of controversy as at all the SCW & ISIL pages. Pulling back the sanctions across all SCW and ISIL pages would undoubtedly be detrimental. I imagine that if the sanctions were pulled back, we'd end up with an ArbCom case for this topic area in future, and that's something we want to avoid, no? I have worked on plenty of articles under DS and 1RR, and have never had any problems contributing. As I said above, we are not a newspaper, and have no need to be rapidly updating content as if we were. Encouraging talk page discussion, encouraging editors to think about what they add to such an article, that's a good thing. We want verifiable historical analysis, not every little bit of yellow press. For all these reasons, I must certainly oppose any revocation of the authorisation of these sanctions. RGloucester 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – it's been working fine as-is. Don't reinvent the wheel. 98.67.1.155 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
These can't be "chilling effects" since "chilling effects" refer to ... effects. What you are linking to is just reminders to editors not to edit war. Since you've been reverting and edit warring on that article like crazy I can see how you'd find that objectionable. Volunteer Marek  07:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Report me then. I am the third most prolific contributor to the article and I strongly suspect most editors respect the work I have done there. I'm not sure the same can be said about you, sending people more chilling notices because (sorry, I mean "shortly after", who am I to imply causal links?) they removed the sanctions template again with the agreement of many other editors (even though you promptly re-added it). You have previously accused me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, but I'm not entirely sure how you can affirm that while keeping a straight face. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Fuzheado and User:LjL. There is no evidence that these sanctions are needed or have any beneficial effect. Considering the emotive nature of the subject, editing there has been remarkably collegial over the past week. On general principles, the idea of accepting this sort of mission creep from a body with such a poor reputation as ArbCom has, is a terrible one. Wikipedia is not a police state, and should not be encouraged to become one. --John (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the motion. The SCW&ISIL sanctions are an excellent tool to reduce edit-warring and stabilize articles, as already proven in the past.GreyShark (dibra) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Stale request to help with related matter concerning myself
  • Requesting help with this matter, as User:Volunteer Marek is "totally not causing chilling effects" on me by sending me this sort of notice about an article that didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere, in a totally WP:POINTY fashion (I did self-revert as requested, by the way, but I cannot accept this bullying - I'm doing nothing wrong). Further explanation at this talk page section. LjL (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • What exactly is anyone suppose to "help" you with? The fact that I'm warning you - which is doing you a favor because I could just report you - again for reverting repeatedly on the article? On both the Paris-attacks related articles you have been reverting people left and right, in flagrant breach of 1RR in order to basically enforce your WP:OWN version. Also saying that the article "didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere" is disingenuous (i.e. its an attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAME, almost as silly as the claims that these articles have nothing to do with Syria and ISIS (when the text under dispute is specifically about Syrian refugees) - you are perfectly aware that discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on these articles because... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it: You filed this freakin' motion!. Are you really trying to pretend that you did not know that 1RR applies to an article for which you're challenging the existence of the 1RR restriction? Seriously?  Volunteer Marek  21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Marek, in that particular instance you are most definitely gaming the system. Drop it, please: consensus was well against you for inclusion of that material before you began lawyering to get your way. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
        • What are you talking about? How am I "gaming the system"? I am disagreeing with LjL. Disagreeing with someone is NOT "gaming the system". Volunteer Marek  22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Umpteen people have disagreed with you about the Polish issue in umpteen threads. Certainly, it is true that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote but it seems to me that after several "losses", you then opted to lawyer towards your goal. The thread here appears to be the pertinent one. Dammit, even you acknowledge that you got the articles mixed up - many of us have done that, no problem, but to then lawyer about it as a means to remove the material just seems weird. You said initially that the material was more useful in the very article where you have subsequently invoked these sanctions to remove it after failing to achieve that aim by other means. I can understand you getting the two mixed up, and you acknowledged it, but to then try to lawyer it in your favour just seems like gaming to me. Maybe it isn't, but that's how it looks. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not "invoke the sanction" to remove it. The presence of the sanction and my opinions about the content are not related. Also, if by "umpteen" you mean ONE then yes. And obviously the issue here is that this is a recent events article which means that what was relevant at one point in time may not be relevant a few days later. But really, content issues are not the topic here. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You have been doing this removal at two articles, even though you thought it was valid at one per my diff. Numerous people have opposed you, which means more than ONE. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
            • This is what the consensus actually looks like (though I've selected some statements by the people involved but there were many more, as this has spanned several sections). Not wanting to bring the content dispute here, but third parties looking at this need to know how things stand in term of WP:IDHT, WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:GAMING: Volunteer Marek removes statements against staggering consensus, and when I reinstate them (without even removing his further integrations at all), he asks me to self-revert because of claimed 1RR violation. LjL (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
                • You filed this motion to remove the 1RR restriction on the article. You then hijacked your own thread by asking for "help" (not sure what that is, looks like either a canvassing for reverts or a request for a spurious block) in a specific situation. This sort of makes it clear that you really don't care about the 1RR restriction per se but are rather trying to find a way to circumvent it in this particular instance so that you can enforce your WP:OWN version of the article through edit warring. Which makes this motion a textbook example in making proposals in bad faith. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
                  • 1) No, the motion was about the other article, not the "Reactions" article, which is even less tied to ISIL 2) WP:CANVASSING isn't a thing when reporting thing on the general forum for the relevant topic 3) I made it already clear in this motion that application of the sanctions on the particular article is in contention, so you're not discovering anything new 4) as to WP:OWN, you're the one still insisting to have it your way against clear consensus against you 5) I'm at my wits' end with you because you seem like a textbook example of hard-to-deal-with bad faith. LjL (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. If edit warring is still going on, then it is way too early to vacate these sanctions. The MMA topics are an excellent example of how sanctions can quiet down editors and really push them to discuss. There wasn't a time back in 2012-13 where not a week went by without a MMA complaing on AN or ANI. Regulars at those boards have barely heard a peep from them once sanctions were enforced. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - I don't know why I have made this motion given most of the people who were of the same opinion as me (and I know there were several) have steered very clear of it, but, for the record, this report is an example of the sort of non-constructive application of these overly strict rules that I'm worried about. The editor being reported is, quite obviously to anybody who has followed the evolution of the article involved, one of the top contributors and most constructive editors on it. Now he risks a block for reverting three unrelated, stupid edits. LjL (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:OWNERSHIP of an article does not provide exemption from 1RR, and is in fact harmful to the development of articles. RGloucester 18:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Your claim of WP:OWNERSHIP is completely unsubstantiated, unless by "ownership" you mean "having made many positive contribution to an article". LjL (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support = Revoke an overreach of the sanction system and restore commonsense because a few editors have used this to push their own agendas. Bod (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I object to the imposition of the 1RR at November 2015 Paris attacks. In the talk page discussion about this, we had been assured by RGloucester, who I foolishly thought was an administrator (it turns out he's just an editor who has been blocked seven times) that, "Administrators are not stupid. Common sense applies, as always, in the application of any policy", implying there was nothing to worry about as long as we didn't edit war over ISIL or the Syrian Civil War. In practice, I received a warning for three unrelated non-SCW/ISIL good faith reverts. I feel that the policy has been abused and therefore support LjL's motion. Firebrace (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
If you'd read the sanctions page, you'd understand that 1RR is not on imposed on the basis of the content of edits, but on the basis of whether the page is related to the topic under sanctions, broadly construed. You received a notice of the existence of the sanctions some days before that explained this, and yet broke 1RR. 1RR is a bright line, and you should not've made more than one revert in twenty-four hours on that page. That's on you. I never claimed to be administrator. Anyone can issue the DS notices, as I mentioned on the talk page. RGloucester 02:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There needs to be clarity on when a page is under the restrictions. When you have a "Syrian Civil War" sanction that can kick in on any shooting, anywhere in the world, the moment information starts coming back the shooter was linked with ISIS, there is going to be a long period for each of those highly controversial articles when people are debating whether the restrictions apply or not. That is a sabotage we shouldn't put up with. Either roll back the restriction to include only articles about ISIS itself and battles in Syria, not articles about ISIS actions outside Syria, or else figure out a mechanism by which there is clear and undisputed guidance about whether an article is subject to the restrictions or not. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what you say. However, I think that there is clarity on the scope of the sanctions. The sanctions page says: "All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed". That makes it clear that any page that has some relation to ISIL is under sanctions. There isn't any room for argument on that matter. The real question, here, is whether the community wants that to be the scope. Does the community want to limit the scope to ISIL actions in the Near East? That would seem absurd, in many respects. Does the community want to limit the scope to matters directly carried out by or involving the organisation of ISIL, as opposed to things inspired by it? It isn't clear. I tend to think that, given the nature of the topic, the GS scope should remain. RGloucester 16:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: There is clarity now, more or less, at 2015 San Bernardino shooting, after multiple sources published about an oath of fealty to ISIS. However, for several days the issue was in doubt; as the evidence started coming in, some editors were extremely resistant to even allow the religion of the shooters to be mentioned, let alone to permit discussion of motive. Even recently there was still debate going on whether the shooting is "really" ISIS related rather than a "lone wolf" admiring ISIS. I still think some of the obvious categories are being kept off. So the classification of the article can end up as a political football. Wnt (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Wnt is correct. If there is this much disagreement and conflict, the guidance is unclear by definition. "Broadly construed" can be interpreted in multiple ways, and is. This situation was entirely predictable; if you give vague guidance, you simply create new battleground, something Wikipedia has yet to learn in general. But, even if this guidance were crystal clear, the problem would still exist that bright lines (1RR) don't work, as I said in my !vote. ―Mandruss  23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The 2015 San Bernardino shooting article has been tagged as falling within these discretionary sanctions [26], on the basis of a Facebook post reportedly made by one of the perpetrators, in which she pledged allegiance to the caliph of ISIS. The relation to ISIS is as tenuous as that Facebook post. Note that the article is already covered by general sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Oppose - the 1RR restriction is actually helping a lot by slowing down edits, and encouraging discussions. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - For same reasons as above. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any easing or weakening of the sanctions, if that is the purpose of this proposal. The sanctions are a necessary tool to deal with disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
As well as to issue edit warring reports over non-disruptive (and actually useful) edits, like User:Firebrace had to experience from User:RGloucester who (see above) appears to believe that just because someone is a "broadly construed" "bright line", you seemingly have a moral duty to report the perpetrator of the heinous crime against humanity of improving the encyclopedia, regardless of any WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:NOTBURO. LjL (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Bright lines work about as well as mandatory sentencing laws. Actually not that well, when there is no clear statement of where the bright line is (see Potter Stewart; how do you define obscenity?). Any such simplistic lazy thinking should be abandoned and replaced by these questions: Who is collaborating? Who is discussing? Who is respecting consensus? And who is not? It's not hard at all to discern the difference. These sanctions hinder at least as much as they help. Full disclosure: I commented previously in this discussion, as 72.198.26.61, without !voting. I am now editing logged in again.Mandruss  03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The template is being arbitrarily applied by lone editors to articles that merely mention ISIL, who then expect contributors to adhere to 1RR. There must be better guidelines developed that clearly differentiate those article types that require the sanction. WWGB (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and "lone editors" are not imposing the sanctions, they automatically flow to articles - especially ones that cover an event where POTUS goes on TV and links to ISIL, a perp pledges to ISIL and the father of the other one says he was into supporting ISIL. ISIL is an evolving topic and keeps generating new articles. Some of the people voting Support here are the ones edit warring to keep out Muslim or ISIL from the article. It's a little cute. Legacypac (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Complete non-starter. If the organization that caused the expansion of the GS is called out in the lead paragraph, it's no stretch of the imagination that the sanctions with respect to the organization should apply under the widely construed argument. It appears the main complaint is that the 1RR is slowing down getting to a consensus version (by restricting reverts). I don't consider that a hinderance but a feature of the GS. If you have already used your freebie permitted revert and you think that something is wrong, you open a discussion on the talk page to establish consensus for it's removal. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please close the TP discussion[edit]

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

Request for closure[edit]

Would an administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? RGloucester 03:29, 11 December 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.

Edit filter RfC[edit]

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

Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions[edit]

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

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

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

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

Google Relying on Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

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

New essay[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' best practices.

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

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

I suppose it had occurred to you that administrators edited here without the tools before they became administrators? Tiderolls 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Not all experience the full range of possibilities of what it's like to interact with an administrator as a non-administrator, though. Many administrators have never experienced what it's like to be blocked, for example. And many after becoming administrators forget what it's like not to be an administrator. jps (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well that's generally because they haven't done something necessitating a block. It's amusing when these essays come up for two reasons. Firstly, blocks aren't common for regular editors, and it's hypothetically it's quite hard to get multiple blocks; getting more than 10 blocks is a pretty major feat which, I'd say, demonstrates more about the editor in question than the trail of admins. The second point is, yes, blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point. --Errant (chat!) 09:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It does seem to be rather WP:PUNISHing, I'd argue. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. The point isn't to make you feel bad because you made a mistake. The point is to put an effective barrier in the way to stop whatever problematic activity is happening. The fact that that barrier is unpleasant has no bearing on whether it is punishment or not (real world example; mother tells daughter she must stop editing wikipedia until she finishes her homework (unpleasant, preventative). After finishing homework daughter is still barred from editing because she didn't do her homework first. (unpleasant, punitive). To cast it in like-for-like; someone causing disruption on Wikipedia is being unpleasant and will not stop, they are served with an unpleasant situation which forces them to stop. Of course, it should be used in modicum, but then it most always is.... --Errant (chat!) 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The point of the block is then not to be unpleasant to the blocked user but rather the unpleasantness is a side-effect which cannot be avoided. That's rather a different sense than saying: "blocks are unpleasant for the person receiving them that's the point". One could imagine a hypothetical utopian sci-fi vision of a wiki-based encyclopedia where instead of blocking problematic users administrators were somehow able to refer the problematic useraccounts to a simulacrum where the problematic behaviors would only be acted out against a simulated community and the "blocked" user would never realize their isolation from the actual encyclopedia. In such an example, the "blocked" user would not feel unpleasantness but the point of the block would still be achieved. jps (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:ADMINANTAGONISM might be another useful essay. I think that this one speaks at least a little bit to why such things occur. The most adroit administrators might find ways around being viewed that way while still helping to solve problems. I don't know, I don't have the bit. I am attempting to describe how certain admin actions may be negatively perceived by those who don't have the bit and are on the receiving end of such actions. It isn't really meant to be an admonition not to do such actions (the whole point of becoming an admin is that you are trusted to do such actions, after all). It's merely to explain how doing certain actions in certain ways can lead to certain problems and to offer certain alternatives that I've seen work. jps (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you realize that most admin actions are not based on some prior interactions with the editors. While there is a drop in admins, there are still far many admins than regular editors here (especially since admins aren't supposed to be using their tools when involved). For example, if I review WP:RFPP, there's a request for page protection. As I said above, no matter what version I chose to protect, someone could be angry about that. If your solution is that admins should, instead of actually using the tools, try to "help solve the problem" without it, you're suggesting what, I post on the talk page that the people there shouldn't edit war? If I don't use the tools, all I've done is remove the report, post (possibly again) on the talk page and then we'll wait and see what happens. The person who reported it to RFPP is now angry at the admin for not acting. If they stop, no one really needed an admin in the first place. If they don't, there really may be no solution other than protecting the page and forcing them to discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There may be no solution to the problem you describe, and the essay does not say, "don't use page protection tools". Instead, the essay tries to describe the very problem you are outlining. It tries to identify, as you are doing, what the consequences are and how page protection can set up a kind of power dynamic for better or worse. We can all name examples where administrators protected pages after editing the pages and the edge cases of what makes someone "involved" or not constitute megabytes worth of textual analysis on this site. This history necessarily causes problems between administrators and non-administrators. Who knows? Maybe someone smarter than you or I will come up with solutions to the problems, and it is my hope that this essay can serve as a place where these problems are described in clear terms. jps (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Like teachers who are branded as villains by the errant school children they are obliged to admonish, admins invariably come under attack from editors they warn or block - and then also from some they don't (loosely described as the uncoordinated and non cohesive architypes of the anti-admin brigade - only those who self-identify with this group need to feel addressed). I'm not so enthralled by the bit about handing out punishments. All sanctions are supposed to be preventative and this rule is respected by most admins although the very reason I became interested in what adminship is all about all those years ago is because I was team bullied by two teenage admins (since fortunately either desysoped or grown up and found a new hobby away from the Wiki).
Written by a non-admin, and as such by an editor who cannot possibly know what it is like to be a sysop, this essay has a very clear spin against admins and comes across as a patronising piece of finger wagging by someone who has an axe to grind; it will be taken with a pinch of cynicism by its target audience even if they bother to read it.
I will add a link to it on WP:RFAADVICE but even there, I think it will be regarded with a certain scepsis by most of the mature candidates. My advice to the author is to run for adminship; if he fails it would be no big deal, if he suceeds it would be no big deal either, but unlike a leopard, he would almost certainly change his spots. The essay is TL;DR anyway and really belongs in user space; kudos nevertheless for its excellent style and use of English - something that is sadly generally lacking on the en.Wiki.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This response seems rather ironic. You accuse someone who is not an administrator of talking down to administrators? Odd thing to do. There are many documented instances of administrators talking down to users. For example, some administrators compare themselves to "teachers who are branded as villains by the errant school children they are obliged to admonish." Am I like an errant schoolchild? jps (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: This is only my view, but the only time this essay is going to be linked to is by an admin (or one who agrees with an admin) to an editor who is making the same arguments of the essay in a bitter rebuke/satire. I strongly suggest you add the Humorous tag or take it out of project space. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that this is true, but only time will tell, of course. The essay, sadly, is not humorous for those of us who have experienced problems with administrators. jps (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, as you can see, I'm capable of exercising enormous restraint at times. I didn't suggest for a moment that you were an errant schoolboy, but if the cap fits, by all means wear it. All your comments here seem to demonstrate is that you do indeed have an axe to grind. Thus your essay is inappropriate for project space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
And you continue to be condescending. Here's the thing, we are interacting on the internet so interpretations can be difficult to understand. What I see coming from you is an arrogance, a type of pontification that assumes that I must have a certain amount of problems which would disqualify me from putting together an essay about what I would like to see administrators do. Never mind that the essay is editable by anyone (including yourself) and is subject to community consensus like all else. You insist that your lead off was not meant to suggest that your analogy applied to me, but then go on to imply that it does. See the issue? I am also keenly aware that you have tools that have the potential to prevent me from editing Wikipedia, so any dispute we get into is pregnant with that possibility in my mind, whether you are excellent at restraint or not! Best practices is really just a matter of locking down what excellence at restraint might look like (and I have encountered plenty of administrators who have not had such excellence of restraint). jps (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Patronising perhaps, but condescending definitely not (check in a dico). But there you go again, immediately on the attack at admins, and personal attacks at me, and assuming that because I have a bunch of janitor's keys I'm going to block you or delete your page. Hey, we're 1,333 admins here with fewer rotten apples in the barrel than the UK CID. My, you have a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Fallacy of composition much? I'm not immediately on the attack "at admins". I am criticizing you specifically here. And "condescension" does fit the characteristics of your interactions towards me. I'm not sure how you measured how many "rotten apples" are in the barrel. If you'd like to offer your means of estimation, that'd me nice. I don't assume that you are going to use the tools against me -- I'm merely pointing out that you could if you wanted to and I really only have the recourse of asking for help from others if that would be your desire. That's the concern. It's not the be-all and end-all of the project, it's just one thing to keep in mind, is all. jps (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This section, no doubt, is what the above Admin. means when he refers to "plebeian drama boards". [27] Sigh. Leaky Caldron 15:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Request topic ban for CheckersBoard[edit]

While this is a lightly attended AN thread, there is a consensus to topic ban him. Using that and the WP:NEWBLPBAN, CheckersBoard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from André Marin and Ontario Ombudsman. I will make the proper notifications in the proper places. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 04:59, 16 December 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.

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

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

All this about a version far from flattering. [28]

Editing ineptness: