Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Rfc needs closure at Time Person of the Year[edit]

Done by BU_Rob13. Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would an un-involved administrator please close the Feb Rfc at that article? thanks. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it's a simple close. 8 people preferred to remove a column, 8 people preferred not to. It's no consensus. It's just that SOMEBODY needs to close it. It doesn't even need to be an admin. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2016 (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.

Wayne High School[edit]

Nothing is going to happen here, the place to discuss this is BLPN. Now excuse me while I take a shower... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I am Ryen Wilson and I don't approve of what was written about me on Wayne High School (Indiana) article. I tried to delete it but it was soon changed back. Please remove what was said about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RWilson1985 (talkcontribs) 15:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need your approval. And if you are indeed Ryen Wilson, then what Wikipedia says seems to be the least of your problems. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably should be scaled back significantly. While it concerns a teacher who was convicted (not merely charged) with child seduction, it's very recent, and dedicating 5 sentences of a 6 sentence lede strikes me as violating WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
RWilson1985 Wikipedia reports what's been reliably reported, and it's sometimes not what the subject of the article would like. The source is a reliable news source so it meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing . However, your | edit summary does not meet Wikipedia's Civility Requirements . Please use more precise edit summaries, stating why you're removing information. KoshVorlon 15:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
They got broadband in Indiana State Pen?! Face-wink.svg Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
To be honest Kosh, while it can be reliably (if you consider a couple of local news channels and the Daily Mail reliable) sourced, should it be? The event has no lasting notability, Wilson would not qualify under GNG and would be disqualified under BLP1E for an article of his own. Essentially this paints the school in a bad light for having the misfortune to hire someone of loose morals. I would be tempted to nuke it on Undue grounds alone from the school's article. (Of course this is a result of every fucking high school in existance being 'notable' despite having little encyclopedic value, so *anything* that actually makes the news ends up in the article.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: He wasn't convicted, he pleaded guilty. Please strike. I see from your user page that you're also an American, so you should already be aware that plea bargaining here has at best only a smirking acquaintance with justice. —Cryptic 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Pleading guilty, if accepted by the judge, is still a conviction. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It's at the very least imprecise and misleading. —Cryptic 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I won't be striking. A plea resulted in a conviction followed by a sentencing. I apologize if you consider the difference between a conviction resulting from a verdict and a conviction resulting from a guilty plea to somehow be significant for BLP purposes, but in this case you're mistaken. What I said was not imprecise or inappropriate per BLP. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The info is BLP1E material and should not be reintroduced. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A pattern of conduct leading to a 4 year prison sentence is not a 1event. If we apply the standard that way we would delete thousands of parts of pages. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
It isn't? The example used on the WP:BLP1E policy page is that of someone who is still without their liberty more than thirty-five years later. The policy page specifies that he is notable because "the single event he was associated with ... was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented". This one fails to meet some of those criteria. MPS1992 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I'd just like to point out that Wilson is not the "subject of the article" as Kosh states above, the High School is the subject of the article. I also think it is WP:UNDUE to single out this one individual when this person received significant local coverage as well. And Indiana has had dozens of teacher sexual misconduct cases, what makes this case such a notable event that an entire section is devoted to it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

notification[edit]

Please give notification to user for this comment which is a clear personl attcakWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

World Cup 2010, the link provided pertaining the Announcement of Establishment of Iranian Biofuel Society (IBS) in the Official Newspaper of Iran was a very valid reference."آگهی تاسیس: وبگاه روزنامه رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران".. This could be also verified by any Farsi speaking Wikipedia Editors. کاربر:تهراني ها,(User page on Farsi Wikipedia), who originally created this page on Farsi Wikipedia "روزنامه رسمی جمهوری اسلامی ایران". could be contacted to verify the authenticity of this claim (and the above-mentioned Link). You were also informed of similar pages on English Wikipedia about Iranian Academic Societies under the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (Iran), i.e., Linguistics Society of Iran. User: Hamid Hassani who has made more than 14,000 contributions to English Wikipedia and has also edited this page once could be contacted to verify this. It is unfortunate that although your profile at World Cup 2010, indicates that you know Farsi near Native level and therefore, you could have easily investigated the references provided and could have tried to improve the page on the Wikipedia accordingly, instead you ignored the explanations and references provided on the Talk page and posted a note implying that "None of the References introduced by this user is valid". Given the fact mentioned about your profile, i.e., level of proficiency in Farsi, this might have misled the other Editors who are not Farsi speakers. Anyway, please bear in mind that we all strive to improve English Wikipedia and that nothing is personal here. Wikipedia Editors regardless of their years of presence and number of contributions are advised to try to verify the references provided very carefully before trying to nominate pages for speedy deletion. They are also advised to try to talk to each other on the Talk page of articles with an aim to strengthen the editorial community. Meisam tab (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Banned editor continues to WP:EVADE[edit]

Notice: Banned editor continues to evade with pointless posts at WP:ANI, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities & Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. I'm sorta tired of dealing with this individual these last few weeks. So good luck. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA Nom Reviews[edit]

About a year ago I put out a message offering to review potential candidates for an RfA nom. I had about a dozen responses and I provided a detailed and thoroughly researched response to each and every one. I'm once again offering to conduct a review for anyone interested. Feel free to email me using the link to the left of my user page.--v/r - TP 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, we also got this page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

OTRS seeking applicants[edit]

Hello! Have you ever thought about expanding the way you assist the Wikimedia movement? Did you know there are several off-wiki ways to do so? I am posting this information in efforts to get more people on our Volunteer response team. Currently, we're in the process of working on some heavy backlogs on info-en queues, as well as others. As an info-en volunteer, you will handle tickets from readers, editors, veteran users and others. Some emails are quick and easy - such as typos or simple minor corrections. Other emails are more difficult such as ones dealing with BLPs as we are frequently emailed by the subjects of our articles. If you are interested in learning more about the OTRS team, please see m:OTRS. On these pages you will find a lot of information. If you are interested, feel free to apply on Meta. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or post here. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How has the English Wikipedia usually dealt with G7 annihilation requests?[edit]

Could someone please point me to a policy or discussion on cases where a single user wants to retire and asks the administrators to delete all the articles that they have ever created (using the speedy deletion criterion G7)? We are discussing this on the Finnish Wikipedia, and I'm sure you guys have received several requests of this kind and have an established policy how to deal with such requests. --Pxos (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pxos: No such thing, Users DO NOT own articles they create. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
G7 only applies in cases where the requesting editor is the only party to make substantive edits to the page, and even then, can be denied because editors don't WP:OWN the pages. In your example, I presume many of the retiring editor's started pages were subsequently edited by other users. I would also question the good faith nature of such a request, since pretty much the only logical reason to request that everything be deleted is that you are going off in a huff. So if I was met with such a request here, my response would be "that ain't gonna happen, bub". Resolute 16:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
There's some (very, very old) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion). —Cryptic 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
English Wikipedia would handle that by saying "Thank you for your contributions, we'll cherish them. Caio."--v/r - TP 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Green tickYSupport Renaming our 'delete' to 'annihilate' Face-wink.svg. — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if that would get more people to run for RfAs! Face-grin.svg ansh666 06:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone wonders, deleting an article in Finnish Wikipedia is simply called "removing" since the Finnish language does not actually have an exact word for "deletion". As the angry user has already requested that "an eternal block" be imposed upon him and that every single article, where he is the sole contributor, be removed from Wikipedia, I thought the word "annihilate" would be suitable for the occasion. --Pxos (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
G7 is often used when people realise a problem, and want to avoid embarrassment of some other deletion reason. But in the case of an angry user trying to raze everything they did, the material would likely be kept, and so the G7 should be declined if there was any value in the articles. For user pages you can accept the delete nomination though. If some articles do get deleted, by different admins not aware of the situation, then it should be OK to restore them again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that CSD doesn't promise that any page written all by a single user will be deleted under request of that user; it only says that an admin may do so. While an admin will generally decline a request which technically meets these requirements if (s)he has a good reason, a user trying to erase all of his/her edits would probably be such a reason. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bearing in mind, of course, the recent events when an angry coder asked all of his code be removed from the repository and subsequently broke the internet. Blackmane (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A recent AN/I close[edit]

Requesting review of the closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System (which has since been archived here) per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Limiting my comment to that neutral statement at this time, though I'll answer questions if pinged.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse close @Godsy: Why are you challenging the close of an ANI discussion that was started on 28 March 2016 and where none of your proposals have got anywhere near consensus? The ANI discussion has established that some people support (almost) all material being retained in user space and some don't—there is no prospect of more than that being achieved at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close I am pretty sure that the community has made progress since then in that they have started an RFC on the topic. I see very little value in revisiting an old drama thread. You have not even presented a basis for reviewing it, which part don't you like? HighInBC 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close The first question you need to ask is 'Would another party have closed it with a different result?'. It is highly unlikely anyone would in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq and HighInBC:"Godsy is just going to keep opening alternate proposals until they exhaust the community's patience (learn to drop the stick)" is the part I took issue with. If the close had simply stated that there was no consensus, and linked the relevant RfC, it would have been reasonable (and would have pushed IAR far enough). My issue was with an involved administrator who directly disagreed with me in the last subsection and was involved in the actual page move matter to an extent leaving commentary regarding me in the close. If it had been a neutral third party making those statements, while it would have still been inaccurate, I could have dealt with it (perhaps some self reflection would have been due). I didn't bring this to AN/I. I did open a couple subsections and provided evidence that the user who did start the thread regarding my actions engaged in canvassing and personal attacks, and I opened one alternative proposal for sanctions against said user as the thread completely boomeranged against them (my actions are barely discussed by anyone except the one who opened the thread). I had no intention of suggesting any more proposals (The closer didn't even say it seems that I would keep doing that, they stated what I would do). I understand the whole thing is convoluted, but; It doesn't seems like the closer properly read all the sections, or else they couldn't set aside their own bias. The close shouldn't stand. The closer is free to express their opinion about me, but given the circumstances, in the text of the close is not the place. If the part I quote above of the close is stricken, I'll withdraw my objection.Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Step 1 in dispute resolution is discussing the dispute with the person you're in a dispute with. Give it a rest. No one is interested in dragging this issue out any longer. Drop the stick.--v/r - TP 19:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @TParis: IAR close, why not an IAR (to a much lesser extent) review?Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
        • You know what, you do whatever you feel is necessary. I'm not even interested. You have a serious problem with letting things go and I'm not even going to engage you on this any longer.--v/r - TP 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - Whoever closes it the outcome's gonna be the same and as noted above your proposals haven't got anywhere, I would strongly suggest you drop what ever stick you have with LP and just move on. –Davey2010Talk 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. Seems like a pretty accurate assessment of consensus and a pragmatic close of a discussion that wasn't going to achieve anything more. I can't see anyone else closing it significantly differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn close. I am completely uninvolved, was unaware of all of this, generally don't participate here, and am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here (if not, mark this as a Comment instead). But I read all of the now-archived Godsy Disruption thread and I do think Godsy is right: the personally-directed language in the close was wrong, and it was especially wrong that an involved editor closed it that way (note maybe only involved editors would speak that way). Godsy was bashed by automatic edit summary in every edit to the entire meanly-named discussion. And it is mean and inappropriate to bash them in all other ways during the proceeding. To me the underlying actions of Legacy-whoever seem bad, it seems to me that Godsy was right about that being gaming that should not be allowed. It's not clear to me that the underlying actions by Godsy's to return pages to userspace were "wrong", as I am not sure if realistically those could have been proposed and addressed as a batch anywhere. All the actions that are manufacturing work by others--such as creating fake AFDs where real editors are to waste time judging quality of drafts that no one really supports--seem awful. About the proceeding, by my reading, Godsy made one proposal that was a stretch, the last one which proposed sanctions, and they were taken to task for doing that as a highly involved party. Okay fine they got some grief there. It is hypocritical to dictate that only uninvolved editors should propose anything serious of one type, then as an involved editor perform something else serious in a mean way (closing the discussion with a mean, unjustified personally-addressed statement). And, to all of you, why deny giving some respect to Godsy, who seems multiple times victimized in this, by not acknowledging the closing's wording was mean and unnecessary. Neither Godsy nor I are seeking continued discussion there, what's sought is just a revised close by someone else. Now that it has been archived some might assert nothing can be done, but obviously here one could get semi-agreement on an alternate close wording and then go and edit the archived thread (with link to this discussion). I hope this is helpful. --doncram 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You're entitled to that opinion, but in mine, Godsy instigated at every turn. And yes, editors get a !vote here. In fact, editors can close issues here as well. If you want to reclose that topic from your perspective, be my guest. My point is, nothing is going to happen, let's move on.--v/r - TP 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Doncram: Re "...am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here". Yep, it's community consensus that counts, and we're all supposed to be equal in that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Reclosed with neutral edit summary [1]. NE Ent 11:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendment to Race and intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned)[edit]

Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci (talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely: This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case.
Support - Callanecc, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Drmies, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis
Abstain - Casliber
Not voting - DeltaQuad, DGG, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Amendment to the Race and intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned)

Reedley International School[edit]

Reedley International School reads like an advertisment. Just letting you admins know about this. --86.177.178.49 (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It sure does, even though some of the worst fluff was removed in 2011.[2] It's too old for me to feel comfortable speedying it, but I've prodded. Domo arrigato, Mr IP. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC).
This is the second IP on an administrator's noticeboard in a week not to get blocked. I think we might have a serious issue going on here. Anon's can't just come to an administrator's board without the overarching threat of blockage - that's unheard of!--v/r - TP 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Said the guy who only comes around when the expiration date on his admin tools is approaching. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hehe, was it that obvious?--v/r - TP 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with anons coming to any of our noticeboards, including this one. If we really wanted them to keep away, we would have permanently semi-protected the page. The fact that many IP edits here are either disruptive or WP:FOOTSHOT doesn't mean that they all are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're missing the joke.... Blackmane (talk)

Coordinated strike/raid at Supreme (clothing)[edit]

Resolved: Page was semi-protected about 20 minutes after this post was made. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Between vandalism and reversal there's now some 150 edits or so in the past 2h at Supreme (clothing). Appears to be a coordinated strike, considering the sheer amount of just-created rednamed accounts involved who are focused solely or primarily on this specific article. (Considering the simultaneous editing of these accounts, a one-man-sockpuppet-raid seems...unlikely, though not impossible) Some IPs are involved too.

Could an administrator please protect the article and block the wave-upon-wave of rednamed accounts and IPs intent on vandalizing the article? AIV and RPP are both backlogged; a report to the latter has been in place for over an hour, and at least one of the accounts has been at AIV for around the same time. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Already handled. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

IBan enforcement request by Dennis Bratland[edit]

@Nyttend: seems to have become inactive administering the interaction ban between me and three others. I've had no response to several emails, and the interaction ban seems to have fallen by the wayside. I don't know what's going on, but perhaps the easiest fix would be for another admin to take over supervision of the interaction ban? I hate to have to post this considering the replies it will attract, but I've gotten nowhere with email. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's because, frankly, I'm tired of dealing with everyone's petty arguing. I can handle it if you want me to enforce the ban literally. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Petty arguing is the reason these bans happen. It seems like anyone who has no desire to be involved in these kinds of disputes should let someone else administer interaction bans. And anyway it's not fair to you to have to do this indefinitely. Why not let someone else take a turn? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Spacecowboy420 went to Anthony Appleyard's talk page and requested that he revert my edits on Dodge Tomahawk. He said he didn't know who made the change, yet he also said he couldn't talk about it because of the interaction ban, indicating he had checked the page history and seen that of course it was me, and he is banned from reverting my edits. I see this as a blatant violation of the interaction ban. Spacecowboy420 is not supposed to follow me around and revert my changes, nor is he supposed to slyly talk around whose edits he is having reverted. This is after several previous violations, such as Spacecowboy420 reverting our previously discussed criteria for List of fastest production motorcycles, removing the street legal requirement. I don't understand how he can do that if he knows that he and I previously couldn't agree on it. He's taking advantage of the ban to make changes and I can't respond. Yet if I overrule his old objections on Dodge Tomahawk, then he is allowed to come along and revert me? How is that possible?

    72bikers did the same thing when he deleted my source Legendary Motorcycles on List of fastest production motorcycles, even though he knows I told him I added the source and checked it myself. He says "I haven't seen this source" and deletes it, knowing I can't do anything about it.

    I don't think Nyttend is willing to take action to enforce the interaction ban, because he simply finds it unpleasant to deal with. He also doesn't check his email, for some reason. I think he should have told everyone before he became the ban admin that he never checks his email, and someone who does could have been chosen instead.

    So what's next? Can we please have a new admin for this interaction ban? Is my only other option to go to Arbcom? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    • And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why admins hate iBans. Nyttend, you have my sympathy. Bratland, if someone doesn't respond to email, that doesn't mean they don't check it: they may just be tired of the person sending them. Now, if you want anything done, you're going to have to a. be kind to your reader b. provide the proper diffs. And leave ArbCom out of it, unless you really want to experience what it's like not to get your emails responded to. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Don't accuse me of making things up. The reason I know Nyttend doesn't check email is because Nyttend told me very clearly that he does not check email. You have to pester him every single time you email him, and if he chooses to ignore you then you have no idea if he even saw your message. Since the use of email is an integral part of how ibans are administered, telling everyone up front that you don't check your email would have been a courtesy, to say the least. If Nyttend hates dealing with ibans, he should never have volunteered himself for the task. Wikipedia is not compulsory.

        I've stopped providing diffs unless they have been specifically asked for. I've found that any time I offer unsolicited diffs, I'm immediately told, "I don't have time to read all those diffs!" You yourself, Drmies, said exactly that to me, the last time I took the initiative to collect a large number of diffs for you to see. It's either, "Sorry, but where's your diffs?" or "Sorry, too busy to look at all your diffs!" Can't win, eh?

        So if you, or someone else, is telling me now that you intend to investigate the issues I've raised, and you will in fact read the diffs I provide, then I'll spend the time collecting them and posting them here. But I am tired of providing diffs only to be ignored. So is anyone willing to look into this? Or not? Sorry if I sound frustrated but I'm tired of being insulted and dismissed by admins who don't like doing the job of admins. I'm not the problem here. The problem is a widespread failure to enforce basic community standards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Dennis Bratland as I have no recollection of what you are accusing me of, and can find no evidence in the Revision history on the List of fastest production motorcycles page. Would you be so kind as to actually show some evidence with the diff. Also I would like to point out it is you who are breaking the iBan with your repeated petty emails such as here [3] in that you were asked to stop sending emails. About my edit here [4] of things that are not iban violations or any wrong doing. And I believe you were already warned about this type of behavior and that you would receive a block if continued here [5] and here [6]So would you be so kind as to show were I deleted your source Legendary Motorcycles. Were I know you told me you added the source. And were I state "I haven't seen this source" and deletes your source. If you would please thank you. 72bikers (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Right here.

    Please go away. If there is a good reason to involve you in any discussions, you will be notified. Nobody wants you to resume bickering. Nobody asked you to come here and argue with me about things I said to someone else. That's why there is an iban in effect. Please respect it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Mr bratland respectfully what you are saying to someone else is accusing me of breaking the iBan. I was told by a admin that I could come here and ask you to show the evidence of what you are on here accusing me of. Respectfully what your diff shows is not iBan related or is it referencing what you have stated I have done. It does not show me removing your source Legendary Motorcycles nor does it show me saying "I haven't seen this source" and deletes it, knowing you can't do anything about it. All that diff shows is you saying to me on a unrelated subject other than what you are accusing me of ,that references do not need to be online to reference them. And I know and acknowledge this fact as I use and list references from service manuals and magazines in print I subscribe to. If you made a mistake listing this diff as your reference. I would respectfully ask you again to show the diff of what you are on here accusing me of please thank you. 72bikers (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I note the diff given above is dated November last year, and the IBAN began in February this year. Just reminding all parties that IBANs aren't retrospective. --Pete (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit looks like a clear violation, however. Editors are prohibited from referring or responding to each other except in the process of appealling to an administrator for enforcement of the ban. I'd like an admin to rule on this, please. --Pete (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Motions regarding Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is considering a series of motions regarding the 'extendedconfirmed' user group and associated protection levels seeking to determine logistical and administrative issues arising from the implementation of the new usergroup. Your comments would be appreciated at the below link. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement

Request for the removal of User:Vanjagenije as an administrator[edit]

Consensus is clear that the block was justifiable for edit warring, any other considerations aside. Regardless, it's expired now. To avoid edit warring blocks in the future, avoid edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 16 April 2016 (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 had posted this on request for arbitration and was told by one administrator I should first post it here. So here it is.

1. While editing Saint Thomas Christians article I encountered a disruptive user Jossyys who was commenting as a sockpuppet with 117.196.150.216. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jossyys for evidence of sockpuppetry.

2. An edit war7 ensued and was reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117.196.150.216_reported_by_User:Josslined_.28Result:_Semi.29

3. Meanwhile 117.196.150.216 reported me of sockpuppetry. I had inadvertently been logged out when I made some edits.

6. Vanjagenije blocked both me and my shared IP address 192.76.8.34 for 3 days.

7. In my appeal I clarified that I had been inadvertently logged out and provided detailed evidence proving I had taken ownership of my edits on the talk page almost immediately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josslined

8. Vanjagenije removed the block for sockpuppetry but found a pretext to put into place the same block-'edit-warring'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Josslined

He did not lift nor change the reason for the block for my IP address 192.76.8.34, nor change the status on the sockpuppetry case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josslined/Archive

(The edit warring incident had already been adjudicated above- to make the page semi-protected so people could discuss which I had engaged in. Others who engaged in edit warring who had reverted more times than me and refused to engage in discussion did not receive blocks. Me being blocked was a case of finding an offense to fit the punishment wrongly given previously. It makes no sense that the person who at least tried to follow the guidelines gets the punishment).

9. I had made 4 reverts- I had wrongly interpreted the 3RR rule to mean 3 reverts of a single user. I had reverted user 117.213.58.242 once in addition to user 117.196.150.216 thrice (both are likely sockpuppets)

10. Vanjagenije refused to engage with my appeal that a 3 day block was not justified for edit warring my case nor was based on Wikipedia Guidlines, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Administrator_instructions#Results

See particularly: ""If the admin decides a block is warranted, then they must take into account the user's past history of edit warring (by checking their block log), if any, and the severity of the 3RR violation." [Emphasis added]

See my full appeal of this block on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Josslined (second block appeal).

72 hour block was clearly excessive given:

- I broke the 3RR rule by mistake. - I tried to discuss with the opponent. - I am a new user with no history of edit warring. - I let the page stand as my opponent's version and stopped the edit warring. - My opponent was not blocked for more reversals than me and the page was semi-protected.

11. Vanjagenije has proven incapable to administrate wikipedia properly:

1. They can not follow the guidelines or refuses to do so, either out of incompetence or an ego trip. 2. They can not admit they made a wrong ruling nor revert their punishment. 3. They are easily manipulated by a disruptive users- such as Jossyys through false sockpuppetry accusations.

Josslined (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note:} I refactored all of the user links above to use {{u}} instead of stylistic links that appear like signatures. — xaosflux Talk 00:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no reason to remove tools from the admin. only (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @ only (talk) In which case I'm sure he/she will be able to demonstrate how they followed the guidlines: "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks. Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues. According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."" Not a single word was followed. Is there accountability for admins or isn't there? Does the system run because brown nosers protect them? All unanswered questions. I am quite confident that reason and evidence have little bearing on this system, much less than relationships and inertia. But lets see. Josslined (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
      • What policy has he broken and misused the tools for? I don't see any policies that were violated. Remember, guidelines and policies are two different things. There is absolutely no grounds to remove tools here. But if you want to continue assuming bad faith, you can. only (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
        • I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm imputing incompetence. They are different. This admin's ruling in this case reeks of incompetence. I'm looking to seek redress and for accountability. I suspect there is none but a mirage. Josslined (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to drop the stick right now. You were edit warring, plain and simple, regardless of whether you were logged in or out (and I'm not buying your 'inadvertently logged out' excuse, because those edits are all in the space of 90 minutes and that's much too close together for you not to know what you were doing). Vanjagenije changed the block reason. The block is expired. Move on. Katietalk 01:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Josslined, I'd also recomend that you take responsibility for your actions and move on. I can't see anything that Vanjagenije did incorrectly, and you were actually very lucky to escape with such a short block: WP:3RR is a "bright line" rule which admins are expected to enforce, and incidences of edit warring from both logged in and logged out accounts are taken very seriously. This thread seems to be a continuation of your disruption. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Nick-D (talk) I think you are assuming bad faith -"This thread seems to be a continuation of your disruption". @ Katie(talk) I had posted in the talk page of the article implying the edits were mine, so I have evidence that I had taken ownership of the edits and never meant to deceive anyone.
  • My contention is that the guidelines weren't followed by an admin and I want an explanation. The questions here shouldn't be my motives but 1. Were the guidelines followed? 2. If not what should be done?
  • What Vanjagenije did incorrectly is as follows: 1. he blocked me for 3 days, when the usual guideline is 24 hours for first time offenses. He didn't check for aggravating circumstances- there were none since I let the page remain as my opponent's version and tried to have a discussion which wasn't reciprocated. 2. He didn't take into consideration I was a new user, who misunderstood the rule. 3. He didn't take into account the multiple other parties engaged in the edit war. Not a single word of the guideline was followed. That's what he did incorrectly. Show that his actions were according to a fair interpretation of the guideline, otherwise you have to accept he has shown to be unable to apply it. So far the response has been attacks on me and unsupported denials.
  • Finally, I posted this complaint here, not because I am naive as to think there are going to a large number of editors who will show support against the actions of a clearly powerful admin, but for the minority who really care about accountability and evidence.
  • Also to add drop the stick is only applicable if the debate is lost, which would be true if a debate is won when an admin does what he wants with no justification, or in another words if might is right. I have every right to complain about unjustifiable admin decision making and seek accountability. Josslined (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. No admin is every going to be desysopped over a single incident unless it is exteremely, uniquely serious, and (without even looking into it), what you've described is not that.
  2. The only entity (aside from Jimbo Wales, and he's not going to do it, so don't bother trying) which can desysop an admin is ArbCom. There is no community process for desysopping.
  3. As noted above, drop the srick, this ain't goin' nowhere. BMK (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@ BMK Firstly, I don't know what deysopping is. Secondly an admin clearly bypassed the guidelines in his dealings with me and I want to that redressed. Surely there must be some accountability mechanism? I get the impression there isn't. I went to ArbCom and people there said I had to first start a discussion here. So I'm doing things by the book- but then again I get the impression doing things by the book isn't how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia seems to work on the basis of influence and might is right basis. From my perspective its quite interesting to see it in action. Its quite clear this powerful admin could bypass the guidelines a million times and there is no accountability at all. At least this complaint will raise some awareness. Josslined (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Josslined: No, an admin did not clearly violate anything. The admin performed policy exactly like the community expect to the community's standards. You clearly find it out of sorts with the guideline. But you're alone in this perception. And that you're the recipient of the action, it's not at all surprising or uncommon that you'd find it unjust. Those on the receiving end of any sort of negative action rarely believe they are deserving of it. No one here agrees with your perception.

Now, that doesn't mean that we like Vanjagenije anymore than you; or that we think Vanjagenije is more deserving to be here. We'd love to retain you as an editor. But, this issue, you've got to drop it. You've made your case in front of others. No one sees it the way you do. Time to move on.

@NE Ent: There, I've given my advice to Josslined.--v/r - TP 04:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I can see no systematic misuse of admin tools by Vanjagenije that would justify calling for a desysop or indicate incompetence at all. Also, there's no requirement that blocks be a certain length. Considering OP is currently unblocked, I'd advise them to get back to contributing to the encyclopedia instead of tilting at windmills. clpo13(talk) 02:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just ranted at the admin / arbitrators who told Josslined to forum shop this here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Exasperation_from_NE_Ent ... could a passing admin / senior editor gently close this thread, maybe? NE Ent 03:12, 16 April 2016 (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.

Problematic User[edit]

Moved to WP:EN/I. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2016 (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:ReillyG13 has been making various pages for small non-notable parks. We need admin block or topic ban for the user ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ReillyG13; this guy really wants to get blocked badly. —swpbT 15:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Or, it could be a classroom exercise of some sort - precisely as indicated at the sockpuppet investigation. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: He is part of a school IP, this is a school making these pages. Although they have good intentions, this violates Wikipedia rules. Admins, could you block the IP? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I've closed the SPI with no action taken. It appears to be a school project. The edits appear to be in good faith, so rather than block the accounts and discourage them, perhaps it would be better to educate them on how to edit Wikipedia. We even have the Wiki Education Foundation that can reach out and assist the faculty and students. In the meantime, instead of requesting deletion of the articles, why don't we move it to the draftspace instead? Mike VTalk 15:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion opened at WP:EN/I. (Protonk) Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2016 (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.

Revdel requested[edit]

Not serious enough to warrant revdel. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please can someone revdel this as a severe BLP violation? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Declined puerile vandalism only — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Surely this is the very definition of "pure vandalism"? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the decline. It's childish vandalism and doesn't rise to the level of obscenity that needs to be redacted from public view. I don't see a mention of "pure vandalism" on the criteria for revision deletion page. Perhaps you were mistaking it for the third criteria, which is purely disruptive material? That's more for links to malicious websites, shock pages, phishing pages, edits where vandals enlarge inappropriate images to cover the page, etc. Mike VTalk 18:24, 12 April 2016 (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.

Mass temporary accountcreator assignments in need of cleanup[edit]

Resolved: The cleanup appears to have completed. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 16 April 2016 (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.

Back at the end of February we had a discussion regarding a large group of users requesting account creator access for some events (see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive279#Large_group_of_users_requesting_accountcreator_permissions). This was primarily closed here on WP:AN and were going to be managed by Pharos.

  • Access was widely issued for March 2016 ("this month").
  • March has come and gone, however these have not been cleaned up.
  • I have attempted to contact Pharos on 04-April and 07-April, however I have received no response, though Pharos has been otherwise active.

Barring objections from other admins, I intend to begin a mass cleanup of this, please comment below if you have any questions or concerns. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 01:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

AN notification was sent to Pharos. — xaosflux Talk 01:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay, I will take care of them in the next two days. The intention was to finish them after March.--Pharos (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. — xaosflux Talk 02:28, 13 April 2016 (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.

Possible Issue with Move Log[edit]

I had some difficulty reverting a good faith move of the article Oceanic (unfinished ship) a short while ago using Twinkle. Not sure if there is a tech issue in there somewhere. I eventually went into the actual move log and reverted the move but had to do it separately for both the article and the talk page. This is not how it usually works. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like something to mention at WP:VPT. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK you shouldn't actually "revert" moves via the log (or, say, watchlist or history) or Twinkle. The easiest way is to just go to the article at the new title and move it back to the old title, noting that you're reverting. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin help needed[edit]

I was reviewing a draft Draft:Light gap, and noticed that an article, Light gap, already exists, and the draft is clearly meant as an improvement to the article- both have the same lead section for instance. Could we get an admin to history merge the 2? Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What seems to male the most sense here is to paste the new version (Draft:Light gap onto the article, referring to the author in the edit summary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done Merged the two. Really need to stop overthinking things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talkcontribs) 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: actually this was a perfect time to perform a history merge, so your thinking was correct. I have now done this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Saib Tabrizi[edit]

One of the administrators, judgment about talk:Saib Tabrizi.--SaməkTalk 21:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Beside giving a false reference for his claim and breaking WP:WAR, this user has illegally used his rollback right against AFG edits (1, 2), please revoke his rollback privilege. -- Kouhi (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
My first judgment is that several people there seriously need to learn basic wiki-markup, as the discussion is well-nigh impossible to follow. Beyond that this is a content dispute that falls under AA2, so if you really think there's something requiring intervention go file an AE report. Due to the abuse of rollback I'm removing it from Samak, and further noting that competence is required and Samak isn't filling me with confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I think this case is related to WP:AN3 and WP:ANI. Content dispute and edit warring. But one of involved users abused several rules during this edit warring. WP:3RR and using rollback feature in edit war [7], [8], [9], [10]. Personal attacks and stalking on talk page [11], [12]. Don't you think User:Samak deserves a block? He's not a new user but abuses basic wikipedia rules. Who gave this user rollback right?! If you review his contributions, he abused rollback since the day he gained it. User:Kouhi and User:HistoryofIran should submit a new case on WP:ANI or WP:AN3. --24.191.178.196 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that this hits on so many different issues is the very reason it belongs at AE. And might I ask exactly how you're so familiar with Samak's editing history? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I just browsed his contribution page and looked at his reverts to check if he did this issue by mistake or not. But it seems he always prefer to edit like that. According to his contributions, he abused wp rules several times and evaded blocks. Anonymous users (ips) did not report him to admins. Now, this WP:BOOMERANG report revealed his behavior. --198.244.109.173 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

IPBE[edit]

Unsure where best to ask this so will try here as admin action would be needed.

Have recently moved home and my new IP address has been blocked from creating accounts as it goes through a corporate ip that's got account creation blocked.

Am a member of ACC and as such am a bit stuck. Would IPBE allow me to create accounts through the IP block or would I need to find an alternate route of connection.

Amortias (T)(C) 12:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Amortias: I've added IPBE to you while we sort this out. Are you comfortable discussing more details of the blocked range on-wiki? — xaosflux Talk 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
IPBE has allowed me to create an account so thats sorted that. The range is blocked for vandalism and various other unpleasentaries as there are a couple of hundred schools that go through this IP so the blocks a good block I was just new collateral. Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
E-mail would be preferable for discussion as id rather not reveal my employer as that would prety much give away my location. Amortias (T)(C) 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to email me (or any other arbitrator) and I'll look into it. Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Have spoken to Courcelles. Have confirmed IPBE until I can get a workaround in place. The earliest this could be is the 3rd May but I will advise when no longer required. Amortias (T)(C) 12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A bunch of history merges[edit]

When someone has a moment, could they look into doing some history merges based on the contributions of this user? I have left a note on their page and assume they are working in good faith, but it would be good to have all of the histories intact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

As MSGJ has reverted these edits, someone who knows more about Russian might want to reevaluate whether the moves were appropriate, as I would be willing to change everything on the templates to reflect this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I've started merging history instead of just reverting, but they can be moved back easily enough if the new titles are not appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Technical bug or issue[edit]

I don't know where to post this. Went on the help channel but couldn't find any admins.
There is some kind of technical glitch in an edit history/edit summary. Please take a look at this edit on Wicked (musical). There seem to several issues:

  • The linkage to the user page for Bovineboy looks incorrect. When I hover over that it will give you the wrong editor, instead of Bovineboy I see "User: Wik" (who is blocked).
  • The last edit by Bovineboy was in January of this year.

Something's wrong. Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The link to User talk:Wik I don't know about but they really did undo a revision by Bovineboy it was just one from last November --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Shearonink: I think this would get more eyes at WP:VPT. ansh666 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The link in the edit summary correctly leads to Bovineboy's contributions page. Also, Bovineboy remains active to this dat, why do you say he hasn't edited since January?  · Salvidrim! ·  13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
  1. Hover over the linkage to Bovineboy's talk page within Wicked (musical)'s edit history.
  2. Does that go to Bovineboy's Talk page? It does not. Instead it links to a blocked user's talk page ->User talk: Wik.
  3. By the way, User:Wik has been blocked since 2004.
  4. Bovineboy has not edited the Wikipedia article Wicked (musical) since January 2016.
  5. Leemleem's edit undoes an edit by Bovineboy from November 2015.
So
  • as I said below, I see stuff and want to understand what is going on. Taking MSG's idea from below into mind, I was able to duplicate the misleading edit summary by fooling around with the code. I've never seen an edit summary like this, it's very tricksy. If Leemleem did not deliberately craft this edit summary then I guess it's a phantom technical glitch... Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I imagine that the edit summary has been manually edited before saving. I won't guess at why this was done. Perhaps you could ask User:Leemleem if he/she edited this and why. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I was able to duplicate the misleading edit summary. I'll ask Leemleem on their talk page if they did anything other than the usual edit/preview/save.. And if Leemleem comes back and says yes, then they deliberately posted a misleading edit summary... If they say they did not, then it's a technical glitch? Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I asked Leemleem on their talk page. They responded to my query and explained the edit but they do not know why Wik's talk page is appearing within the linkage. Perhaps it's just ghosts within WP's machine... Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi all. I did revert an edit made by Bovineboy. He removed the sentence because it was cited as being unreferenced but I lacked the ability at the time to reference it. I went back and added a reference to that section. I don't know who User talk: Wik is and don't understand how that user is involved with what I did. I really hope I didn't screw things up by doing this - if I did, I greatly apologize. It was not my intention at all. Leemleem (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Just seems to be some kind of a small bizarre glitch in the system. I had never seen an edit summary with this kind of issue so was puzzled and wanted to post about it to see if anyone else had ever seen something like this before. Thanks for your responses. Shearonink (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This is some really bizarre error, but it does not mean that you have screwed anything up. I just undid one of User:Bovineboy2008's edits and there was no issue. Unless this happens again I suggest that we don't worry about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    My only thought about this is that perhaps the link to my talk page was accidentally truncated before the edit was saved. Perhaps Leemleem ran out of room in the edit summary so part of the pre-written "Undid revision...." was manually deleted for more room. BOVINEBOY2008 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It's technically possible to undo any edit, regardless of how long has passed and how many times the page has been edited since then, provided that the part of the page that edit was done at is the same as it was after the said edit. This restriction is a question of the software being able to figure out how to undo the edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic school shared account?[edit]

So there are several issues here. User:USC_GESM


I don't know if this is part of an organized school ambassador/outreach thing (do we do that anymore?), or just a class assigned to write for wikipedia, but it may need some outreach beyond what my (and others') talk page comments can accomplish. In addition to the username issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • There was movement on trying to reestablish the ambassador/outreach program, but it's stalled at the moment because of busy schedules and the like coming together. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) Are they part of some Wikipedia-organised event, or is the project known to the education noticebard? If so, then there should be a point of contact to speak to. If not, then I guess a warning/softblock about shared account, and an explanation on reliable sources vs original research? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I've posted at WP:ENI asking for people familiar with the education program to comment here. ansh666 00:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe we've identified the class and instructor. Samantha (Wiki Ed) will reach out to them over email and let them know what's going on. Per Joseph2302, it would be helpful if someone left a plain english message explaining the ROLE account problem on their talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In This Moment discography[edit]

I do not want to violate WP:3RR, but I have twice reverted unclean edits on In This Moment discography. Where should I post about this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm noticing a distinct blankness at Talk:In This Moment discography. Have you tried discussing it rather than repeatedly editwarring over it? ‑ Iridescent 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Have you engaged in any discussion so far? It doesn't appear that its blatant vandalism, and your edit summaries don't even really indicate your objection, so you're probably going to want to start with, you know, communication. So probably, in this order:
  1. Talk page at discography article. (Notify the editor to discuss there.)
  2. If there's no discussion/resolution, try to band's article talk page.
  3. If there's no discussion/resolution there, try a music related WikiProject.
  4. If there's no discussion/resolution there, try an WP:RFC.
There's really no call for admin intervention here, other than you're both starting to approach WP:3RR. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright Violations that spans 100s of pages[edit]

Dear administrators User:Capankajsmilyo has been inserting material from news sources into Wikipedia pages despite many earlier warnings. He should be blocked from editing and stripped of his auto patrolled user right before he causes further damage. 68.104.31.142 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there may be something to this. Going through a few of Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) larger recent edits, he seems to have copied entire sentences (with citation, but without quote marks) from news sources. For example, this edit [13] copying from [14] and this edit [15] copying from [16]. As Capankajsmilyo is citing the source, I would assume this is an issue of not understanding that one is expected to paraphrase from sources rather than copy them exactly (unless indicating the material is a direct quote). I don't have time to follow-up right now, but someone should at least talk to him about it. Dragons flight (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You neglected to inform Capankajsmilyo about this discussion so I posted a notice on their talk page, 68.104.31.142. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Will keep it in mind. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no apostrophe in "100s". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
And will you do anything about all the ones you already added? I noticed e.g. Digambara, which you turned into a GA and nominated for DYK: this edit from a few days ago is a literal copy from this. Before continuing with new edits, please go through your older edits and make sure that they comply with our copyright policies. Fram (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I will try and resolve them. Digambara resoved. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That was only an example, not the full list of all problems with that article. Digambara is not resolved, and already asking for its GA status to be restored is severely disappointing. First go through all your edits (all articles), see which ones are problematic, and correct them, before thinking of GAs, DYK, ... Fram (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanx Fram Dragons flight and Liz and thanku ton's and ton's Lugnuts. so who is gonna remove all the text that has already copied into wikipedia? some random examples [17] [18] [19] [20] go through his contributions. he already received so many warnings for copyright violations [21] earlier so he was doing on purpose thinking noone will notice 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC) and warning from Kusma [22] 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have issued Capankajsmilyo a final warning and will monitor his contribs. Any interested persons are welcome to participate in the clean-up. — Diannaa (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I've been away for a while but Capankajsmilyo has been warned and educated about copyright problems many times since August of last year, for both copying from external sources and copying within Wikipedia. I had highlighted a lot of problems to him (including copying issues) before we topic banned him from the area for a while. I don't know if anything has changed since then, maybe Bishonen who was helping him out may have something else to add on this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

AN3 backlog[edit]

Hello all, the edit-warring noticeboard has quite the backlog. The oldest unhandled case hasn't seen any action in over a week. Also, is archiving maybe not working? There are quite a few old, closed cases taking up space. clpo13(talk) 23:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK update delayed?[edit]

Greetings, all. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the DYK queue update seems to have been delayed by close to two hours right now; could somebody please take a look? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know/Queue/6 is empty, so there is no hooks for the bot to swap-in. Calidum ¤ 02:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Calidum, this is true, but there is a Prep area that has been filled, and also quite a few verified hooks at T:TDYK; so an admin could probably fix it with a little work. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction of comments[edit]

Blocked sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi I am Arman ad60. I have made some comments in some of the Iranian articles. I want to correct my comments. Don't worry I will not do anything that will change the meaning of the comments. I have given an example in my sandbox. Will my correction be accepted?Arman ad84 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it won't be accepted. Edits by block-evading sockpuppets are never acceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2016 (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.

Admin(?) Midom causing disruption on Occitan Wikipedia[edit]

This is the wrong place to report this. English Wikipedia admins have no standing on other language Wikipedias. HighInBC 05:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I've nothing to do with any of this but passing through oc.wikipedia.org I have noticed someone who I presume to be some kind of admin, one Midom who seems to be rather lacking in social skills, judging by what's going on here: https://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilizaire:Midom

I think I appreciate the technical issues being dealt with in there, but his behaviour is way out of line and clearly oversteps what is considered acceptable today in any functional online community.

Especially when this behaviour is directed towards a group who are small and lacking in resources, but very enthusiastic, such as the Occitan Wikipedia lot, this is just plain bullying.

He has, very much without discussion or consultation, decided on the deletion of a significant amount of data--while the reasons appear legitimate, the way in which this was approached by Midom is lamentable (and this is a different discussion, but one could argue that if the templates under discussion lend themselves to be misused in the way they allegedly were, that doesn't say much about the competence of the programmers involved so perhaps they, being a handsomely paid bunch these days, unlike the oc.wikipedia.org editors, should step in and find a solution to the problem. Just saying.)

So, for what little is left of Wikipedia's credibility, I urge you to take action and:

  • Reprimand Midom for his reprehensible actions and attitude.
  • Admonish him to present his apologies to the Occitan Wikipedia community for his rude, aggressive, and unhelpful behaviour.

As I said, I personally have no axe to grind here, but I do not condone bullying.

I might as well add, having made a note of the information volunteered by this user in his user page, I do reserve the right to contact his employer and make them aware of his highly irresponsible behaviour and questionable social and technical competence. Midom, it is up to you to take this as a learning experience and make amends with the users you have inconvenienced and offended. Providing some assistance to the OC guys in migrating their data into a form that doesn't clog up the servers wouldn't go amiss either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.182.89 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Admins on English Wikipedia have no standing to admonish users on Occitan (or any other) Wikipedia. Also, OP should (but won't) be blocked for the threat to contact a user's employer. 172.56.34.49 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
So, just to get this straight, 83.47: you want us to punish a user who (with the exception of a single talk page post) hasn't been active for over a year, for something that happened on a different site four years ago in which everyone over there made mistakes? (Calling someone a troll for saying "nuking" as slang for "deleting" is an utter failure of WP:AGF). And you're saying you are the one opposed to bullying here, despite all this and despite threatening to contact his employer? If it wasn't for the off chance that you're sincere in this, I'd delete this thread under WP:DFTT. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (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.

J.K.Simpson[edit]

 deleted.  · Salvidrim! ·  19:48, 21 April 2016 (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 added a BLP PROD deletion tag to J.K.Simpson seven days ago, and no sources still have been added. Please delete it. Peter Sam Fan 18:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh wait, it was just done. Peter Sam Fan 18:53, 21 April 2016 (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.

closing of discussions by involved party[edit]

Discussion has now been closed by an uninvolved party. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2016 (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 am not familiar with the details of administrative policy so if I am posting this in the wrong place I apologize.

My complaint is that users Jytdog and User:Zad68 have been closing and archiving contentious discussions to which they are involved parties.

Here are some diffs:

First User:Jytdog closed an RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716277234&oldid=716276606

Now, strictly speaking, he had not made comments in the closed region, but he was certainly a very involved party in discussions which were still ongoing which referenced and linked to this conversation

Then, he tried to archive the whole talk page, even though the discussion was so recent that, certainly, not all parties had seen everything that had taken place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716277714&oldid=716277459

Then User:Zad68 closed a very recent discussion in which he was involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716382936&oldid=716376878

I am not intimately familiar with conventions here, but my understanding is that the closing of these dicussions "should only be used by uninvolved editors" (quote from Template:Hidden_archive_top).

I have notified the users on their talkpage of the post here but they have both indicated a great disdain for productive engagement with me, so I have not "discussed" with them before posting here. Wpegden (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I had understood that Wpegden had withdrawn the question when they wrote this. I don't know if Wgpen is now un-withdrawing, or never meant to, or is just making drama. I don't care. I have self-reverted the close of the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
So Jytdog you "understood that Wpegden had withdrawn the question" at 19:53 20-Apr-2016. That would have closed & pacified the topic, right? But half an hour after that (21:28+) you wrote this: no less than three administrators [sic] ... commented there, and no one agreed with you. You are just not listening nor learning. That is your choice, of course, but doing that will not lead you to a productive or happy time here in Wikipedia. Can you explain, Jytdog, how this fits with that pacification you 'understood'? How is this *not* a BF threat? It got worse: at 21:12 you wrote: You [Wpegden] are violating the foundational principle of Wikipedia by pushing and pushing and pushing [bold sic] and not listening to anyone else. You will end up leaving here very frustrated, or you will get indefinitely blocked [bold added, DP]. ... You can choose to keep going that direction, or you can change. It depends entirely, and only, on you [sic]. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
(ec)There is such a thing as a forgone conclusion. It was fairly clear the answer to the RFC was a resounding "no". Does it really matter who closed it if there was no room for interpretation on how it should be closed? HighInBC 15:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems like a bit of discussion would have sorted this out after all. Wpegden do you consider this an acceptable resolution? If so I think we can close this thread. HighInBC 15:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
User:HighInBC, I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not you are right, but User:Jytdog's behavior gives me the clear impression that he would not have reacted the same to a discussion as to a notice on this page. In any case, this issue remains unresolved even now.Wpegden (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You did have a way of knowing, it was talking to the person you were having a disagreement with. In the 8+ years I have been editing along side Jytdog we have had plenty of opportunity to agree and disagree. But one thing I know is that they will listen to reasonable concerns if you give them a chance. You complain about the attention the RFC got from this thread, but the whole thing could have been avoided if you tried to communicate. HighInBC 04:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC Past experiences do not guarantee future quality, apparently. In this issue, Jytdog clearly tried to shut down any discussion, did not respond to questions (just denying by reflex), and of course threatening with a block if an editor does not shut up. See also the diffs provided here (you ignored). No civility or consensus seeking in there. You still have not acknowledged that Jytdog was overstepping talkpage behaviour. Also, here you simply state that you support Jytdog just because you know him. As I said: admins don't do arguments, they are there for friends. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Holy Geez Louise Crackers and Cheese. I haven't said I have a "great disdain for productive engagement with me" (diff of me saying that?) but you are certainly turning out to be a difficult editor to work with. The item I {{hat}}ed was a clearly unproductive violation of WP:TALK, it's here. Ironically Wpegden titled the section Moving on but unfortunately they've been doing anything but. If you think the that subthread you started with the statement Ok, the opposition I'm encountering really seems to be driven by psychology rather than reason. You "win". I will focus wikipedia time in areas where discussions are more grounded in reason and less in reflexive "no"'s. after the RFC you started (after the DRN you started) drew eight Noes to your solitary Yes, including those from complete outsiders, is "reflexive 'no's", you're going to continue to find editing stressful. If you think the subthread I hat'ted was useful and productive and in line with WP:TPYES (selected quote: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"), please, unhat it and continue your conversation with whoever will engage with you. Zad68 15:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Zad68, let me apologize about the "great disdain" quote, in your case. Looking at the history, although there have been multiple[23] threats[24] to shun me, but it looks like they all came from User:Jytdog. On the substance of your decision to hat that thread: it wasn't even a discussion with me! It was a discussion with another (apparently experienced) editor, User:DePiep. Presumably what was problematic was that he was defending my conduct on the talk page. It makes it look like you are trying to control how things look to third parties, when you hide a discussion that was literally active 90 minutes previously. Certainly, you didn't do it because you thought that User:DePiep would agree it should be hidden? Wpegden (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Great, accepted, thanks. Unfortunately though you're making a presumption about motives that's not correct. I hatted the discussion for the reason plainly stated in the hat, and which I have expanded on here: The whole subthread was off the topic of improving that article. It was just editor-on-editor sniping and comments about behavior, all of which isn't in line with WP:TALK. If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, try addressing it with the editor directly at their User Talk. If it's an intractable problem you can raise it at a place like WP:ANI. Zad68 16:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
A good way to avoid the appearance of bad motives would be to avoid closing same-day discussions to which you are a party over the objections of other participants. Wpegden (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I simply can't continue endless back-and-forth with you over this. I've said my piece, you've said yours, let's let others reading this thread come to their own conclusions and handle thins appropriately. Zad68 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
How typical: when Wpegden gets to the point, you run away with a non-sequitur. Captures this issue in a nutshell. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • When is there ever a valid reason to archive discussion on the same day on which that discussion was still active: [25]?
Whatever the conclusion of such a discussion, there is still a need to communicate to other editors. Other people apart from Jytdog are still permitted to be part of this project. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Wpegden is actually correct, an editor involved with a conversation should not be the one to close it, yes, IAR may be invoked on such a close and if consensus is with it, so be it, but that's fairly rare.
User:Andy Dingley gets at basic point here. Even if the discussion is over, it should be preserved for the near future so that everyone involved (not just those of us posting every day) will see how things went. Wpegden (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog commented above the RFC on the same subject the RFC was on, so that close should at least be looked at. As far as Zad68 closing a discussion he was part of, that's not such a big deal, it's not an RFC, it's a discussion, I'd give more leeway on that, assuming the close is accurate and not an attempt to stifle the discussion. KoshVorlon 15:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

To me it always seems reasonable that closing a discussion that is less than a day old in which you participated may look like you were trying to stifle some discussion. Certainly, my impression is that they are trying to hide the parts of the discussion where they think they look bad. I am not a neutral party, of course, but closing of discussions should probably err on the side of not being unseemly to most people. Wpegden (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have re-closed the RFC, I hope the outcome is more palatable coming from someone uninvolved in the discussion. HighInBC 15:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I am fine with that. The two closures later are more questionable to me, when they are still so fresh. It is especially problematic to me that they are hidden closures of a very recent discussion. Not all editors involved in the surrounding issues have seen them (and, I fear, this is presumably why the users hid them). Wpegden (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not. And, in general, no one ever can redo a closing (forget singing!) after consequences. I reverted. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In particular, note that User:DePiep only barely made it to the discussion before they started hiding relevant parts. It gives the impression that a lack of visibility from other parties was one goal. Wpegden (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to this thread you started with the comment Ok, the opposition I'm encountering really seems to be driven by psychology rather than reason. You "win". I will focus wikipedia time in areas where discussions are more grounded in reason and less in reflexive "no"'s. , and if so, please explain how well you feel your comment complies with WP:TALK? Zad68 15:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • un-be-liev-able. here admin HighInBC changes the conclusion and the signing of a hatting that says in bold red: "Please do not modify it.". That's how admins roll? Of course I reverted.
I admire the courage by Wpegden to enter this topic here. Of course they can't win anything (trust me: 'admins won't correct admins ever', including those who say "but I'm not an admin, I'm only advising admins to block for no reason"), but the statement is here to stay.
When I want to respond here, I can choose to do so. But in general, I have little confidence in self-corrective powers of our adminship. So it would be pearls before swines. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
See also my 21:08 re Jytdog post above. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I propose to unhat both discussions there. No need for admin involvement, just a talkpage handling issue. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You got it wrong @DePiep:, Jytdog reversed their own close based on complaints that they were too involved to close. I, an uninvolved admin, closed the RFC which other than the proposer was unanimously rejected. Perhaps things would be more be-lieve-able if you looked closer. I have restored my closure as the RFC has come to a clear conclusion. General discussion is welcome to continue. HighInBC 21:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Then did I revert a phantom diff??? (Jytdog should not edit either). Anyway, never ever can one change a discussion post when it has had consequences. eg, responses afterward or an AN talk as in this case. Your edit was not in the background, it is part of discussions about that closure. And interestingly you prove the my point here: admins don't give x about behaviour & self-criticism, they just self-righteously edit as they like. Covering admin-friends. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The diff you provided shows edits from more than one person. Look at the diffs one at a time. There is no conspiracy here. I am a bit confused as to your complaint, are you suggesting I am somehow involved in the RFC because I spoke in this ANI thread? I assure you that my involvement in this thread has been in an administrative capacity, and acting in an administrative capacity does not make one involved. As for protecting my fellow admins, I am not protecting anyone because I don't see any action that needs defence. What is your beef specifically? Because it just sounds like vague anti-admin rhetoric right now. HighInBC 22:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
wtf? Inacceptable edit you made re-rv my undoing. What Jytdog did is irrelevant (and illegal too). I reverteed it again. Quite simple: 'closed' means 'closed'. Any issue you thinkyou have should be solved differently. Glad to educate an admin. -DePiep (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
No I did not write you are an involved editor and no I did not say so anywhere so. Is what you can read. (Weird that you don't know about your own involvement, or that you can read that suggestion from my post). Your inexcusable offense is that you edited a closed discussion. And you keep avoiding admittance. Somehow I get a feeling my AGF is tested. As for your other 'questions' (suggestive statements actually): I don't feel invitated to respond to things I did not say or do. What is this thread about, by the way? -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Pay attention to reality please. Look at my edit, and look at the edit before it. It was not closed when I edited it. You keep avoiding looking at the things you are talking about. HighInBC 04:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm thinking about the issue too simplistically, but regardless of what happened when, two hatted discussions remain, which both had very recent activity, activity, which surely has not been seen by all editors who were involved in the surrounding discussions, and which were hatted by users involved (either directly in the hatted region, or in related discussions pointing to the region). I think User:DePiep's proposal is to unhat these two regions. Or if its not, it is at least my proposal. Is there disagreement on this? Wpegden (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Wpegden, you were x-ed all along. Admins and their friends cover each other whatever & whichever way, so they'll keep evading topics and pulling the talks off-track (such as this page; eg see my 21:19). Jytdog really did threaten you with a block for not shutting up. I admire your patience & eloquence, but others are abusing your civility because they can't admit their own wrongs. I find it bad approach when they force you into agreeing into some "excuse" (eg 'great accepted, thanks' at 16:50), without admitting any wrongdoing or reflection themselves. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • this discussion seems to be driven entirely by two editors who are not dealing with the reality of WP policies and guidelines. I self-reverted my close of the RfC immediately after the complaint above was made, and noted that above. That is entirely compliant with CLOSECHALLENGE (which both Depiep and Wpegden seem unaware of). The RfC was subsequently reclosed by an uninvolved admin. (which Depiep bizarrely reverted and see that edit note) The other discussion that was hatted does indeed have nothing to do with improving the article. The OP was fine and that matter is resolved.
The continuation (for example, the comments by Wpegden and depiep above) are approaching disruption/boomerang. This is the issue i have had with Wpegden - when they get their mind fixed on something, they do not know how to drop the stick. Almost the entirety of the very very long current Talk:SIDS page is driven by their WP:Civil POV pushing, including the RfC that was snow-closed. I did tell them that if they keep acting this way and refuse to learn to yield to consensus, that road leads to them leaving here frustrated or getting thrown out of here. (Depiep bizarrely interprets that diff as a "threat to block", above and elsewhere). This is your board, admins; you can leave this open and give these two enough ROPE to hang themselves, or you can close this. Or whatever else you want, of course. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Evasion. Nice try. You speedily closed a talk you were in. You threatened with an indef block, quoted above. Why not reply to questions (with diff and substance)? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I undid the hat. Hat's around contentious discussions are often counterproductive, as they merely act like giant neon signs saying Click here for drama!!! and make it more difficult for future reviewers to pursue the archives. Can we be done with this thread now? NE Ent 02:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • This is getting tiresome; DePiep reverted a valid close again. I've undone that and will block him if it happens again. NE Ent's unhatting was counterproductive too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
DePiep you keep talking about "legal" and stuff, but it is really really simple. There was a discussion about a proposal, the overwhelming consensus was against the proposal, it was closed as such. If you are to continue complaining please reference the policy involved because the things you are saying don't seem to have basis in our policies or common practices. HighInBC 04:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
On the other side of the coin this is ANI and my actions are getting plenty of attention. If I have indeed done wrong as you seem to think then I am sure the community will let me know. Until then I will just interpret consensus as I see it, and in this case you would have to be blind not to see it. HighInBC 04:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You cannot edit a closed discussion. That you claim it is "our ... common practices" is just to say you admins don't give x for that rule, and then you keep covering each other. The Floquenbeam intervention (no arguments, no interest) proves this -- once more.
There was nor is any need at all to introduce admin involvement in either closing/hatting. -DePiep (