Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 74 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 48 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 28 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 19 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

I have just closed a requested move discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Suggested_move. It was the 12th move discussion on this page since January 2010 (which may be some sort of a record), and the second move discussion in 3 months. I have therefore imposed a 12-month moratorium on further move requests.

I don't recall doing this before, so I am unsure if I should log this somewhere ... which is why I have left a note here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did well IMO. Irondome (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I don't think there's a log for this, but am not positive. Miniapolis 01:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Right or wrong, the clear fact is that there is no consensus to move, and there probably never will be. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When administrator rights are granted like this by administrators to other administrators, could you guys at least indicate that somewhere? I don't see any place where it says that administrators are allowed to impose a moratorium on conversations on talkpages. This is a wholly new right for the sainted class.

Alternatively, you could have done this as a part of discretionary sanctions, but what are the discretionary sanctions? I have no doubt that administrators like to give themselves new rights to control the community like this, but as long as it's not in WP:ADMIN, I think you guys shouldn't be doing this sort of thing.

If this becomes a thing you guys feel empowered to do, it's invariably going to end up in arbitration. The whole point of Wikipedia's consensus model is to encourage discussion. So if discussion is now to be discouraged, then what is there to be done? Note that the discussion was closed "no consensus" which necessarily defaults to the wrong version. You are basically declaring winners by default whether you like it or not. In contrast, WP:RPP protections for one whole year are extremely rare things. Why should a move moratorium be so cavalierly entered?

jps (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think this conversation has ended as I don't think a coherent voice has been heard yet and that's why I'm not convinced that closing the discussion makes any sense. Keep it open for one year, if you like, and then have someone evaluate what happens. But by closing like this, you are just asking for people to stop until May 2, 2014 when they will just pick up where they left off. Why not let the conversation continue. What's the WP:NOTPAPER harm? I think you admins may not like reading such conversations to try to figure out who is right and who is wrong, but that's not a good reason to stop a conversation. It's just not. jps (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those who have a view different from the status quo will see the close and moratorium as a "win" granted to the other side, when clearly there was no consensus. That's not "no consensus to change". There was very strong argument in favour of change. It's just "no consensus". It's an unfortunate quirk of our policies that will now allow those who have "won" to say "You tried to change this and failed", implying that they are right. And that's not at all what has been demonstrated. A brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument and make a ruling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling would be that there is no consensus to change. The current title does not provably violate policy. Sure, it's asserted to violate policy, but that's just an opinion and it's not held by people like Jimbo, according to his stated opinion on the matter, so arguing that it is, is futile. I say this as one who strongly prefers the "myth" title. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 It's a bit tedious to spend time weighing a discussion in accordance with WP:RMCI#Determining_consensus, and then be told that "a brave administrator would not just count votes, but would consider quality of argument". AGF, please. I am quite willing to go against the numbers where the circumstances justify it. (See for example crowned crane, Chipewyan people, and Hillary Clinton).

I did weigh the arguments, discarded those which were not founded in policy, and was left with a set of good policy-based arguments on both sides. Having judged that both sides had well-founded arguments, the job of a closing admin is explicitly not to make a WP:SUPERVOTE and decide which set of arguments she prefers. The admin's job is to weigh strength of policy-based argument and strength of support for them. In a case such as this, where there are broadly similar levels of support for well-founded policy-based arguments, it would be entirely wrong for an admin to impose their own choice between the two sides, and closures such as that are rightly and properly overturned at move review.

Where there is no consensus, policy is maintain the status quo. In situations such as this, where there is a persistent failure to reach consensus on a choice between two sides, that confers a first-mover advantage. The community may want to consider the notion that in cases such as this of long-term lack of consensus between 2 options, pages could be cycled between the two alternatives; but no such policy exists for now, and WP:TITLECHANGES prioritises stability.

I think that a better way forward would be for the two sides to prepare for the end of the moratorium by planning a structured decision-making process, such as has been used for pending changes (e.g. the 2014 RFC). Breaking the question down and separately assessing consensus on various propositions would be much more informative for all involved, and it is more likely to produce a clear outcome than yet another round of free-form discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your motivation, but there is no indication that drive-by closure and a rude "work it out yourselves, but don't bother me for a year" is the right direction here. I'm happy to start a structured conversation that would not have an outcome, but I'll note that I tried to do just this without a WP:RM and instead others took it upon themselves to claim a WP:RM. So if I wanted to start a discussion about how to start a structured discussion, am I banned from doing that on the talkpage? jps (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jps, a little more AGF please. This wasn't a "drive-by-closure", and I didn't say "don't bother me for a year". My concern is not for myself, but for the editors who have been dragged into rehashing the same round-in-circles freeform discussion a dozen times in 4 years.

There isn't going to be another discussion for 12 months, so best to leave it for a while. But as you get towards the end of the moratorium, you could start seeking out the editors with whom you most strongly disagree, and start a discussion with them about identifying the issues at stake on both and starting a discussion on how to address those questions, separately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl, you didn't address my question. Am I banned from discussing how to start a structured discussion on the talkpage? jps (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jps Hmm, "best to leave it for a while" was my attempt to answer your question, but you seem to want it spelled out in very precise terms, so I will try to make it as clear as I can be.

You are banned from starting a substantive discussion for another 12 months. There is no point in dragging editors into a 12-month meta-discussion about what to do next year, so don't start the talks-about-talks now. I was trying not to be too prescriptive about when it might be appropriate to start talks about talks, but if you want a precise time ... I'd say that 1 months before the expiry of the moratorium would be quite enough. That's 2nd April 2015. Is that clear enough? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, that's quite clear. Just so I am 100% understanding, no one is allowed to discuss moving or renaming that particular article until 2 May 2015 or have meta-discussions about moving or renaming that particular article until 2 April 2015. And how is this to be enforced? Should we come to you every time we see an infraction or report it to this noticeboard? Or should we simply remove the talkpage comment? Or should we archive it with a collapse box? What are the parameters by which the enforcement will occur? jps (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

jps, please relax a little. Honestly, all this is about is simply that repeated discussions are going nowhere and wasting editorial time and effort ... so please everybody, just drop the issue for a while and get on with other stuff.

If anyone starts down that path in the meantime, any other editor can close the discussion by noting the moratorium and hatting it with {{subst:archive top}}/{{subst:archive bottom}} ... and if anyone wants to contest that, ask for assistance at WP:ANI. There is no need for any enforcement to involve me rather than any other admin.

Hope this helps!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In practice such moratoriums - 3 months, 6 months, 12 months (most usually 6 months) - are not uncommon in RM closers' instructions. However they are not always of the high quality of BrownHairedGirl's moratorium here. An informal log somewhere would be helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I fix this? Can you identify any other RM moratoria in place? jps (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to have a hunt, a quick request at Talk:RM would probably yield up to a dozen examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the need for a centralized log - what would it be used for? In each case the RM moratorium is noted on the article talk page, where any admin about to make a change, or user about to request a change, can see it. Why would someone need to see it elsewise? I think WP:BURO applies here. BMK (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logging is a good idea because it guarantees transparency in what are often contentious decisions. It encourages a kind of institutional memory which is important when looking at longterm development of a situation. That's why it is done for discretionary sanctions, for example. jps (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Wikipedia can ever find a solution to problems like this where a decision that there is no consensus to change, plus a moratorium on future attempts to change, delivers precisely the result sought by those wanting no change, and is seen by both sides as a win for them? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse BrownHairedGirl's handling of this issue. Cutting down the pointless move discussions (which are doomed to end as "no consensus," since it always seems to be the same alternate title that's suggested) to once a year is a good idea. May I also add that this talk of "winning" and "losing" has an unfortunate taste of WP:BATTLEGROUND about it. -- 101.117.2.111 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Perhaps, but that's just dismissing a real view obviously held by many. Labelling it doesn't change that view. And maybe that repeated alternative is a bloody good one. That it's the same each time probably points to that, rather than it being wrong. Any objective observer would have to admit that those seeking change aren't a bunch of irrational bigots. Dismissing their request because it's the same each time is not helpful. The arguments against are also the same each time. Will you similarly dismiss them? HiLo48 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As closer, I do not see either side of the discussion is irrational or bigoted. Nor do I see any such suggestion from the IP above. Sure, there was some ILIKEIT/IDONTLKEIT commentary on both sides, but there were also a lot of well-reasoned, policy-based arguments. However, endlessly discussing the same thing without ever reaching a consensus is not a productive use of anyone's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, hence my post beginning "I wonder..." above. Even if arguments are evenly balanced on both sides, what we get from this is a status quo result. That might sound fair, but in fact it's simply one that reflects the thoughts of the side that got in first, and is diametrically opposed to that preferred by a lot of editors with well reasoned arguments. We ARE declaring an absolute winner, when in fact it's been a pretty even fight. The well regraded views of half our editors are now being suppressed by the other half. I wish there was a more even solution. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 When there is a lack of consensus (as is repeatedly the case here), any choice of title will be unfair on half the editors who expressed a view.

The question of what to do has been answered in policy. See WP:No consensus: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. In this case we have an unusual situation, where the title has been broadly stable, but only due to a lack of consensus. There is a case for arguing that this extraordinarily oft-repeated evidence of a lack of consensus is a form of instability, but that has not been how I have seen the policy interpreted before. If you wanted to make the case that this long-term-no-consensus amounts to instability and therefore justfies a move to "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" ... then feel free to open a move review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No BHG, your close certainly fits with policy. It cannot be criticised on that front. But I'd say that the multiple move requests clearly do demonstrate instability. Especially since there is so much drama every time a discussion arises. And it's virtually impossible to see any form of compromise that ever would please both sides. The positions seem so diametrically opposed. I just wish there was a way of demonstrating to our readers at article level that, while the current article title is the one reached according to our policies, a very significant number of editors think it's a very poor title. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, there have been very few attempts at an actual compromise, in the form of something that was not perfect but maybe acceptable to both sides. Trying compromise language—language that is neither narrative nor myth—would work better than repeating exactly the same proposal six times (so far). Perhaps something like Genesis creation story (I'm sure someone could do better) would be a more acceptable alternative than the oft-misunderstood "myth" language. You have a whole year in which to think up a compromise. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is a discussion committee with nominees from all sides. I know exactly who I would nominate to be on it, but Wikipedia doesn't like such things. jps (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48 Thanks for confirming that my close fits policy, tho I wasn't actually fishing for that support!

My suggestion related to the narrower question of what to with this persistent lack of consensus. The reason I suggested move review was purely that within the context of persistent no-consensus, I think there is a case for treating it as unstable title and threrefore reverting to the title of the first non-stub. I don't want to set to create any precedent myself, but I think that a move review on that narrow point could be interesting. Or maybe it would be better approached as an RFC on the principle? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creation accounts in Genesis? StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think now that attempts at compromise are misguided. A primary argument of many of those seeking change is that all religions should be treated the same. That such stories should all be called myths. (Even if that's not the case now.) That position will never be satisfied by a solution that doesn't treat the Christian story the same as other religions. It's pretty hard to compromise on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that you're not interested in compromise. That goes a long why to explaining why we get all these pointless repeated move requests, and shows the necessity for the moratorium. And you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension -- in fact, where other religions have a written creation narrative, the Wikipedia article typically uses the title of the narrative, without the word "myth." For example: Diné Bahaneʼ, Sureq Galigo, Enûma Eliš, Barton Cylinder, Gudea cylinders, K.3364, Debate between sheep and grain. It seems that what you really want is to treat Christianity differently from other religions. If the moratorium doesn't calm things down, it may be necessary to take this to ArbCom, since ArbCom is empowered to determine facts, which discussion-closers are not. -- 101.117.110.223 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been writing in the third person, and not mentioning the thoughts of specific editors. I have been trying to describe the broader problems with this debate. You wrote about me, rudely. Fuck off. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user, your examples imply that equal treatment for the Christian creation myth would be to name it after a myth's title. However, that would not work since Book of Genesis already exists (Genesis alone is a disambig), with this particular article referring specially to the creation myth in its first couple chapters. Creation myths without titles have names like Islamic creation myth, Japanese creation myth, Chinese creation myth, Mandé creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Serer creation myth, Ancient Egyptian creation myths, Mesoamerican creation myths, and so on from Ainu creation myth to Zuni creation myth. Those are the articles which proponents of Genesis creation myth wish to be consistent with. Though since their form specifically is [region or people] creation myth, an argument might be made that Judeochristian creation myth or Abrahamic creation myth is more in line with them. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not start debating the title again here. This discussion is just about the moratorium. StAnselm (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight...brown haired girl 'impossed' a moratorium? She can't do that. Seriously, this is bull(self edited).--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have imposed moratoriums in move request closes on occasion, most famously after the first major Chelsea Manning move discussion. I was asked at that time how much authority I had to do so, and I replied then (as I would contend now) that any administrator has as much authority to take such an action as the community is willing to recognize. This is informed by the reasoning behind the decision to impose one. I'm sure that an administrator who imposed, for example, a ten year moratorium on future discussion of a proposal would not be taken very seriously. A year-long moratorium is probably on the outside of what is feasible, but is entirely understandable given exceptional circumstances. I would imagine that such an imposition, like any other part of the close, is subject to consideration in a move review. I would definitely support having a single centralized page listing all move moratoriums in place at any given time. bd2412 T 01:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor wants to open a move review, then the moratorium would of course be up for review too. If the community chooses to overturn it or alter it's length or whatever, that's fine by me.

My concern was simply to break the extraordinarily cycle of rapidly-repeated inconclusive discussions which rehash the same arguments at enormous length. If the community wants that cycle to continue, so be it; or if it wants to find some completely different way of resolving this dispute, that's even better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had I known you imposed a moratorium with the Manning case I would never have accepted/supported you to be a part of the Clinton closure. This isn't an abuse of tools since you didn't use any, but no one has to recognize anything just because..."you say so". And I do not. This is not a consensus discussion. Any such discussion would take place on the article talk page. Unless arbcom has decided to make such a moratorium as part of official sanctions this is little more than bullying others and using your position as an admin to take advantage of a situation. there is no policy or guideline that allows this. Seriously.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mark Miller, I think you have misunderstood me. BrownHairedGirl did not impose a moratorium at Chelsea Manning; I did. She was not involved in that closure (and I was not involved in this one, or in the HRC closure). bd2412 T 13:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...that was really hard to find this post after opening the editing window. Thanks for explaining that and sorry for the mix up. keeping who said what straight is becoming something of a headache now.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse BrownHairedGirl's action per DISRUPT - always the same apples-to-oranges argument, nothing new the last several go's. We need to put apples (significantly widely held beliefs with extensive cited controversy about the genre) into the same labeling with oranges (nearly extinct beliefs with hardly any cited controversy about the genre), all for the sake of "consistency" - a slippery slope. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment if we are considering some sort of moratorium, then the debate should have been more structured and the close some more detailed discussion of numbers and policy rather than just "close as no consensus", which the last two do - this just emphasises a first move advantage in these type of situations. I'd suggest a more detailed rationale and structured discussion with broader input like some other closes - 12 Requested Moves suggests it is a topic which deserves a more detailed and structured close and then a moratorium. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. Like: All such discussions on this page are temporarily suspended until further notice. Interested parties are to repair to WP:Mediation to in good faith explore compromises or the basis and wording (with respect to background of the dispute, counterpoints, policy and sources) for a fully laid out community wide RfC to be held on a neutral page and widely advertised." Or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned with the simple "close as no consensus" and the first move advantage. In something like this we need a much more detailed analysis. "No consensus" often seems like an easy out to me and can allow a minority to always have their way. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This is a huge waste of time for the community to debate these things over and over. The Arbcom does similar, see for example the Infobox case. This used to be a standard type of closing comment for repetitious RMs, I don't know why BrownHairedGirl is suddenly get so much flack for it. If someone has a burning desire to discuss this yet again, or has new reasons to request a move, they can always bring their reasons to the talk page or WP:Move Review. —Neotarf (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A separate discussion of the validity of the moratorium is being held at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Should we impose a community moratorium on moving this page title. It doesn't seem to be helpful to have two discussions at the same time, especially if they are surveys gauging community support. StAnselm (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a discussion specific to that article. What I'd like to see here is someone pointing to a policy or discussion that gives any single user (with the possible exception of Jimbo) the right to unilaterally declare any discussion closed for 12 months. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this discussion is also specific to that article. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings, this issue has not been settled and we're here to build an encyclopedia, not fight for our personal viewpoints. These discussions that have been closed for a year have not been resolved in the previous 4 years and previous 12 discussions; it's time to move on. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't actually endorse, as I clearly object to anyone imposing sanctions on their own, but now that the discussion on the article talk page has been closed by an uninvolved admin and this is now the centralized discussion (if this is actually where all these moratorium discussions take place we may need to move the Hillary discussion if it is still open) I would certainly !vote (as I did in the other discussion) to Support a moratorium. This is not about beliefs, at least it shouldn't be. It is about whether or not the community feels that there is enough consensus to ask that no further move requests be made for a period of time. I generally feel 6 months is a good period, but if 6 months...why not a year. I do, however hope this will be added as a dislaimer on the talk page so that other users not seeing this discussion or not around at this time will have the proper notifications to not start another move discussion.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the actions by BHG and the moratorium itself. I strongly support a move to creation myth, but that's not the issue here. The issue is disruption of Wikipedia with continual going-in-circles move request which we can do without. The question whether an admin can/may unilaterally impose a moratorium are understandable, but in the end just rule-wonkery. If there were significant dispute over the moratorium itself (but there isn't) we would be in a different situation, but we aren't, which renders the meta-issue moot. Spare the discussion for when there is actually something to discuss. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I noted on Jimbo's talk page that perhaps things like an RM moratorium should be discussed and allowed to gain consensus prior to implementation, but putting the cart before the horse in this case won't change the end result. The RMs have obviously long since stopped being productive, and it is time that the involved editors spend some time on other things. They can always reconvene in a year for another round of "all talk, no action". Resolute 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another week, another "oh right, RFPP is a thing" reminder. Currently we're at 52 requests pending so we're in need of a little attention over there and probably something else so we don't have to post something at AN every few weeks it happens. tutterMouse (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of a bunch of them. FYI, admins being in short supply is hardly a problem unique to RFPP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rest have also been taken care of so thanks to those mucking in. I know admins being in short supply isn't unique to RFPP but would be nice if we could get some admins who'd have a regular look see every 24 hours or so to prevent backlogs of requests for something I see as fairly crucial to the wiki. tutterMouse (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It [was|is|is going to be] finals week for most university students. I would expect some delay in admin tasks until mid-may. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done some - more to do. Gotta do stuff elsewhere so anyone wanna do a few..is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an uninvolved admin to notify Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per WP:ARBPSCI. The user was minimallty active for some time then returned in 2013, since when they have been showing obsessive support of the agendas of Rupert Sheldrake and his supporter/apologist Deepak Chopra. The views of both are way out in the long grass. This user now purports to mediate in the "dispute" between SAS81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an openly declared media representative for Chopra) and world+dog. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc/Archive is interesting too. This user appears to have lost interest in Wikipedia then returned after a hiatus to right great wrongs.

SAS81 has engaged in forum shopping because he does not like the sound of the word "no". This is expected and normal under the circumstances. Several users in good standing are counselling him on the Wikipedia way of doing things, and this is ongoing. I mention this user only for completeness: I do not, at this time, advocate sanctions against him. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Askahrc has already been notified of discretionary sanctions, and indeed has already been sanctioned for harassing users from behind a sockpuppet and for wasting the community's time.[1]

There is a tabled request on him at AE, with "a low bar for reporting newer disruption". JzG, AE is likely a better place for this. I have evidence to submit about the recent continuation of his attacks against me (I was the one who exposed his sockpuppeting/harassing activities). vzaak 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the cause of this notification. I've been intermittently active (including long hiatuses during the discussion over Sheldrake) for many years and have always tried to keep a neutral, reasonable tone to my contributions. I've never shown support for the agenda of Rupert Sheldrake (I was arguing against the incivility of editors on the page, not for Sheldrake's views) or Deepak Chopra. If you disagree, please show a diff.

I have edited numerous other pages besides Sheldrake (which I haven't touched in months) and Chopra, and was introduced to the Chopra issue independently via the BLP board, where I'd offered to other editors the exact same referencing help as I did for user:SAS81. On Chopra I've been trying to work with other editors to establish a best practice to determine which sources would be most valid and applicable, namely focusing on independent secondary sources. Far from endorsing his agenda, I have argued that many of SAS81's sources should not take priority over existing secondaries. I have been mediating with editors from very different view points and we've been making excellent progress. All of my suggestions have been for a stronger emphasis on reliable sources, not a relaxing of WP:FRINGE.

I know we've had minor misunderstandings in the past, Guy, but I honestly don't see the issue here. Also, what do the SPI's Vzaak keeps pushing against me have to do with this? He got me warned once, then tried it again and was told by an admin that there was absolutely no connection. It's frustrating to try to contribute in good faith and be called "obsessed" over something I've never once spoken in favor of, let alone have editors repeatedly bring up this SPI issue. The Cap'n (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Vzaak, see above about bringing up the SPI (over and over again), but otherwise what "continuing attacks" are you referring to? I've done nothing against you since bringing up my issues about you continually bringing cases against me (1, 2, 3) at AR. I honestly would like nothing more than to leave you alone and vice-versa. Voluntary IBAN?

And yet again, what disruption? I'm mediating a discussion on citing secondary sources, how is that disruptive in any way? Let it go, Vzaak, I don't want to fight with you. The Cap'n (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear about what is happening here. What is the problem actually? All I can add is that the Capn came into help on the BLP noticeboard and chimed in on my COI noticeboard and offered to help mediate. I also do not agree with Guy's assesment that I have a hard time being told 'no'. I was not aware he was in charge I was under the impression that Wikipedia is collaborative and Capn appears like a collaborative editor while Guy seems very angry that I am here. Capn has been very helpful in a very difficult situation, I wish there were a few more like him. SAS81 (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Askahrc responded to a request on the BLP notice board and has attempted to mediate what had become a contentious article. His actions and behaviour have been appropriate and neutral, and he has provided a somewhat even tone to a sometimes less than pleasant environment. I see no reason to have brought him here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@Vzaak: I agree, but I am involved so someone else needs to do it.

@Littleolive oil: No they have not, because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area. Whoever should mediate (and actually mediation is not necessary, the iussue is just that the Chjopra media machine is trying to buff up the article), it should not and cannot be Askahrc. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Askahrc (talk · contribs) has the basic level of WP:COMPETENCE required to mediate. This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Either way, a bizarre and ineffective mediation attempt that will inevitably follow unless he is stopped is just going to create WP:DRAMA for the sake of it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Like anyone, you can submit a case to AE if there is sufficient disruption, with the "low bar" in mind. I haven't followed the recent Chopra events enough to address that. I was alarmed, however, to see Askahrc casting an aspersion on the Chopra talk page. If someone submits an AE I will add to it, otherwise we give WP:ROPE.

However the issue with WP:ROPE is it is already getting long. Askahrc uses a sockpuppet to bully users, then brings an arbcom case about bullying. Askahrc promulgates battleground polemics on-wiki and off-wiki, then brings an arbcom case about battleground behavior. After being sanctioned for wasting the community's time with the first arbcom request, Askahrc submits a second time-wasting arbcom request. After arbitrators tell him to use AE in the first arbcom request, Askahrc brings another arbcom request without using AE (perhaps because there is a tabled AE request on him with a "low bar" for reporting future disruptions). After being caught harassing users with a sockpuppet, Askahrc uses AE and a formal arbcom request as a platform to cast evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS against the person who caught him, and now after a hiatus Askahrc resumes it on the Chopra talk page. vzaak 14:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy. Askahrc had edited the Deepak Chopra article before he responded at the BLP NB? I don't believe so. I have no comment on what is happening on the Chopra article at this time but, I think we can agree to disagree.

I am differentiating between an editor who comes into an article as either an informal mediator or formal mediator per our DR system and one who is attempting to steer to a neutral ground, (Askharc) maintains civility and so far is not pushing an agenda on to the other editors. As an aside, I am always put off and become suspicious when an editor's past is dragged up in a dispute as is happening here as a means to support an attack on that editor. Such an action intended or not dirties the water so we can't see what if any the real issues are at this point in time, on this article. Whether the editor is successful at mediating a situation is not the issue. Mediation with even the most experienced mediators is often unsuccessful in my experience. What is at issue are the allegations made which I believe are unfounded.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, littleolive oil, I appreciate you weighing in. I've shown numerous diffs documenting what we're working on in Chopra, while I still haven't seen any showing supposed disruption. A few rejoinders:

• @vzaak I cast no aspersions on Chopra, I clarified an editors incongruous mention of SPI, and have backed it up with diffs. Speaking of aspersions, you are repeatedly misrepresenting events to suit your audience (and I think you could fit in your failed AE's "low bar for future disruptions" quote a few dozen more times, but be careful not to bring up "I'm interested in dated diffs of recent misconduct. No such diffs have been submitted here, and as such, I'd decline to act on the request as submitted."). You contradict yourself by saying that when the first arbreq was tabled I never sought the requested AE, then mention me harassing people with an an evidence-free AE. The truth is that I did file an AE as requested, it was filled with diffs of evidence and the admins agreed that the people it was brought against were acting inappropriately and needed to be sanctioned. Finally, you admit that you haven't actually read the progress on the Chopra page, but are apparently just endorsing this AN out of an assumption that anything I'm working on must be disruptive. You got me with one SPI and have been gunning for me since, even arguing with an admin when your second SPI got rejected. Please back off, Vzaak, this is inappropriate behavior.
• @Barney the barney barney, claiming that I have a mental disorder that is typified by gross incompetence, extreme ignorance and even brain damage is a clear violation of WP:NPA, something you've been sanctioned for before. Again, you claim that mediation will inevitably become "bizarre and ineffective" unless I am stopped, without showing any diffs, examples or evidence of my supposedly outlandish behavior, nor of being familiar with the Chopra talk page.
• @JzG, you said "because he is not "uninvolved" and he also has a significant history of POV-pushing, including sanctions in this exact area," which is factually incorrect. I've never worked on the Chopra page before the BLP, I've never been sanctioned for POV-pushing and despite people like Barney (who has misled you before) asserting otherwise, I have never seen a single diff showing any POV-pushing on my part. I chimed in briefly on the Sheldrake page, but pretty much all of my effort there was insisting editors needed to be more civil and stop issuing AN's, AE's and SPI's against the people who disagreed with them. The result was that I've been since hit with AN's, AE's and SPI's. Take what you will from that, but my participation on WP has always been to increase neutrality and sourcing, NOT to push a POV that I don't even agree with.

Basically, I feel like I'm being presented as the boogeyman, but no one has actually presented any evidence of these grave disruptions I'm supposedly involved in. Instead I'm looking at assertions, personal attacks and more assertions. I'm getting really tired of logging in to pursue a hobby and dealing with senseless hostility from the same exact people over and over again. With all due respect to those involved, spend your time making WP better instead of following people around and trying to get them banned. The Cap'n (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only drama I see being caused is by a number of the editors commenting here who keep on pushing this battleground mentality and don't want to drop it. In my COIN, an uninvolved admin even weighed in on the activity of 'skeptics' on the page and mentioning directly that it makes the community look bad. Capn agreed to help mediate in that COI because this admin was asking if there was any uninvolved editors who could help bring a balance. Capn offered. Other editors have PM'd me telling me they don't want to get too involved because of this harassment. In the meantime I'm still getting pinged and one of the editors here (vzaak) who is not even involved in editing the article is bringing up some conspiracy plot they believe either I or capn is involved in. I'd like to offer a solution to this rather bizarre environment. Let's just focus on content. If we do that then problem is solved. SAS81 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I simply asked why you brought me into it, and the answer you proffered didn't make sense. I had a right to ask. I didn't say you were part of a conspiracy.

Regarding your concern about "skeptics" looking bad, the issue is that Askahrc had previously been sockpuppeting in the role of a "skeptic" harassing users and issuing threats in an effort to make "skeptics" look bad.[2] On the Deepak Chopra page, he has continued his effort to discredit me as retribution for catching him sockpuppeting. This behavior is not acceptable.

Incidentally, I have never called myself a "skeptic" and I don't associate with any such groups. The primary problem I see with the "Guerrilla Skeptics" is their stupid name. If a group of regular, non-misbehaving Wikipedia editors call themselves "The Misbehaving Wikipedia Editors", and then they roll their eyes when people accuse them of misbehaving, that is stupid. vzaak 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Barney's statement suggesting Askhahrc is suffering from a mental disorder is unacceptable and unconscionable and most especially in the context of this discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) has apparently taken askahrc (talk · contribs)'s bizarre accusations at face value without clearly reading what I originally wrote. To clarify, I have not, never have, and never will accuse anyone, especially askahrc (talk · contribs), of being mentally ill. I do not really care what illnesses askahrc (talk · contribs) has. What I do accuse askahrc (talk · contribs) of is rank incompetence, contrary to WP:COMPETENCE, and lacking even the basic competence to understand that he's not competent. This is what Dunning–Kruger effect says - read the article here!). This is with great justification as outlined by Vzaak (talk · contribs).

Actually, I believe I was being extremely generous in accusing askahrc (talk · contribs), and assuming good faith that he's not just a thoroughbred troll, just completely incompetent.

I believe this is the worst case I have ever seen of a user falsely whining "personal attacks" when confronted with basic damning evidence against his anti-consensus behaviour. In this I assume that in good faith Askahrc (talk · contribs) is not deliberately lying, but just not competent enough to distinguish fair commentary on his capabilities from personal attacks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm familiar with both the condition and what you wrote. You suggested here an editor may be suffering from what is a mental illness, "This may be due to the Dunning–Kruger effect." I assume now you did not mean to suggest mental illness. You might consider retracting the comment. I might add that suggesting another Wikipedia editor is completely incompetent is a lot to take on oneself. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Since no uninvolved admins have weighed in and this has become yet another tit-for-tat squabble among the usual suspects, I suggest this be closed. If there is evidence of misconduct, present the diffs at AN/I, I'm not sure why this dispute was brought to AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Little olive oil (talk · contribs) - the Dunning–Kruger effect is not a mental illness. Please stop displaying your ignorance by claiming that it is or might be construed as such.

It is also usually considered best if a "mediator" in a dispute has the confidence of all parties involved. Since Askahrc (talk · contribs) clearly doesn't have the confidence of those broadly as "sceptics", it is clear that he can't and shouldn't be getting involved. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney: Dunning-Kruger can overlap in some with or as anosognosia which can in turn overlap with psychosis. At any rate although I guess its better not to comment on the editor but stick to the edits. Askahrc has the right to be involved as any of us do. As I said above. I did not see him as a mediator (and I have struck the word since it was causing confusion) per our DR but simply as a neutral-toned editor. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Apparently Askahrc claims to be "uninvolved" because he has not edited the Chopra article. He has, however, been involved with the parallel article on Rupert Sheldrake: Sheldrake has been prominently supported by Chopra and the two reference each other, Chopra holding up Sheldrake as an example of trying to "bridge the gap between science and religion" (a little like trying to bridge the gap between Sakatchewan and sasquatch: a futile and meaningless exercise). The two are inextricably linked, and the common thread is extremely relevant in that in both cases the problem is the rejection of the subject's conjectures by the reality-based community. That plus a prior ArbCom sanction indicate that Askahrc is absolutely not a proper person to even offer to mediate, and definitely will not be accepted by a number of those with whom the purported mediation is required. In fact, no mediation is required, only patient explanation of why Wikipedia will never portray Chopra as a medical visionary until credible scientific evidence is produced to support his beliefs. It's taken medical science a century to slay the ghost of superstition, vitalism and magical thinking, Chopra basically represents the undead corpse of this unlamented triumvirate. That's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, beautifully written, but an opinion. While we can respect the opinion we don't have to base an article on it. You are right though in that Saskatchewan and Sasguatch are not related although there may be Sasquatch in Saskatchewan. They'd have to fight off the grizzlies, though.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Correction, Barney the barney barney, I don't have your confidence, the discussion on Chopra (of which I'm just one member) is progressing nicely toward a reasoned consensus. There have been no problems there, but you wouldn't know since you haven't been involved in the discussion. Do you have anything productive to add besides insults and calling users ignorant and incompetent?

And Guy, I've never tried to assert that Sheldrake or Chopra (btw, one mention of Sheldrake by Chopra does not make the two inextricably linked) are medical visionaries, medically mainstream or anything related to the unlamented ghosts of superstition you brought up in your WP:RGW speech. Also, the ArbCom you reference sanctioned me on the first round of SPI's vzaak brought against me, not on POV issues (he brought that too, but it was tabled for a complete lack of evidence).

I'm so tired of this nonsensical-talking-in-circles, I don't come on here to fight. You keep claiming I'm POV-pushing, then I ask for POV diffs, and then you bring up something completely unrelated, then I ask for POV diffs, then you go on about the grand scheme of things, then I ask for POV diffs, then your associates pop in with PA's, then I ask for POV diffs, then you claiming I'm POV-pushing again... For crying out loud, take a breath and look around! I've been working civilly and productively with editors who share our perspective (yes, ours, if you'd take a second to read my posts) to find consensus in organizing secondary sources by reliability in an objective method. It's preposterous that this is contentious! The Cap'n (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Askahrc (talk · contribs) - I don't present myself as some kind of spokesman, but I'm confident that most of the WP:FRINGE-fighters from WP:FRINGE/N basically agree with me that you shouldn't get involved in this. I don't want to name drop, it's terribly unbecoming. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP! This is so juvenile and childish and disappointing to see Wikipedia operate this way. It's not hard to see what is going on here. If I never came to Dr. Chopra's article, I don't think anyone would be going after the capn. Considering that Guy, Barney the Barney and Vzaak all seem to want him to go once he started to help. Yet neither Guy, Barney or Vzaak are making any contributions in the discussion other than accusations, soapbox speeches and aspersions, they are simply NOT HERE to contribute!

Vzaak why you're involving yourself here when you claim to be so uninvolved is rather unscrupulous. No one mentioned anything about any skeptical groups, and I find the claim that you do not consider yourself a sceptic to be a very dubious considering your contribution history. At least Guy and Barney are upfront, I know where they stand. And I also don't appreciate you misrepresenting our discussion, you did accuse me on my talk page of withholding information which by definition would make me apart of this conspiracy your so convinced and excited about. Also, since you decided to single yourself out and bring your own actions to my attention, this conspiracy theory trip your on about Dr Chopra is over the top and bordering on something I would rather not mention. I noticed that you recently accused the capn somehow of being in cahoots with Dr Chopra regarding the Ralph Abrams issue???? are you serious? And I see you have a hard time letting that conspiracy theory go as well, plastering Wikipedia with this gibberish.ex1, ex 2 ex 3.

PLEASE STOP THIS ALL OF YOU! I am here to help diffuse a situation, I'm not naive to the environment here. When I see editors gang up on the one or two editors from the outside that are trying to help and the levels of effort they make to harm them sends chills up my spine and makes me question how Wikipedia could ever operate this way. Very sad to see this! SAS81 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin(s), please either weigh in or close this case. Otherwise, the bickering will continue which is not a profitable use of this space or your time. Accusations without evidence are just that, accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SAS81: This is off the rails. Stop accusing me of this "conspiracy" stuff. You have seemingly misinterpreted effectively all of what I have said recently and in the past. You are linking to things that are manifestly not conspiracies, like the WMF server cache bug issue. It is not some "wild idea" that Askahrc engaged in deception by using a sockpuppet to harass editors. That is a formal finding logged at the arbcom page on pseudoscience.[3] vzaak 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SAS81 I appreciate your support, but I'd recommend you keep your distance from this debacle. I'm happy to help you (or anyone who asks) with sourcing, but as a COI you're probably going to be held to a different standard and I'd feel bad if you got roped in and started getting slammed with vague accusations like I've been recently. They've repeatedly gotten hostile against Liz and all she did was comment that they were being uncivil.

I urge you to not give up on WP policies and continue operating openly and honestly. Be careful of getting involved in third party disputes like this as it will not help your case, even if what you read is outlandish. As a COI, it may not be helpful to my case, either. I have faith in WP procedures; this trio have no evidence, argument or position other than their personal dislike of me and I trust any given admin (aside from Guy, of course) to see that.

@Vzaak you aren't addressing the fact that after the SPI (which concluded with just "Fairly Convincing") you kept accusing me of socking, even accusing me of committing crimes until an admin told you to stop. Nor that your associate Barney was sanctioned on that board for WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I'm through contributing to this meaningless wall of back & forth. I've tried to answer questions, be civil and explain the situation, but it appears useless. If someone has a question, please ask me, otherwise I'll spend my time doing something useful. The Cap'n (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Askahrc, it is not right for you to continue to cast evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS. If you wish to disentangle yourself, stop casting aspersions. I never simply "accuse" anyone of socking, as you suggest. Rather, when there is evidence of socking, I file an SPI. Two administrators concluded that you were socking because of the evidence showing that you were socking. Regarding the second SPI, there was ample evidence for a checkuser request, and indeed a checkuser was run. You now claim that an admin told me to "stop". No administrator said any such thing (stop what?). You have been given many warnings: cease casting evidence-free aspersions. By contrast, the SPIs I have filed are backed up by solid evidence. If you have evidence of misconduct on my part, take it to WP:AE immediately. vzaak 02:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if it would be considered relevant, but a note on my talk page indicates that Askahrc is collaborating with Tunmbleman and suggest that this campaign is intentionally disruptive. Make of it what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly poking my head back in... @Guy, that note was left by an editor who was warned and sanctioned for misrepresentation, incivility and PA's about the very issue they're bringing up again. The Cap'n (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That conversation on Guy's talk page called "Cap’n McDouche" is disturbing as editor 76.107.171.90 is seeking collaborators and ideas for ways to get The Cap'n kicked off Wikipedia and s/he also badmouths Olive and myself. Publicly conspiring to drive editors one has differences with off Wikipedia is hounding and disruptive and should be discouraged. It also confirms what The Cap'n has been saying about a small group of editors persistently seeking ways to get him blocked for no other reason than they disagree with him. @76 has already received one block for his behavior towards The Cap'n but admins should be aware of this plotting. They admittedly want to get The Cap'n blocked, they are just looking for a reason...they have tried several times but have not succeeded. I don't think any editor should have to put up with this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The article is supposed to be about MS Windows, but the whole thing is currently reading (at least on my machine) as a thing related to WP:HATNOTE. Not sure what happened there, but it definitely needs a looksee, and one form an admin because the page is protected at the moment. 24.92.104.80 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks normal to me. Please try refreshing your cache or purging the page. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was because of an edit to Template:Rellink, now fixed. As Diannaa says, purging should fix any articles that are still using the broken version. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This article has been speedy delete in es-wiki and fr-wiki, as encyclopedic irrelevant and hoax. I notice that here was placed a template proposing deletion, but instead an IP replace it with a reference template. In my home wiki it´s not allowed to do that, but I'm not familiar with the processes in the english wiki, so I prefer to inform about here. Regards, —Frei sein (Talk to me!) 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC) PS: Looking more close at the revision history, the page has already been propose several times for deletion and every time the template has been change or eliminated by the user who created the article or an IP. Please, an admin need to look at the article.[reply]

It is permitted to remove a BLP-prod template if a reference is provided that verifies what the article says. The reference added here does not. Rather than simply replace the BLP-prod, I will nominate this at WP:Articles for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexa Olvera. Thank you, Frei sein. JohnCD (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there, this is borderline CSD#G3. Not sure what that says about the editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon, let sleeping hoaxers lie, unless he makes a nuisance of himself by removing the AfD template or vandalising the discussion; then block as WP:NOTHERE. His Spanish block is a username block: Viola la política de nombres de usuario. His first name may be related to pedo = a fart, pedorrero = one given to farting, which my dictionary marks as tabu, but I can't make anything of his second. My wife thinks it may mean something rude in Basque. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the collapse at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Skookum1 again; closure may be appropriate, as we weren't getting anywhere, but the closure header is not a possible interpretation of what needs to be done, even by Skookum1, himself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often I find myself agreeing with Arthur Rubin. I have stricken the last part of the NAC closure. The admins in question were acting in their admin capacity and on the request of other users. They are to be commended for attempting to take on this messy and thankless chore. —Neotarf (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reporting this user to ANI because they continue to be disruptive. I previously reported Anjaan333 for edit warring here. User kept trying to edit Drishyam to his/her preferred vision, failed to participate in discussions, failed to respond to warnings, failed to properly explain their edits, and was ultimately blocked for long-term edit warring. I also opened an SPI report after noting a suspicious new account Sajay the future of india, which was created 2 hours after Anjaan received his 48 block, making the same fundamental edits. Anjaan's block expired, and he's again submitted disputed content at Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). In this edit the user again submits their version of the article, which they had submitted multiple times before their block.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. From what I can tell, the user is randomly reordering names, changing references, making assertions about box office gross that isn't supported by the source (User asserts 50 crore total, source says "close to 49", and the community apparently disputes the reliability of the sources used), Anjaan333 fails to actually DISCUSS the edits per WP:BRD (see this deleted warning/note I placed on his talk page asking him to do just that) and his edit summaries are insufficient, tending to comprise confusing statements like "if you are a mohanlal fan then saw his films not distroy wiki", "Ok sir", "Sir", "Sock", "Socker", "Sorry", "Where is unsourced". Since there seems to be no getting through to this editor, I think this goes beyond edit-warring, and is just straight-up disruptive editing. User also didn't respond when he was notified of the edit warring report I filed, so I doubt he's going to let us reason with him. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user's unwillingness or inability to use talk pages [12] [13] is troublesome and either a symptom of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:NOTHERE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps it's a sign that we really do need a discussion system that inexperienced people can navigate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Đeneral Janković article is renamed, contrary to the outcome of the last RM discussion. Will somebody restore its name prior to contested renaming. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back with a note that, as a controversial (to say the least) subject area, any renaming must be done through the WP:RM process. I'm about to drop a note on the mover's talk page pointing out the same thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI has an enormous backlog with at least one case listed 9 days ago awaiting action. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people that you should speak to about that are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ive come across a page that Im really not sure whats happening. User:Djgriffin7/Mark G. Frank has ~17+ editors editing it, most of these users its their only activity. Im not sure exactly what is going on. Is this some kind of sock issue or what? Werieth (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

School project? GiantSnowman 15:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first guess, too. Note that Djgriffin7 previously did a lot of work on Steven A. Beebe (formerly a page in Djgriffin7's userspace), who like Frank is a communications professor. Also, a lot of the usernames editing this page end in "93" or "94", which would suggest a class of college students who are 20 or 21 years old. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A bunch of students working on their professor's article would be my random guess, but surely the easiest way to find out is probably to ask one of them on their talk page? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...or to be more efficient ask @Djgriffin7: as he is likely the co-ordinator. GiantSnowman 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the IPs that have edited the page, I would say it is a project from State University of New York at Buffalo. GB fan 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a class project at SUNY Buffalo. See [14]. Re Steven A. Beebe, see User talk:Djgriffin7/Steven A. Beebe. It would also be helpful to put him in touch with Wikipedia:Education program. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - yes - these two pages are class projects for students who are enrolled in Communication Theory courses. Out of the approximately 75 students across two classes at two schools not one of them had ever edited Wikipedia in any fashion (until now). I hope that our activity was not too troublesome and was not so erratic or error filled as to cause any problems. I of course am a new Wikipedia editor and am open and welcome any tips or advice. Graciously. Djgriffin7 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djgriffin7, we have a School and University Projects area that you would usually contact in advance of the project in order to help alleviate concerns like this, and coordinate the types of learning that are conducive to Wikipedia. This will help you to ensure your student success! the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP 24.135.50.156 comment, labeled Wikipedia all-time low, at Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, labels unspecified WP contributors as "neo-nazis." We don't need such invective in connection with such a potentially fraught topic. [15] Sca (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can place a warning on their talk page. That's a start. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (not I) already removed it. Sca (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a move request to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction. The template has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community Sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for Community Sanctions. The move request is at Template talk:Ds. —Neotarf (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As most of you are probably aware, I have a long-standing history with User:Rich Farmbrough. Some of you feel that I should leave him alone, either because my complaints are meritless (which is contradicted by the results of these discussions), or because there is no need in a wiki-environment for one person to follow the edits of another, no matter how many times they have found problems in them; the theory is that if it is bad enough, someone else will notice it. In reality, this make take quite a while though; once editors are established, their edits get very little scrutiny, as evidenced by the below.

In an effort to reduce the number of complaints and errors, Rich Farmbrough has received three editing restrictions, basically an attempt to improve the quality of his editing by reducing the quantity and repetitiveness of them. While the restrictions seem to be followed now, the wanted results are lacking. I have focused on the articles he created since his return, the ones listed here between George T. Lanigan and Aux Raus, i.e. (not counting the disambiguation pages) some 43 articles. I have not focused on his many redirect creations, although they have some of the same characteristics, like the self-referencing Template:South-Sudan-politician-stub or the dubious value of P D J F de P J N M de los R C de la S T R y Picasso, which seems to be a novel invention, not something really ever used by Picasso or in any serious work about him.

Not mentioning simply unsourced articles or articles with serious typos, and skipping those I was not able to quickly research (e.g. biographies of Japanese military personnel), I noticed among these 43 new, often very short articles the following problems (in reverse chronological order):

• George T. Lanigan
  • Wrong year of birth and death (article gives (1815-1874), correct would be either 1845 (10 December) or 1846 as year of birth, and 1886 as year of death, e.g. [16]
  • Wrong business (politician? Can't find any evidence for it)
  • Lanigan or Lannigan? Article was moved, but lead not corrected
  • No references
• St George Henry Rathbone
  • Merged an existing article with the right name to his newly created one with the wrong name (original was St George Rathborne, note the extra "R" in borne)
• Peter Irving
  • Only claim to fame is a book he wrote, Giovanni Sbogarro: A Venetian Tale. In reality, he didn’t write that book, but translated it from the French (original by Charles Nodier, Jean Sbogar, Histoire d’un Bandit Illyrien), which leaves us with a distinct lack of any notability in the article.
  • Originally claimed that the book was written in 1920 instead of 1820, corrected by someone else
• Josias von Rantzou
  • Title and first line don’t match; title is wrong, should be at Rantzau, not Rantzou
  • Unsourced
• John Russell (1838-1956)
  • 1838-1956: really? That’s quite a feat
  • We already had the article John Russell (screenwriter) on the same person…
  • Image is probably still copyrighted (uploaded to Commons as PD by Rich Farmbrough, but artist died in 1945, so not dead for 70 years yet)
• Olga de Kireef Novikoff
  • Born in 1842? No, born in 1840 (some sources give 1848, but none seem to give 1842)
  • Better known as Olga Novikoff or Olga Novikova, or especially Olga Alekseevna Novikova, but very rarely, if ever, as Olga de Kireef Novikoff (no Google books or regular google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors)
• Anne Lattin
  • Her real name is not "Louis Dwight Cole" but "Lois Dwight Cole", much better known than the rarely used pseudonym Anne Lattin. Important for playing a crucial role in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor, not for her few books, but that can't be learned from the article
  • Born c. 1910? Well, actually, born 1903, died 20 July 1979
• Custódio José de Melo
  • Almirante de Melo was a sailor? Well, yes, "almirante" is the Portuguese for "admiral", so he was an admiral, as someone else helpfully added as a category afterwards… Perhaps technically not wrong, but not helpful for our readers at all.
• José de León y Echales
  • Taking three days to die? No, some Sergeant-Major, the only one to survive the massacre and reach camp, survived for three days: the Governor was probably instantly dead. This can be seen here, the source used by Rich Farmbrough.

So, of these 43 articles, at least 9 have serious problems (certainly when taking into account the stubbiness of many of them), some more major than others of course. Many of the others are probably factually correct, and some errors undoubtedly escaped me, but is it really acceptable that an experienced editor (not some clueless newbie) is filling Wikipedia with this amount (or percentage) of really incorrect information? Creating duplicate articles, merging a correctly titled one to an incorrect title, getting dates of birth and death wrong, missing the important facts of someone's live completely, ...

All advice on how this can be prevented is welcome. Sofixit is a short term solution, but hardly something that one can expectr to be a continuous state for any editor. While we need prolific and enthusiastic editors in general, we don't need them no matter what, and at some point one has to consider whether many contributions outweigh this many errors. Fram (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you and Rich Farmbrough make a great team - he tees up rough and stubby articles and you do the detail work. A tremendous amount of Wikipedia content is created through exactly such steps. bd2412 T 15:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind rough and stubby, I mind wrong (and unsourced as well, since that makes it much harder to check everything). I don't mind correcting someones errors, if it is a rare occurrence or if there is improvement. But neither applies here, and at some point enough is enough. The very least is requesting that all his articles (and major edits) are properly sourced, so that we don't get edit summaries like "Well I think he was on a council, possibly somewhere beginning with B."). Fram (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ...An edit in which he removed the reference to being a politician. He was fixing what you found him at fault for and you still find him at fault while fixing it. By the way, there was in fact a George T. Lanigan who served on a council in Boston, just not THIS Lanigan. Rich's edit summary is a mea culpa, nothing more, nothing less. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sofixit is how Wikipedia works. Every single one of us makes errors. It's the body as a whole that works. WP:PERFECTION (which states that perfection is not required) is policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sofoxit is nice, but that doesn't mean that substandard editors are allowed free rein. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is the guideline that applies here (e.g. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #2, but also WP:IDHT: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.". Fram (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram, really, most of these are not "serious problems". They are minor, and easily rectified. Just a cursory review of the 9 you selected shows errors on your part. Examples; Peter Irving was a member of the New York State Assembly. It took me just a few seconds in a Google search to find that. Sufficient for notability (see WP:NPOL). You claim that File:Greattrainrobbery.jpg is "probably still copyrighted". You are wrong. The work was published in 1912 (which is noted in the article), making it clear of copyright as it was published prior to 1923 (See [17]). You claim Ms. Cole is famous for her role in "in publishing Gone with the wind as an editor". Well, since you attack Rich for copyediting errors, you should have typed "Gone with the Wind". Yes, almirantes are sailors, and the article was in need of improvement, a fact that Rich noted himself on the article. I also note that several of the issues that you raise have already been corrected by Rich. Perhaps you should have raised this at his talk page first? "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution" (WP:DR). Since you are making so many errors in posting to WP:AN, should we disallow such "substandard editors" the "free rein" to post here? You're focusing on 21% of the articles he created, finding problems that do not exist, and failing to recognize the 79% where you didn't find error. You failed to raise these issues to Rich to give him an opportunity to fix them (which he is now doing). This is agitating. Go back to Rich's talk page and work it out. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong agreement with bd2412 here. WP does not (rightly or wrongly, but that's how it is) have a minimum quality standard. WP:CSD is as close as it gets.

WP used to have a practice of collaborative editing, per IMPERFECT and SOFIXIT. This has been increasingly eroded recently, a development that does nothing to improve quality and even less for breadth of coverage. The deletionist logjam that nothing can be created unless perfect in all aspects from the start is one of the most harmful problems today. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes there are issues, a lot of articles have issues. Thousands and thousands of articles are blatantly wrong on some level. Rich does need to be more careful, many seem to be simple typos at really key points, but he has come back to fix them when the error was pointed out.[18] Rich should develop some content to GA and FA standards, but that's a journey and I hope he'll make the jump to it. Rich, you should not be egging it on with edit summaries about "automation" and such. Though it seems bizarre that someone should have to worry about the Proveit citation template maker or something... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument from WP:SOFIXIT is incorrect. Yes, Wikipedia does indeed grow and get better by editors fixing other editors' mistakes, but that does not negate the obvious, that an editor who creates articles with many mistakes in them is a problem. When we fix problems in an article, we AGF that the problems got there accidentally, but if an editor is having a lot of accidents, it points to a lack of care, and that hurts Wikipedia. For the time before a mistake is fixed, our accuracy is less than it should be, and out credibility (such as it is) is reduced. For these reasons, an editor who habitually makes content mistake needs to be dealt with. Fram is right to bring this to our attention - although Fram should also have fixed the problems they found and not left them in the articles. BMK (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The initial creation of George T. Lanigan seems to have been copied from Hugh Graham, 1st Baron Atholstan without attribution, which is also potentially a problem. Choess (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Celibacy#Requests for comment

Would like someone like to take a look at the discussion above and see what should be done. This originated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) which closed a few months ago as a merge to Celibacy, but what does one do when editors at the target do not want it? There seems to be a rough consensus to not include said material, but as it was never a formally-posted/templated RfC, not sure if we advertise for a wider audience or just run with what's there. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the community's input on two matters:

1. Specifically, EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22
2. Generally, what are admins obligated to consider when blocking for edit-warring when two or three reverts have been made.

The article in question is Human sexuality history. Diffs supplied upon request but I don't think anyone is disputing the actual edits.

Flyer22 reverted twice in the span of five minutes this morning. After the second revert, she was warned by the other editor for edit warring. No more reverts occurred on her part and talk was ongoing [19]. After about forty minutes after her last revert, EatsShootsAndLeaves blocked her and the other editor (who had three reverts) for edit warring. There is some history between Flyer22 and EatsShootsAndLeaves as Alison will attest to [20]. Other editors including myself got involved on both talk pages [21], [22]. Rather than discussing lifting the block, EatsShootsAndLeaves chose to characterize my comments as "atrocious and incendiary" [23]

Whether he agrees or not, EatsShootsAndLeaves' actions gives the appearance he will impose WP:1RR as he sees fit. As I said on Alison's page, I'm just flabbergasted that an editor in good standing can be blocked for two reverts with no warning. Looking over the edit histories of the 20,000+ articles I have watchlisted, hundreds of veteran editors would have lengthy block records if this was applied across the board. There needs to be some other justification for blocking other than "two reverts". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most disgusting show of ABF I've seen in ages. I'm currently in discussion with Writ Keeper on my talkpage regarding this issue, and have already advised that I would review. NeilN's incendiary and non-AGF comments so far today have been unfortunate, just like this filing - it's phrased as a question, but is instead an accusation. I will, however, make nomore comments here - and will continue the discussion on my talkpage where it's already underway the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that the word "incendiary" applies to both ESL and NeilN here. Rage and accusations aren't going to help outsiders understand what happened here, or decide what should happen going forward.

  It appears that ESL has said he's going to re-review the basis for the block; how about we give him a little time to do that and then see what might or might not need doing? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I am aware, there are no discretionary sanctions on 'Human Sexuality' although there are on some specific areas that fall under it, so there is no real reason for any admin to start imposing a 1rr restriction without some form of discussion. While edit warring can be done with less than 3rr, if someone makes 2 reverts, is warned about edit warring, and starts discussing on the talk page. That is how editing is supposed to work. Any block at that point is just punitive and petty. So since EatsShootsAndLeaves wants a question, here is one - "What about your block was preventative?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very premature. I do see that User:NeilN is discussing with ESL, as we like to see, but while that discussion may not become a case study for how disputes ought to be discussed, it looks to me like it was abandoned a bit early. I'm sympathetic to the point that the block appears a bit hasty, but talk about it and come back here if that fails.(in other words agreeing with the sandwich)S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a veteran editor labels your point of view "atrocious and incendiary" then that's a sign for me to break off and get other opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For convenience, I've assembled a list of the relevant diffs, sorted by time made: User:Writ Keeper/FM-Interleaved edit history Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Writ Keeper, as you know, topics surrounding human sexuality are the primary areas where Flyer22 tends to edit. They do a lot of good work there, across a swath of topics I wouldn't even begin to touch. However, human sexuality topics are also those that have gotten many editors in a lot of trouble - having just search ANI for both "Flyer22" and "human sexuality", you can see a lot of issues raised across the board - including a rather nasty situation between Flyer and a transgender editor that I believe ended horribly. It's an often poisonous set of topics where ownership has often been accused, and tempers have flared...often with very little provocation.

Flyer22 is a long-time editor, and while they have been knee-deep in some of these situations, have been provoked, and have also done some of the provoking. As a long-term editor, they also understand EW, its difference from 3RR, and the appearances. They know WP:BRD like the back of their hand.

From what I see of your list, it was almost 30 minutes between Flyer22's last revert on Human sexuality and when I blocked both editors. This delay is not at all questionable - after all, WP:AN/3RR reports often go hours without being touched, and blocks that come from those delayed reviews are not considered punitive.

Also, if one considered only those edits from today, then you're right, my actions might appear odd. Taking the poisonous history of that article into account, it does place the entire situation into a much wider context - a context that cannot be ignored - those 4 reverts cannot be taken in isolation.

Discussing on the article talkpage is also not a vaccination against being blocked for edit-warring or 3RR - discussion is vital to the project moving forward, after all, it's how we gain WP:CONSENSUS.

The edits being made by the other blocked party were perhaps inappropriate, but did not violate wP:BLP, WP:COPYRIGHT, nor any of the common exceptions to edit-warring. Following WP:BRD, or at least letting the discussion on the article talkpage continue instead of immediately reverting would have done no harm to the project or the subject.

As has already been said elsewhere and many many times, nobody is guaranteed 3 reverts - that's merely a bright line.

Flyer22 themself has admitted to having performed the second revert, and IIRC they acknowledged that it could be perceived as problematic. From what I recall from their talkpage this morning, they have not doubted the technicality of this block, but have merely expressed that I should not have been the one to perform it. I have not been to their talkpage in hours, and have already advised that I will not return - not even to re-read.

Based on the potential for escalation as per history on this article and with other editors on this and related articles, I perceived an extremely short edit-warring block as an immediate resolution to what I viewed as a rapidly-going-to-hell situation. Both parties were equally at fault, and as such, I issued 12hr blocks to both parties (even though Flyer22's past block history might have called for something longer, it was my clear desire to prevent what I perceived to be immediate issues, and most certainly not to punish anyone).

What was I to do instead?

Block neither and allow the possible escalation? No - not knowing the history of the wars on that and similar articles.

Block only Flyer? Hell no - they were equally at fault with the reverts.

Block only the other editor? I considered it - briefly. But then I considered the ethical dilemma with leaving one editor with the ability to keep control of the article, or to have the appearance of being favoured over the other.

It was a catch-22 situation, so I made the decision to make short, equal, project-protecting blocks. After all, both were warned, and both were very aware of the issues the panda ₯’ 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even consider placing a note on the article's talk page stating any further reverts would result in a block? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that - both editors were obviously aware of edit-warring; after all, ONE of the editors was throwing warnings around everywhere the panda ₯’ 20:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again, Flyer22 had no more reverts after the other editor gave her a warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the edit-war had stopped? Do you guarantee that? There's a reason that even WP:3RR is over 24 hours - nobody watches their keyboard 24/7, and for all anyone - including you - knows is that they might have gone back to make their next revert (note also the definition of WP:REVERT does not mean simply clicking UNDO) the panda ₯’ 20:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been quite loudly banging WP:AGF around my head today. Shouldn't you do the same? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only one who is :-) There's a reason I chose 12hrs, isn't there. the panda ₯’ 21:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also notice no one else has said "Good block" or "Endorse block". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant, and in the long run untrue. the panda ₯’ 22:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've unblocked Flyer22 after taking into account the relevant edit histories and EatsShootsAndLeaves's admission that he blocked without investigating all of the relevant facts fully ascertaining the entire timeline. Block logs are permanent things, people. We should not be blocking until we are absolutely, 100% certain we need to do so. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such admission the panda ₯’ 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you only stated that "I can state without a doubt that the alignment is very different from what I reviewed this morning" when presented with a chronological list of the edits that you blocked Flyer for. I'm not even taking any alleged previous history with the editor into account. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "the alignment is very different" is obviously NOT the same as not "investigating all the facts" - as you can read above, it was extensively investigated. the panda ₯’ 20:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are reading that very differently then. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how. English might not be my first language, but there's no other possible way to have read my statement...and have you corrected your incorrect statement after having seen the truth above? There seems to be a disconnect now...oh, and now there's the matter of the ethical dilemma about the other editor remaining blocked because of a rash unblock of one of the parties the panda ₯’ 20:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ethical dilemma here because the situation is not symmetric. Mdthree gave Flyer22 a warning before making another revert himself, which violates WP:GAME. Flyer22 did no such thing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^What the king said. This wasn't a 'rash unblock' of only one party. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you'll still be correcting your wording, right User:The ed17? Bizarrely stating above and elsewhere that I said that I admitted that I had not investigated is false ... and I would normally expect better of you that to leave statements like that hanging around. You're a fan of the truth. the panda ₯’ 22:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a slight correction, though I'm not sure how 'bizarre' it was. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one's even more false. Hell, did you even read my extensive analysis? WTF is this, "fuck the Panda over day"? I didn't get a card for that in the mail. C'mon Ed, everything I typed today is in English the panda ₯’ 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10.68.16.31 is apparently User:ClueBot III editing logged out again. I informed Jayron32 (the admin that blocked it last time in April), and they told me to come here. Here are some diffs: [24] [25] [26]. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the bot has logged back in. I unblocked the IP after realizing the block could cause misdirected XFF blocks. However, what seems concerning is how the bot is still editing after the emergency shutoff has been activated. I'm not the most experienced with bots and would welcome the input of others. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick chat with Deskana, I've blocked the bot. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than a year has passed since I was blocked for stupidily threatening User:Jayron32. I'm from Argentina and after an edit-war, I said the following: "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." or so I said. I well-deserved to be blocked because I was beyond immature and stupid. Then, I created another account to start anew as a respected user. Well, the sock-puppetry accusations began and I couldn't ever again work on Wikipedia. I deny sock-puppetry since I don't, I can't use blocked accounts and I'm not interested in having more than one account. So, I'm now asking to be forgiven and allowed to create another account and start anew. Thank you indeed. --190.178.156.205 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even remember it, but if you're here to do good work, go do that. --Jayron32 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]