Noticeboards Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. General Administrators main incidents Bot owners Bureaucrats Closure Education main incidents Importing pages Main Page errors Open proxies OTRS Oversight User permissions Articles and content Biographies of living persons Copyrights questions on media problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Reliable sources Resource requests Spam blacklist whitelist Titleblacklist Translation Page handling History merges Mergers Moves Protection XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion User conduct Long-term abuse Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring & 3RR Sanctions Personal sanctions General sanctions New pages patrollers Paid editing Sockpuppets Usernames Vandalism Other Arbitration Committee noticeboard requests enforcement Edit filters Mediation New contributors Teahouse Questions Editor assistance Help desk Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump ideas policy proposals technical miscellaneous Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by ClueBot III. Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts: WP:AN WP:ANB When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Are you in the right place? Permanent deletion of sensitive personal information → requests for oversight. Please DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. Vandalism or spamming → administrator intervention against vandalism. Impolite or uncivil communications → consider the advice at the civility policy page. Page protection → requests for page protection. Edit warring → the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Suspected sockpuppetry → sockpuppet investigations. Improper usernames → usernames for administrator attention. Administrative backlogs → you can add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page or post a notice here. Cut and paste moves/history merge → the cut and paste move repair holding pen. Review of the deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review. Review of the close or requested move discussion of a page → Move review. Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution. Issues not requiring administrative tools (content concerns, naming conventions...) → the Village Pump or Editor assistance requests. Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) If you are blocked → place the code: {{Unblock|Your reason for unblock}} – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click "Email this user"). If you can't edit your talk page, you may appeal your block via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Issues regarding Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia → Meta-Wiki.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion Preferred protocol for external links Stale drafts policy restructuring 2016-17 draft WMF Annual Plan Related Pages extension Separate articles for reactions to terrorist incidents Consensus for changes in citation coding style Ethnicity & religion parameters in Infobox person (2 RfCs) Corrections on Main Page Enabling Hovercards by default Embedding full-length films/videos in articles Physical address of schools/universities/buildings

Noticeboard archives Administrators' (archives, search) 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 Incidents (archives, search) 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 Arbitration enforcement (archives) 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Other links Talk Checkuser Backlog

Requests for closure[edit]

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Requests for comment[edit]

Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Use_of_national_flag_icons_on_each_launch_payload Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 119 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 120 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On hold There is an open sock investigation of one of the RFC participants for voting irregularities relating to this article. It it results in a block then I believe it may be appropriate to strike their !votes before evaluating a close. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else[edit]

It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done, discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed done tag so this will not be automatically archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else (Initiated 71 days ago on 29 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Correction: It was actually initiated on 28 November 2015, but redated a few times for the RfC bot. I'd also like to specify that this request was asked for to finally get an "either or" result, and not just "no decision". There was a request for closure of this discussion already above, but because of the discussion at the talk of this very project page I'll briefly mention this here for now and if the one above is returned I'll remove this bit. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm merging these two comments from a duplicate section I created below. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion was closed by User:Guy on 18 March. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done Yep, it's done. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 117 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:

1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?

2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?

The discussion seems contentious which is why I'm not closing it myself. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that Ncmvocalist is correct. Nobody seems to be edit-warring over those two questions, a lot has changed since then (more than 200 edits and work by User:SlimVirgin and User:Tryptofish, both of whom are skilled with this sort of problem), a practical compromise seems to be in place, and the person who started the RFC retired weeks ago and requested that his account be blocked. The likely outcome is only to enshrine, as The Eternal Consensus™, the results of a single discussion about whether the words "peer-review" should appear in the article (current, stable state: yes, but maybe not as many times as some anti-GMO POV pushers would like) and whether the articles should be used as primary sources (current, stable state: the re-published one is cited as a source to say that it was re-published, and both versions are prominently linked as ==External links==, which is probably more than some pro-GMO POV pushers would like). It would probably be better to leave this alone, and let editors use their best judgment over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 118 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Removed not done template so the bot won't prematurely advertise it. I agree with waiting more time before closing it. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Done by JzG. Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 74 days ago on 26 January 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed your initiation date to be the actual date for the RFC.

It's not clear to me whether this actually needs an official closing statement. The disputants seem to have moved on to other subjects, and that particular line of text in the guideline seems to be stable now. It might be better to have people spend time on discussions that need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it needs official closing to settle this dispute. If this dispute comes up again, and it likely will, it will be good to point to the recent consensus on the matter...one with an official close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you realistically expect it to come up again during the next three to six months? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

With what I've seen there from two editors in particular, it is very likely to come up again within the next three to six months. Either way, even a year later is too soon for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption (Initiated 69 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Done Drmies (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 75 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was archived, and there is relatively little firm consensus. As an alternative to un-archiving it solely for the sake of saying "many good comments, but not much consensus for specific actions here" – something that ought to be perfectly obvious to the experienced editors who participated in that discussion – I'm marking this request done and leaving it in the archive. WhatamIdoing (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead[edit]

We need an experienced editor to assess the discussion in the above link. The difference of opinion lies in whether an article about a train station, or railway station, should begin with simply the name of the station (for example, "Culver City") or whether it should begin with the title of the article, like "Culver City station." Discussion has tapered off; recent remarks have simply repeated the arguments made earlier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 47 days ago on 22 February 2016)

BeenAroundAWhile, it's obvious that editors prefer option #1, but your RFC, despite being on the talk page for a guideline, never included any sort of proposal to change the words in the guideline. I'm therefore uncertain what you're looking for: Someone to officially decree that editors prefer to begin articles about train stations with "Gotham train station is..." instead of "Gotham is..." at a rate of approximately 10:1? That seems pointless to me, but it could be done. Did you want someone to add a "rule" in MOS:LEAD about the One True Wording™ for the first sentence of articles about transit stations? There is no sensible place to do that. MOS:LEAD is for all the articles, not for one subject area (or even two or three subject areas). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: This is a good point. It would seem like possibly the place to put this result would be WP:STATIONS (after adding a 'Lead' section there actually, it looks like the new addition would go in the 'Structure' section there, which already discusses the lead). But I agree with BeenAroundAWhile that the consensus on this one is clear, and the result of this RfC needs to be "codified" somewhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProjects pages are a bit like user pages; we can't demand that a particular group of editors declare that they recommend what other people have decided. However, if it had been me, I would have started the discussion there. (Also, I would have split their limited advice on to a subpage and tagged it with {{WikiProject style advice}}.)

I do not see the point of "codifying" anything here. The English Wikipedia explicitly, by policy, does not have legal codes. The point of closing a discussion is to help people figure out what the result of that one-time discussion was – assuming that they need any help, which in this case I seriously doubt – not to declare that this is the rule and that consensus can't change (or at least can't change without a huge fight). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This strikes me as a kind of WP:BURO response – because this RfC didn't get posted to exactly the "right place", and in exactly the "right way", it doesn't count for anything?... It was held in what could be argued is the right place – MOS:LEAD. It was even advertised at WT:STATIONS. So the idea that it carries no "weight" there strikes me as an odd claim... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've explained myself clearly. It is indeed a WP:NOTBURO response: IMO there is no need to jump through bureaucratic hoops like "have an uninvolved editor write a formal closing statement" or "codify the result in a guideline". Use the results of the discussion, but don't be all bureaucratic about it.

My point about STATIONS is only that some volunteers (e.g., non-members who were involved in the discussion) can't force other volunteers (e.g., members of that WikiProject) to promote this view as if it were their own advice. That group can volunteer to include it, but we can't force them to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed? (Initiated 64 days ago on 5 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation (Initiated 59 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article? (Initiated 74 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing (Initiated 75 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun? (Initiated 61 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011 (Initiated 67 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine (Initiated 65 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article (Initiated 60 days ago on 9 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams" (Initiated 76 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 76 days ago on 24 January 2016)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"[edit]

This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 59 days ago on 10 February 2016)

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 54 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [1]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article[edit]

IMHO, this Rfc's options have been unintentionally worded in a non-neutral style & therefore, the Rfc should be closed. Note I've opened up a new Rfc, which presents the same options, but rather in a neutral style. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 54 days ago on 15 February 2016)

• Comment: This RfC should not be closed in isolation - there is also an associated merge discussion ongoing, and the two are closely related. (For example, a couple of votes in the merge discussion are apparently based on reasons presented in the previous RfC.) In my opinion, the new RfC simply adds to the considerable unnecessary verbiage on the page. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: The first Rfc has expired as no consensus for any of the 3 options. Furthermore, I've closed the second Rfc (that I had opened), per StAnselm's point, about "unnecessary verbiage".:) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Further comment: The original RfC was closed as no consensus by the originator a few days ago, and this close has not been contested. It would be helpful if someone could close the merge discussion, though. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notifying Jack Upland, as he's the merge nominator. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled about where this page is heading...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

My first choice is for the page to be deleted. My second choice is to split it up & merge its parts into the 2 articles you nominated to merge with. Most of all, let's hope the article-in-question won't be used as a vehicle for promoting the We don't know argument, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but your desire for deletion is fairly irrelevant given that you admitted that you couldn't be bothered figuring out how to nominate it for AfD. StAnselm (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not impossible for me to re-learn how. Deletion is an option, I haven't put aside. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the events be removed?[edit]

I'm requesting an admin or an experienced user to assess the consensus at the mentioned page. (Initiated 50 days ago on 19 February 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II[edit]

This Rfc has reached its 30th day. We need an administrator to close it & make his/her own interpretation of the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files[edit]

Consensus is fairly obvious to close down PUF and merge it with WP:FFD. The closure should be uncontentious, but the enacting of the results will require some work. Posting this here so if anyone wants to go through the grunt work of closing down and marking "historical" the PUF process and then redirecting users in the relevant documentation to WP:FFD, they can get started on that. Also, someone will have to move the backlog of cases from PUF (or clear them) as well. Thanks for any help! --Jayron32 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Jayron32: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge could potentially be referenced for most necessary steps that need to be taken for this merge. The only major differences between the referenced section and the PUF to FFD merge are that no venue is getting renamed and the changes that will need to be made to AnomieBOT's function are slightly different (the bot will have to stop making daily subpages for PUF after the merge has been finalized.) I made some attempt to work out the NFCR to FFD merge, so feel free to ping me with any questions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?[edit]

This RfC expired a week ago, but was never closed. A formal closure is needed, as involved editors are starting to make a bit of a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sea Mither#Simple[edit]

Per WP:SNOW, but the primary editors of the article refuse to acknowledge consensus. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not done for now. The discussion, as it stands, is only one day old. In addition, I am not seeing any attempt at consensus-building or civility there (it's full of PA), so unless both parties (primarily the editor who filed this request) start a constructive discussion without resorting to verbal artillery, I'm afraid that this discussion will go nowhere. Esquivalience ^t 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video[edit]

This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Salvation Army#RfC: Should the language of this British organisation be in British English[edit]

Could an admin take the appropriate closure action here and change the page notice on the article? A decision to force AmEng on the article last year was done so on a false statement on the original variant of English used, and the current consensus reflects the truth of the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Being an admin not required. --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: can an admin change the page notice (seen when opening to edit the page), which still expressly states that the page is in AmEng. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Edit notice updated. Fences&Windows 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies; I updated a comment opening the page, but clearly that was not the notice meant. Guess being an admin was necessary after all. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right[edit]

Expired RfC does not appear to let the actual article remain on a consensus version without official closure. I think it is possible to determine consensus and close it, so I am requesting it here. LjL (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016[edit]

Would an experienced user or Admin, assess the consensus and move the page if deemed so?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference (Initiated 42 days ago on 27 February 2016)? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Done This was really resolved by the time I got there, but I rubberstamped the decision. Fences&Windows 22:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.[edit]

Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Which version to go with?[edit]

This RfC recently expired. Would be good to get an official close on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC: Place of birth in Infobox (initiated on 17 February 2016)? The original RfC (initiated on 13 January 2016) was closed improperly and overturned here. The subsequent RfC was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Daicaregos. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat[edit]

• Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Proposed merge with Big the Cat needs formal closure czar 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not done I closed, then reverted my close when I saw it was initiated 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC). No need for controversy of someone possibly complaining about an early non-admin close. Alsee (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Proposed merge with Lindsay Lohan discography[edit]

Consensus needs to be evaluated. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material") (Initiated 53 days ago on 16 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede (Initiated 50 days ago on 19 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (Initiated 48 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc. (Initiated 43 days ago on 26 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR (Initiated 61 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented? (Initiated 59 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes (Initiated 47 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Generic gun photo (Initiated 36 days ago on 4 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers#RfC: Should IBM 2841 be a separate article and should it list the IBM 7320 (Initiated 46 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism (Initiated 43 days ago on 26 February 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be included? Can Medium be considered a reliable source in this context, regardless of what WP:RS says about blogs?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead (Initiated 48 days ago on 21 February 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Maxinquaye#RfC on lead. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? (Initiated 46 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israel#Should the same language be used in the lead for Israel and for Palestine? (Initiated 56 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response (Initiated 52 days ago on 17 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer (Initiated 34 days ago on 6 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection (Initiated 48 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? (Initiated 41 days ago on 28 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio#RfC: Should Senator Rubio's portrait be replaced? (Initiated 40 days ago on 29 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"? (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shrauta#RfC: move page to Śrauta (Initiated 49 days ago on 20 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted? (Initiated 56 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Shannara Chronicles#RFC for Episode List Format (Initiated 56 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America#Change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" per WP:NPOV[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:NARAL Pro-Choice America#Change "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" per WP:NPOV (Initiated 40 days ago on 29 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done Mhhossein (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Plushophilia#RfC: Should the image be kept on the page?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plushophilia#RfC: Should the image be kept on the page? (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Done Mhhossein (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Standard offer#Proposal for this to finally become a guideline[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Standard offer#Proposal for this to finally become a guideline (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion (Initiated 47 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2016 in American television#RfC: Should "person of color" be changed to "black woman"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 in American television#RfC: Should "person of color" be changed to "black woman"? (Initiated 46 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016 (Initiated 44 days ago on 25 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure re Block chain (database)[edit]

I would like to request that an uninvolved administrator review and close the discussion at Talk:Block_chain_(database)#Are_block_chain_designs_based_on_the_bitcoin_protocol.3F. The discussion has been open for multiple weeks, and has had the involvement of a number of editors. Thanks. N2e (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(moved from WP:AN) — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Close down Possibly Unfree Files[edit]

(Initiated 4 days ago on 5 April 2016)Could a trusted editor or admin please close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files. Consensus seems clear, but need someone uninvolved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Backlogs[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 170 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 95 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

We currently have 89 discussions in the backlog, and it's growing every day. Several of them date to January 2016.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 February[edit]

We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since February 2016.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 March[edit]

We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since March 2016.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

XfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 181 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1[edit]

The subject GAR is open for community reassessment since October 2015. Need someone to conclude it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Shenae[edit]

Listed for a month individually, and started as part of a batch on 14 February. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Done by Just Chilling. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg[edit]

Would an admin please close Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg, or perhaps relist it if you think that is appropriate. It just seems to have been left open, and there hasn't been any new comments in over a month. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian[edit]

Could we get a WP:SNOW close on this WP:BLP-sensitive AfD, please? Thanks, ansh666 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done. It does not qualify for WP:SNOW. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrative[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 36 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment[edit]

I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 31 days ago on 9 March 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat[edit]

Could an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat? This was a very contentious ANI thread, and a request for arbitration is concurrently open for the same issues. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. (I came here to make the same request). With all the admins that go by ANI on a regular basis, I can't believe that one, just one can't take a moment and close that train-wreck down. There is nothing that can be accomplished there. It's a huge pile of sewage now, and it's just getting bigger and smelling worse by the minute. There is a clear consensus to close it and the there already a request at ArbCom, that will almost certainly become a case as soon as the ANI is closed (they've basically said as much). So just close it already. - ^theWOLFchild 03:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Now Already done Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD[edit]

Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

• Talk:See You Again (Wiz Khalifa song)#Requested move 29 February 2016; thread has been open for over a month, and RMs typically last a week. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• There's a huge backlog at RM if anyone wants to help out. I've just done around 20, but still loads left... Number 57 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Talk:The_Signpost_(Wikipedia)#Requested_move_3_March_2016 = been open for over one month. Would like it to be closed either way so we can move on and focus on Quality improvement of the article itself. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone is proposing a community ban[edit]

I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia^talk 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here with examples provided: [2]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [3].

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie^talk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 08:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia^talk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[4] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite all appeals[5][6][7] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradedia^talk 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for RevDel/Oversight[edit]

Edit in question is here: [8]. Not sure what is going on here, but this is info that really needs to be removed and quickly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And as I posted this Wldr took care of the issue, thanks for the REALLY quick turnaround! RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've oversighted the edit and blocked a few other related accounts doing the same thing. Mike V • Talk 14:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: For future reference, please don't post sensitive requests like this to a public forum as it will surely attract unwanted attention. Instead, please send them to the oversight team. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll make sure to do so in the future. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have copied the warning about this from the ANI editnotice to the AN editnotice. Four such threads in a row is too much. BethNaught (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Reminder for April Fools' Day jokes[edit]

In a few hours, April Fools' Day will be upon us. The day has historically been a day where editors play jokes and pranks on others. Wikipedia:Rules for Fools gives important information for users who might be considering playing a joke. Namely:

With the exception of the Main Page: All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace. Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism. All jokes must be tagged using {{Humor}} or similar templates, or the inline template {{April fools}}. There is consensus against a complete ban of jokes on April Fools'. However: Editors who revert non-harmful jokes should be assumed to be acting in good faith and should not be sanctioned as such edits may appear to be vandalism. However, editors should generally avoid reverting jokes that comply with the above rules and are made in the spirit of April Fools' Day. Vandalism, including inappropriate joke edits in article space, should be treated in the usual manner as vandalism on other days of the year. A vandal should not be blocked immediately simply because the vandalism occurred on April Fools' Day. Editors creating a joke AFD page must immediately remove the line "{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}". Otherwise a bot will add the deletion notice to the article. Jokes must not be hateful, discriminatory, or intended to make others feel unwelcome. Jokes should be funny.

Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - I'm logging out now until April 2! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's probably the smartest move Boing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I dunno; I've always looked forward to seeing the hijinks myself. --Gimubrc (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wherever would we be without our cadre of old farts, wet blankets, sour-faced misers and head prefects to kill all sense of fun from the world because it doesn't conform to their thin, almost imperceptible sense of humour? You get one day a year to do this, just one yet you get some for whom this is all deadly serious and will have lasting ramifications, that's just en.wiki for you. tutterMouse (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Most AFD pranks are the same old lame uninspired rehashes every year. It's not quite so hilarious to see Jimbo fake blocked or Wikipedia nominated for deletion for the billionth time. It's a fine line between clever and stupid, as they say, and a lot of these jokes fall on the wrong side of that line. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Per consensus from last year, I added a separate section to today's AfD log for joke nominations. If someone feels like it, maybe the other XfDs could do the same thing. Cheers, ansh666 02:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please, I don't want to be blocked too! I am sorry. I was unaware of Wikipedia's dietary policy. Sorry for the "dietary" crack. And for using the word "crack". Look, I'm sorry all around. I've never posted anything April Foolish before. It just got the better of me. That's it. I'm done. Try the veal...although that may not be the best food.... Stop me! Seriously, I'm done. And I will mitigate with a spate of good ol' fashioned vandal reverting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There's an AfD tag on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016.

Facepalm. Luckily, the tag was deleted. epicgenius @ 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First joker of the day, apparently[edit]

[9] EEng 01:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Harshly talked to and appears to have stopped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, from his talk page that guy probably deserves a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE block, but meh. ansh666 02:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Déjà vu all over again[edit]

I thought I made the rules on this clear eight years ago. Please see here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thought WP:BADAFD was broken[edit]

...But we now have the gem that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Wales. Someone want to firm up a rationale and run with it? Or are we happy with "Taco"? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

How long should collateral joke pages exist?[edit]

The 4/1 version of Signpost had an article for Trump/Wales 2016. To support it though, they created a number of backdated stories from previous years. e.g. [10] was a deletion request since it's not clear this article title and location is related to 4/1/2016. Do we tolerate the expansion of such articles beyond 4/1 spaces? It has since had the "humor" tag added but I think this is a slippery slope. There are many "humerous" pre-dated titles that can be created. --DHeyward (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The jokes should run for the duration of April 1 only, after that, it's no longer April Fools, so out with the joke. KoshVorlon 14:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep it. Don't break page histories. It's not like a new issue of the Signpost is even out yet, and there's already a push to make the page no longer work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer, 12AM April 2 Done. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If an uninvolved admin feels so inclined, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes can probably be speedily closed as snowy, and it probably should be given that it deals with BLP violations. ~ Rob^Talk 12:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles

user:Chjoaygame has various misinterpretations of quantum theory, its concepts, formalisms, and notations. He will not break out of them, instead resorting to treatises of the pioneers as the final word. Including pioneering work of Dirac, Feynman, von Neumann, you name them, is a good thing for historical context. Trying to write an article in the same archaic terms they used is not helpful as Ch would have us think. As much as possible, Ch avoids mathematics, including standard terminology, and uses enormous quantities of prose.

His style of talk page discussion is particularly tiresome, endless nitpicking, thanking, apologizing, citations, quotes, and insinuations when he doesn't get his way, and even accusations that his point (or a point made by a pioneering physicist) has not been resolved. Often wall after wall of text is written. Also, when other editors propose a rewrite, whatever the choice of terminology, however things are phrased, Ch simply must use different words, often obscure, non-standard, or archaic. This is all cloaked in a very politically correct style.

Examples I have been recently involved with are

• Talk:Bra–ket notation
• Talk:Wave function archives 3-10 (especially 8 onwards) and edit history

but see also Talk:Quantum mechanics and its archives and edit history. For Talk:Wave function, the fact that four archives this year and three archives last year have been necessary, AND no progress has been made from "WP:AGF" discussions with this editor, is a clear sign the articles will not progress either, and they have not as long as he edits. Everyone just leaves frustrated.

I have not engaged with this editor as extensively as others, such as user:YohanN7, user:Tsirel, user:Waleswatcher, but enough to convince me that Ch is wasting time. Also, Ch engages with the thermodynamics articles, but I don't follow them much. Many users on this Wikiproject will know I am prone to mistakes, misinterpretations, and even get rude/uptight sometimes. But I do not perpetuate, nor argue on and on and on to have things my way, or the pioneer's way. Get this - even I can find Ch to be mistaken, which says something.

This is not a personal attack. It is well meant. Ch may well be polite and seem very resourceful, but is overall destructive for the above reasons, at least in the quantum theory articles.

If this ban fails, then it fails. But it's high time for Ch to desist from editing quantum articles until he changes his view on the subject, maybe even self-experiment in the basic mathematics required for the theory, it leads to a deeper understanding than just reading. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. User does not edit to improve articles but to exercise his idiosyncratic views. Extend ban to all physics topics. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
• I remember a couple of years ago the user was a part of the gang which was doing damage to the articles on thermodynamics, and refusing to accept the quotes from the undergraduate text I am using in my teaching saying they are "wrong". I just walked away, unwatched all the articles, and never edited any of them ever since. Now I see the same damage to the quantum physics articles, endless rewriting without any point, using 100-years-old terminology. This needs to be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Here.Chjoaygame (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Bingo: [11]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. About his idiosyncratic views: he belongs to a small minority of the so-called "entanglement deniers" (or "Bell theorem denialists", etc). I tried hard to discuss this matter with him, but unsuccessfully; see here. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The trigger for this proposal to ban was [12], saying that I do not accept the proposer's airbrushing out Dirac's repeated and clear statement that bras and kets cannot be split into real and pure imaginary parts. No problem for that with wave functions, of course. If Editor Tsirel thinks that bras and kets can be split into real and pure imaginary parts, I will be enlightened. If he thinks my holding fast on the point is a fair trigger for a topic ban, I will also be enlightened.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bra-ket notation is certainly not the only trigger for having you banned Chjoaygame. Your rambles, quotes, and insinuations all over the QM talk pages (especially Talk:Wave function) have multiple people frustrated and enough is enough. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

On the entanglement thing. Of course I agree with Schrödinger that entanglement is a fact. So I don't accept that I am an "entanglement denier". I don't accept reasoning that this implies action at a distance. If Bell's theorem is taken to imply that there is action at a distance, I still don't accept action at a distance. The setting of the angle of the polarizer sets the wave function basis, but it doesn't affect the quantum state, which is independent of the wave function basis. The physical thing is the quantum state, not the wave function. So changing the setting of the angle of the polarizer can change the wave function at a distance, but that is not a change of physical fact. Subject to correction, I have an idea that Editor Tsirel doesn't accept action at a distance? Whatever, I don't edit on the Bell thing, so I don't think that is a reason to topic-ban me.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

May be some explanation would be in order. It is not the best Wikipedia argument, but in this thread, most of the people voting for topic-ban have some real-life credentials related to quantum physics, whereas Chjoaygame, to the best of my knowledge, has none.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Interaction ban, That user keeps doing something negative things to the talk pages. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with topic ban Either a ban or a warning Here is a sample bad edit on the Heat article. The second paragraph (Because...) in this original version contains a useful discussion of how heat is not a state function. A version of this paragraph was inserted over a year ago as per this discussion (I called myself guyvan52 back then). After a few edits by Ch we have this newer revision in which the second paragraph was replaced with historical content (Originally...), and the links to State function and Process function were removed (although I concede that the new link to Thermodynamic process is welcome). The editor has good intentions and is extremely knowledgeable about the history. Perhaps a warning and some coaching would be more appropriate? He needs to understand that the community probably wants articles that explain the physics/mathematics, not so much the history.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Some coaching", WP:AGF, and general patience has occurred long enough with Editor Chjoaygame. The time when Ch could be collaborated with is long gone. Hence this topic ban. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 15:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I said either..or, so a topic ban on quantum would satisfy that request. And it would serve as a warning on Thermo.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I withdraw my suggestion that a warning might be sufficient. After reviewing Talk:Bra–ket notation I realized that the detailed effort to quote from four editions of Diracs book (1930-1958) exposes either a complete lack of understanding, or an inability to control one's emotions in a discussion. A topic ban on quantum mechanics is entirely appropriate.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps an interest to try to see the progress of Dirac's thinking on the way to his bra-ket notation? And to show that he didn't change his mind all that much?Chjoaygame (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. Chjoaygame seems to have a poor understanding of quantum mechanics (despite high self-confidence) and has caused lots of wasted time and frustration for a lot of people because of that. --Steve (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not entirely wasted. I have learnt valuable things from my efforts to respond to undoes of my edits. The undoes were thereby valuable. And even another editor learnt a small thing.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban. Chjoaygame is simply beyond reach for sensible discussion. There's nobody home. This, by itself, is not punishable. Ignorance is not either punishable. But I believe that Chjoaygame's behavior on talk pages is punishable. Behind all politeness, there are usually badly hidden insinuations. He'll never drop an old discussion. He is occasionally hiding behind "good faith" and affects the look of a puppy that someone has kicked ([13]). Follow the link to the actual eidt of the article, and you shall see that Chjoaygame is preaching some sort of religion rather than established science. He knows what he is doing (no "good faith" there). His style of editing when he encounters resistance is the most provocative imaginable. He knows what he is doing in that respect too. The result is that competent editors busy in real life are shying away. I know this for a fact, since I have email contact with more than one around here. Chjoaygame is in my opinion a burden for Wikipedia and is hindering article development. YohanN7 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hold on. We are not into punishment here. We just want to make sure that the development of Wikipedia is not obstructed in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC).

Editor Xxanthippe makes a fair point. Editor Ymblanter complains above about me that I was a member of an alleged "gang" that over-ruled an edit that he made. His edit was based on one textbook source. He did not try to weigh it against the many other sources that his alleged "gang" relied upon. His edit was over-ruled indeed by several long-standing editors of the page, acting in accord with a long-standing consensus, the result of long debate. But it seems that he now holds it against me that I supported that consensus, by which his edit was rejected. Editor YohanN7 just above says above about me that I am "beyond reach" and that "there is nobody home". This in a context in which one of the two points at issue was later settled mathematically in my favour, after the present topic ban proposal. Was I not home there? If my edit were to be struck down safely, some other reason would have been needed. But instead, a topic ban was proposed. No RfC, no third opinion. Editor Sbyrnes has now, during the topic ban process, appeared to give a third opinion, against my edit on the grounds of non-notability, in favor nevertheless of my mathematics. If Editor Sbyrnes had offered his third opinion earlier, things might have turned out very differently. If other editors had been "home", they might also have given their opinions. Editor Tsirel holds it against me that in user talk-page conversation I did not knuckle under to his belief that there is something "shocking" about Bell's theorem, a topic on which I now do not edit because I know the strength of belief of Bell's theorists. Editor Tsirel branded me with the incriminative term 'denialist'. The point on which I stand is that Bell's theorem cannot be used to establish action at a distance. I think that some Bell's theorists also believe that Bell's theorem does not establish action at a distance, which they word as 'no transmission of information'. I think, subject to correction, that even Editor Tsirel holds that it does not establish action at a distance? He holds that it is "shocking". Is this a sound basis on which to topic-ban me? Editor Xxanthippe just above is of the view that respected editor YohanN7 is talking about punishing me. With a permanent ban. Sudden death, not even an RfC between a BRD (in which I did not offend) and a permanent ban. Editor YohanN7 complains that he is the only editor to weigh in heavily against me; indeed he has not received much support from other editors, who seem to have relied on his respected status to act on their behalves, perhaps as their proxies. He is even calling on private emails as proxy support. Suddenly even Editor Ymblanter takes an interest. My transgression is too much talk on talk pages, and too many citations of candidate reliable sources, and not knuckling under, even when I have mathematical correctness on my side. My dissent is that the approach of these articles is massively overweighted in favour of mathematics not supplied with physical meaning, when the topic is essentially physics. Editor YohanN7 has been left largely alone and unsupported, along with Editor Maschen, to defend the no-physical-meaning over-weighting. This is Wikipedia, not a textbook of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Wikipedia is primarily an ordinary-language general-access encyclopedia. Editor YohanN7 has an axe to grind, that mathematics is the sole language of physics, and that my ordinary-language approach is inappropriate. One can understand his frustration. One may ask, is it best simply to censor dissent with a sudden-death topic ban? I think Editor Xxanthippe has made a fair point.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

To simplify my point, I believe that you are lacking basic knowledge of physics (not just quantum physics) while pretending the opposite and editing the physics articles disruptively, wasting time of other contributors. Therefore you should be forced (by means of a topic ban) to stop editing physics articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the place for a content dispute, but here is my short reply. (1) No one says that Bell's theorem establishes action at a distance; rather, that at least one of "three key concepts – locality, realism, freedom" must be abandoned. (2) Maybe "entanglement denier" is not an apt term, but I did not invent it; this is just a label used in discussions (on the Internet, and privately); also "Bell theorem denialist" is (just ask Google). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

About the balance between ordinary-language and math-language in physics, I do not vote, since I am a mathematician, not a physicist. But I am pleased to see (above) the opinion of several physicists. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to the use of ordinary language in articles — as long as the ordinary language underlies the conclusions reached by more formal approach, and not undermines them! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC) And similarly: no objection to some history of (say) quantum mechanics, as long as this history underlies, not undermines, the current worldview. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to Xxanthippe: Now, if we don't say that Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are punishable, how are we going to say that his "future edits and behavior are preemptively punishable"? How the hell are we going to say that? (There you go Chj. A bit of support for you.) No, either you say Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are intolerable, hence punishable - or you don't. If you don't, you have to let him go. I am clear: Chjoaygame's past behavior and edits are intolerable. YohanN7 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Additions to the initial post: I forgot to mention at the top (though it may be well-known and unnecessary) that:

• "Quantum theory" here includes any article which involves quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, non-relativistic or relativistic.
• Editor Chjoaygame's interactions are very delocalized, and there is always something new for him to argue about.
  • When caught out on the spot and unable to answer, he evades the situation, and changes the subject with excuses like "no comment", "Argumentum ad verecundiam", "the foregoing thread was disorderly, it would be out of order to reply to it" (see Talk:Wave function/Archive 10 for examples).
  • A talk page thread could start on the topic of the article, say wave functions, then it will soon change to preparations of states, mixed states, species, "quantum analyzers", "ovens" and "anti-ovens", Stern-Gerlach magnets, measurements, Bell inequalities, the list goes on...

Ch is absolutely refusing to change his behavior, continuing to accuse others of being wrong while he was supposedly correct all the time, trying to convince us the ban is out of sheer spite. It is not a "sudden death" - Ch is not being killed. Something must be done else the QM and QFT articles will be a disaster complete with ovens, anti-ovens, and analyzers. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 10:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Chjoaygame does not respect when an editor retracts a comment: [14]. He retracted the retract. I remade it: [15], asking him politely to respect that an editor retracts his post. Chjoaygame cannot respect that either. I am in favor of a ban period, at least for a good while, of this individual. He is apparently trying to make life a living hell for anyone having ever opposed him in the past. It doesn't quite bite on me, and it is also probably not possible to keep him legally from raising mayhem on his own talk page. I can easily sense that others, less used to Chjoaygame, would feel not so at ease having him around. It is not only a matter of knowledgeable editors with plenty of routine. It is a matter of newcomers and fresh students. They can certainly make contributions, and may be very enthusiastic about it, but what if they suddenly face Chjoaygame? It is hardly an inviting environment for article work. YohanN7 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I recall this message from Chjoaygame: this diff "Thank you for your care in this. Sorry to take up your time. This isn't really a problem to ask you about. [...] Please don't spend more time on this; you have other things to do."

Assuming good faith (for now), I treat this as genuine concern about my precious time. Assuming the good faith also in other cases, I guess that Chjoaygame divides all wiki editors into two classes: experts and non-experts. Experts should concentrate on more important challenges than Wikipedia. Non-experts should not prevent him to improve Wikipedia. Thus, I conclude, he is a very interesting case of "ideal wiki editor": not too busy and enough qualified. He is also ideal editor in his attitude toward sources: he reads great minds (mostly, Dirac), makes them available to everyone, and always provides refs. His deep understanding of the great minds gives him the right to go against the mainstream in quite fundamental matters (such as Bell theorem). But, assuming the good faith, I get a contradiction. His time should be more precious than mine: he should return the (lost in the dark) mainstream back to the light of founding fathers! Well... maybe the solution is this: Wikipedia is, in his opinion, the right instrument for this work. Wow! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

His collaboration mode: "That is why I have chosen my own particular profession, or rather created it, for I am the only one in the world" (Sherlock Holmes). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I followed the discussion between Tsirel and Chjoaygame on Bell's theorem, but was unable to ascertain whether Ch is or is not an "entanglement denier". It seems to me that Ch just likes to redefine terminology (e.g. by replacing the conventional phrase "Quantum pseudotelepathy" with "absence of action at a distance"). My unpleasant experience with Ch on Heat was partly my fault. While three editors were involved, the third editor did not participate very much. Chjoaygame's insistence on doing the lede his way was too much for me and I began to curtail my edits after that. The problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't think like most (or nearly all) physicists. The issue that caused me to vote for the ban on quantum articles wasn't rude behavior but his insistence that Dirac's bra-kets cannot have real and imaginary parts. That issue suffers from a severe lack of WP:notability (the complex conjugate of a ket could be defined but nobody would want to do it). Statements about notability involve opinions (not facts), and therefore such discussions need to end quickly. His efforts to push such nonstarters on the talk pages makes it difficult to improve articles. Aside: I also moved my Let me digress a bit to my talk page to make it easier to add comments to this discussion--Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"The problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't think like most (or nearly all) physicists." — Yes! I guess, he knows physics better than a typical historian of physics, and knows the history of physics better than a typical physicist. That should be nice, but... I know personally a historian of mathematics that is extremely aggressive toward the current mathematics. I also know one or two others who behave much calmer, but are critical, too. I guess that there is such a phenomenon: someone studies the history of science, and feels competent to correct the present-day science by some return to the past. I guess, this is futile. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Another "problem with Chjoaygame is that he doesn't" speak "like most (or nearly all) physicists". His way of using language is closer to that of humanities (which is natural for a historian), and quite different from the style of hard science. "Too long; didn't read" is often the reaction of a physicist. Our thoughts may be fuzzy when we think, but our arguments should be sharp when we speak/write. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. What Dirac was saying is that complex vectors are required because real parts or imaginary parts of these vectors don't describe physical objects by themselves (when taken separately). In dim 3, when you only have three real coordinates, you are unable to perform a change of basis, i.e. describe what would see another observer. Because this would require to know the six real coordinates (i.e. the three complex coordinates). I am not sure of what User:Chjoaygame wanted to say, but I think that assertion "three is less than six" is (1) sufficiently short and simple to be read by anyone of whatever background (2) stated in words whose meaning should have not evolved along the centuries. Pldx1 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Chjoaygame's latest activities in talk:bra-ket notation would never by themselves have provoked this. His current activities there reflect an attack of sanity unusual for him. Presumably, the present ANI makes him tone down a bit. He can't refrain though from trying to create the impression that "he was right all the time". This is still typical. His more honest reflexions on the topic at hand can be found in talk:wave function. There is a 100-fold worse material in talk:wave function, present and archives. It is important to point out that this is not about right or wrong in the hundreds of different issues and (usually) non-issues raised by this individual. It is about Chjoaygame's relentless and provoking pushing of his unique POV. YohanN7 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Final additions Although a couple of days ago I swore off to myself to not contribute anymore here, for the uninvolved I'll just give one more heads up to a better picture of the editor, in case it isn't obvious. See his recent edit history since the start of this ban, as well as User talk:Chjoaygame (especially User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 3). Ch, with some nerve, is taking every opportunity to display other editor's comments (however old) censored to his convenience, displayed on his talk page or an archive, while touting his apparent "correctness" and other people's "errors". Since Ch defers to WP policies when it suits him, there is WP:STICK to consider, and yes WP:TLDR is definitely relevant to Ch.

Also, along with Xxanthippe and Ymblanter, I agree the ban should extend to all physics articles, shuddering to think what will become of our relativity articles if Ch invades those too as some self-portrayed disciple of Einstein, Lorentz, Schwarzchild, you name them. However, others here may only agree with a topic ban on quantum physics, which should be the minimum that most of us agree on. This is the last of what I will say. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 08:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Maschen: a minor correction: A ban isn't what most of us agree on, but what all (but Ch) agree on (apology for dangling participle). Switching the question to a physics ban would require that we start this discussion from the beginning. A ban restricted to quantum would give Ch the opportunity to reform, and an absence of reform would make it easier to get the ban on all physics. @Chjoaygame: Why don't you start a parallel article on the history of quantum mechanics? All the physicists agree that your edits are making the articles harder for physics students to read.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to User:Guy vandegrift, yes, "most/all" of us, whatever, just being neutral in case someone actually comes along to oppose the ban on the grounds I am being "too harsh", "uncivil", "spiteful", they can take their pick.

I realize the discussion would have to be restarted if the ban extension to all physics articles was required, which is why this happened, followed by this, merely stating a ban on QM+QFT is the minimum which should be done.

Also, please don't encourage Ch to write his own article(s), "parallel" or not, because C could invade/damage other pages in the process for "innocent" reasons like links, cross-references, citations, even if not it will be almost certainly something to delete eventually anyway. It also contradicts your assertion that a QM topic ban is appropriate because Ch is still technically engaged with editing on WP in the subject. It's not only students that Ch befuddles and annoys, but even knowledgeable non-experts and experts. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Some samples:

Here, [16] Chj hijacks a thread. An editor asks a question (about position and momentum representations of a state) and Chj goes ballistic about something else (anti-ovens or whatever), presumably supporting Editor Vaughan Pratt.

Long long ramble cut out...

... I think Editor Vaughan Pratt is concerned about this.

What? VP asks a question, half of which a junior first-timer in a QM course can answer after one week. Chj does not possess this knowledge, instead furiously attacks further after my patient explanation.

In this one, [17] (scroll up to label "concern", link does not work well), Cjoaygame asserts

As I read it, this part of the present article flatly contradicts the consensus of Born, Bohr, Heisenberg, Rosenfeld, Kramers, Messiah, Weinberg, and Dirac.

The referred to parts, listed below for convenience,

• Wave functions corresponding to a state are not unique. This has been exemplified already with momentum and position space wave functions describing the same abstract state.
• The abstract states are "abstract" only in that an arbitrary choice necessary for a particular explicit description of it is not given. This is analogous to a vector space without a specified basis.
• The wave functions of position and momenta, respectively, can be seen as a choice of basis yielding two different, but entirely equivalent, explicit descriptions of the same state.
• Corresponding to the two examples in the first item, to a particular state there corresponds two wave functions, Ψ(x, Sz) and Ψ(p, Sy), both describing the same state.

are highly trivial non-controversial facts. For Chj, they are either new or don't fit into his religion. I don't know which, and I don't really care.

On occasion, Chj starts vetting real scientists, like here (Link works poorly. Scroll up to label "A distinction drawn by Weinberg".).

Weinberg is at fault in logic here. He is conflating...

Wow. Just wow.

I ask of no one to read all of Chj's gibberish. But those who decide on this issue should read at least some. Talk:Wave function/Archive 5 is fairly representative. YohanN7 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we must be thankful to YohanN7 for the sample, since it would be a torture "to read all of Chj's gibberish". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A counter sample, this time of Editor YohanN7 on my talk page:

But I believe that this statement isn't generally true;

Roughly speaking, a vapour-containing oven with a hole in its wall emits a beam of atoms in a mixed state.

If you lower the intensity to one atom at-a-time, these atoms are decidedly in a pure state (wave packages). You might speculate about single atoms in a high-intensity beam being in a mixed state if there is significant interaction between the atoms. Then some of the conditions described in L&L apply, because we would be looking at a subsystem. But it is still not clean cut. The system as a whole can hardly qualify as closed.

I'd also say that nature does not habitually deliver mixed states when you consider small systems, like a definite isolated collection of particles. Mixed states in those cases only appear when you consider a subsystem. This is exactly the way L&L defines it. I'd guess that in the typical setup in accelerator experiments, the intensities of the beams are low enough that particles in the beams do not interact with other particles in the same beam.

I think this casts light on the level of physical understanding of my present attacker.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A content dispute, again... but I feel I have to reply. The quote above is a part of discussion where both parties were somewhat in the dark. "It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some fully specified mixed state." (Chjoaygame, in the same discussion.) No, this is not at all hard. There are many ways to do it. For instance, it is very easy to prepare a thermal state (at a given temperature), described by the Hibbs density matrix; ironically, this is just what the oven prepares! In that discussion, both parties seem to understand that "mixed" should be "correlated with something else", but YohanN7 thinks about correlation with another particle of the same beam (rather than the oven and the environment), and Chjoaygame does not clarify, correlated with what. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Editor Tsirel, for this valuable comment. I posted the counter-sample in order to cast light on the level of physical understanding of my attacker, not to start a content debate. But since you have nearly done that, I may say thank you for picking up my one-word slip in my post on my talk page. Of course, as you rightly observe, I slipped by omitting the word 'arbitrary'. The sentence that I wrote in my talk page that you have copied here ought to have read with that word included: It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some arbitrary fully specified mixed state. Because I was concerned to make the very same point that you rightly make here, I had already cited the systems emerging from the oven as mixed, an obvious example of mixedness. I was concerned that my interlocutor seemed to utterly deny this. The ordinary definition of a mixed state that I intend is one that is observed to be such that when the analysis(=Dirac's "sorting apparatus" 1958, p. 12)  &  detection devices are exhaustively varied and still no way can be found to make the systems pass with probability one. Perhaps I may add that my main attackers here routinely ridicule me for talking of ovens and sorting apparatus.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, really? Still not so problematic. Having sources for several pure states, it is trivial to combine them (via a classical randomizer) into a source of the corresponding mixed state. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I wrote 'arbitrary'. Your example demands restriction to the case where one has sources for several pure states, indeed mixed, but far from arbitrary.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is arbitrary as long as these pure states are. The problem of preparing arbitrary pure state is a separate problem (and in some sense, not solvable, but usually assumed to be solvable in elementary textbooks). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I wrote (as corrected by Editor Tsirel): It would be hard in practice to prepare a beam that was in exactly some arbitrary fully specified mixed state. As he points out, it may be hard in practice to prepare an arbitrary pure state, a point I hsve made in the past. I don't agree that this is a separate problem. I had it in mind when I made my statement. And it would be a restriction that one should deal with several pure states, not a continuum, or more tricky set, of pure states.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you don't agree that this is a separate problem, then let it be so. But "not a continuum, or more tricky set, of pure states" shows clearly, what happens when one thinks physically instead of (rather than in addition to) thinking mathematically (and Feynman wrote about this in "Character of physical law"). Every mixed state (no matter how "tricky") can be decomposed into a (finite or) countable mix of pure states (and approximately - finite, of course). And admits a continuum of non-equivalent such decompositions. (Non-unique decomposition is a well-known fact actively debated in the past). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to see your thoughts on this point. I was in doubt on the matter. I hardly need say that I defer to your mathematics. I wrote It would be hard in practice to prepare... I am not sure, but I think it would be hard in practice to prepare a countably infinite set of pure states ready to be mixed. Whether the word 'several' covers a countably infinite set is a question that one might ask.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Each and any valuable treatise on Quantum Mechanic Theory is consistent with itself, since this is a requirement for being valuable. But QMT has largely evolved from its beginning, and is already evolving. So that any patchwork, made from pieces of various treatises, by various authors and at various periods, shouldn't be expected of being self-consistent. An eigenfunction |w> for variable W related to object X has the meaning "suppose that you interact sufficiently with X, to the point of finding w as the measure of variable W, then X will be described by |w>. Before the measure, object X has to be represented by a linear combination of eigenfunctions, the coefficients being related (at least loosely) with the probability of obtaining w as the measure of W. If you are considering two properties, you can, before any measure, represent the same physical object by two linear combinations of eigenfunctions (relative to W1 and W2). But after any measure, other linear combinations have to be used. Moreover, when the two measuring processes don't commute, measuring more and more precisely W1 results in scrambling more and more W2, to the point of obtaining an linear combination that only expresses our total ignorance about w2.
  Another way to tell the same thing. An abstract function describes an object with associated knowledge. When dealing with a physical object, the main question is: what have we paid for this knowledge, i.e. how much we have modified this object in order to acquire this knowledge ? Remark on the present dispute: the Founding Fathers of QMT are known for having be rogue to each other. But being rogue doesn't suffice for becoming a Founding Father. Pldx1 (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the third phrase and the last phrase of Pldx1 (but his other phrases seem not to belong here):

"Аny patchwork, made from pieces of various treatises, by various authors and at various periods, shouldn't be expected of being self-consistent."

"But being rogue doesn't suffice for becoming a Founding Father."

Anyway, I'd say that both YohanN7 and Chjoaygame are not experts, but Chjoaygame is a passionate and ambitious POV pusher, while YohanN7 is not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor Tsirel says that I am a passionate and ambitious POV pusher. Yes, I am pushing the point of view that Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in ordinary language, and for physics that means relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning. My principal interlocutor, I think, is passionate in the opposite direction. He writes for example "Modern ways of presenting physics are better than those of the 1930:s. Mathematics has become the irreversibly final tool and language in expressing physics. You may not like it, but you can't turn the flow of time around." I have to leave it to others to decide if that constitutes Wiki POV.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My opinion to it is already voiced above: About the balance between ordinary-language and math-language in physics, I do not vote, since I am a mathematician, not a physicist. But I am pleased to see (above) the opinion of several physicists. I have absolutely no objection to the use of ordinary language in articles — as long as the ordinary language underlies the conclusions reached by more formal approach, and not undermines them! And similarly: no objection to some history of (say) quantum mechanics, as long as this history underlies, not undermines, the current worldview. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning is very different from replacing mathematical formulas with (unique) POV babbling. I am in favor of the former, not even neutral. I am against the latter. YohanN7 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall replacing any mathematical formulas. You are of course free to say I babble and have a (unique) POV.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Boris: Plain-language information is a valuable part of physics articles. But plain-language misinformation is not! I personally don't know yet whether Chjoaygame is pushing a coherent POV or is merely confused about many basic aspects of quantum mechanics. But anyway, Chjoaygame is not correct when he suggests that his POV is a desire for plain-language descriptions and that this is what people are complaining about. --Steve (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot there. I am obviously not expert in quantum mechanics. I was seriously confused for some long time about the relation between state vectors and wave functions. This was a big confusion on a basic aspect, with troublesome ramifications in the way of walls of text on talk pages. I eventually recognized how to see it correctly, and apologized for my confusion. I don't think I have other basic confusions of remotely the same size. People are complaining about my personality: that I write walls of text on talk pages, that I often use out-of-date sources (e.g. Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Bohr), that I don't give up on talk pages until I have been persuaded that I ought do so, that I am not primarily interested in mathematics, and that I post edits boldly. I can see that these personality features do not endear me to people; they add up to the broad reason for the present proposal to topic-ban me. I think I am entitled to have a pretty large say in defining my own POV. At least in my mind it is as I stated just above: I am pushing the point of view that Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in ordinary language, and for physics that means relating mathematical formulas to physical meaning. To elaborate a little, I believe strongly that if one can't give a good account of a topic in ordinary language, then one doesn't understand it well. I think Wikipedia articles on quantum mechanics are defective in that respect. Here is not the place for me to say more about that. I have posted many attempts to help remedy that defect. Many of those have been duly undone, with more or less protest from me. I don't edit war.

On another tack, I do not believe in magic, and therefore I avoid editing on Bell's theorem. That I do not believe in magic makes some editors feel I am nuts, but, as I said, after one essay, made within the rules and not objectionably, I know how passionately they think my non-belief is mistaken and consequently I don't edit or talk on Bell's theorem. So I think my unbelief is not a valid reason to do hard things to me.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, it is a well-accepted position, that generally, a theoretical notion need not admit a definition in empirical terms. When possible (and not too boring), such a definition is desirable. But it may be impossible. Theory as whole is corroborated (or refuted) according to its predictions (and empirical facts). But "building blocks" are not necessarily interpretable empirically. We observe that Chjoaygame tries hard to give empirical interpretation to every theoretical notion, even when it is not reasonable to do at all, or at least, is a too advanced matter for our articles.Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This comment is high powered, perhaps beyond the present purposes, or, as you say, "by the way". I ask that the formulas be related to physical meaning. That is not to say that every definition must have an empirical meaning. If one says 'this formula has no physical meaning' I count that as relating this formula to physical meaning. Physical meaning is not quite the same thing as empirical meaning. To deal more directly with your comment, Chjoaygame tries hard to interpret theoretical notions that he feels deserve empirical interpretations, but not every theoretical notion. Chjoaygame thinks that physicists vary in how hard and how successfully they pursue that. Sometimes some of them give up too easily. I won't go further on that here and now.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not about replacing formulas (that is, statements) by plain text, nor about their translation into plain text. I am rather about mathematical objects (say, state vectors). The question, whether or not every vector in the Hilbert space is an eigenvector of some Hermitian operator, is mathematically trivial. The question, whether or not every vector in the Hilbert space is an eigenvector of some physically feasible observable is far not trivial. Neither the former, nor the latter, is usually discussed in elementary textbooks. And I do not think they should be discussed (prominently) in our articles. But if you define a pure state as corresponding (you know in which sense) to a possible value of an observable, then inevitably you enter such questions. This is why your trend (in spite of its good faith) may be (or even must be) harmful. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these valuable thoughts. I think I would be unwise to pursue them here.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Chjoaygame: For the record, I also do not believe that people can do "magic", and when I learned of Bell's theorem circa 1992, my amazement that elementary particles are experimentally observed to display "Quantum pseudo-telepathy" prompted me to contact the local newspaper (after two sleepless nights pondering what I had just learned). The local newspaper ignored me. Like you, I also get "odd" ideas about how to explain physics, but after one or two rejections I drop the subject and post the material in an obscure location (example). If Wikipedia editors who happen to by physicists say a certain insight has no value, you need to believe them. I recall this statement that perhaps you made about Temperature and the one-dimensional manifold. It is marginally appropriate for Wikipedia, at best. But when I went to delete it, I checked the source and finally understood. Just below the freezing point, density decreases with increasing temperature. The fact that temperature is not a function of volume implies that an ad hoc definition of temperature cannot be based on a water thermometer in this range. This could be a useful insight in instructional material for students. You just need to recognize that there are places where such insights do not belong.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

We need your help![edit]

·Hey bored admins, got nothing better to do with your time? Well come on down to RFPP and help clean out some requests! We've got 55 requests just sitting there, waiting to be handled deftly by your keen insight and judgement, you also look great today! Don't wait, start protecting (and declining) today! tutterMouse (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I did a few and then some. Widr (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly Done.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

IP-socks with talkpage access[edit]

Someone mind removing the talkpage access of these blocked User:Nolantron IP-socks?

• Special:Contributions/24.114.106.179
• Special:Contributions/24.114.93.163
• Special:Contributions/24.114.86.61

He also mentions the supposedly-extended rangeblock wasn't actually extended. Someone may want to deal with that, too. User has also been harassing User:Kailey 2001 at least yesterday. (On one of his named accounts, he claims he was just pretending to be the harasser active on Kailey's user talkpage before. No clue if he's honest or lying, don't care either.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Range 24.114.64.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked). Not sure if that is feasible. Fences&Windows 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Organized editing effort[edit]

Organized editing effort from 4chan's /pol/. Found boards.4 *** chan.org/pol/thread/69811494/1st-pol-wikipedia-editathon (view at your own risk; link blacklisted). FYI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Psst, Nick-D... regarding David Irving. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the edits to the Irving article had that look to it. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

69814951 suggested: Edit /pol/ out of the "Alt Right" page, or at least make it less biased. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Maybe /pol/ is capable of subtlety. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13: Surprisingly (?) the editor who removed it made a good point: the sources don't support its inclusion. There's at least one seasoned wiki editor in that thread on 4chan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging procedure and tagging[edit]

List of Iranian people by net worth and Setad[edit]

Hi,

Same problem has occurred again (and again for past 2 years) as reported [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive277#List_of_Iranian_people_by_net_worth] more recently. Can someone please take action and/or protect this page indefinitely, as I don't want to turn it personal (no "agenda" whatsoever on my side). Thanks. Similar problem for theSetad article with an editor who is making WP:unfounded personal attacks (possibly a sock-puppet of blocked user: Sheildy?). I have edited economy-related article on WP for more than 10 years without a hitch but those 2 seem problematic because it is a list of persons may be?

Thanks much,

Duvalier123 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Information from deleted page[edit]

Vandalism[edit]

Hi. Please block this account because of doing VandalismModern Sciences (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, this is severe POV pushing--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Savintomar repeatedly recreating CSDed article[edit]

@Wgolf:: The discussion has been moved here froom WP:ANI.

User:Savintomar has been repeatedly recreating Savintomar as a page about himself (which in its present form is U5, A7, ... CSD), even after it has been speedy'd many times. He has also been repeatedly uploading a photo of himself to Commons and Wikipedia, which does not give any indication of permission or release on a free licence.

Also the user appears to have a sock: User:Savin.tomer, and has also been removing speedy templates from the articles created by the master. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinging MER-C. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 08:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Savin.tomer, as it's quite clear they're the same person. I'm not completely convinced this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsachintomar -- is this user so desperate to get onto Wikipedia that he'll misspell his own name in order to do so? I salted all variants of Sachin Tomar via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist not too long ago. MER-C 08:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of Iamsachintomar, if a user repeatedly creates a speedy deleted page, and even creates a sockpuppet to continue the work, this should be grounds for blocking. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. The main reason why I'm raising this up for admin review, is if the user is unable to interpret and understand Wikipedia policy on article creation, copyright and multiple accounts, I believe he should be sanctioned. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C: @Od Mishehu: Please refer to [19], the personal page of the user (MER-C, remember the photo I tagged and you deleted?). This page may help you to identify who are his socks or not. (I am not outing, reason is because the user had already revealed his homepage in his contribs and also used his own photo, which came out on a Google image search) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've protected the page to prevent future article creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Od Mishehu: fair enough. I've indeffed the other account for not being here to improve Wikipedia. I've also amended the deletion summaries to U5/G12, as it's not particularly clear Savintomar == Sachin Timar. MER-C 04:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Help required at AfD[edit]

There is a discussion here which an editor has moved the main article to its userpage, can I ask for assistance from an administrator re what to do next? Thanks Nordic Dragon 14:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have performed some cleanup and commented there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User created a WP:FAKEARTICLE so Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vanossaro1567 Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sysmessage change request[edit]

Hi guys! If everything works as planned the new protection level is comming in about 1-2 hours. so you need to adjust the text of two messages:

• MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning
• MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext

You need to use a switch to display the right things, if the new level is used. But I guess you got already experience in that, because you got the templateditor level. Otherwise you may take a look at the french pages with the new names, they got their new level yesterday. Greetings, Luke081515 22:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See also this discussion at the technical village pump. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

IBan enforcement request by Dennis Bratland[edit]

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

It's because, frankly, I'm tired of dealing with everyone's petty arguing. I can handle it if you want me to enforce the ban literally. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Petty arguing is the reason these bans happen. It seems like anyone who has no desire to be involved in these kinds of disputes should let someone else administer interaction bans. And anyway it's not fair to you to have to do this indefinitely. Why not let someone else take a turn? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Spacecowboy420 went to Anthony Appleyard's talk page and requested that he revert my edits on Dodge Tomahawk. He said he didn't know who made the change, yet he also said he couldn't talk about it because of the interaction ban, indicating he had checked the page history and seen that of course it was me, and he is banned from reverting my edits. I see this as a blatant violation of the interaction ban. Spacecowboy420 is not supposed to follow me around and revert my changes, nor is he supposed to slyly talk around whose edits he is having reverted. This is after several previous violations, such as Spacecowboy420 reverting our previously discussed criteria for List of fastest production motorcycles, removing the street legal requirement. I don't understand how he can do that if he knows that he and I previously couldn't agree on it. He's taking advantage of the ban to make changes and I can't respond. Yet if I overrule his old objections on Dodge Tomahawk, then he is allowed to come along and revert me? How is that possible?

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

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

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

Extended confirmed user[edit]

I have just noticed that a permission for users called "Extended confirmed user" and a request board called Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed has appeared. THis started around 23:24 on 5 April. The noticeboard suggests that only alternate accounts of those who have automatically received the permission should be granted this permission. Is there a clear statment of this policy or process? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This from 19 March- WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Also this. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Would this also apply to Gamergate controversy? Maybe the edit filter there is sufficient. I just noticed that an editor's status on their user page (which is seen if you have particular scripts) says they are "extendedconfirmed" (no space) instead of "confirmed". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think GG was its original intended use, in fact. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is no process or consensus for adding this right manually, this page should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My understanding was that the right would only be manually added for alternate accounts. ~ Rob^Talk 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, admins can apply to this level of protection, either through requests at WP:RPP or they become aware of the need for protection on eligible articles/pages in the WP:ARBPIA area? Does this also apply to caste-related articles? We should also alert admins who regularly check the RPP noticeboard and I've requested that this level of protection be added to Twinkle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Arbitration 30/500 protection. This level needs Arbcom authority, as described in WP:AC/DS. If you see a need for 500/30 protection on an article that doesn't yet have it, I suggest requesting it at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The article needs to fall in the scope of some Arbcom case. Unclear if adding this protection level to Twinkle is a good idea, or if allowing requests for it at RFPP is wise. RFPP doesn't hand out 1RR restrictions, for example. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This may be of use in seeing how the rollout was discussed and any links that may help Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange burst of activity at special@Log/rights. Irondome (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom authority includes WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Administrators may unilaterally apply extended protection to articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict topic. RFPP is as good a place to ask for it as any. BethNaught (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

(another ec!)

What about this AE decision where you state that A 500/30 restriction is authorized for use with caste articles under certain restrictions. You tied this new restriction to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions and specified the articles 500/30 applied to at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#India-Pakistan. But, you're right, ArbCom never passed a motion to authorize 500/30 for the India-Pakistan area (or Gamergate) as they did for Palestinian-Israel conflict pages. Hence, my confusion on whether these caste articles could be covered by this new level of protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I thought the 500/30 sanction was a result of an AE request for gamergate originally? When did it 'require' arbcom authority? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be clarified by ArbCom whether 500/30 is an appropriate discretionary sanction. I could see that going either way. ~ Rob^Talk 16:36, 6 April 2016 UTC)

The new protection level is for authorized topics only, as listed at WP:30/500. New pages will be created that will clearly relate to these topics, so users need a way to request this new form of protection (see also WT:RFPP#New options). It is up to the admin to determine if the page qualifies, and if they are unsure, they can defer or ask here at AN. I plan to add support for the level of protection to Twinkle, but it will abundantly clear this is for Arbitration purposes only, and will list out the qualified topics. The text that is posted to RFPP will also clearly denote what that protection is for, so patrolling admins should not be confused.

The WP:PERM/EC page is more or less purely to assign the right to alternate accounts. We put it there to centralize with other permissions requests — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope the list of articles is going to be kept somewhere else than Wikipedia:Protection policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That is the list of topics. The list of articles can be found at Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: Those topic links are articles, just saying :P. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This might be a useful tool to cut down on some of the vandalism and occasional terrorist POV pushing on some ISIL related pages like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

State of TfD[edit]

Lately, participation at TfD has been extremely low. I've been essentially the only editor closing discussions over the past several weeks. When I'm unable to close discussions (either due to involvement or because the close would be inappropriate for a non-admin), they've sat there for weeks, some for months. When I do close discussions, they often have little input, and I doubt that many of these discussions actually represent a global consensus. Not to mention the backlog at the holding cell, where discussions with consensus as old as 2013 sit waiting to be enacted.

In short, TfD badly needs more participation in all respects. Non-administrators can help by simply contributing to discussions or by closing discussions, including those with non-contentious and obvious deletion outcomes, as per a past RfC. Administrators are especially needed to close old discussions that non-administrators are unable to. If you're unfamiliar with closing TfD discussions, you can find instructions at WP:TFD/AI, or I'm happy to be of assistance.

This is not just a request for closure. While the backlog is an issue, I'm most concerned that decisions on templates with thousands of transclusions are often being made by less than five editors. That's extremely unhealthy for the project. Non-administrators can be just as helpful as administrators in fixing that. ~ Rob^Talk 12:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've started going through and closing some of the more unambiguous discussions, but I lack the time and experience to do much more than help occasionally. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• +++++ Agree with Rob, more participation and more admins needed! I used to do a lot of TfD closes but haven't had the time lately, and there's a growing backlog of discussions that need an admin or at least an uninvolved editor. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there perhaps a handy-dandy TfD closing script we can employ?--v/r - TP 05:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • TParis, I have User:Doug/closetfd.js, which I don't use, but I loaded it when I loaded the MfD closer, which is not as automated as the AfD closer, however.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @TParis: There is User:Doug/closetfd.js, but it just adds the closing templates and doesn't actually do the deletions or untag templates being kept. I usually go through one day's log and then use Twinkle's D-batch, which is handy when there are group nominations or many subpages and redirects. Someone was working on a more comprehensive script awhile back but I think got distracted by other things (just in case anyone reading is looking for a project, hint hint.... ;) I had vague intentions of writing one myself but my dislike of tedious repetitive tasks never quite overcame my dislike of all things javascript. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've used the script before, but personally, I think just opening up WP:TFD/AI in another tab and following the instructions is easier. That's what I do, and it's quite productive. Personal preference, of course, so your mileage may vary. Again, I just want to underscore that I'm happy to answer questions! For those who close discussions, please note the following few pieces of advice, which differ from other deletion processes:

• Please do not delete templates which still have remaining transclusions! You can check for this by clicking "What links here" and then "Transclusion count". If the transclusions aren't zero (this includes anything in the userspace, etc.), then you can either remove/replace the transclusions as necessary or list the template at WP:TFD/H so another editor can do so. The template should remain until all transclusions are removed and then listed as G6.
• If you close a discussion as "merge", please list it at WP:TFD/H unless you're very confident you can handle the technical aspects of the merge. If you do decide to carry out a simple merge yourself (such as merging navboxes, which is fairly easy), I recommend using the sandbox to test your edits.
• If using the TfD script (or closing discussions without it, for that matter), be sure to remove the TfD template from the templates being considered if you close as "keep". The script doesn't do this for you, and it's a common mistake to assume that it does. You should also place {{Old TfD}} on the talk page of the template.

~ Rob^Talk 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Heads up: No editing for 30 minutes in about two weeks[edit]

This is a quick note to make sure people here have heard about the new dates for the m:Tech/Server switch 2016. The net result is that there will be no editing at any WMF wiki for 15 to 30 minutes, on both Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday 21 April, started at 14:00 UTC (10:00 a.m. EDT). Also, there will be a few things that may be slower to update than usual (e.g., red links persisting for a few minutes after you've created the article); these should resolve whenever the servers catch up.

I've requested a watchlist note at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details here (an admin will need to make that happen, but there's no rush right now), and suggested it to several other larger communities. There will also be MassMessages to the usual Village Pumps for about 600 wikis, and a CentralNotice (sitenotice banner) shortly beforehand. The project was described at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-03-09/Technology report.

I request that you share this news with other sister projects, projects in other languages, and editors that you interact with regularly. If you have questions or suggestions for more ways to reach people, then please {{ping}} me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to be a vandalism problem? It might be wise to not give too exact of times. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I heavily agree with this. It would be ideal for you to give a window of an hour or so and start it at some random time within that window. ~ Rob^Talk 18:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect the time to be exact (it's triggered by humans, not by a script), but they ran a test of this a couple of weeks ago, and there were no reports about vandalism then. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't set up mass warnings about the exact time it was going to occur two weeks ago, though. I don't want to WP:BEANS this (and hopefully am not) but if it's going to be widely advertised, with a near-exact startup time, it really opens us up to danger. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but, easily solved; Whatamidoing, please make sure the humans pressing the button take a coffee break of random length between completing their final checks and halting editing. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

notification[edit]

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

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

Article needs deleting and salting[edit]

Can someone delete and salt this article [20]? I linked a prior deletion discussion to the request template and you'll see it has repeatedly been recreated under various names by a determines sockmaster over the years. A couple other variations of the name are already salted. GigglesnortHotel (talk)£ —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Already deleted, I have added the salt. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia:Standard offer[edit]

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

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

@Pxos: No such thing, Users DO NOT own articles they create. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

G7 only applies in cases where the requesting editor is the only party to make substantive edits to the page, and even then, can be denied because editors don't WP:OWN the pages. In your example, I presume many of the retiring editor's started pages were subsequently edited by other users. I would also question the good faith nature of such a request, since pretty much the only logical reason to request that everything be deleted is that you are going off in a huff. So if I was met with such a request here, my response would be "that ain't gonna happen, bub". Resolute 16:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There's some (very, very old) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal VI (Requested deletion). —Cryptic 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

English Wikipedia would handle that by saying "Thank you for your contributions, we'll cherish them. Caio."--v/r - TP 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

YSupport Renaming our 'delete' to 'annihilate' . — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if that would get more people to run for RfAs! ansh666 06:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders, deleting an article in Finnish Wikipedia is simply called "removing" since the Finnish language does not actually have an exact word for "deletion". As the angry user has already requested that "an eternal block" be imposed upon him and that every single article, where he is the sole contributor, be removed from Wikipedia, I thought the word "annihilate" would be suitable for the occasion. --Pxos (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

G7 is often used when people realise a problem, and want to avoid embarrassment of some other deletion reason. But in the case of an angry user trying to raze everything they did, the material would likely be kept, and so the G7 should be declined if there was any value in the articles. For user pages you can accept the delete nomination though. If some articles do get deleted, by different admins not aware of the situation, then it should be OK to restore them again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

A recent AN/I close[edit]

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

• Endorse close @Godsy: Why are you challenging the close of an ANI discussion that was started on 28 March 2016 and where none of your proposals have got anywhere near consensus? The ANI discussion has established that some people support (almost) all material being retained in user space and some don't—there is no prospect of more than that being achieved at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close I am pretty sure that the community has made progress since then in that they have started an RFC on the topic. I see very little value in revisiting an old drama thread. You have not even presented a basis for reviewing it, which part don't you like? HighInBC 14:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close The first question you need to ask is 'Would another party have closed it with a different result?'. It is highly unlikely anyone would in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq and HighInBC:"Godsy is just going to keep opening alternate proposals until they exhaust the community's patience (learn to drop the stick)" is the part I took issue with. If the close had simply stated that there was no consensus, and linked the relevant RfC, it would have been reasonable (and would have pushed IAR far enough). My issue was with an involved administrator who directly disagreed with me in the last subsection and was involved in the actual page move matter to an extent leaving commentary regarding me in the close. If it had been a neutral third party making those statements, while it would have still been inaccurate, I could have dealt with it (perhaps some self reflection would have been due). I didn't bring this to AN/I. I did open a couple subsections and provided evidence that the user who did start the thread regarding my actions engaged in canvassing and personal attacks, and I opened one alternative proposal for sanctions against said user as the thread completely boomeranged against them (my actions are barely discussed by anyone except the one who opened the thread). I had no intention of suggesting any more proposals (The closer didn't even say it seems that I would keep doing that, they stated what I would do). I understand the whole thing is convoluted, but; It doesn't seems like the closer properly read all the sections, or else they couldn't set aside their own bias. The close shouldn't stand. The closer is free to express their opinion about me, but given the circumstances, in the text of the close is not the place. If the part I quote above of the close is stricken, I'll withdraw my objection.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Step 1 in dispute resolution is discussing the dispute with the person you're in a dispute with. Give it a rest. No one is interested in dragging this issue out any longer. Drop the stick.--v/r - TP 19:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @TParis: IAR close, why not an IAR (to a much lesser extent) review?—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You know what, you do whatever you feel is necessary. I'm not even interested. You have a serious problem with letting things go and I'm not even going to engage you on this any longer.--v/r - TP 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close - Whoever closes it the outcome's gonna be the same and as noted above your proposals haven't got anywhere, I would strongly suggest you drop what ever stick you have with LP and just move on. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Seems like a pretty accurate assessment of consensus and a pragmatic close of a discussion that wasn't going to achieve anything more. I can't see anyone else closing it significantly differently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn close. I am completely uninvolved, was unaware of all of this, generally don't participate here, and am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here (if not, mark this as a Comment instead). But I read all of the now-archived Godsy Disruption thread and I do think Godsy is right: the personally-directed language in the close was wrong, and it was especially wrong that an involved editor closed it that way (note maybe only involved editors would speak that way). Godsy was bashed by automatic edit summary in every edit to the entire meanly-named discussion. And it is mean and inappropriate to bash them in all other ways during the proceeding. To me the underlying actions of Legacy-whoever seem bad, it seems to me that Godsy was right about that being gaming that should not be allowed. It's not clear to me that the underlying actions by Godsy's to return pages to userspace were "wrong", as I am not sure if realistically those could have been proposed and addressed as a batch anywhere. All the actions that are manufacturing work by others--such as creating fake AFDs where real editors are to waste time judging quality of drafts that no one really supports--seem awful. About the proceeding, by my reading, Godsy made one proposal that was a stretch, the last one which proposed sanctions, and they were taken to task for doing that as a highly involved party. Okay fine they got some grief there. It is hypocritical to dictate that only uninvolved editors should propose anything serious of one type, then as an involved editor perform something else serious in a mean way (closing the discussion with a mean, unjustified personally-addressed statement). And, to all of you, why deny giving some respect to Godsy, who seems multiple times victimized in this, by not acknowledging the closing's wording was mean and unnecessary. Neither Godsy nor I are seeking continued discussion there, what's sought is just a revised close by someone else. Now that it has been archived some might assert nothing can be done, but obviously here one could get semi-agreement on an alternate close wording and then go and edit the archived thread (with link to this discussion). I hope this is helpful. --doncram 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• You're entitled to that opinion, but in mine, Godsy instigated at every turn. And yes, editors get a !vote here. In fact, editors can close issues here as well. If you want to reclose that topic from your perspective, be my guest. My point is, nothing is going to happen, let's move on.--v/r - TP 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reedley International School[edit]

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

It sure does, even though some of the worst fluff was removed in 2011.[21] It's too old for me to feel comfortable speedying it, but I've prodded. Domo arrigato, Mr IP. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC).

This is the second IP on an administrator's noticeboard in a week not to get blocked. I think we might have a serious issue going on here. Anon's can't just come to an administrator's board without the overarching threat of blockage - that's unheard of!--v/r - TP 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Said the guy who only comes around when the expiration date on his admin tools is approaching. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Banned editor continues to WP:EVADE[edit]

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