Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 125 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 123 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to add this discussion here. There have been no new comments for over a fortnight. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 35 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is the OCB RS?

(Initiated 30 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 111 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 110 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 105 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charles_XI_of_Sweden#Requested_move_13_January_2024

(Initiated 103 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has now been open for three months. 2601:249:9301:D570:9012:4870:54CD:5F95 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 101 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 92 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 79 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 72 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2 World Trade Center#Split proposal 16 February 2024

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 59 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 9 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposal 3

Apteva's previous restrictions are to remain in force indefinitely. Apteva is further topic banned from proposing the removal of those sanctions for a period of six months from the day this discussion is closed, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that. Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block. If the ban is repeatedly violated each block will be sharply escalated from the previous one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. It is abundantly clear at this point that Apteva will continue to attempt to circumvent the strong consensus that placed and still supports their topic bans so long as we indulge them, so let's not indulge this foolishness any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- I dislike this business of systematically depriving people of all their avenues of appeal, just for appealing. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the appeals (this is not the first one by the way) had ever presented logical, compelling reasons to lift the sanctions I would agree with you. They have not, so this is all just a waste of time and energy. ArCom regularly places such restrictions as an alternative to just indef blocking users who make nuisance appeals like this one, just trying their luck over and over without showing any improvement or even an understanding of why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first and only appeal to the community (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, which none of the commenters here seem to have noticed). All closes can be appealed to the closing editor and to ARB. This was (in January), so this is the first and only repeal request (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, so comments that it should or should not be continued are all moot). Apteva (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Editor appears to not realise what the issue was which led to the original block. This measure will leave a sufficient amount of time such that the editor can get some perspective on the issue before filing another request. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support essentially per Beeblebrox's multiple comments, even if some are more strongly worded than I would have put it. Apteva demonstrates even in this appeal the type of problematic interaction style that is the root of previous sanctions and blocks. There seems to be a lack of self-awareness about how the style comes across to others. When Apteva disagrees with someone, it's not a difference of opinion in Apteva's mind; it's that Apetva is right and the other person is wrong, and that's that. True to form, he/she reverts an admin in order to unclose the discussion and notes that no opinions in the above discussion were "factually based". Apteva is...persistent. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is soooo typical of the hard-headed foolishness I have come to expect from Apteva. I'm beginning to be more inclined to initiate a ban discussion, you can't work with someone who is incapable of admitting they ever have been or ever could be mistaken... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This editor's constant harping on his sanctions (instead of simply editing constructively and responsibly and allowing the removal of his sanction to come about naturally) is disruptive. As someone mentioned above, he's his own worst enemy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The focus needs to be on how we can work on improving Wikipedia, not on how we can keep someone from contributing. This proposal is moot because I am already restricted to appealing the sanctions once every six months (from 11:43 January 6 UTC, so the first appeal could have been done almost two weeks ago). However, as the sanctions are not needed, and are hurting Wikipedia, it would be better for everyone to set an expiration date instead of everyone having to go through the same exercise again in January. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an observation, we have probably millions of occasional editors (having done one edit), and right now about 3200 to 3500 every month who make over 100 edits, myself one of those. What can I do to become an editor just like every other, with no restrictions, just like everyone else? Apteva (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit constructively and humbly, stop being convinced that you're always right and everyone else is wrong and that you are somehow necessary for the survival of Wikipedia, stop arguing with everyone about everything, admit when you're wrong, work toward compromise instead of getting your own way and stop trying to get your sanctions lifted. (paradoxically, this is probably the best way to get your sanctions removed). In other words, go about your business, don't worry about the subjects you've been sanctioned for, contribute productively to the encycylopedia, and understand what WP:CONSENSUS really means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But bear in mind that I have created over 100 articles, and helped bring multiple articles to GA status (and helped with FA ones). Sure some times things get done by someone else, but sometimes that is not the case. I have as I said been monitoring an error that I would fix in 2 seconds if I could, that now has been viewed 635,000 times without being corrected. Anyone else could correct it, but no one has. Anyone could click on the reference supplied and said hey that is not what the article says and fixed it, but no one has. Why is that? Apteva (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Done", but your very answer is in direct contradiction to my advice. Don't you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a collaborative project the contributions of all of us are equally valuable. No contributor can be said to be more valuable than another, because without all of us the encyclopedia would not exist. I have been restricting myself to the areas that I can work on, for six months now with no deviation. I just want the restrictions to end, or at least have a definite time when the sanctions will go away. Apteva (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that, right there, is the fundamental error in your thinking. Some contributors are inherently more valuable than others. Specifically, contributors who work collegially with others and seek to find consensus are infinitely more valuable to this project than even the most productive who act like they are right and everyone else is wrong, and refuse to abide by collaborative editing process. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me to create an infobox saying this editor is one that is infinitely more valuable than others. Or one that says, this editor is the 700th most valuable editor, and is infinitely more valuable than the 5000th most valuable editor, who in turn is infinitely more valuable than the 50000th most valuable editor who made one edit that no one else noticed and helped the readability of one of our articles. No, in a collaborative project, we do not assign value to our participants, and treat everyone with equal respect, whether they are Jimbo or an IP editor makes no difference whatsoever. Yes some people contribute more than others, and some are more difficult to deal with than others, but that never affects the respect that they deserve. No one is paid here, and it is only by our good will that any of us make even one edit. By thinking that some of us are "infinitely more valuable than others" strongly discourages anyone from wanting to participate at all. Only by recognizing that all of us are equal, from the IP editor who makes one edit, to the 100,000 and million edit contributors, all of us completely and entirely equal, do we encourage participation and welcome editors. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support @Apteva: There is no requirement to stop believing that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, but you must stop talking about it. It is a disgrace that so much time and energy has been squandered in arguing over Apteva's two accounts and Apteva's views on article titles. Just stop. If making another appeal in six months, please outline how changing the restrictions would benefit the encyclopedia (for example, how would discussing dashes help). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As stated before, this proposal is moot because it does not add anything to the sanctions that are already in place. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have just as much of a right to that requirement as everyone else. But anyone thinking that an error that could have, and would have, been corrected in January, and has since been seen 635,000 times is acceptable because the only editor who knows about the error has too much integrity to create an alternative account, and fix it in 2 seconds really needs to re-examine why we are here. Six months from now, if it is still there, it will have been viewed over a million times. No where is it acceptable to allow known errors to be viewed that many times. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep wondering if at some point you will notice that literally nobody has your back on any of these issues and nobody agrees with your reasoning. I mean, the above comment is just a load of nonsense in every single aspect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva, if the error you keep referring to relates to whether a mark of punctuation should be a hyphen or an en-dash or a minus sign or the like, you should permanently ignore it; whether or not it is an error, it is infinitely less important than you think it is. If the error is substantive, as you suggest above, and it is not related to a topic from which you are topic-banned, the only reasonable course is for you to fix the error before you post anything else on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This gaming of the system has gone on long enough. If this user needs to be forced to accept their restrictions due to their behaviour then so be it. If this user had merely waited out the appeal period and edited constructively then this would not even be happening, but they didn't and here we are! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support what? All of the sanctions that are proposed are already in effect. There is absolutely nothing the proposal would change. I have in fact waited out the appeal period and edited constructively. I will in fact wait out the next appeal period and edit constructively, and the next, if necessary. Apteva (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case you are not aware, the above reads like a promise to do whatever is necessary to resume the old arguments as soon as possible, no matter how long it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apteva may not have thought this through: should his allowed appeal after 6 months be as non-substantive as the current one was, the community can easily extend the appeal period to 1 year or longer, and should that pattern continue to be repeated, it's likely that a total site ban would follow. The Wikipedia community does not have infinite patience, and there comes a time where even those with far more ability to WP:AGF than I have can no longer tell the difference between unintended disruption and deliberate trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I understand that Apteva's attitude is not the best, however, he wishes to do what he thinks is best for the project. Looking over his actions leading up to the topic ban and account restriction, I am fully in agreement that the topic ban on dashes et al should remain in place. The one account restriction puzzles me; maybe I'm just not seeing what everyone else saw/sees. I found one instance from 2008 in which Apteva/Delphi234 overlapped and caused an issue, which was compounded by the fact that, when questioned by other editors, Apteva did not confirm that the two accounts were the same person. However, this was 2008. I was unable to locate any issues with two accounts since then. In an email I received from Apteva, he states that he uses two accounts for privacy reasons, and that's okay as long as the accounts aren't used for malicious purposes. I think that Apteva should be allowed to operate his present two accounts with the understanding that any sanctions earned on one account also apply to the other and that the two accounts should be given a wide berth in their edits. Reblocks are cheap, so if he misbehaves with one account or the other, he can be blocked on both and end it at that. Maybe a little bit of rope could do the entire project good? Ishdarian 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be accepted I can assure everyone it will not be abused in the slightest. I have no interest in this appeal being nothing but a clean, no blocks, no issues, "I recommend removal of sanctions" the next time this comes up, so I really implore everyone who has any issue with my editing, even the slightest, to bring it up immediately when it occurs with me on my talk page so that I can take corrective action. What attracted me to Wikipedia five or six years ago or whenever it was, was to take pity on anyone who was reading misinformation, and correcting it. I have not been able to find my first edit, but I think it was correcting a date or time in an article. I still fix things I see that are incorrect, but have branched out to more content creation, and article quality improvement (moving every article towards FA). Apteva (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ishidarian: Apteva has claimed privacy issues for a long time, but has never adequately explained what he means - and he's been asked to many times. He's already had a considerable amount of AGF and "rope" extended to him, which is how we've ended up in the current situation. I'm afraid that, given his behavior in this very discussion, his assurances are not at all believable to me.

      Then, of course, there's the matter of his WP:CANVASSing for your comment here via e-mail. This is not new behavior on his part, as can be seen here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you. I just want to make the clarification that he did not request I make a comment; I asked a question in the Prop 2 above and he responded to my question a bit more in-depth via email. I was satisfied with the answer and that's what brought me here to comment. Ishdarian 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In case there is some doubt that this proposal is necessary, here is a review of the appeals so far (and I might have missed some):
  • Appeal to Arbcom 12 January 2013, result: unanimously declined
  • Appeal 29 January 2013, result: declined by JamesBWatson
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined
  • Appeal at AE 15 May 2013, result: declined
  • Appeal 23 May 2013, result: declined by SirFozzie
  • Appeal 24 May 2013, result: declined by Bwilkins
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined with email block added to the existing block
  • Appeal 16 July 2013, result: declined twice (closed by Kingofhearts but reverted by Apteva, then closed again by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
  • Appeal 17 July 2013, result: Apteva reverted the close him/herself
  • Appeal 18 July 2013, result: declined. At some point this needs to stop. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Reyk, and specifically the single-account restriction. The tendentious punctuating and refusal to drop a wooden device have led Apteva into a corner they cannot easily extricate themselves. Full wiki-break might help. Narrowing the appeal options will only make him more frantic. Unless there is evidence of him using socks abusively, I don't see why this restriction is necessary. Frankly, I don't see how anything short of a full ban/block (for a definite period) with Apteva voluntarily agreeing not to appeal during that time is going to make a difference, here. And Apteva will undoubtedly perceive these (or any) sanctions as punitive, rather than preventative. (Which only exacerbates the problem) --R.S. Peale (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, though I wish I didn't have to. I think Apteva means well, but that only goes so far. Apteva, I've encouraged you before to think hard about why it is that a series of increasingly escalating sanctions have been applied to you. And no, it's not that everyone else is a fool, nor that we're all out to get you. It is squarely because of the way in which you have behaved. We've all lost some of the arguments we've gotten into here, and there comes a time at which to accept that consensus has not gone your way and move on. The fact that you haven't done that, and continue to argue this issue rather than moving on to others, gives me no confidence in lifting the topic ban. Drop the issue for a year or two, completely, edit productively in other areas and interact positively with other editors, and then we might consider modifying or lifting the ban. If you keep this up, you are perilously close to exhausting the community's patience entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, supporting what? All of the sanctions are already indef. The appeal has already been closed as unsuccessful. Someone may have thought that the sanctions have an expiration date, but they do not. I was first able to appeal the sanctions on July 6 at 11:43 UTC. I waited about another 10 days and only appealed because of an RM that did not really conflict with the topic ban but I wanted the topic ban to go away so that there would be no question. All this support nonsense and proposal three is nothing but gravedancing. Apteva (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current proposal calls for your topic ban to be appealable 6 months from when this discussion is closed. In addition, any violation of the topic ban will be met by escalating blocks. That's what this proposal changes, and it's not "gravedancing", because your own behavior brought about the proposal. If you want to have any chance of this proposal not being enacted, you must shut up and stop commenting here. Every comment you make is just another nail in your coffin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What they said PantherLeapord (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when are blocks not sharply escalated? Since when is six months different from six months? All of the above is pompous rhetoric that changes nothing. What is this, Lord of the Flies? Just out of curiosity, in the last couple of days I made a list of articles that someone else can correct, because I can not. Gabriel Orozco, Prefaxis Menen, Cohors IV Delmatarum, Edward Snowden, Sérgio Leite, Rate of climb (last year it was estimated that 40% of articles misuse punctuation, but that is probably a lot closer to 4%, but out of 4 million that is still a big number of articles to correct). Multiply 3/day times six months and I will likely run across another 500 articles that I can not correct. Who benefits from that? No one. Just for giggles I will check back to see if anyone reading this thread or anyone else for that matter corrects those articles. Or are we solely here to see who we can sanction, and not to build an encyclopedia? Apteva (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a misuse of punctuation only if we bow to your preferred MOS the choice between dashes, en-dashes and hyphens are not spelling or punctuation errors they are style choices. Wikipedia is an electronic document that evolves to fit the preferences of the editors who write it. If as a community we choose to use a different style of punctuation because it best fits writing from keyboards and the community’s artistic choices, even if it becomes a one of a kind style unique to Wikipedia. It has been repeatedly shown that the community does not want to use your outdated formal style that you learned as a kid, you will have to learn to live with that before you restrictions can be lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So change the MOS to say that, and everyone will be happy. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that if you made these edits, you would be violating your topic ban. Is that right? Well, let me explain something to you: Your topic ban prevents you from making such edits because you were far too willing to make a big deal out of inconsequential edits that 'do not actually improve the articles at all. That is rather the point of this whole thing. Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles. So no, probably these non-problems that so horrify you will not be corrected becausre they are not actually important to 99.99% of our editors or readers. Your inability to accept or even comprehend this simple point is exactly why you are so restricted. We are all sick to death of your constant pathetic whining about it and so these additional restrictions, which you wrongly imagine do not change anything, are being proposed. Alternately, you could just pledge to shut the hell up about it until January 20, 2014 at a minimum, with the same conditions, i.e. blocks, should you violate your pledge. I don't honestly expect you to do that, I expect more nonsense, but I'd love it if you surprised us all by just accepting the consensus on these issues and moving on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B, you go too far in saying "Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles." Actually, quite a few wikipedians routinely work to make articles more consistent with the recommendations of the MOS, as it makes the encyclopedia more precise, readable, and professional looking. It's OK that you don't care. As for Apteva, the problem is not that he cares about or works on style, but that he has a history of tendentiously working against the recommendations of the MOS, and is generally unwilling to listen to others, understand, compromise, or tolerate opinions different from his own. It's not an MOS problem, but an Apteva problem. Anyone can fix hyphens in number ranges, or title case in headings; we won't miss his help; and if they don't get fixed any time soon, it's because it's not that big a deal. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that not 99.99% but certainly close to 98% could not care a hoot about correcting those six articles, or can even tell that there are errors in them, and quite frankly, I would write the MOS to say that if punctuation is used consistently in an article, it is not wrong no matter how it is used, provided it mirrors a reliable source, and should not be corrected just to correct it (and yes I wrote an essay that said exactly that, until it was f'd up by "correcting it"), but that is not what the MOS says, it says those six articles have errors and should be corrected. Why I am sanctioned is not because I want to or do not want to correct those six articles, but because I want Wikipedia to spell things the same way others do, and not using cockemamy ideas about how punctuation should be used in titles when no one other than 2% of the world uses those cockemamy rules. Get with it Wikipedia. Spell things the way the rest of the world does or forever make us look like pompous idiots. Follow policies when choosing titles, not guidelines. It is not rocket science, but plain old common sense. Go visit the Reno-Tahoe Open and guess what punctuation they use? Not the punctuation our article uses. Read about it in any reliable source and what punctuation do they use? Not the punctuation we use. Why is that? Are we just that stupid, that we do not know how to use punctuation properly? And I am being sanctioned for that???? What has the world come to? I have absolutely no problem with saying absolutely nothing about the subject between now and January, as is already required by the sanctions currently imposed. It is not that sanction that is hurting Wikipedia as much as the sanction on one account. Probably 98% of the world is not going to know or care that we are misspelling Reno-Tahoe Open, which is why a moratorium was proposed for 2013 on discussing or making such changes, which is perfectly acceptable to me, but everyone does care if factual errors occur in important articles, like saying the moon is made of blue cheese (okay that one someone else would probably notice and fix, and that one even I could fix). Apteva (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware the our MOS calls anything an "error", or says things "need to be fixed". It provides guidance for moving articles toward a consistent preferred style, not judgements about the styles that others choose. And aren't you violating your sanctions again by using this venue to argue for treating the dash/hyphen distinction as a spelling error? Or did that one expire before you took up this nutty campaign again? Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is not an essay, which can be ignored at will, but is a guideline, something that all editors should attempt to follow. As a guideline, it will always have exceptions, and those do not need to be nor can they be listed. Some of it though, gives very bad advice, and apparently got that way simply by topic banning half a dozen editors who disagreed with the rubbish that others wanted to include. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the MOS would be perfect if only we let you, the most important person on this entire project, wrongly accused and topic banned, to remount your white steed and charge once more back into battle to slay the evil hyphen-breathing dragon... You really are a lost cause. See you at the inevitable future discussion of banning you entirely... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it it essential in a collaborative project to treat all contributors with equal respect, and not view one as more important than another, without exception. I certainly do not think that I am any more important than anyone else here. I see problems, I fix them. When others disagree, I discuss that proposed change, and a decision is made by reaching a consensus on the topic. It makes absolutely no difference who made the proposal that was finally accepted. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Anyone can see that from your behavior in these this very discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support It's obvious about Apteva's comments here and snippy comments across the project related to this well-deserved original restriction that Apteva just needs to stop whinging, and get to work. If they really believe they are a net-positive, then start to prove it. A good six months of such proof will go a long way to rebuilding the community trust. Both the topic ban AND this restriction that will allow them to get to work without worrying about appeals will therefore be good for them AND the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support re Bwilkins. This is an opportunity for the community to not have to deal with an editor who just plain doesn't get it, but could potentially be a net-positive to the project if they can just get over themselves. It's also an opportunity for Apteva to stop worrying about these meta-matters and figure out how to simply be a productive editor. (S)he has six months without having to worry about convincing anyone or researching policy vaguery. Just keep their nose clean and show that they can avoid being a pain that others are forced to deal with, and maybe their actions can speak more elloquently than their words. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this editor continues to protest valid sanctions without every actually stating why the sanctions should be removed, and continues to waste everybody's time. GiantSnowman 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sanctions have the unintended consequence of my not being able to make thousands of corrections and additions that I notice. Sure someone else will notice them, but will they click edit and make them? We just rolled out the VE as a method of desperately trying to recruit more editors. We have been, since 2007, regularly losing 6.2% of our editors every year, at the same time that the number of Internet users has been growing. We are currently stable at about 3,200 active editors, total. One of them posted half a dozen articles above that our MOS says should be corrected. In the intervening three days no one has bothered to fix those articles, and I have a new list of 16 more that I have come across and could not but would have fixed, had the sanctions not been in place. Is that not reason enough? Is is acceptable for an article to say that someone is 173 cm tall when they are actually 156 cm? Who benefits from us publishing errors like that, which I know about, and can not fix because of the sanctions. The reason to remove the sanctions, and that is not even on the table now, is because they are hurting Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Apteva: - this is the last I will say on the matter, but the fact you feel the need to respond to every, single, bloody post is a perfect example of why your editing/attitude is not ideal. Not fully disruptive (yet) but certainly heading there. GiantSnowman 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6-month wait between appeals. The appeals should be one-and-done — only appeal in only one forum, no while-we-are-on-this-other-subject-let-me-bring-up-my-unjust-sanctions-in-the-hope-you-will-remove-them, no reverting an appeal close, and no appealing the result of the appeal. It might be appropriate to specify where the appeal should be made. Hesitant re sharply escalated blocks; I'd let the blocking admin choose (the next block could easily be 2 or 3 months); the previous one-month block was more for stick-wielding rather than the MOS ban. Sadly, things are headed south. I suggest that Apteva try to make all relevant points in a single post to a discussion thread and never make more than 3 posts to a thread. Such an approach would not unduly restrict content but would diminish the appearance overzealous prosecution. Glrx (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is SOP to revert a snow close that the proposer wants to go a full seven days. It is ludicrous to close the two sections of the appeal and leave this one open. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user (Jimthing (talk · contribs)) is trying to add unsourced information in the page, that made the real person send an E-mail to info-en (that's why I'm here) the user is edit warring too. please take care of it ASAP, (As a sysop and crat in another project) I suggest protect the page and send the user a warning not to add unsourced or poorly sourced materials in WP:BLPs (request of real person exists in Ticket#2013071710007773) :)Ladsgroup^بحث 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just responded to a similar OTRS e-mail from the subject. I have warned Jimthing (talk · contribs) and also reported this to WP:BLPN.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to delete it. As it stands, the citations do not support WP:GNG as both of them appear to be primary sources. One is her talent management agency and the other is an upcoming summit where she is a speaker.--v/r - TP 15:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I contacted the Press Office, who gave me that date in a very curt response; which I mentioned in the edit summary. So who is this user NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs) (they seemingly only edit the Babaita Sharma page??)? And why are they allowed to continually ignore my sourcing summary comment, continually reverting the info – I notice they don't get a bollocking for their actions on their talk page in the "edit war" when they refused to justify properly their removal of the birth date (given I actually bothered by explained my source in the summary!)?? Is this user actually Babita Sharma herself then, who then went on to contact the OTRS board (ticket of which, I seemingly am not allowed to log-in to read, in order to provide comment on!)? And if so, why did they not make themselves known, and bother to inform me that the info I was given must have therefore been incorrect, on her own page talk? This all sounds weird to me. Jimthing (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the Press Office tells you isn't a reliable source, because it cannot be verified - this is basic stuff, see WP:RS and WP:V. The dob is obviously disputed so per WP:BLP the correct course is to remove it pending proper sourcing, again basic stuff. We cannot divulge communications to OTRS.--ukexpat (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You should provide a reliable source for birth date, what you've done is an OR. Babita Sharma contacted with OTRS system, I can assure you. I think they are not familiar with system of Wikipedia so they didn't what old users do and they sent us an e-mail :)Ladsgroup^بحث 04:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right so BS hid behind username NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs) to edit their own page, but couldn't be bothered to actually provide a link to verify their correct DOB whilst editing against the info I added from their own PO – how nonsensical is that. And Is that even a correct way to go about ones own page, there's a WP policy against that isn't there, so regardless of understanding WP or not, it's unacceptable me thinks – hence a warning by an admin should surely be placed on that user's talk page by one of you? Jimthing (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:OUTING? Whoever NewsHoundTV may be, they haven't identified themself as Babita Sharma so no one is going to template their talk page saying they are that person. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not outing anyone, this is the Admins page, not the open talk pages, and I'm merely trying to get an idea of how things are handled in such cases. Does no one else find it strange that user NewsHoundTV (talk · contribs)'s only edits on WP were to remove my DOB edits on the BS article (and they have done not a single edit on any other WP pages, before or since)? When at exactly the same time BS herself pops-up to email WP about her DOB being wrongly edited: coincidence?

Someone editing their own page is against WP policy for sure (WP:COI), yet no action has been/is going to be taken against this sock puppet (WP:SOC) user account that distinctly reeks of the article subject matter themselves having their hand in it: why? And as I already said: why did she not just correct the date, rather than spending time using a puppet account to simply remove the DOB repeatedly and wasting an editors valuable time in the process? (Please answer all my points, not just one.) Jimthing (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer what I want :-) WP:COI suggests that editors should not edit a page about them. However, we still tell COI editors that they may remove improperly-sourced detrimental information. The DOB you provided is not sourced, and can be removed by anyone. In addition, we have a formal request logged that the real-life person does not want their DOB listed. On top of that, you attempting to link an account to a real-life person anywhere is a violation of WP:OUTING. In short, unsourced info can be deleted - even by the subject. About WP:SOCK - a sockpuppet is an improperly-used alternate account - I don't see any suggestion of a violation of WP:SOCK (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so she emailed about both a wrong DOB being there and her not wanting her DOB there. Strange request in this day and age when all her other BBC work colleagues have their's listed without any problem (fraud from just DOB is highly unlikely as to be pointless, so one can only speculate it's an 'ageism' issue with her not wanting to be thought too old to be front of camera by some producer or other in the future, lol!). Anyway, this is dealt with and can be closed/archived accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not really ... we still need to deal with your continued attempts to link a Wikipedia account to a real-life identity - as you know (having read WP:OUTING by now), that is grounds for an immediate and likely indefinite block. Yet, you still are making that assumption and link in your last post - is this not something you have learned, or do we need to protect both a real life individual and the project? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Please read my last post again – I did not say anything in my last post about that whatsoever. I very clearly only spoke about the email BS sent you where she mentioned two things (it being an error, and she wanted it omitted anyway). The edit was done by me in good faith, but unfortunately the PO gave me entirely wrong info, so obviously I wouldn't be adding it again anyway, with or without any cite being available. Jimthing (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can a few admins look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working#Discussions awaiting closure? The backlog goes back to May 10! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular no discussion in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 1 has been closed. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43, I would like to propose an indefinite block of Baboon43 (talk · contribs · logs) as a preventative measure due to sustained combative and tendentious editing. This block could be successfully appealed based on the conditions outlined at the RFC/U.
I will start by voicing my support as the nominator.MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this proposal was outlined solely because i didnt participate in the rfc..on the other hand these are nothing but ill will and bad faith on the part of the user MezzoMezzo to have me not criticize his edits or respond to his accusations on talk pages....he launched an rfc after a talk page discussion got heated, and i made some remarks which i had apologized to him later on. basically all he did was bring up my past violations and use them as an excuse to have me put on wiki trial. the so called "endorsers" are mostly people i have had conflicts with in the past which makes the whole thing utterly biased. Baboon43 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a commenter who didn't lean either way, the very fact that you failed to engage the community on the issues raised in the RFC/U is troubling. If you felt that the endorsers were biased, all you had to do was discuss it in the RFC and this step wouldn't have been necessary. You were notified that an RFC had been raised by declined to engage. I even left a note on your page informing you that a proposal to bring an indef block or community ban to AN was being discussed and all you did was delete the notification. I don't particularly care about you but in the spirit of fairness decided that you deserved a chance to voice yourself when drastic measures were being proposed. An RFC is not a "trial", it's an open forum to bring editors together to hash out their differences informally. All you had to do was discuss with the other editors and an understanding could be reached. I made some comments on the talk and project page of the RFC, but they were entirely procedural and I stand on neither side, but I can only say that you brought this upon yourself by not engaging. Blackmane (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef as per the RfC/U which Baboon refused to participate in, and the comment here, which is highly inappropriate and downright false. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef as per the RfC/U's accepted solution, I had expected Baboon's participation, but in vain. Faizan 08:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef with the understanding that "indefinite != infinite". Of course the people who certified the RFC/U were people you had past negative encounters with - that's pretty much the rule with RFC/U's. The original intent of the RFC/U was to provide others with the opportunity to discuss and suggest your behaviour so that you could change to community norms. It gave you the opportunity to understand the concerns of others, explain your side, and allow you to politely question where you failed these norms. By refusing to participate, you personally forced the hand of the community as you showed you have no desire to conform to this community. You were also aware that the result of the RFC/U would be a recommendation for a block, yet you still thumbed your nose at the community. It's a little late to request "leniency" now ... you've had over a month to participate in a focus-group about you that was lenient. The overall concerns raised in the RFC/U are significant enough for an indef block. So, I recommend the block based on your behaviour, and your clearly-expressed unwillingness to change that behaviour. As such, the block is preventative (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my participation at the rfc is not mandatory & a little note on my talk page says i shouldnt comment if im opposed to the block..coincidently by the user who drafted the ridiculous proposal. Baboon43 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - your participation was not mandatory. Neither is brushing your teeth. Just as you're wise to use a little Colgate a couple of times a day to prevent losing teeth, you're also wise to participate in discussions about your behaviour - especially when it could lead to you losing access to editing this project. Sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "LALALALALALALA" when proven behavioural issues are being discussed, as well as potential solutions really was not helpful. An RFC/U is an attempt to help bring you towards community norms - the fact that you don't seem to believe you've done anything wrong is very concerning, and the proposals that were brought forward were very helpful - too bad you chose to reject the chance to amend your ways. As such, you clearly have rejected the very kind offer to help you remain as a community member ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a typo, which I have fixed. Common sense would tell you that you should speak out if you are opposed to a proposal (i.e. an indef block of yourself). Remaining quiet endorses such actions. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right. & perhaps remaining quiet also endorses my running for president of the united states. its quite simple this block proposal is a punitive measure for me not participating in the rfc which puts this on par with blackmail. stop putting words in my mouth to get me blocked. Baboon43 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That, Baboon, is part of the reason why you wound up here. Even if you find this to be inappropriate and unfair, comments like "perhaps remaining quiet also endorses my running for president" are unnecessary. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a punitive measure for not engaging in the RFC (making the presumption that any admin would even do such a thing), then you would have been blocked less than a week into the RFC not a month later. The RFC is a number of editors saying "hi, we're concerned about the way you're doing things and we'd all like to have a chat about it". As I've said a number of times, your stubborn refusal to engage the community in an informal environment to hash out the issues without fear of sanctions ultimately meant that the editors were forced by you to propose sanctions. Blaming the community does nothing to help you. You had a month, you squandered it, now you'll have to deal with the consequences. If you're too stubborn to see that, then this will mostly likely be your final days here. Blackmane (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so its not punitive because i wasnt blocked earlier? if you keep bringing up the "rfc" then yes thats the main contention for me being blocked..mr wilkins on the other hand believes blocks are punishments with quotes like "its too late" meaning its time for a punishment..also putting words in my mouth saying i wont change the "behaviour"(canadian)..this is in no way preventative when; 1. im not in a dispute 2. im actually engaging in this discussion unlike the rfc...if you keep ignoring my input here its an automatic "you had your chance now you pay the price with a punishment block" Baboon43 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point that anyone is making whatsoever, so why don't you stop putting words in anybody's mouths. The propose block is NOT because you failed to participate - it's because the issues that the RFC/U were trying to stop were blockable, and the RFC/U was an attempt to get you to change instead of getting blocked. However, as noted, you failed to participate - as such, there's really no choice but to block. Let's give an analogy: you're driving 200km/h (120mph) in a school zone. The 3 passengers in your car all say "there's a cop, SLOW DOWN - dude, you're always speeding when you shouldn't". You choose to not slow down. The cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket, impounds your car, and takes your license away. You had the chance to slow down but you decided not to ... and now here's your ticket - it's not punitive, and it's not directly for not engaging your friends in conversation, it's for your behaviour that they tried to help you to stop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for supporting an indef Baboon is because you have absolutely no sense of collaboration. You do not understand the policies of Wikipedia, you have no sense for respect of the community, and most of all - you have zero respect for other editors. Blocking you would in fact be preventative. I find it absolutely astounding that you come here now when the RfC is in it's final stages and the proposal that was the consensus at the RfC is brought forth for discussion and action. You had plenty of chances to participate in the RfC along each stage it went through. Your refusal to participate endorsed the concerns that were brought forth. You made no attempt to correct the behavior that was concerning to the others, and you made no attempt to discuss the issues that were brought forth. For that, and only that, I believe a block is preventative. Had the current president remained silent, he wouldn't be president. When a member of the community ignores the respect for the community and/or breaks a law, that user is confined to a space where s/he cannot further damage the community - and that's what's being done here. You have no regard for the overall being of the project, it's members, and it's policies - therefore, you need to be removed; either forcefully or peacefully. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your own quotes "either he participates in the rfc or this should be taken to ani for a community ban" please review wikipedia policies because these kinds of blackmail tactics just shows you have no respect for fellow editors..looking at the rfc there was no discussion about my conduct it was strictly about blocks or bans out of spite..it just shows all the editors involved over there could not carry on a discussion without my input, and therefore devised a plan to have me forced to discuss this when i am blocked. this discussion can take effect at ani because im here to discuss the matter unless ofcourse the punitive measures are in effect to have me only discuss this during a block. Baboon43 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try quoting me better. Here's my quote:

• I've been watching this RFC/U for awhile, and I'm extremely bothered by the fact that the user this is in relation to refuses to participate. This endorses the concerns that are being presented here. Wikipedia is nothing without editors who are willing to collaborate with each other in a civil manner. By trying to push a certain point of view, you're in essence attempting to own the article. This is inappropriate, and highly disrespectful. Making comments in regards to a person's race or religion in a disrespectful manner is also highly inappropriate. I feel that if User:Baboon43 refuses to give his side of the story, he might as well be endorsing all of the views above, as he's certainly not attempting to say they're not true. I believe it's time for this to be taken to AN/I for discussion of a community ban.

Before you quote someone, you might want to make sure you're quoting them directly. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps adding in rampant WP:IDHT as another factor justifying a block. We keep going over and over the same points.In your words, Baboon43, "there was no discussion about my conduct it was strictly about blocks or bans out of spite", how can there be any discussion about your conduct when you don't even show up to the damned discussion in the first bloody place. Also, specifically pointing out the spelling of "behaviour" above is basically a slur. The same spelling is used in the UK, New Zealand and Australia. As far as I know, only the US drops the "u" in words like "colour" and "favourite". Making comments like this is further evidence of your lack of respect for other editors. As far as I can see no one in this discussion has been "ignoring [your] input here". If anything, your input here has in fact provided all the justification needed for an indef block. Although, I had intended to stay neutral on it, but after my interaction here with you, I support an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Recommending sanctions is beyond the scope of an RFC/U, which exists solely to work with the user. If it fails, the extent of the recommendation that can be made is that other mediation or arbitration be pursued. No specific remedy can be recommended. Recommending sanctions is like deciding the outcome of a trial before hearing any of the evidence. Apteva (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only RFC/Us I've ever seen that actually ended recommended sanctions... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Inappropriately. A venue can be recommended for further arbitration or mediation, but not the outcome of that mediation or arbitration (mediation for content disputes, arbitration, contrary to the name, means behavioral issues). No one can come here and say "we decided at the RFC/U thus and such should be the sanctions". What the RFC/U can say is we are not getting a response from the editor, and will need to bring this up at thus and such place. It is up to that thus and such place to determine what to do, not the RFC/U. After it is being discussed elsewhere, and it does not matter how it was brought up there, the RFC/U is closed with the statement to the effect that it is being discussed there, and a link to the exact venue/case where dispute resolution is continuing is provided. Deciding the outcome first is putting the cart before the horse. Apteva (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apteva, the overwhelming consensus of editors who got you blocked by that process probably don't agree that is was "inappropriately". Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Apteva, if you look at the RFC a proposal was raised to sanction Baboon43. This indeed would have been beyond the remit of an RFC. But if you read the actual text, there was no request to sanction Baboon43. It was an expression of intent that a proposal for sanctions be raised on WP:AN. This is entirely procedurally appropriate. The proposal may have been leading, per legal parlance, but any editor would have been free to propose alternatives. Perhaps you should raise an alternative rather than harp at others. Blackmane (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was looking at WP:Requests for comment/Baboon43#Template 3. As was pointed out there, "This proposed solution should be reworded". Our goal is never to find a way to block or sanction an editor, but to find a way that the editor will edit constructively and we will not need to block them. And if we fail, then a block or sanction is used to prevent us from having to clean up after them. Apteva (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And of course, you failed to realise that this is what the point of the RFC was in the first place. Furthermore, none of this would have been necessary if Baboon43 had come to the metaphoric table and sat down with the other editors to discuss it rather than dismiss it out of. Ironically, given that there is a sanction discussion on yourself under way you would take your own advice. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef - the user refused to participate in the RfC and continued the behavior outlined in the RfC after it was filed - showing no regard for the concerns that were being brought forth. That, combined with the attitude taken when approached regarding the RfC (i.e. "I have to decline because I have other things to do") shows he simply doesn't care. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would indicate a wake up block, not an indef block. Apteva (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no. It would indicate an indef block, with reasonings outlined by Bwilkins above. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think we are saying the same thing. Per above "indefinite != infinite". Apteva (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • See WP:INDEF. This is what everyone is and has been talking about. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef - I've encountered him many times. He doesn't follow wikipedia protocols, always resort to edit-warring before a consensus is reached, doesn't work well with other editors, and overall very disruptive.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indef block. The evidence in the RfC/U is pretty weak. At best it justifies a topic ban from religious movements, although the handful of problematic talk page comments were about the Wahhabis and Deobandis, so it could probably be narrowed down to Islam. Basically Baboon43 is somewhat clueless about Islam, but not more so than most Americans. Among his most heinous infractions are accusing a Saudi prince of being a Wahhabi [33]. While this may be inaccurate, according to PBS as cited in Wahhabi movement: "Al-Wahhab's teachings have become the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia." So while Baboon43 may require some remedial courses in Islam (to teach him about the religious minorities in the Saudi royal family), his infraction is as outlandish as accusing a Russian of being an Orthodox Christian. This is not the kind of stuff that should result in indef blocks. His linking of Deobandi's with Wahhabi funding [34] is not particularly jarring either; you can find fairly reliable sources for that in the Wikipedia article itself. (The diffs are from the RfC/U evidence.) Baboon43 does personalize the disputes somewhat; the example given in the RfC/U accusing MezzoMezzo, who self-identifies as Sunni, of being a Wahhabi himself is over the line, (see 1st diff) but I did not see evidence of that being repeated. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indef block per Someone not using his real name, Support a topic ban for articles relating to Islam. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• An addendum here: the RfC/U claimed that Baboon43 was "abusing multiple accounts" in 2012. The evidence linked there [35] shows some edit warring by some IPs assumed to Baboon43 while logged out. The RfC/U however failed to mention that the editor with whom Baboon43 edit warred there, User:AmandaParker, was "herself" blocked indefinitely for far more obvious sock-puppetry using multiple registered accounts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt use multiple accounts i just forgot to login. rfc also conveniently left out the fact that he turned the discussion personal by calling me a barelvi in this discussion. [36] which forced me to call him a wahabi on a separate talk page after he hounded me, which i shouldnt have..i find it hypocritical for him to bring this up on ani or rfc when one indulges in the same personal attacks. Baboon43 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there is going to be a wiki future you, you should refrain from responding to WP:BAITING like you did. As you can see, the social dynamics of this venue make it rather probable that similar infractions receive widely different penalties, depending on how many wikifriends and wikienemies one has. Oh, and MezzoMezzo did not accuse anyone directly in that discussion; he is too clever for that. He just cast an aspersion on basically anyone disagreeing with him... Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here should ever depend on having "friends" or "enemies", and should solely be decided on its own merits, from the diffs that are provided, for example. All of us are working together to build an encyclopedia, and all of us are "friends". If anyone thinks they are an enemy, or have enemies, they are working on the wrong project. Apteva (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Darkness Shines and Someone not using his real name: Their POV edits are far from the only issue. The user is simply unable to edit collaboratively without abusing others, of which there is plenty of evidence, and their responses in this very thread are an example of that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef: BWilkins hit the nail on the head. Block is required to prevent continued disruptive behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pointer to related discussion: Both blocks for edit warring of Baboon43 were against an editor (and his sock-puppet) with a much longer track record of disruption, so I've opened a separate ban discussion below for User:McKhan. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose indef According to the block log, this user has never been blocked before, despite their numerous attacks on other users' talk pages. If a block is being proposed, I don't think it should be indefinite.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Forward Unto Dawn, I'm looking at the user's block log right now and there are two previous blocks, both for edit warring. It might not change your position and I respect that, but I did a double-take when I saw "never been blocked before." MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's weird... I could have sworn that was blank yesterday. Well I would still suggest a block period of 1 month be imposed before an indefinite block is. Or, alternatively, a topic ban.--Forward Unto Dawn 10:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I did the same thing. My browser window was too small, and I did not realize I needed to scroll down to see the blocks. Apteva (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef to prevent further disruption and until Baboon43 can regain the trust of their fellow editors. The refusal to participate in an RFC/U of which they are the subject suggests a lack of respect for the community and its processes. There is ample evidence of behavior that is damaging to the collaborative nature of the project to justify a block of indefinite duration. - MrX 03:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw administrator attention to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The category overfloweth (5x the Backlog notice level) and a lot are from the abandoned AfC submissions. Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And please, if you delete an abandoned AfC, delete redirects to it. Earlier this month I deleted ~1500 broken redirects from the former title of the AfC submission in userspaces. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's down to a manageable size now. And yes, you're right, I went back through the G13s I'd just done and found quite a few extra G8s. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on the page List of massacres in Turkey there has been by User:Alexikoua a mass removal of sourced text added by me.[37] I think this is a case of deletion of information because of WP:JDLI. But that intentions is hidden under cover of the argument that it was added by a topic banned user.

User:Alexikoua is claiming that I violated my ban on Greek topics, however I do not think this is the case and I think this page is unrelated to Greek topics. I think it is about the history of Turkey. But I have a question, even if it was in violation of a ban is it allowed to remove huge parts of reliably sourced content? Furthermore all the sources are reliable but have again been falsely accused of not being so.

In this case, my edits were:

1. fixing a wrongly inserted internet link,[38]
2. improving a source, [39]
3. improving the location of two massacres [40] [41]
4. adding a source on an event [42]
5. adding two neglected massacres. [43] [44]
6. adding the total deathtoll of the war [45]
7. adding an image of casualties [46]
8. improving the date of a massacre [47]

Since a while User:Alexikoua is behaving like he has a vendetta against my user, constantly checking my edits, threatening me on my talkpage, discrediting me against other users, also often falsely accusing sources of unreliability, often distorting sources and doing original research, I complained to the admins before however I was unsuccessful as none listens or believes me, can admins help me, I feel his behavior like WP:HOUNDING.

Can someone undo this mass removal of sourced content and my harmless contributions, thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At June 12, DTiger received a 3 month topic ban [[48]] from Greece or Greeks, ancient or modern, on all pages of Wikipedia including talk, as a result of an wp:ae filled against him [[49]]. There have been a number of users that kindly adviced him that making edits such the above ones (I'm sorry but claiming that a subject about "Greeks that killed Turks" is unrelated with "Greeks" can't be considered a serious argument) can be considered topic ban violations [[50]][[51]]. Unfortunately this was ignored [[52]] and DTiger continues to edit on the same subject. I've informed the admin who imposed the topic ban to take action if necessary.Alexikoua (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell this user to finally stop pretending that I add "claims", they are facts based on reliably sourced material.

For example I showed User:Alexikoua multiple sources which describe the Turks of Moldavia getting massacred [53], still he is ignoring five sources and distorted them into "claims" [54], is this source distortion allowed? This is exactly the behavior which does not fit in Wikipedia, but User:Alexikoua gets away with it everytime. DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or for example in this massacre Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21) persistently doing WP:OR denying sources and lowering the number of civilian victims from 5,500 to 35(!) and only because the victims were Turks(!). [55] DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether these are 'facts' or 'claims' or whether there's any even definite difference in this case, I don't understand how you can not appreciate adding statements clearly referring to Greeks is in violation of your topic ban. Whatever problems there may be with Alexikoua's edits, it's going to be difficult to notice with such clear topic ban violations distracting the issue, so if you want to stop them 'getting away with it everytime' as you allege happen I suggest you start respecting your topic ban so problems with other editors, if they exist, are not lost. Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor, I see two major things: 1) a violation of the topic ban of DragonTiger23 (with action required for that) and 2) a very arbitrary removal by Alexikoua. As far as I know (but I can be wrong) it is suitable to remove edits from sockpuppets, not topic banned users. The Banner talk 21:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For #2, please read WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Edits in violation of a topic/page ban may be reverted without question. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, learning curve The Banner talk 00:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^Inefficient bureaucracy at its best: no justice nor investigation. DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed true that edits in violation of a ban may be reverted without giving any further reason than that the edit was made in violation of a ban. The rationale is that "even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." If other editors (not acting at the behest of the banned editor) believe the material in question is appropriate and decide to re-add it on their own initiative, that is permissible — good material does not become permanently tainted just because a banned editor tried to add it. However, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." — and someone reinstating material under such circumstances should (IMO) make it very clear in their edit summary that they are re-adding the material in question on its own merits and on their own initiative. Indeed, in order to minimize the chance that such a reinstatement might be misinterpreted as someone being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned editor, I would suggest it would be wise to discuss the material on the article's talk page before reinstating it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the AE report that got DragonTiger23 sanctioned, it seems he often makes useful, valid content contributions, but he was topic banned for personal attacks. Alas he is going to have to wait out his topic ban before he can resume editing, even if he is mostly correct on content, e.g. I see no real problems with [56]. Such are the rules of the 'pedia... Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(S)he may have to wait out his topic ban even longer. As a general rule, violating a block or ban resets the clock on the original sanction. If DragonTiger23 is quite a ways into their sanctions, they've just made it worse for themselves. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he just got an indef ban at the new WP:AE#DragonTiger23 report on him, plus he was blocked for one week. I suggest closing this thread. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone complete a history merge of Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service with User:Nick-D/Drafts3. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that you're asking for this without asking me about it first (it's my user page, and I'm an admin so I could feasibly handle this...), that's not sensible easy given that the user page has been used to draft material for several articles. I'm not sure what the benefit of this would be... Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for a selected merge of only this part of that history. Sorry for any confusion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like such a difficult histmerge - I'd be willing to do it if others think it's a good idea. Ian Rose did credit Nick-D in the opening edit summary at Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service, which I think is enough to preserve the attribution, so a histmerge isn't absolutely necessary. However, I think it always looks neater if the history for an article is kept in one place, so I'd prefer that it be done if only for the sake of aesthetics. It's not too big of a deal either way, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am an adamant supporter of unified histories. I see no reason why the history should not be unified. That is why I nominated it here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are better things to be wasting bytes over :) Everyone works in their own way, and on Wikipedia we have a strong history of allowing people to take their own approach without being bothered by those who prefer a different way for their own work. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire at all for some of all of the history of my user page to be moved: I use the history of my sandboxes to track the various project I've worked on. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This request belongs at WP:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Apteva (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I for one wouldn't do the history merge (even if you were in favour of it, Nick), because some edits in the user subpage were made after the article was created. Graham87 09:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Gun Control is highly controversial, and has been subject to numerous failed/no consensus actions regarding content disputes.

• No consensus RFC [57]
• Procedurally closed DR (Created when obvious that the prior RFC was going nowhere) [58]
• Second no consensus RFC Talk:Gun_control#RFC
• reams upon reams of talk page discussion

Upon (failed) conclusion of the most recent RFC, discussion has continued, (mostly) branching away from the specific content disputes discussed above, and switching to the appropriateness (or not) of multiple WP:SUMMARY articles, and the scope there of. Editor AndyTheGrump has now stated his intent to circumvent all further discussion and redirect the article under discussion. Talk:Gun_control#This_article_is_a_POV-fork.2C_per_Wikipedia:Content_forking._I_shall_be_converting_it_to_a_redirect.2C_per_policy.

I would like to have an enforced moratorium on any such action, and direction that any actions must be taken through established formal dispute resolution processes. As we have had 2 failed RFCs (the second one which was widely contributed to from uninvolved editors), and the editors are very entrenched, I think mediation or arbitration are going to be the appropriate venues. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute has been going on for months (long before I got involved). I have repeatedly asked for sources to be provided to justify the forking of content as done in the two articles, but none whatsoever have been offered. Instead, there has been little offered except facile circular arguments about titles, and dubious 'original research' that amounts to nothing more than vague assertions that the topics are different. They clearly aren't. Both articles are covering the regulation of access to firearms, as laid down in legislation in countries of the world. This arbitrary division between 'gun control' and 'gun politics' is entirely unsupported by any sources making such a distinction. As I have repeatedly made clear, this isn't an argument about titles, it concerns content - and as the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline makes clear, forking a subject in order to create two different perspectives on the same subject isn't permitted. The 'gun control' article is a POV fork, and policy dictates that it be merged. Any policy compliant material can of course be merged with the 'gun politics' article - and as I have already stated, I would have no particular objection to the article then being renamed as 'gun control'. The fundamental point is that Wikipedia should not have an article supposedly discussing legislation at an international level which instead promotes a fringe pseudo-historical viewpoint almost entirely confined to sections of the American right wing. It is grossly unbalanced, and a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV. I see no reason why 'RfCs' or 'mediation' are necessary - the article violates policy. In any case, it is self-evident that those promoting the existing gun control article aren't interested in doing anything other than maintaining the POV fork, and will be happy to drag such 'mediation' on endlessly to do so, using the same repetitive tactics as before - the same circular arguments, the same facile original research, and the same refusal to provide even the simplest of sources to back up their arguments. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have provided dozens of sources discussing aspects of gun politics other than gun control. Regarding the specific disputed content, it has been brought up in congress, by federal judges, and by hundreds (likely thousands!) of reliable sources, including multiple multiple sources discussing gun control neutrally. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, and at a minimum this qualifies as a notable minority viewpoint. The discussions have had NUMEROUS attempts at various merge/content organization proposals including one mere sentences above your threatened unilateral merge. You have provided ZERO sources for your interpretations of policy, and ZERO sources for your attempts to define content as WP:FRINGE by fiat. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued attempts to associate contemporary gun control with Nazis and Communists is about as fringe as it gets. — goethean 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42, You have provided no source whatsoever which describes why the regulation of firearms needs to be subdivided in the manner done in the two articles. And yes, the crackpot theory that regulation of access to firearms leads to totalitarianism is fringe. It is also based on the falsification of history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the center of the dispute revolves around is a section which purports to give a history of gun control, but which highlights to an undue extent the argument that gun control was integral to the Holocaust, a favored trope of anti-gun control activists. After months of continuous argumentation on the talk page, the section has been renamed "Nazi disarmament of German Jews", but this version shows it in all of its undue and non-neutral glory. Prior to that edit by User:ROG5728, it was under the "Arguments" header. The content is a POV repetition of Gun politics in Germany. Why does it need to exist in two places? I've never gotten a straight answer. — goethean 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This post is an attempt to determine the correct venue for the dispute resolution. We should not be attempting the resolution itself here. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is not required. POV forks are a violation of policy, and must be rectified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is required. I'm not involved in either article, but while there is overlap, these appear to be two separate issues and articles. Unilateral action in the face of discussion is not the way to handle this. GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source that explains what the 'separate issues' are? Both articles discuss laws relating to the regulation of access to firearms - the difference is that the 'gun control' one presents a fringe POV as if it was significant. This is POV-forking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the politics article makes the same argument, so not sure what you think our motivation is. But as I have asked many times, is it your assertion, that there are no aspects of gun politics which are not gun control? The current content of the articles is irrelevant - the content can be reorganized, or fleshed out as required. But to delete one of the articles says that is has no value, and no potential for redeeming value. Any issues are WP:SURRMOUNTABLE. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have asked the same question many times - and then ignored my answer. And then repeated the same question, ad nauseam. There is only one topic, and that is the regulation of access to firearms. It doesn't matter what we call it, it is the same topic. And yes, of course content matters - presenting fringe arguments only given the slightest credibility amongst sections of the US gun lobby as if they were central to global discourse on firearms regulation is grossly undue. If this deserves mention at all, it is in an article on the debate over firearms regulation in the US - as a the minority position it clearly is. I have stated this many times before, and you have done nothing but ignore what I have said, and came out with the same tendentious and repetitive nonsense, while failing every time to provide the slightest evidence to back up your assertions. If the split is justified, provide the sources to show why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c)I agree with Andy and hope the fact that he and I never agree lends some weight to my support to him- this fork is ridiculous and Andy should be allowed to do take action, the fork-supporters (for lack of a better term) have had plenty time to show the Community proper reason and form a consensus. Despite how big a following a fringe idea is, it is not science and as an encyclopedia we use science (geography, politics, and history are sciences in the broadest term, my degree is in political science).Camelbinky (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and this is exactly why we need dispute resolution. Your statement that there are no aspects of gun politics discussing anything other than access to firearms is ludicrious, and I have provided dozens of sources discussing other aspects, which you have ignored. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen, I made no such statement. This intentional misrepresentation of comments is typical of Gaijin42's argumentative style - when asked to provide evidence, Gaijin42 instead attempts to divert attention by sidetracking the argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote "There is only one topic, and that is the regulation of access to firearms." Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the topic of both articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO a look at the discussion indicates that some folks are trying to engage to sort this out and IMO AndyTheGrump and Goethen just keep tossing hand grenades. Including Andy just baselessly repeating that they have decided that they are going to unilaterally delete/merge this article because they have decided that this 11 year old article on an immensely wp:notable topic is a "POV fork". North8000 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only '11 years old' if you ignore the fact that it was redirected as a POV fork and then split again. And of course the regulation of firearms is a notable topic - that isn't however a reason to have two articles on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aaaaaaaaand WP:SUMMARY indicates that split out articles for detailed or complicated related topics is entirely appropriate. If the individual content is bad, deal with it via the ongoing content dispute processes (escalate it up to DR/Mediation/arb if needed) attempting to delete/merge an article is an obvious attempt to WP:GAME the dispute via an alternate mechanism. If the nazi content was completely gone, it is inherently obvious that gun control is a notable topic, which is a huge part of gun politics, and deserves its own article for that purpose, as there are significant parts of gun politics which are not gun control, and the gun control aspects would completely dominate the politics article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And which source are you citing to indicate that the regulation of firearms is a subtopic of the regulation of firearms? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I originally thought that Andy made a typo here, and meant to say "indicate that gun control is a subtopic of the regulation of firearms". However, when I notified him of this, he replied "you are claiming that something is a subtopic of itself" [59], which my desired reply would be in violation of policy. And yet he argues that "I made no such statement" sigh. This is again, why we need dispute resolution. There are many sources covering gun control. There are many sources covering gun politics. Many of the politics sources are in fact covering gun control - but some aren't. You demand us to find a source that defines the difference for wikipedia purposes. WP:BLUE WP:BLUE WP:BLUE Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources. We have plenty of sources on the regulation of firearms. Some may refer to the topic as 'gun control'. Some may refer to it as 'gun politics'. Others will use other words entirely - in other languages too, no doubt, given that this is supposed to be an international topic. As for your supposed distinction between 'gun control' and 'gun politics', it is yours alone, and in consequence of no relevance when discussing whether we split articles. Unless you can provide sources to the contrary, it is entirely consistent with Wikipedia practice to assume that 'gun control' and 'gun politics' are in fact synonyms. A topic cannot be a subtopic of itself. Either provide a source that explains the difference, or accept that there is no difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You are entitled to hold a contrary opinion. You are not whoever entitled to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote your own unsourced opinion. We go by sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. You are claiming that if someone can makes an unsourced assertion that two words are synonyms, unless somebody can find wp:rs coverage that addresses those two particular phrases and says that those two particular phrases they are not synonyms, then your unsourced assertion shall stand and an article shall be deleted. That makes no sense at all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about words, this is about subjects. Both articles are about the same subject. Or if they aren't, provide a source that explains the difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one claiming that the titles are synonyms. And this assertion that your side of a Wikipedia debate stands unless someone finds a source that addresses the particular wikipedia debate / your assertion has no basis in policy or reality. And that is putting it kindly. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is based on sources. That is policy. It is not optional. Provide a source that explains why the subject of the two articles is different. Not the title. The subject... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources address and cover content (and are required for such), they do not address nor are they required to address pairs of Wikipedia articles/ article topics involved in a debate. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you seriously suggesting that POV forking isn't covered by policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content and POV dispute. If dispute resolution has so far failed then the last step is ArbCom. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DR failed procedurally (the 1st RFC was still open at time of DR case. RFC closed no consensus 1 day after DR procedurally closed), not due to actual lack of resolution, wouldn't mediation also be before arbcom? I am fine with really any venue, other than our entrenched debate, or Andy taking unilateral action. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the merge has been proposed for some time, and no policy or source-based grounds have been provided to oppose it, there would be nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Indeed, since POV-forking is against policy, the merge would appear to be a requirement rather than an option. If you insist on taking this to arbcom, I shall of course expect you to provide the necessary sources to back up your claims that this is not a POV fork, and should you fail to do so, ask that you be sanctioned for abuse of process. Arbcom isn't there to permit contributors to impose their unsourced opinions on content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that pages like Gun control and Gun politics should be merged (actually Gun politics in present state should be simply renamed to List of gun control policies by country or something like that), I think bringing merging discussions to AN/ANI is disruptive. I do not see anything in history of the article to justify administrative action. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with My very best wishes. Good call all the way around IMO.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been months since I've touched this, or related articles, and yet I'm not surprised to see the same names pop up here in this dispute. From what I can tell, Andy and a few other commentators are simply re-asserting the same arguments that lead to this impasse in the first place. I suspect there's a certain segment of the Wiki population that will never accept a compromise on this issue; perhaps some formal resolution is appropriate, although it's nowhere near ArbCom. But the one certainty I've gathered from this thread is that base assertions of "fringe!" are not sufficient to endorse Andy's position here. Shadowjams (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect. My first posting at Talk:Gun control was on 2013-06-20, when I commented on the latest (malformed) RfC. And yes, pseudo-historical arguments that nobody except segments of the US gun lobby gives the slightest credence to are fringe in an article purporting to give global coverage of a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been involved in similar debates with Gaijin and others for months; don't hide behind some [faulty] legalistic interpretation of what I wrote (and incidentally what I specifically addressed). That's besides the point anyway. You're just rearguing the same thing here you did there. Shadowjams (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar debates where? About what? And yes, this is a long-running debate, due to the abject refusal of Gaijin and others to back up their arguments with anything but bluster and obstructionism. At no point has the slightest bit of evidence been provided to justify the blatant POV-forking going on. So why exactly shouldn't I continue to argue that articles should comply with NPOV policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

User:SPECIFICO has suggested that for clarity's sake, it may be useful to have a survey section separate from the discussion above, which has gone somewhat offtrack and into the actual content dispute itself. Please do not continue the content dispute debate in this section.

question : Should there be a morotorium on unilateral action such as merging/deleting/redirecting while this dispute is in process, and should this dispute be addressed through formal channels such as DR/Mediation/ArbCom .

• support Moritorium and some formal process. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If you want to take this to arbcom, do so. But expect to have to produce sources to back up your claim that the article is not a POV fork. And expect me to ask for sanctions to be taken against you should you fail to do so. Arbcom isn't there to allow contributors to impose their unsourced opinions on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment at this point I see no reason to impose any restrictions on normal process. I would add that the Gun control article has large swaths of un referenced content and seems less than a neutral treatment of the subject that appears to be political in nature. Seems reasonable to discuss merging content and redirecting "gun control" to Gun politics".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and support Andy's unilateral action. As an aside comment- As a Jew I find the section on Nazi disarmament of Jews to be inaccurate and I absolutely hate when pro-gun activists use our history as a reason to fight legitimate gun control in the US, it demeans what my family and my people went through. Jews are overwhelmingly pro-gun control and rarely own guns; it happens to be un-kosher to eat animals who are killed through hunting, therefore we don't hunt.Camelbinky (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Guns which probably renders me non-neutral on this topic. But gun ownership in Germany was heavily regulated before 1933. Hitler substantially deregulated gun ownership (and created several new classes of 'automatic licensing' for firearms) which allowed most law-abiding Germans easier access to them, while restricting access to the "mentally defective" and non-citizens. I find it strange that the German people didn't use their newly expanded gun rights to rise up and overthrow their vicious Nazi overlords.--R.S. Peale (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Andy hasn't done anything yet and I do not support any action being discussed to summarily dismiss all discussion in favor of an action not yet decided on by the community. Besides, this time I am not at all sure there is an actual dispute here in reality. it may just be an opinion with strong conviction , but as yet I am not convinced the route to go has been determined.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Andy is correct. This is a classic textbook example of a POV fork. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am not sure that I disagree with that, just that we are not at the point yet (but maybe close) to determining what to do. As long as the community is involved I don't care which direction this takes. I am only concerned that it be discussed and decided on by consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This does look like a clear POV fork from Gun politics. All the links at the heads of sections are to articles on gun politics. Moreover almost all articles with "gun control" in the title are redirects to a corresponding "gun politics" article. This article has been written in an unbalanced and often unsourced way. It reads like an essay with disparate content cobbled together to make a point. Mathsci (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Except it's an odd fork that's over a decade old, and if this kind of impasse springs up now it perhaps suggests a formal dispute resolution... not sure why opposing helps towards the purported goal of making it NPOV. Shadowjams (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out, it is only 'over a decade old' if you ignore the fact that it was merged as a POV fork, and then recreated. And dispute resolution is not necessary to ensure compliance with policy. Regardless of what the article was like in the past, it is a POV fork now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for what it's worth. If there is any unilateral redirect to be done, gun politics is the article to be redirected, but Andy's assertion that there has to be a reliable source for the split is bogus. However, Gaijin has not actually provided a basis for the split. If no basis is provided, the articles should be merged, but removing questionable material has to be done by consensus. In other words, discussion is required before any action is to be taken. As Andy has refused to participate in the discussion, he should butt out until the discussion reaches some form of consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion have I refused to participate in? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also Oppose Morotorium and moritorium on general principals.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've never looked at either of these articles before, but a perusal of both shows a clear POV fork from Gun politics. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Inappropriate forum'

Note. Arther Rubin has now claimed in a thread on talk gun politics that the apparent consensus here that the gun control article is a POV fork cannot be taken into consideration, as WP:AN is an 'inappropriate forum'. [60] I would like to see the opinions of others as to whether AR is correct, and that issues such as apparent policy violations concerning POV forks cannot be discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]