THC Science

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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 6 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 10 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 126 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 124 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 57 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 50 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 36 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 32 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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	Total
CfD	32	32
TfD	0	0
MfD	1	1
FfD	1	1
RfD	58	58
AfD	20	20

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

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 112 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 111 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 106 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:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 102 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 93 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 87 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 87 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 80 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 73 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 70 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 60 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 10 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

Someone is proposing a community ban

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Someone is proposing a community ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[3] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately despite all appeals[4][5][6] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

User:Chjoaygame is banned from editing quantum theory articles or their talk pages. The ban will be recorded in WP:EDR. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Examples I have been recently involved with are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bingo: [7]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The trigger for this proposal to ban was [8], saying that I do not accept the proposer's airbrushing out Dirac's repeated and clear statement that bras and kets cannot be split into real and pure imaginary parts. No problem for that with wave functions, of course. If Editor Tsirel thinks that bras and kets can be split into real and pure imaginary parts, I will be enlightened. If he thinks my holding fast on the point is a fair trigger for a topic ban, I will also be enlightened.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree with topic ban. Chjoaygame is simply beyond reach for sensible discussion. There's nobody home. This, by itself, is not punishable. Ignorance is not either punishable. But I believe that Chjoaygame's behavior on talk pages is punishable. Behind all politeness, there are usually badly hidden insinuations. He'll never drop an old discussion. He is occasionally hiding behind "good faith" and affects the look of a puppy that someone has kicked ([9]). Follow the link to the actual eidt of the article, and you shall see that Chjoaygame is preaching some sort of religion rather than established science. He knows what he is doing (no "good faith" there). His style of editing when he encounters resistance is the most provocative imaginable. He knows what he is doing in that respect too. The result is that competent editors busy in real life are shying away. I know this for a fact, since I have email contact with more than one around here. Chjoaygame is in my opinion a burden for Wikipedia and is hindering article development. YohanN7 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chjoaygame does not respect when an editor retracts a comment: [10]. He retracted the retract. I remade it: [11], asking him politely to respect that an editor retracts his post. Chjoaygame cannot respect that either. I am in favor of a ban period, at least for a good while, of this individual. He is apparently trying to make life a living hell for anyone having ever opposed him in the past. It doesn't quite bite on me, and it is also probably not possible to keep him legally from raising mayhem on his own talk page. I can easily sense that others, less used to Chjoaygame, would feel not so at ease having him around. It is not only a matter of knowledgeable editors with plenty of routine. It is a matter of newcomers and fresh students. They can certainly make contributions, and may be very enthusiastic about it, but what if they suddenly face Chjoaygame? It is hardly an inviting environment for article work. YohanN7 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some samples:

Here, [12] Chj hijacks a thread. An editor asks a question (about position and momentum representations of a state) and Chj goes ballistic about something else (anti-ovens or whatever), presumably supporting Editor Vaughan Pratt.

Long long ramble cut out...

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

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

In this one, [13] (scroll up to label "concern", link does not work well), Cjoaygame asserts

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

The referred to parts, listed below for convenience,

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

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

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

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

Wow. Just wow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I can recall. For example, here. Chj replaced two explicit examples (formulas) with essentially the message

A pure quantum state is an abstract object that refers to repeated practical replication of single quantum phenomena.

This is illustrating well what I mean by POV babbling instead of formulas. For another example, where Chj admittedly didn't replace an existing formula, but wrote out a formula in words in a way nobody could understand: section Dirac and Schrödinger formulations , He the raised hell about censoring Dirac on the talk page when I reformulated the section. YohanN7 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Editor YohanN7 raises this now, I suppose I may respond. I wouldn't describe my removal of the formulas as replacing them. I would say, rather, that I removed them in an act of good editorial judgement. They were inappropriately placed. They were formulas in specialized notation, in the lead as formulas for the sake of formulas, and chattering about David Bohm, hardly relevant to the topic, let alone worthy of a place in the lead of the article. I did not remotely replace them with another such irrelevancy.

As for the second admitted non-replacement. The formula that I removed did not, as was claimed, express an adequately defined pure state; it expressed a state pure with respect to a single degree of freedom, quite a distinct concept, in a context in which the distinction was material. My deletion improved the text.

And as for "rais[ing] hell" (Editor YohanN7's words) about censoring Dirac: I posted the following on the talk page:

edit undone without edit summary or talk page comment

I gave the wrong link for the second admitted non-replacement. Should have been Dirac and Schrödinger formulations. Complicated formulas spelled out in words is not "more physics". Never mind. YohanN7 (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor YohanN7 has here in effect undone a fair post by me. He made no edit summary and no talk page comment.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further was posted there on that. Nothing there about Dirac when Editor YohanN7 reformulated the section. I think Editor YohanN7 must have had some other posts in mind when he wrote just above that I "raised hell on the talk page"!Chjoaygame (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

With regret, I know already that indeed, he is merely confused about all entangled states. [14] Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor YohanN7 doesn't like people interleaving in his posts. He has just undone my interleaving above. So I copy from above to here in green his text in which he ridiculed me. Then I copy my indented interleaved reply.

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

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

Wow. Just wow.

Editor YohanN7 is ridiculing me for making a valid point in an argument.

The link takes one to:

Weinberg writes on page xvi:

"The viewpoint of this book is that physical states are represented by vectors in Hilbert space, with the wave functions of Schrödinger just the scalar products of these states with the basis states of definite position."

Weinberg is at fault in logic here.

Weinberg's own logic would have seen him write:

The viewpoint of this book is that physical states are represented by vectors in Hilbert space, with the wave functions of Schrödinger just the scalar products of these vectors with the basis vectors of definite position.

The point is material in a discussion of the distinction between (a) a vector that represents a physical state, and (b) the physical state itself.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongle agree with topic ban. Frankly, adding more verbiage or "specifics" to all this is not likely to convince anyone on anything. An idiosyncratic enthusiast with peculiar off-mainstream views is abusing WP as a rogue forum. I cannot see how the public could benefit from this. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing

Could we please stop this and enforce the topic ban before Chjoaygame contaminates the whole page with their, hmm, non-orthodox views on physics?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with Ymblanter. If there are any admins (or whoever makes ban decisions) reading this, please hurry up and be done with it. Everyone should stop fueling the fire (here and elsewhere) by ceasing to respond to Chjoaygame. M ∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 12:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final tally of opinions -- My apologies for getting this off track. As atonement, this list might make it easier for an administrator to sort things out. Feel free to replace my comment (e.g. I think (s)he supports the topic ban) by your own position and signature. But please, if you have even a very brief comment, place a link to it on your talk page, not here!--Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supports the topic ban. M ∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] supports the topic ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Ymblanter NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban.
support the topic ban. [15] Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KGirlTrucker87 NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban.
Guy vandegrift -- Support topic ban. Signed by --Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steve NOT A SIGNATURE! (talk) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban.
YohanN7 NOT A SIGNATURE! ([[User talk:YohanN7 |talk]]) ]] I think (s)he supports the topic ban. He supports a topic ban. YohanN7 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pldx1 is a passerby, and is not convinced by any side. Abstain. Pldx1 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban (I've watched this unfold and am finally expressing a view; enough is enough). Johnuniq (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cuzkatzimhut supports the topic ban.^[16]

Clarification: I wrote the words "I think (s)he supports the topic ban." to reflect the fact that the editor did not personally sign the tally. Some of the editors have affirmed their "vote" by signing, and the support for the ban is clearly stated in the previous section by those who did not "sign". ~~Nine~~ Ten out of ~~ten~~ eleven editors support the ban, with an abstention from the one who does not support--Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on enforcing

A new 'support topic ban' vote (Johnuniq) has been registered here, just following an edit summary alleging that I am a 'singlet state denier'. My response is (1) that I do not post, in edits or open talk-page comment, about Bell stuff and (2) I do not deny entanglement or singlet states. I have posted several edits that assert entanglement, and of course I think entanglement and singlet states are factual. It is true that I am in doubt or confusion about precisely how they are demonstrated experimentally, and that currently I am discussing that on my own talk page, as a result of a conversation that I started there about another topic, that was brought to singlet states by my interlocutor. But that (1) does not find its way into edits or open talk-page comment by me and (2) is evidence that I do not deny them. My crimes are that I write walls of text on talk pages, and that I do not give in till I see good reason to do so, and several other thought-crimes. These are not 'entanglement denier' or 'singlet state denier' crimes.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IBan enforcement request by Dennis Bratland

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

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

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

Spacecowboy420 went to Anthony Appleyard's talk page and requested that he revert my edits on Dodge Tomahawk. He said he didn't know who made the change, yet he also said he couldn't talk about it because of the interaction ban, indicating he had checked the page history and seen that of course it was me, and he is banned from reverting my edits. I see this as a blatant violation of the interaction ban. Spacecowboy420 is not supposed to follow me around and revert my changes, nor is he supposed to slyly talk around whose edits he is having reverted. This is after several previous violations, such as Spacecowboy420 reverting our previously discussed criteria for List of fastest production motorcycles, removing the street legal requirement. I don't understand how he can do that if he knows that he and I previously couldn't agree on it. He's taking advantage of the ban to make changes and I can't respond. Yet if I overrule his old objections on Dodge Tomahawk, then he is allowed to come along and revert me? How is that possible?
72bikers did the same thing when he deleted my source Legendary Motorcycles on List of fastest production motorcycles, even though he knows I told him I added the source and checked it myself. He says "I haven't seen this source" and deletes it, knowing I can't do anything about it.
I don't think Nyttend is willing to take action to enforce the interaction ban, because he simply finds it unpleasant to deal with. He also doesn't check his email, for some reason. I think he should have told everyone before he became the ban admin that he never checks his email, and someone who does could have been chosen instead.
So what's next? Can we please have a new admin for this interaction ban? Is my only other option to go to Arbcom? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why admins hate iBans. Nyttend, you have my sympathy. Bratland, if someone doesn't respond to email, that doesn't mean they don't check it: they may just be tired of the person sending them. Now, if you want anything done, you're going to have to a. be kind to your reader b. provide the proper diffs. And leave ArbCom out of it, unless you really want to experience what it's like not to get your emails responded to. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't accuse me of making things up. The reason I know Nyttend doesn't check email is because Nyttend told me very clearly that he does not check email. You have to pester him every single time you email him, and if he chooses to ignore you then you have no idea if he even saw your message. Since the use of email is an integral part of how ibans are administered, telling everyone up front that you don't check your email would have been a courtesy, to say the least. If Nyttend hates dealing with ibans, he should never have volunteered himself for the task. Wikipedia is not compulsory.
    I've stopped providing diffs unless they have been specifically asked for. I've found that any time I offer unsolicited diffs, I'm immediately told, "I don't have time to read all those diffs!" You yourself, Drmies, said exactly that to me, the last time I took the initiative to collect a large number of diffs for you to see. It's either, "Sorry, but where's your diffs?" or "Sorry, too busy to look at all your diffs!" Can't win, eh?
    So if you, or someone else, is telling me now that you intend to investigate the issues I've raised, and you will in fact read the diffs I provide, then I'll spend the time collecting them and posting them here. But I am tired of providing diffs only to be ignored. So is anyone willing to look into this? Or not? Sorry if I sound frustrated but I'm tired of being insulted and dismissed by admins who don't like doing the job of admins. I'm not the problem here. The problem is a widespread failure to enforce basic community standards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland as I have no recollection of what you are accusing me of, and can find no evidence in the Revision history on the List of fastest production motorcycles page. Would you be so kind as to actually show some evidence with the diff. Also I would like to point out it is you who are breaking the iBan with your repeated petty emails such as here [17] in that you were asked to stop sending emails. About my edit here [18] of things that are not iban violations or any wrong doing. And I believe you were already warned about this type of behavior and that you would receive a block if continued here [19] and here [20]So would you be so kind as to show were I deleted your source Legendary Motorcycles. Were I know you told me you added the source. And were I state "I haven't seen this source" and deletes your source. If you would please thank you. 72bikers (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

State of TfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Wikipedia would handle that by saying "Thank you for your contributions, we'll cherish them. Caio."--v/r - T P 20:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renaming our 'delete' to 'annihilate'

. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that would get more people to run for RfAs!

ansh 666 06:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It should be noted that CSD doesn't promise that any page written all by a single user will be deleted under request of that user; it only says that an admin may do so. While an admin will generally decline a request which technically meets these requirements if (s)he has a good reason, a user trying to erase all of his/her edits would probably be such a reason. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

A recent AN/I close

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

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

You're entitled to that opinion, but in mine, Godsy instigated at every turn. And yes, editors get a !vote here. In fact, editors can close issues here as well. If you want to reclose that topic from your perspective, be my guest. My point is, nothing is going to happen, let's move on.--v/r - T P 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Re "...am not even sure if, as a non-admin, I can "vote" here". Yep, it's community consensus that counts, and we're all supposed to be equal in that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosed with neutral edit summary [21]. NE Ent 11:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reedley International School

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

It sure does, even though some of the worst fluff was removed in 2011.[22] It's too old for me to feel comfortable speedying it, but I've prodded. Domo arrigato, Mr IP. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Hehe, was it that obvious?--v/r - T P 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with anons coming to any of our noticeboards, including this one. If we really wanted them to keep away, we would have permanently semi-protected the page. The fact that many IP edits here are either disruptive or WP:FOOTSHOT doesn't mean that they all are. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the joke.... Blackmane (talk)

Banned editor continues to WP:EVADE

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

RfA Nom Reviews

About a year ago I put out a message offering to review potential candidates for an RfA nom. I had about a dozen responses and I provided a detailed and thoroughly researched response to each and every one. I'm once again offering to conduct a review for anyone interested. Feel free to email me using the link to the left of my user page.--v/r - T P 06:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS seeking applicants

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

Admin help needed

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

What seems to male the most sense here is to paste the new version (Draft:Light gap onto the article, referring to the author in the edit summary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Merged the two. Really need to stop overthinking things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: actually this was a perfect time to perform a history merge, so your thinking was correct. I have now done this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible improper RfC close

I would like to draw attention to a recent RfC at Paul Singer. This was the eighth discussion on this particular subject and all have eneded with the same result. The previous discussions can be found here: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28].

After an involved editor closed the last RfC, there have been multiple allegations which I don't intend to interpret on here in order to leave this post as neutral as possible so that an uninvolved moderator (also not involved in this related discussion) can examine the situation and determine what course of action (if any) is needed and how to proceed with the article. Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the closure of Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: Vulture and what the conclusion is. It's not that the closure is controversial but it doesn't resolve anything. And it is highly unusual for the editor who set up the RfC to be the one who closes it and another editor or admin should have taken that role. I don't have much experience closing RfC but I'd recommend an admin well-versed in discussion closures to look it over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re "doesn't resolve anything" - Yeah. For realz.

What's nice about RfC's that don't resolve anything is that we get to continue to debate the subject........ there's always a silver lining..... NickCT (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment to Race and intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned)

Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci (talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely:

The two-way interaction bans with The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) enacted in a September 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case.
A two-way interaction ban with Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) is enacted in accordance with the Race and intelligence case review.

This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case.

Support - Callanecc, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Drmies, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis

Abstain - Casliber

Not voting - DeltaQuad, DGG, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coordinated strike/raid at Supreme (clothing)

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Repeated Copyright Violations that spans 100s of pages

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

I think there may be something to this. Going through a few of Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) larger recent edits, he seems to have copied entire sentences (with citation, but without quote marks) from news sources. For example, this edit [29] copying from [30] and this edit [31] copying from [32]. As Capankajsmilyo is citing the source, I would assume this is an issue of not understanding that one is expected to paraphrase from sources rather than copy them exactly (unless indicating the material is a direct quote). I don't have time to follow-up right now, but someone should at least talk to him about it. Dragons flight (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to inform Capankajsmilyo about this discussion so I posted a notice on their talk page, 68.104.31.142. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's no apostrophe in "100s". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And will you do anything about all the ones you already added? I noticed e.g. Digambara, which you turned into a GA and nominated for DYK: this edit from a few days ago is a literal copy from this. Before continuing with new edits, please go through your older edits and make sure that they comply with our copyright policies. Fram (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and resolve them. Digambara resoved. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was only an example, not the full list of all problems with that article. Digambara is not resolved, and already asking for its GA status to be restored is severely disappointing. First go through all your edits (all articles), see which ones are problematic, and correct them, before thinking of GAs, DYK, ... Fram (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Fram Dragons flight and Liz and thanku ton's and ton's Lugnuts. so who is gonna remove all the text that has already copied into wikipedia? some random examples [33] [34] [35] [36] go through his contributions. he already received so many warnings for copyright violations [37] earlier so he was doing on purpose thinking noone will notice 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC) and warning from Kusma [38] 68.104.31.142 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE

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

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

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

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

Done - @Amortias: I've added IPBE to you while we sort this out. Are you comfortable discussing more details of the blocked range on-wiki? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE has allowed me to create an account so thats sorted that. The range is blocked for vandalism and various other unpleasentaries as there are a couple of hundred schools that go through this IP so the blocks a good block I was just new collateral. Amortias (T)(C) 13:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail would be preferable for discussion as id rather not reveal my employer as that would prety much give away my location. Amortias (T)(C) 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to email me (or any other arbitrator) and I'll look into it. Courcelles (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have spoken to Courcelles. Have confirmed IPBE until I can get a workaround in place. The earliest this could be is the 3rd May but I will advise when no longer required. Amortias (T)(C) 12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motions regarding Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement

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

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

Possible Issue with Move Log

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

Sounds like something to mention at WP:VPT. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK you shouldn't actually "revert" moves via the log (or, say, watchlist or history) or Twinkle. The easiest way is to just go to the article at the new title and move it back to the old title, noting that you're reverting. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc needs closure at Time Person of the Year

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

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

Revdel requested

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

Declined puerile vandalism only — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is the very definition of "pure vandalism"? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the decline. It's childish vandalism and doesn't rise to the level of obscenity that needs to be redacted from public view. I don't see a mention of "pure vandalism" on the criteria for revision deletion page. Perhaps you were mistaking it for the third criteria, which is purely disruptive material? That's more for links to malicious websites, shock pages, phishing pages, edits where vandals enlarge inappropriate images to cover the page, etc. Mike V • Talk 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne High School

Nothing is going to happen here, the place to discuss this is BLPN. Now excuse me while I take a shower... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Wikipedia doesn't need your approval. And if you are indeed Ryen Wilson, then what Wikipedia says seems to be the least of your problems. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be scaled back significantly. While it concerns a teacher who was convicted (not merely charged) with child seduction, it's very recent, and dedicating 5 sentences of a 6 sentence lede strikes me as violating WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RWilson1985 Wikipedia reports what's been reliably reported, and it's sometimes not what the subject of the article would like. The source is a reliable news source so it meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing . However, your | edit summary does not meet Wikipedia's Civility Requirements . Please use more precise edit summaries, stating why you're removing information. KoshVorlon 15:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They got broadband in Indiana State Pen?!

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Kosh, while it can be reliably (if you consider a couple of local news channels and the Daily Mail reliable) sourced, should it be? The event has no lasting notability, Wilson would not qualify under GNG and would be disqualified under BLP1E for an article of his own. Essentially this paints the school in a bad light for having the misfortune to hire someone of loose morals. I would be tempted to nuke it on Undue grounds alone from the school's article. (Of course this is a result of every fucking high school in existance being 'notable' despite having little encyclopedic value, so *anything* that actually makes the news ends up in the article.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: He wasn't convicted, he pleaded guilty. Please strike. I see from your user page that you're also an American, so you should already be aware that plea bargaining here has at best only a smirking acquaintance with justice. —Cryptic 16:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pleading guilty, if accepted by the judge, is still a conviction. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the very least imprecise and misleading. —Cryptic 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be striking. A plea resulted in a conviction followed by a sentencing. I apologize if you consider the difference between a conviction resulting from a verdict and a conviction resulting from a guilty plea to somehow be significant for BLP purposes, but in this case you're mistaken. What I said was not imprecise or inappropriate per BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

A pattern of conduct leading to a 4 year prison sentence is not a 1event. If we apply the standard that way we would delete thousands of parts of pages. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't? The example used on the WP:BLP1E policy page is that of someone who is still without their liberty more than thirty-five years later. The policy page specifies that he is notable because "the single event he was associated with ... was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented". This one fails to meet some of those criteria. MPS1992 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Saib Tabrizi

One of the administrators, judgment about talk:Saib Tabrizi.--Samək^Talk 21:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beside giving a false reference for his claim and breaking WP:WAR, this user has illegally used his rollback right against AFG edits (1, 2), please revoke his rollback privilege. -- Kouhi (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first judgment is that several people there seriously need to learn basic wiki-markup, as the discussion is well-nigh impossible to follow. Beyond that this is a content dispute that falls under AA2, so if you really think there's something requiring intervention go file an AE report. Due to the abuse of rollback I'm removing it from Samak, and further noting that competence is required and Samak isn't filling me with confidence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I think this case is related to WP:AN3 and WP:ANI. Content dispute and edit warring. But one of involved users abused several rules during this edit warring. WP:3RR and using rollback feature in edit war [39], [40], [41], [42]. Personal attacks and stalking on talk page [43], [44]. Don't you think User:Samak deserves a block? He's not a new user but abuses basic wikipedia rules. Who gave this user rollback right?! If you review his contributions, he abused rollback since the day he gained it. User:Kouhi and User:HistoryofIran should submit a new case on WP:ANI or WP:AN3. --24.191.178.196 (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this hits on so many different issues is the very reason it belongs at AE. And might I ask exactly how you're so familiar with Samak's editing history? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just browsed his contribution page and looked at his reverts to check if he did this issue by mistake or not. But it seems he always prefer to edit like that. According to his contributions, he abused wp rules several times and evaded blocks. Anonymous users (ips) did not report him to admins. Now, this WP:BOOMERANG report revealed his behavior. --198.244.109.173 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mass temporary accountcreator assignments in need of cleanup

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

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

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

AN notification was sent to Pharos. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay, I will take care of them in the next two days. The intention was to finish them after March.--Pharos (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical bug or issue

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

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

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

The link to User talk:Wik I don't know about but they really did undo a revision by Bovineboy it was just one from last November --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I think this would get more eyes at WP:VPT. ansh 666 03:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the edit summary correctly leads to Bovineboy's contributions page. Also, Bovineboy remains active to this dat, why do you say he hasn't edited since January? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the edit summary has been manually edited before saving. I won't guess at why this was done. Perhaps you could ask User:Leemleem if he/she edited this and why. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 == Proposed topic ban on [[user:Chjoaygame]] to not edit quantum theory articles ==
+{{archive top|result=[[User:Chjoaygame]] is banned from editing quantum theory articles or their talk pages. The ban will be recorded in [[WP:EDR]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC) }}
 ''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Proposed topic ban on user:Chjoaygame to not edit quantum theory articles]]''
@@ Line 292: / Line 292: @@
 ===Commentary on enforcing===
 A new 'support topic ban' vote (Johnuniq) has been registered [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=714547821&oldid=714547678 here], just following an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=714542907&oldid=714505802 edit summary] alleging that I am a 'singlet state denier'. My response is (1) that I do not post, in edits or open talk-page comment, about Bell stuff and (2) I do not deny entanglement or singlet states. I have posted several edits that assert entanglement, and of course I think entanglement and singlet states are factual. It is true that I am in doubt or confusion about precisely how they are demonstrated experimentally, and that currently I am discussing that on my own talk page, as a result of a conversation that I started there about another topic, that was brought to singlet states by my interlocutor. But that (1) does not find its way into edits or open talk-page comment by me and (2) is evidence that I do not deny them. My crimes are that I write walls of text on talk pages, and that I do not give in till I see good reason to do so, and several other thought-crimes. These are not 'entanglement denier' or 'singlet state denier' crimes.[[User:Chjoaygame|Chjoaygame]] ([[User talk:Chjoaygame|talk]]) 17:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
+{{archive bottom}}
 ==IBan enforcement request by Dennis Bratland==

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 14:07, 13 April 2016