Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 45 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 44 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 16 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 113 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:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 99 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:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 20 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 19 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Talk: Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 13 May 2024

(Initiated 9 days ago on 13 May 2024)

Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why is Semiramis Hotel bombing on ECP indefinitely? The other ECP'd articles in the table have the protection expire reasonably soon. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every I/P article is supposed to be under permanent ECP now? Wow that is intense. Thanks. I wonder how many articles it is. That much conflict in articles usually means the articles are useless anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a continuation of a discussion that was archived before other editors and admins could weigh in. That discussion was begun as a complaint against me by User:SanAnMan. Later incorporated into it was a discussion that had originally begun on at Talk:Unfulfilled, but which was moved here by User:Softlavender. SanAnMan presented what he contended was evidence of inappropriate behavior on my part. I then presented evidence of SanAnMan's violations of WP:OWN, disruptive editing, including attempts to bully editors away from editing South Park episode articles, including outright deceptive statements on his part, which included fabricating non-existent consensuses that he falsely claimed I participated in, but because it was not sufficiently summarized (having been called a "wall of text"), I was asked to further summarize it. SanAnMan nonetheless offered a rebuttal, though he did not falsify, nor even address the evidence I presented of his behavior. What follows is a condensed version of the evidence of his behavior. I apologize if it's still longer than you would prefer; Illustrating patterns of behavior requires not only multiple examples, but some elaboration.

• SanAnMan frequently makes arbitrary changes to episode synopses, often without explaining how his versions are improvements, even when doing so creates grammatical errors. This is distinct from his perfectly legitimate fixing of my typos, repetitions of phrases, etc. which I genuinely appreciate.

For example, he once removed a series of commas from a passage I wrote, including an Oxford comma. [1] While use of Oxford commas is a question of personal choice, he did not write that passage, but again wishes to impose his personal preference upon articles in a unilateral manner. When he subsequently did this again, he attempted to justify this [2] by falsely citing MOS:COMMA. In fact, MOS:COMMA does not call for the removal of Oxford commas, but says they may be used if used consistently. Nothing in the article exhibited inconsistency. SanAnMan argued, “But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article.” There was no discussion or consensus on this.

He even removed non-Oxford commas from passages, despite the clear presence of pauses in speech in between the clauses of fragments of sentences. [3] [4] [5]

He removed ratings info from an episode article, something that is common in television articles when source info is available for it, but he claims that it “never” goes in an episode article, again without presenting any guideline, MOS or consensus: [6]

He’ll remove details from the synopses I write as being supposedly irrelevant, but insists on including those he prefers, even when they are trivia. He removed the name of a character because it’s “irrelevant”, even though the character’s interaction with a main character drove a plot point. [7] In another article, he removes the name of a character, Colin Brooks, whose death was the inciting incident of the plot, even though he left in a latter reference to “Brooks’ death” in the same synopsis. [8] Yet despite this, after I did a major fix to two paragraphs in another article featuring childhood vaping, including removing an incorrect claim about a minor detail [9], SanAnMan restored the mention of the detail even though it was trivial. [10]

In another instance, SanAnMan split hairs over a description of a character being a reference to a Star Trek alien, removing reference to this on account of a detail on the back of the character’s head [11], as if that detail somehow meant that the nature of the parody was not generally true, even though it was one of the major points of parody in the episode.

SanAnMan either does not understand or misrepresents the purpose of the Lead. The Lead (and for that matter the Infobox) are features of articles that summarize the article’s most salient points, which by definition, means that they repeat information found in the article body. He cited WP:OVERLINK as his rationale for this [12], when WP:OVERLINK says nothing about details in the Lead. When he removed the information again, he stated, “WP:OVERLINK and MOS guides clearly state to avoid repeating details.” Both the Lead and the Infobox necessarily repeat information in the article body by definition. No MOS guideline says otherwise, and SanAnMan did not link to any that do.

• SanAnMan blanked the article for the South Park episode “Unfulfilled” (reverting it to a redirect) on an episode of South Park an hour and a half before it premiered, under the rationale that it had not yet aired, an inane rationale, given not only the time element, but the established practices of creating such articles prior to episode premieres, by various editors including himself ([13], [14], [15]) and the presence of articles on future films, novels, Olympics, elections, and other events throughout Wikipedia.

SanAnMan attempted to cite WP:DELAY for this, when that guideline is for subjects whose notability is in doubt. WP:CRYSTAL also corroborates this.

He also attempted to falsely claim that there was an “agreement” among the editors of those articles not to create such articles on the basis of press releases early in the season. Putting aside the fact that WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB do not restrict the citation of primary sources in an article as long as the article is not primarily supported by them; the fact that secondary cite-supported information on critical reception is always added to South Park episode articles within a day or two of the episode’s airing and the publication of critics’ reviews; and the fact that Wikipedia’s leans toward inclusion, and the practice of giving editors time to find sources before deleting articles, There was in fact no such “agreement” or discussion, as seen on all the relevant talk pages. When it was requested that he provide links to these discussions, he then attempted to claim that this “agreement” took place in the edit summaries, which is both absurd, and untrue, since no edit summaries show this. He even falsely claimed that I, of all people, was a part of this “process” he described. (I was not.) In addition, his claim is falsified by the continued practices of creating such articles on the most recent episodes, including the one that aired the week before the one in question, which he had not opposed. Presumably because he realized that he was caught in the middle of his lie, he abandoned it, because the following week, when I created the prelim article for that week’s episode ahead of its premiere, he offered no opposition, which he would not have done if he genuinely believed there had been a consensus, or “agreement,” among the editors to cease this practice.

• SanAnMan has reverted against two different editors ([16], [17], [18]), which is considered edit warring, and may be considered a blockable offense. In so doing, SanAnMan self-servingly declares that WP:OWN and 3RR violations are established on my part, but exempts himself from that assessment, even though he persistently reverted the article himself.

• SanAnMan presumes the authority to give “sole warnings” to me, when he is not an admin, and has no authority “sole warnings” to anyone, another presumption of unilateral authority that he does not have. Note also that when I point out what has happened in the past with serial policy violator and manipulators who tried to game the system like Asgardian—a perfectly legitimate warning—then all of a sudden, SanAnMan says, it’s “threat.” SanAnMan can issue sole “warnings”. But when I issue a valid warning based on my prior experience with similar editors, it’s a “threat” that is tantamount to in SanAnMan’s words, saying “I am going to get you blocked or banned,” (even though I don’t have the power to get anyone blocked or banned unless I have evidence of violations that warrant it), and a “personal attack.”

• When SanAnMan first began this discussion here December 9, he said of me, “He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is "writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing…” In fact, I never said that “any” edit SanAnMan makes exhibits such qualities, and the diff shows it. I have always distinguished between the solid edits he makes, and those presented here that are problematic.

• SanAnMan claimed here during the now-archived portion of this discussion that when he is told that his criticized for poor writing, or when he is told that his edits do not conform to Wikipedia policies, that this constitutes “bullying.” It does not. To argue that criticism, or pointing out when an editor is violating policy constitutes a “threat” or “intimidation” would mean that every time we address policy violations on Wikipedia, we are “bullying” the person doing so, which is ridiculous. WP:AAEW, which SanAnMan cites repeatedly, is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and its claims that pointing out policy violations is not a valid argument is obviously false. SanAnMan himself has no problem accusing other editors of violating policies, as indicated when he accused another editor of this in an ANI discussion just a few months ago [19].

CORRECTION: SanAnMan pointed out in this post that I denied reverting a wikilink, even though I did. In fact, I did revert the wikilink, but was under the impression that I had not done so when I denied doing this. I see now that I did revert it, and apologize for that error. Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the archived discussion referenced above, admin User:Swarm specifically stated "we do not need to see another massive wall of text refuting everything Nightscream said point-by-point." He also stated that "None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable" and "all the other specific accusations are fairly minor in comparison." If the admins request that I refute this point-by-point I will, but until otherwise, I will wait. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Alternative suggestion

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe just archive the thread without further action. All has been said above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may have to be. I did read through the sections above and previously read the older thread. There definitely are behavioral issues to be considered, but I for one do not know the best way to handle them. The thing I would want to look at is, are there similar interactions with other editors, or is this isolated? If this behavior occurs with other users, then I would be more concerned about an overall problem requiring some sort of admin intervention, but if it is just how two people interact with each other, then that may be all it is. BOZ (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not start there, with an IBan between the two of them?Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The last thread was not archived before anyone "could" respond, it was archived because no one wanted to waste their time on the massive walls of text they were bludgeoning each other with, which I warned them against doing. I'm not offended by seeing another wall of text, but I am astounded by the lack of clue displayed by Nightscream in thinking that another massive wall of text was going to improve the situation. Smh.  Swarm  {talk}  03:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a massive wall of text, except for those too lazy to read it, and whose apathy on such matters is precisely the huge crack in the system that historically, manipulators have exploited to game the system here on Wikipedia. User:Asgardian is one. User:AlanSohn is another.And now we have SanAnMan. The guy blanked another editor's article, then fabricated a consensus that never took place, even claiming that I agreed with him on this, and then, after he was caught in the middle of that lie, skulked away from it, and naturally, the revolving door here in ANI doesn't care because, "Oh, it isn't ongoing behavior." Like he has to do this multiple times a day on a daily basis in order for you decide that it needs to be addressed. The text above is the evidence presented for SanAnMan's pattern of behavior, and was greatly reduced in length from my previous presentation. It cannot be conveyed with non-annotated diffs alone. If I'm wrong, then by all means: Tell me what specific part or parts of it you would remove? Feel free to use the sandbox if you want. And if you can't answer this because you haven't read it, well then, how do you know that the essential information can be conveyed with diffs alone? Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find it an effective strategy to insult the people you are asking to take action? Does that often work for you? When you call the cops because your neighbor's party is too loud, do you call the responding officers names and accuse them of being lazy and apathetic? Do you find that gets better results? And when they come, do you give the cops the history of every conflict you've had with that neighbor, from the time they moved into the neighborhood, instead of just telling them that the party is too loud and is annoying you?

Are you getting the point I'm trying to make? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you find it an effective strategy to label legitimate criticism with the spin-doctored term "insults" in order to evade giving actual consideration to the criticism because you lack the character to do so?

Funny you should ask. When I've called the cops to complain about the neighbors' noise, the cops did something truly astonishing.

THEY DID THEIR JOB. Are you getting that point? Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an editor blanked a page, fabricated a consensus that did not exist, even falsely name-dropping other parties to this "agreement", and has not falsified all the evidence that clearly shows that this was an attempt a OWN-type behavior, or even addressed that evidence, and has also exhibited other examples that go to this pattern, but you and the others here have refused to respond to it. You know what that does? It sends the message to people like that that they can get away with that behavior until it reaches such a critical mass that one has to go through the task of ArbComa before they face consequences for it. And what's your excuse? "Oh, it's too long to read! Can you put it in the form of a soundbite or a tweet?. The problem is not "insults." The problem is that ANI is a paper tiger filled with people who have historically refused to address problems like this in an appropriate manner. Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, even this ANI is getting nasty. Maybe a cooling off for the parties is needed. The blanking does sound egregious and probably deserves a closer looking at. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read your massive wall of text, again, and you're literally just re-reporting the same thing. And these issues are exceptionally petty, and they have already been assessed to be unactionable by an administrator (me). You're not going to get better results beating the dead horse a month later. Even if you had a convincing case originally (which you didn't), the issue is stale now. When most people get into disputes, they seek out dispute resolution via community consensuses. If you want improved results, follow WP:BRD, seek third opinions, form local consensuses on the talk page, use content noticeboards when possible, and if all else fails, use RFCs liberally to form binding community decisions, even host them at a village pump or relevant Wikiproject to reach generalized decisions on things like comma usage or when a TV episode should be created, assuming there is no clear policy or consensus on these things already. If this comes back here, you're likely going to get an interaction ban and nothing else.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  20:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Talk:2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute

This article has been discussed and concluded to move and rename, to retain neutrality of article, from 'Korean Navy radar lock-on incident' to '2018 Japanese-Korean naval dispute', as user's consensus. But, afterwhile, someone moved and renamed the article arbitrarily, without any notice in the discussion page. I think this is unaccepted action, violating rules and ignoring user's consensus.

Hence, I requesting Undo renaming of the article suggested on the subject. Thanks. Funny365com (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was done by Phoenix7777 who you forgot to notify. I'll go do so. The move was done under the grounds of WP:PRECISE. I don't see any abuse there, but other admins are free to disagree. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't discussed at all. You requested a move, and someone moved it for you, not because a consensus was formed, but because it was uncontroversial. There is no consensus to speak of. Now it has been moved back, which is acceptable per WP:BRD. You can discuss further on the talk page if you disagree.--Atlan (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I blocked Funny365com with a soft block as per WP:USERNAME. I expect they'll pick a new username and continue the discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yamla: I think you seem to have misunderstood something. User Funny365com's account name is not companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, or creative groups name. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yamla: Their home wiki is kowiki with over 200 contributions. Username violation or not, account creation should not be disabled, since I doubt they wish to rename globally. If this is a username violation, they probably will want to create a new account to contribute on enwiki. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite (account creation blocked) - it looks like some gremlin has converted a soft block into a hard block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding username, by the grandfather clause, this is the relevant version of the username policy. This is identical to current wording. Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com") that promote a commercial web page. Since the domain does not seem to have been registered at the time, nor is registered now, I don't think this is a good block. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted it to a soft block. Making it a hard block was unintentional. Any admin is free to lift the block if they wish. At various times throughout the life of the account, funny365.com has been active and serving sponsored listings. As such, I believe it fails the "commercial web page" part of WP:USERNAME. funny365.com is not currently active, though, so if an admin believes my block should be overturned on that basis, please just do so. No need to further consult me. --Yamla (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked based on that and also that per WP:UPOL "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my name from funny365com to Bluepolarbear247. Thanks for noticing name rules to me. Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like I misunderstood how wikipedia discussion system works. So, it's not consensus, and someone just move article for me, right? And I should discuss again to change its name. but Is it good to any wikipedia user change an name of article, without discussion, eventhough there was previous discussion related on renaming? (Anyway, I'll continue discussion about renaming in article above) - Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been some confusion over what happened here. Funny365com/Bluepolarbear247 never requested a move that happened without discussion. Actually they started a RM (didn't check if it was done completely properly). After 22 hours and 2 people supporting the proposal (including the initiator/Funny365com) and 2 other commentators who express no clear opinion, the move was actioned by a third party who had already been involved in the article [20] [21] [22] [23]. The page was then moved to a different title [24] with the reason given as WP:PRECISE. The new title was not the same as the original title, instead it had elements of both the old title and new one i.e. was a partial revert. IMO, the actions here are reasonable. The first move was almost a bold move, since there was only 20 hours allowed for discussion and only 2 or 3 (if the mover was also expressing their support) in support so could have been reverted as with all BOLD moves. Since Phoenix7777 I guess doesn't disagree with one element of the move, they only partly reverted. The new discussion can decide whether the current title or the original proposal are better, and both editors who expressed an opinion have already done so in the new discussion so it doesn't matter much whether it would have been better to reopen the older discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary Independence Model (pinging nominator, Anthony Appleyard)? I asked AA, but didn't understand the response – he said he deleted it, but the page log doesn't show it being deleted yet). There was maybe some sort of COPYVIO question, but wouldn't that be more appropriate through CSD, where it was originally, or at least removal of offending text? The claimed source isn't accessible for me right now, so I can't even check on that much. In any case, there doesn't seem to be an actual AfD rationale there, so there's nothing to discuss. Apologies in advance if I shouldn't be bringing this here (the notice says specific help requests should go to ANI, but ANI says it's for urgent problems, and this doesn't seem urgent, so I dunno), but the whole thing is just kind of strange. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deacon Vorbis: Oops sorry. I was intending to delete Binary Independence Model (speedy delete tagged for copyvio) after the rest of the procedure, but the situation looked complicated, so at 05:56, 5 January 2019 during the deletion procedure I changed my mind and decided to get it discussed at AfD. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD is now closed, so the discussion here can be, too. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, so we're closing all the discussions? We need to reopen the AFD, unless the page gets deleted some other way (hasn't yet happened) or we come to some resolution here (also hasn't happened). Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't look like a copyvio to me. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones has been notified about the active community sanctions at his talk page by OverlordQ.

Successive reverts Smallbones performed in 24 hours:

• [25] reverts [26] and [27] reverts [28]
• [29] reverts [30] and [31] reverts [32]
• [33] reverts [34] and [35] reverts [36]
• [37] reverts [38] and [39] reverts [40]

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions regrading tendentious editing here and here Retimuko (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only see one change by Smallbones labeled "undo" in the Bitcoin article history recently, [41]. How are the others construed as discretionary sanctions/1RR violations? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that since it is not labelled "undo", you refuse to call [42] a revert of [43]? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Smallbones continues to WP:TE on this article after the Blockchain GS were put into place. In some cases he continues to revert every 25 hours (rather than 24 hours) thus maybe he doesn't technically violate the 1RR if narrowly construed, but broadly construed he clearly does. As Ladislav points out this is about a long-term pattern of behavior, not just one or two edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ladislav Mecir, Retimuko, and Jtbobwaysf: It's not that I've been ignoring this thread - I just haven't seen anything approaching "Systematic violations of active community sanctions" as the section heading puts it. It's pretty hard for me to defend myself since there haven't been any understandable accusations. For example, of the 4 bullet points above that purport to show 2 reversions that I made within 24 hours, the bottom 3 show nothing of the kind. The first is slightly more complex. I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse.
• So just say what you mean to say, make your accusations, explain what you mean by "bias", "tendentious editing", "long-term pattern of behavior" and give examples. And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer.
• Otherwise, I will ignore you. I don't think any admins will do anything without an adequate accusation.
• Or I will ask for a "boomerang" on all of you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"And please explain why you revert, generally without explanation, essentially all the edits I've made since late summer." That is a great statement. I have just asked you to do the same for FXCM. I am not involved in the Cyrptocurrency debate, but looking at the talk page, it appears you are using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against alternative finance markets including Bitcoin in the same way you use the page on FXCM. They deserve the criticism they are getting, but Wikipedia has WP:NPOV standards that must also be followed, not to mention WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL standards which I addressed on another noticeboard. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, and then he brags about it here User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232#Thar_she_blows!. Unfortunately, he is a skilled editor and knows when to stop before he crosses the line in terms of sanctions. But maybe one day his pattern of edits will catch up with him...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd even apologize for a slight slip, if what each of the 3 other editors involved hadn't done something 100 times worse." - In other words, Smallbones claims that since he perceives that other editors don't behave as he wants them to, he feels authorized to violate the active community sanctions. That is what I do not find acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this seems to be a content dispute. The (poorly-formatted) diffs don't clearly demonstrate that Smallbones is breaking 1RR; he probably shouldn't have made this edit but that's not enough for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "this seems to be a content dispute" followed by "he probably shouldn't have made this edit" does not make much sense to me. I did not mention the content at all. Other contributors did, but I am sure I did not.

"The (poorly-formatted) diffs" - could you help and improve the formatting of the diffs, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, you are correct in that this involves content disputes. However, the reason for this discussion – at least the reason I am here to opine – is “how” Smallbones deals with content disputes, not the disputes themselves. He has become somewhat of a WP:POVFIGHTER on alternative finance topics and his overzealousness has led to content disputes which he then fails to use established procedures to deal with. Instead, he either reverts without discussion, uses misleading edit summaries, refuses to come to talk pages for discussion, uses reasons to revert which are in no way established in Wikipedia policy, makes borderline personal attacks, and even takes experienced editors to COIN in what I perceive as an attempt to get sympathy for his POV. I appreciate that an experienced user such as Smallbones has taken up the cause to make sure information about things such as Crypto contain the much deserved criticism, but that’s not what we are getting here. It is a case of POV pushing and a refusal to go through proper content dispute procedures without using assertion and WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I agree. It is editors like Smallbones that are responsible for Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. The purpose of the Blockchain general sanctions (1RR) was to tamp down the POV edits (at that time mostly cryptofans) but in this case we have a cryptohater that is now being disruptive. From an editor's point of view, both of these extreme POVs need to be edited into the article for balance. It is our job as editors regardless to make sure the content is NPOV (thus the middle path). However, the point here is that Smallbones' behavior is disruptive, thus this is not a content dispute it is a discussion of the behavior relating to the content dispute (and that is why ANI is the correct venue). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An Ip (72.69.98.176) has twice attempted to close this discussion. What's up with that? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with me and appears to be some kind of provocation or trolling.

I would however request that this be closed. The edit I originally made has been reinserted by another editor and stayed in the article for 4 days now. The discussion at Talk:Bitcoin#Price_movements_citing_Coinbase now supports the edit (look at the bottom) as factual.

Others should feel free to make additional comments here, but if they are just accusing me of WP:TE, RightingGreatWrongs, or accusing me of being the reason Wikipedia losing contributors, then I'd like them to present serious evidence in a serious discussion. Otherwise, they should get the boomerang. After all is said and done here, I made a simple factual edit to the article and several editors went ballistic over it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that IP (or any other IP) doesn't attempt to 'close' again. You certainly don't need anybody suspecting you of socking, correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't sock. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years and made 40,000+ edits and nobody has ever credibly accused me of socking. I'm not accusing you of accusing me of socking, but I don't think that anybody who knows me here would ever take such an accusation seriously. If they do, please take it to SPI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At one time, this mailing list was an important policy discussion and decision-making venue. It has not seen more than a handful of forwarded posts in the last few years, and no significant discussion for the last ten, but its archives are an important historical record that include, among other things, early requests for adminship. I think we should formally close the mailing list to new posts, so that the archive will be static and fixed, and can be more readily preserved.

If there is a reason to keep the list open to new posts, we should identify some new list administrators, since most of the current list administrators are not presently active participants in the project. UninvitedCompany 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a shutdown, or are you merely asking that people sign up to be list admins? Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Example: [44]

I thought softerblock had "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" (or just all boxes) unticked. This tick seems unchangeable. Is this right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been that Dlohcierekim ticked that box accidentally, or did it intentionally but didn't realize the block summary said "soft block". If that wasn't it, it may be a regression bug. I say this only because there has been a lot of code changes to how blocks work lately. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Err, actually I think that option isn't supposed to be there at all when blocking accounts, only IPs. So, probably a bug. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at phab:T213229 — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to block the problem account and allow account creation. TWINKLE did the box box-checking for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It won't let me change the block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlohcierekim. I tried to change it too and it wouldn't untick. It's not you. I noticed it with another admin's block. Wikipedia software obviously went insane. The pressure got to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes it is MediaWiki going insane. A fix will go out soon. Dlohcierekim made no error. It appears to be entirely a UI problem, too. It is not a hard-block, even though it may look like it when going to re-block. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look into this much, but I believe a histmerge of some kind is needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, a history merge would be a bad idea, since the histories overlap completely. Simply redirecting one to the other would work perfectly well, since they're virtually identical; if you replaced the current contents of Chiquibul with the current contents of The Chiquibul, you'd get these changes. I'll handle it. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

Per the requirements, notice is given that a discussion concerning globally banning Til Eulenspiegel from all WMF projects is now taking place on Meta. This discussion can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel. Nick (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More than one year ago, based on the result of a community discussion I was placed on an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to the Bible, broadly construed, with the message that this community sanction may be appealed after six months. Today I would like to respectfully appeal this topic ban. To the best of my knowledge, I have respected the ban, not touching any pages related to the ban. During this period of time I have been working to improve Wikipedia on other topics, learning to properly make, modify and improve Wikipedia pages, changing the way I used to edit. If the ban is lifted, I plan to focus primarily on correcting the errors in the previous articles which are still not up to the standard of Wikipedia. Please kindly review the topic ban. JohnThorne (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What were the issues that lead to the topic ban being implemented and if the ban is removed how would you act differently to avoid these issues in the future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.28.220 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@67.68.28.220: The main issues were my mistakes in editing not following the Wikipedia standards, such as copying from from unreliable sources, copying without attribution/plagiarism, and original research. To date, I have learned to copy from verifiable sources with neutral point of view, make sure to respect copyrights, always include proper attributions, and avoid original research. I plan to keep doing these practices as long as I contribute to Wikipedia. JohnThorne (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @JohnThorne: What is your understanding of when and how public domain material can be used in Wikipedia articles? How do your current views differ from those you held at the time you were topic banned? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: As to my understanding now, Public Domain material should be used primarily when there is historical interest, or no known comparable modern sources. The citation from public domain materials should be in short quotes, and with proper attribution. In the past, I didn't fully understand these concepts. At this time, I use the public domain materials cautiously, based on my current understanding. JohnThorne (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think that is adequate, and I endorse the suggestions made below by Guy and DGG (i.e. new articles to Draft and try a starter article first). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine with lifting the ban, ion the understanding that people will watch and likely reimpose the ban or some other restriction if you edit tendentiously or fail to defer to others who remove contested material. Pinging DGG and Doug Weller who made particularly thoughtful contributions to that debate. Maybe we should require new articles to go through Draft first and be reviewed? Guy (Help!) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would very pleased if JohnThorpe were to return to editing on the Bible, if he were to do it properly. The current state of the articles since he left them is very unsatisfactory, for nobody has done even the most basiccleanup. I hope JT understands the problems well enough tofirst do that, and then to try to add sources from a wide range of viewpoints. As I said in earlier discussion, a traditional religious POV can be used as a starting point , although it cannot be presented as the only view or even the curren academic consensus. I would however strongly urge JT that in articles about the OT it would be more logical to start with the traditional Jewish POV, for which there are many out of copyright online sources, and continue with the traditional Christian POV. (This is especially relevant in many of these articles because the material in them is at the core of the Christian reinterpretation of the prophecies to refer to Jesus and any good modern (or even older) Christian presentation will also make clear the key differences). People have killed each other for centuries over the interpretation of some of these verses, and writing a NPOV article is a serious responsibility. As a practical matter, I would suggest working on one or two of the articles, and then asking those of us who have commented here on this if we think it's a reasonable start. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse DGG's analysis of the situation, especially with regards to the Hebrew scriptures which Christians but not Jews call the "Old Testament". Any halfway decent article will include analysis by contemporary biblical scholars but even a decent stub should include a summary of traditional Jewish interpretation, readily available online, at a bare minimum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm ok with this, but I'd like to hear from User:Alephb first. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on clean-up of some of those articles even this week, as has User:Wallingfordtoday. There's still a long way to go on all of them, and I don't think anyone as far as I know has volunteered to do the large quantity of work required to get these articles up to snuff. If JohnThorne is willing to take the guidance of the community and policies and guidelines on board in a serious and careful way, he may have something useful to contribute. I hope no one would object if I and any other interested users were to "follow" their edits for a while and provide feedback as the community works out whether things are going to work out here. I would strongly encourage them to focus his editing on existing Bible-chapter articles rather the formation of new ones, though, at least at first.

My biggest concern is the hundreds of times, in the past, that the claims made in the text were not backed by the sources cited, or that material from fringe sources was taken at face value. I hope, if he is allowed back, that JohnThorne will be patient and responsive with us all if we have questions where we would like to verify some things. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that me and Aleph have done quite a bit of cleanup on those articles, mostly in the last month. The "number" of fixes I've done is in the hundreds or thousands (mostly removing unreliable sources and grammar editing -- I've had to remove over 20,000 characters from Isaiah 52 alone). However, there's thousands to go and there are many other pages on biblical chapters that need creation. If JohnThorne can continue working with people following his edits to making sure the same problems aren't repeated, I'd say his effort would be well appreciated. I'm in support of removing the topc ban.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An issue that has not yet been addressed is whether all these articles should even exist. There is, for example, no wikipedia article on 2 Chronicles. It redirects to Books of Chronicles because "1 Chronicles" and "2 Chronicles" are essentially artificial divisions of a single work. Well, chapters are much smaller artificial divisions, introduced in the middle ages, and other than in the case of Psalms and some special cases, not reflective of any actual structure to the books. This is why even enormously comprehensive biblical encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Biblica and the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which go much farther than Wikipedia by including every little proper name in the Bible under its own entry, don't have articles on individual chapters. It would be a little bit like having articles on individual pages of Shakespeare's works. I don't know if there's some appropriate forum for discussing the notability of Bible chapters as a whole, but it should probably be done somewhere, especially if JohnThorne will be getting back into the game. I think the unsuitability of chapter articles for Wikipedia articles is probably a root cause of why the Wikipedia community hasn't, to my knowledge, been able or willing to replace the current copy-pasted articles with real Wikipedia-style articles (except in special cases like "Isaiah 53" or individual Psalms, which are actual "topics" of conversation). Alephb (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate to say it given the amount of work I've done cleaning up those articles, I think aleph is right. Besides aleph's points of notability, there are some other points to consider on whether or not these pages should even exist. 1) Despite the work that's already been done, unreliable sources are still referenced hundreds, if not thousands of times in all these biblical chapter pages. 2) There is at least 1 grammar mistake on every single one of these pages (as each page is essentially copied and pasted, the same mistake was taken to all of them, making it horribly tedious to remove them all). 3) The vast majority of the subsections of each chapter is just a quotation of this or that verse in the chapter without any discussion or reliable sources referenced at all. 4) Almost all biblical quotations are from the KJV or NKJV, which are non-scholarly biblical translations. In other words, to completely clean up all these pages, the many thousands of quotations in these pages would have to be replaced or deleted. 5) Quite frankly, another point to consider is the sheer impossibility to regulate all these pages in the first place. There are hundreds of them, and as history shows, random users have been able to go to them and add any sources they want with no one noticing or removing them. They simply have too little notability for any group of Wiki editors to quickly revert bad edits.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar thought (and I haven't put a ton of work into these articles). It's a discussion to have (or search for, maybe it's been had), I don't know if there exists some sort of WP:GEOLAND for Bible-chapters. Start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Bible, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am an admin. Whenever I try to move a page, while e.g. obeying a request in Wikipedia:Requested moves, to move (e.g. page A to name B), and it first needs a pre-existing page at B to be deleted, it displays "[XDiHjApAAD0AADw86AoAAADQ] 2019-01-11 12:09:48: Fatal exception of type "MWException"" in red and refuses, unless I delete the old page B manually first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a known problem, I have seen it mentioned a few different places. ~ GB fan 12:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a ticket open for this fault at the moment, as you say until it's fixed you need to get round it by deleting the target page first. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I need someone's help: this and this link are basicallly the same, people who are born in Kikinda. Also, this category in Polish isn't needed because i moved the other one on the right place. I am asking someone to delete this polish category and merge those two wikidata links, thank you very much, regards, SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SimplyFreddie, they're not precisely the same. One appears to be for people born there, and the other for people associated with the location. Compare the two non-overlapping entries for pl.wiki. All of the entries in Category:People born in Kikinda (Q8738600) specify birth, not just the Polish one, while none of the entries in Category:People from Kikinda (Q30337582) specify birth. GMG^talk 17:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I agree, but they lead to the same category i.e. they are members of the same category. If they are associated with the location then it's just that one polish category (that isn't linked with others) that contains category with people born in Kikinda. — SimplyFreddie (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One is a combination of person related to this place (Q19660746) and Kikinda (Q309355), while the other is a combination of place of birth (Q1322263) and Kikinda (Q309355), the main difference being that place of birth has single-value constraint (Q19474404), because you can be associated with more than one place, but not born in more than one. What makes things confusing is that some projects (like this one) don't specifically have categories for place of birth, but only for association, which includes place of birth. If someone was born in Ontario but spent their life and career mainly in Paris, then they can be in both Category:People from Ontario (Q9075333) and Category:People from Paris (Q8964470). But en.wiki has no Category:People born in Ontario. Some projects (apparently Polish) has categories for both association and birth, while others seem to have one or the other. GMG^talk 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An IP hopping vandal reinserted their "Adolf Hitler's monarchy" instead of the correct "Adolf Hitler's dictatorship". Hitler was not a monarch. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an IP hopper – unless it hopped to a different continent. Just warn the vandals and report them to WP:AIV if they continue. Or request page protection at WP:RFPP if it becomes a regular occurence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the mixed reception of the film, there are users who keep deleting sourced information from the "canonicity" section of the page in order to paint a picture that the film isn't part of the DCAU franchise. One editor in particular, Mabromov, has reached out to me on another message board specifically stating he was aware his deletions would be causing an edit war with those interested in keeping all pertinent information intact. Is there anything that can be done to stop this from being a recurring thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.37.163 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Catflap08 is appealing a site ban. For context, see User talk:Catflap08 and the site ban discussion at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously would like to apologise for my actions that led to my block and also for what I said immediately before and after my ban. Please do consider the fact that I was extremely fed up with a dispute at the time. In turn I used the ban to find closure and work elsewhere on the project. I believe to have shown that I am able to contribute in a constructive manner.

• The TBAN is something I would like to see being lifted sometime in the near future, as Nichiren Buddhism is something I focused on. The IBAN should, for the time being, stay in place.
• Ignoring the TBAN was something foolish and unwise, ridiculing the community afterwards was downright stupid and insulting. It would have been wiser to ask for the ban to be lifted and ask for advice about the situation in general.
• In terms of behaviour I would repeat the advice I have given to others ever since: Stay calm. There is no rule that one has to reply right away. In case of a conflict it’s better to wait a day or two (maybe even longer) before replying. Most of all do not allow to be driven into a situation that can escalate into a conflict. If there is a conflict - ask for a third opinion. I allowed to become “fed up” as there are subjects I do deeply care about, at the same time I cannot make Wikipedia a 24/7 issue and if it’s a 24/7 issues to others I do not have to follow their example.
• Recently there was some media coverage about a Nobel Prize winner and apparently an article about her was at one point deleted. The media coverage at the time made me think about the articles related to Soka Gakkai, Nichiren Buddhism and Nichiren. Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased and this is doing Wikipedia no favour at all. It’s a subject on the fringe and even while the TBAN might be in place I would like to be given the opportunity to work on alternatives using the sandbox. Even if the TBAN is lifted … at this point editing respective article(s) won’t do much good. I would need advice from experienced editors and community consensus on this one. I believe some of those articles should be slimmed down considerably and be protected for the time being … BUT that decision is not up to me.
• In terms of my work on the de.wikipedia. I have never run into any major problems [45]. There was one exception when a conflict that originated in en.wikipedia was dragged into de.wikipedia – this was quickly dealt with though. Since my watchlist over there is more or less the same as it is here, I for most parts look out for reviewing pending changes. (Please note that since 2008 in the German Wikipedia all edits by new or not registered users need to be reviewed by, generally speaking, the community of registered and “confirmed” editors)
• I would like to expand on stubs such as Rychnov u Jablonce nad Nisou using Czech and German resources. And maybe even create articles such as “Plague Column” [46] [47] that do not exist on en.wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment – it looks like the IBAN referred above is no longer in place. (I could not find any other IBANs noted in WP:Editing restrictions.) –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the IBAN was lifted at Hijiri88's request, on the premise that it was no longer necessary since Catflap08 was site banned. If that site ban is lifted, I believe that the IBAN should be reinstated (and actually should not have been removed in the first place, for this very reason).
  As for the request for Catflap08's site ban to be lifted, I believe it is obvious from the request itself that Catflap08 has strong views on the subject ("Some of those articles have IMO become increasingly biased..."), which is likely to lead to edits intended to "unbias" articles, which history tells us are usually non-neutral in nature. It is also likely to lead to conflicts with other editors. On the whole, it does not seem to me that lifting the site ban is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the linked discussion where the interaction ban was rescinded, you supported removing the ban, and said "If for some reason Catflap08 is unbanned, I would suggest that the IBan not be automaically restored..." I appreciate that over time, editors can reach new conclusions. In addition to the reasons you listed, is there any additional consideration that has led you to change your mind regarding the interaction ban? isaacl (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that really the case? Well, all I can say is that I remember it differently. Perhaps I began with the thought that the IBan should stay in place, and for some reason -- now not remembered -- I changed my mind. Or maybe I was recalling some other IBan situation. In any case, now I think that removing IBans with retired or site banned editors is not a good idea, since (it seems) nothing on Wikipedia is forever, and it's quite probable that the status quo will be reverted at some future time.
  Still, whether I said at the time that it should be lifted or not, it was lifted, and I would still argue that if Catflap08 is un-site banned, it should be re-instated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Isaacl: Could you post a link to the discussion you were referring to? I can't seem to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive287#Appeal of my interaction ban with Catflap08 — FlyingAce linked to it. isaacl (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I didn't see FlyingAce's link. I guess all I can do is agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson:

  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do ... Speak what you think in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. Self-Reliance (1841)

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The editor has been almost entirely absent from the site for 3 years and I have no direct experience with them. If they want to edit other topics than those where they previously had problems (such as German towns) and will wait at least 6 months to appeal the TBAN, I see no reason to oppose this. They certainly shouldn't be unblocked to combat "increasingly biased" articles in the area they were TBAN-ed from; the topic-ban on at least Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Buddhism should be an indef one with any unblock. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to say I find the timing a little too coincidental, given that Hijiri88 posted a etirement notice less than a day ago and has just started a self-requested block, so they won't be able to comment here. I haven't looked much deeper than that so i won't support or oppose at thsi time but that doesn't fill me with confidence in their proposed return. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I was unaware of Hijiri's retirement when I commented above. In that context, this seems very much like "When the cat's away..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Until Catflap08 gives a full accounting of any socking while blocked. Concerns were expressed here including by someone besides Hijiri88 that Catflap08 was still editing using IPs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catflap08/Archive. While these edits seem to be more than 6 months old, the nature of the editing made tracking difficult and reporting often pointless anyway plus socking in April and June could easily make a difference to people.

  I also note that Catflap08 has emailed Hijiri88 in the past, emails which were apparently unwelcome, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive304#Use of ticket system by site-banned user to get warning about abuse of email removed?. While I obviously haven't see the emails, I'm concerned by their descriptions. Catflap08 is a native speaker of English [48] so I don't know why they asked Hijiri88 to not accuse them of being a sock when they didn't Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#I'm being stalked (maybe trolled) -- anyone know if there's anything that can be done?. (Hijiri88 obviously has accused Catflap08 of socking in the past, but they clearly weren't then.) I'm of the opinion Hijiri88 possibly mentions people they've had disputes with including Catflap08 too much but from the description, Catflap08 wasn't even sending a general 'can you stop mentioning me' but was annoyed about that particular mention.

  More importantly, there's still the other email even if it's over a year ago, I'd like some comment on their part. (I'd note that while the iban was lifted that was mostly because it's dumb when one party is blocked [49] and besides of which, I question if it's appropriate for a site banned editor to be emailing someone they've had extensive disputes with. I mean if the person welcomes it then fine, but if the person doesn't welcome it then no. And they don't need to tell the editor beforehand. It would probably have been better for Catflap08 to go through an admin if they really felt there was an issue.)

  As a minor point, I don't understand why Catflap08 of getting their talk page courtesy blanked via OTRS if they were going to appeal so soon, especially given they didn't need to use OTRS. (Yet ironically the fact they did use OTRS raises the question even more of why they were emailing Hijiri88 directly.) BTW, although I too find the timing of this suspicious, it should be noted that Catflap08 did try to get unblocked back in December but it was ignored [50]

  Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked User:SA 13 Bro if they have any comment [51] as their name shows up in the SPI. I didn't bother with User:L235/Kevin as their knowledge only seems to come from the case so I suspect they have nothing more to add. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, I'd also agree with a minimum of 6 months before any appeal of the tban. You need to demonstrate you can edit without significant problem in less contentious areas first. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 August 2018 TheGracefulSlick was indef blocked for socking. On 23 November 2018 they made an unblock request which was discussed at AN: here which was accepted since the appeal was truly a model form of WP:GAB. In their appeal, TheGracefulSlick outlined their future editing plans (historical subjects, albums by the Doors, content on women and specifically Women in Green). They also specifically said that: "I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator.".

However, their editing following their unblock on 28 November 2018 has not followed this editing plan. Specifically, they made they a series of edits to controversial political subjects: Charlottesville car attack (4 December 2018), Talk:List of cities in Israel (8 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringsted terror plot (8 December), Talk:2018 Freiburg gang rape (8 December).

This was then discussed with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, with the participation of User:Cullen328, User:Sir Joseph, User:TonyBallioni. Per TheGracefulSlick their statement was "a self-restriction made on a voluntary basis for my health. I wouldn’t be disregarding it if it were mandatory", a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable, that: "TGS: you gave your word that you would avoid controversial areas. You gave politics as an example, I think you should avoid it, not because it is a formal logged sanction, but just like Cullen328 pointed out, you told the community you would avoid it and avoiding it is the right thing to do".

Following their discussion on their talk page, TheGracefulSlick continued editing political entries - e.g. Rashida Tlaib (10 Jan, 8 Jan, 8 Jan), Ilhan Omar (10 Jan) as well as Palestinians (5 Jan), Lifta (4 Jan), Military occupation (2 Jan), Jaffa Road bus bombings (20 December), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Joseph (18 December), Herbert Lee (activist) (15 December), Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 December, Charlottesville car attack (11 December).

This was further discussed on 10 January (initiated by User:Icewhiz, responded by users above and User:Bbb23, expressing their disappointment on the one hand but on the other hand noting this is a community matter) with TheGracefulSlick on their talk page, to which they responded that they saw this as "settled in December and I am not interested in a continuation of it". They subsequently blanked the talk page section with the edit summary "Enough already please". They have subsequently continued editing political topics, e.g.: Israeli occupation of the West Bank (12 January).

TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim? Should a TBAN (AP2, ARBPIA, terrorism) be placed to enforce the commitment? Should the indef block be reinstated given the serious misrepresentation in the unblock request? -- Shrike (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]