Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts WP:AN WP:ANB 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

Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 124 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 121 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I closes

(Initiated 69 days ago on 15 February 2024) As the first round of Phase I reaches 30 days in action, I'll be listing discussions here as they reach time. Once the final discussion has been closed, this heading can be archived. Proposals ripe for closing:

• Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA, initiated at 02:19 (UTC) on 15 February 2024
• Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial), initiated at 03:00 (UTC) on 20 February 2024
• Proposal 4: Prohibit threaded discussion (trial), initiated at 11:33 (UTC) on 18 February 2024
• Proposal 12c: Lower the high end of the bureaucrats' discretionary zone from 75% to 70%, initiated on 1 March 2024
• Proposal 13: Admin elections, initiated at 05:53 (UTC) on 23 February 2024
• Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements, initiated on 23 February 2024
• Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions, initiated on 17:56 (UTC) on 27 February 2024
• Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process, initiated on 1 March 2024

Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed 3b and 7. I believe 13 and 14 are also overdue now too. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every proposal can now be closed. Soni (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I think now any and all can be closed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 was closed User:Wehwalt. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 54 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 47 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Paul_Atreides#RfC_on_the_infobox_image

(Initiated 45 days ago on 9 March 2024) Trying this one again. Latest comment: 3 days ago, 98 comments, 21 people in discussion. Admins are involved, vigorous WP:NFCC discussion. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this; I was about to do so myself. The consensus seems pretty clear, but given this is a copyright issue I think a formal close is beneficial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 33 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 29 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

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	36	36
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Category:Indoor ice hockey venues

(Initiated 53 days ago on 1 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 109 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:Charles_XI_of_Sweden#Requested_move_13_January_2024

(Initiated 102 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 100 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 90 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 84 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 84 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 78 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David_III_of_Tao#Requested_move_9_February_2024

(Initiated 75 days ago on 9 February 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 67 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:South_Western_Railway_(train_operating_company)#Requested_move_25_February_2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 25 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:World Rally Championship-2#Requested move 7 April 2024

(Initiated 16 days ago on 7 April 2024) - Requested move needs closure. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 7 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

Please, will one of you read over the ANI thread "Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting" and assess the situation? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on dudes and dudettes, close that thread. I'll send you Wikilove and whatnot. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The section that needs closure is at the top of ANI, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Two editors, an IBAN, and a possible case of hounding/baiting. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And pizza, don't forget the pizza, for the brave admin who wants to close that quagmire. Blackmane (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - like it or hate it it's the best I could come up with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a significant WP:OWN problem with QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edits by virtually anybody else (including long0time Wikipedians like Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and me) are reverted almost immediately, and there are talk page comments such as "Reliable sources must not be deleted again" (as if Wikipedia is mandated to include every reliable source, and no editorial discretion may be used). His discussions on the talk page are terse and aggressive. I am sympathetic to a properly skeptical view of the topic, but this is not the way to do it. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some stats for edits since Jan 23, when the current run of rapid-fire editing began:

Editor               Edits
Alexbrn  . . . . . . 21
AndyTheGrump . . . . 1
AnomieBOT  . . . . . 11
BullRangifer . . . . 3
Chris the speller  . 1
Citation bot . . . . 1
DJFryzy  . . . . . . 2
Drsjpdc  . . . . . . 2
John Snow II . . . . 1
JzG  . . . . . . . . 8
Monkbot	 . . . . . . 1
Ocaasi . . . . . . . 1
Puhlaa . . . . . . . 5
QuackGuru  . . . . . 169
RexxS  . . . . . . . 1
Solomonfromfinland . 2
Vzaak  . . . . . . . 1
Grand Total  . . . . 231

Total volume of all changes over that time is 91.2kB and 56.3kB of that is QuackGuru.

QG makes so many edits in such rapid succession that it is not possible to assess them p- and if you try, he just reverts you or asserts that his version is neutral. He's had two lengthy topic bans from this very article (6 months and a year). The issues described with QG's ownership, refusal to engage properly with others, and general MPOV problems, go back years with absolutely no sign of improvement - in fact quite the opposite. I suspect the first thing to be done is an indefinite topic ban from chiropractic broadly construed, also likely to be needed for acupuncture. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even without looking at the contents of individual edits, it's obvious that we have an edit war going on here: reverts by five different people in little more than 24 hours, and since it's three versus two, it's not really a situation for a block. For this reason, I've protected the article for 24 hours. The article previously had indefinite semiprotection because of vandalism, so that should be restored when the full protection is over; JzG, could you restore it when the full protection is over? This is definitely one of the "any reasonable admin" situations mentioned at WP:INVOLVED, since you'd just be restoring the undisputed status quo; anyone else should feel free to restore it, of course. I wish we could check a box to "restore previous protection when this one expires". Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not a problem. But it's actually two separate disputes. One editor is a chiro, here on the usual mission. We are perfectly used to that, Puhlaa has been active to the article since forever, trying to present the idealised form of chiro he believes in - all perfectly sincere and polite, easily managed. Now look at the number of reverts by QG, and the number of editors whose text he has reverted, which amounts to, basically, everyone other than QG and possibly the bots. I don't think protection is really needed, but it will stop the war while we sort things out, so no harm no foul :-) Guy (Help!) 23:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the source says: "So, do the risks outweigh the benefits? The best evidence suggests that SMT, whether it be for neck or low back pain, is a safe and effective therapy. At a population level, the benefits still outweigh the risks."[1]

This edit by Guy was a SYN violation. "Although" is SYN. These are different sources that are not connected. The part "published by practitioners" is not what the source says and this is a violation of WP:ASSERT. I think I am being unfairly targeted at ANI. Adding original research is not editorial discretion. Deleting reliable sources such as WHO is not appropriate according to a number of other editors. User:RexxS started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Is WHO guideline a MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's never alright to try to solve a dispute by an edit war, even when you're right, so kudos to Nyttend for the temporary full prot. There are several editors at the article who have long experience with dealing with topics that are on the borderline between Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Fringe. I understand that the principal dispute is not between skeptics and fringe-pushers, but (unusually) between editors on a different part of the spectrum of skepticism. Chiropractic is an awkward case because it is widely practised and generally seems to fit in with our definition of CAM and yet has an underpinning non-scientific theory that most of us would recognise as fringe. As I understand it, the locus of the dispute revolves around what parts of the article should be considered CAM and what parts fringe. I remain convinced the way to improve the article is for everybody involved to steadily work through each section of the article on the talk page and actively seek consensus on what are the best sources to use for each section. It may need third opinions and perhaps a skilled mediator, but agreeing the sources to use will make the text easy to write. The lead can be done afterwards. I don't believe that excluding good-faith editors normally leads to a better article, so I wouldn't agree to banning anybody from discussion other than as a last resort - and I don't think we've reached that point yet, no matter how much one party has annoyed the other. I've found Guy, Alex and QG to be good-faith editors, although they don't see eye-to-eye on everything. My advice is take things slowly - there's no deadline - and put the effort into finding what can be agreed and what needs third opinions. It's obvious that all parties can't have everything that they want, but equally it's not obvious that any party has to get all that they want. I recommend compromise. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In no particular order:

1. "Although" is not WP:SYN. It's grammar. I was balancing a report by chiros that says it's safe with a report from an independent source that shows they cannot possibly know that, because they have no systematic reporting of adverse events (and indeed their claim of safety is contradicted by other facts cited; they are in denial).
2. QG promotes instead a statement that "The evidence" says it's safe. "The evidence" does not. The evidence is equivocal, with chiros saying it's safe and independent investigators finding that, for example, people under 45 with strokes due to vertebral artery dissection are 3-5 times more likely to have been to a chiro in the last week.
3. Neither of those facts is relevant to the fact that QG exhibits absolutely classic WP:OWNership, and that this appears to be repeated wherever he decides to edit.
4. QG's good faith is not in dobt. His behaviour, however, is a problem. Look at the RfC. Look at the block log. Look at the past sanctions. Do not be seduced by the fallacy of false balance.
5. The fact that chiro overlaps slightly into reality-based medicine is also not relevant. It would not matter if it was abject quackery like homeopathy or a solid science-based therapy, anybody editing as QG edits, is a problem.
6. Yes, a few of us have a long history of holding back the tide of woo on Wikipedia. This isn't POV-pushing, it's m:MPOV.

So, in cases where the problem is with a several editors warring, we protect. In cases where one editor is waging a war against all comers, we sanction that editor.

QG seems to want to call a truce. I am prepared to support a 0RR restriction and a limit of ten edits per day, as an experiment. Otherwise IMO it's topic ban time, as the RfC comments propose. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I imposed protection (rather than issuing a block) because of the edit by AndyTheGrump, who reverted a reversion of QG's edit. Had he gone the other way (i.e. reverting QG), or had he not come in at all, I expect that I would have blocked QG, but given what happened, an unwarned/undiscussed block for QG would have been inappropriate (why block just one participant?), and it would have been even worse to block one or more of the other participants in addition to QG. No comment on whether this discussion should end with sanctions for anyone. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my motivation for the revert: having seen QuackGuru's post on WP:FTN, I took a look at the article (which I'd not otherwise been involved in, beyond attempting to read it some time ago, and finding it less than coherent as I recall), the talk page, and the editing history, and gathered that there were several interrelated issues involved - but my revert was based more than anything on DJFryzy's edit summary: "{{subst:uw-vandalism3}} Please refrain from blatant bias in this article and refer to the talk page." [2] This seemed to me at the time to be inflammatory, and unlikely to help with consensus building - it should be noted that DJFryzy's last post on the talk page at that point dated back to October last year. My own edit summary was intended to point DJFryzy back to the talk page: "Undid revision 595050094 by DJFryzy (talk) please read WP:VANDAL, and explain in detail on the talk page what you consider to be wrong with the article". [3] With hindsight, this may have been a mistake in that it looked like taking sides with QuackGuru in what is clearly a complex issue, though my revert did at least succeed in bringing DJFryzy back to the talk page discussion. Whether such discussion is going to actually resolve anything, and whether my revert helped or hindered, is of course open to debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you check further back in the edit history you will see I am not the only editor who had a concern about the older version. QuackGuru (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's you citing a revert to one of your versions as an endorsement of your editing behaviour, which it was not. You seem not to be able to admit that your rapid-fire editing, insistence that your POV is the only neutral POV, assertion that only your edits meet policy, reversion of everybody else and so on, are a problem. That's why we're here. You're the only one behaving that way, You're the only one changing a substantial proportion of the article in dozens of successive edits, too quickly for independent editors to review your work, and reflexively reverting any modification to your text. That's WP:OWN. I was rolling back over 30 edits by you in quick succession making substantial changes to a mature article whose neutrality was disputed only by advocates of the quack therapy in question.

That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work. For you, it's bold, revert anyone who changes or reverts your boldness, and discuss only in the minimum terms necessary to assert that only you are right. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have mixed feelings about QuackGuru (QG). On the one hand QG is generally civil and content focussed; but the manner of editing is such that it often seems to turn Wikipedia into an inefficient place for other editors. I find that if QG gets going on an article, I tend to back off because I know my time can be used more efficiently elsewhere.
• An example of this can be found in the GERAC articles, which were hotly disputed for a long time. The dispute centered on the amount of low-level medical detail the article should contain, with QG in the camp that opposed including that detail. This bubbled-over onto AN/I[4] and at FT/N[5] with QG eventually being persuaded by Guy Macon to start an RFC. This duly took place with consensus ending up on QG's side: less detail should be included. But now the bizarre twist. Since this section here on AN has been started, QG has approached two editors, Middle 8 and Mallexikon, in the opposing "camp" (who had jointly initiated a RFC/U on him) and offered it seems to reverse his position ("please revert ALL the edits I made" [6] / "Truce"[7]). This whole idea of a "truce" speaks of a battleground mentality. What is going on here? Are two editors being "allowed" their desired content in exchange for backing-off on an RFC/U? Were those thousands of bytes spent on the article Talk page, two noticeboards and an RfC just part of a game? This is not how WP should be edited, I think.
• Finally, it is annoying that despite being asked not to, QG uses the {{cite pmid}} template all the time on medical articles, which isn't in line the MOSMED and which makes the work of other editors harder. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru is an interesting, difficult editor who is highly detail-oriented (for better and for worse), sometimes productive, with intense tendentiousness and IDHT beyond belief (see current RfC). I don't mean to pile on, and I don't think he's a bad guy on the whole; he's just a net liability. I think his main challenge (WP:COMPETENCE) is social: he blanks everything on his talk page; he nitpicks every edit and there is just no talking to him, per Guy above; instead of productive discussion he generates endless iterations of IDHT and stilted, declarative sentences, and cascades of edits that get way ahead of consensus. His comments on my talk page asking me to revert all his edits were odd, and in a curious section (re the RfC), but I don't know if they reflect a battleground mentality or if he's just stressed and freaked. He seems to be contemplating a long wikibreak from some of the topic areas where he's had conflict. That's good, but if history is any indication, regardless of wikibreaks or temporary sanctions, he'll eventually be back with the exact same issues. There have been multiple RfC's, AN/I threads etc. over the years, and his conduct never changes. We should act. Suggest an indef topic ban (chiro and acu at least; likely all alt-med, maybe all science and health), including talk pages. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 13:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a textbook case of when someone needs to be topic banned. Let's get it done. Jtrainor (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just give an edit restriction of something like one edit per day to article space? Why topic ban? He does good work, by all acknowledgments. This can be seen by the fact that he riles the pseudoscientists the most. jps (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The corollary to that is, if someone who supports the reality-based view still manages to piss me off, then they are doing something very badly wrong. I am really quite outspoken when it comes to quacks and charlatans. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not extensively familiar with QuackGuru's editing, but looking over the discussion there appears to be agreement that: 1) QuackGuru is editing in good faith, and at least sometimes he is making productive edits; 2) QuackGuru is not engaging other editors productively. So the ideal solution is to curb #2 without hindering #1. Depending on the crux of the problem, that could include a 0RR restriction, a restriction on the number of edits per day, or discretionary sanctions. Would it be possible to try one of those prior to instituting a topic ban, with the understanding that further problems (especially gaming his restrictions) would result in stricter sanctions?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty familiar, and can tell you that we've tried a bunch of provisional stuff (cf. history here), and eventually QG always bounces back with the same problems. Gaming? He blanks all attempts at communication on his talk page and repeatedly (repeatedly!) IDHT's. But mostly I think it's a social competence thing. At some point we have to stop worrying about losing an editor's talents, especially when other editors can do the same work without the tendentiousness. IMHO we have reached that point when an editor is a net liability and has been so for years despite multiple attempts to help. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 09:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)That being said, QG has actually gradually changed for the better; he's had no blocks since '09 (block log), most of the RfC's/ANI threads/etc are pre-2010, with a pseudoscience topic ban in 2011 as part of Arbitration enforcement. Some finite sanction may be OK; I just can't figure out what to make of stuff like the "truce" thing above, and this. Sincere? Gamey? This is active: WP:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jess has hit the nail on the head. The knee-jerk reaction that Wikipedia tends to have ("ban, ban, ban!") needs to be applied only when users are adding no value at all. Since people agree that QG adds value, there needs to be another option. That the waters are being muddied by Middle 8 who, in spite of being paid to do acupuncture, changes the content of articles on acupuncture to promote the subject in blatant violation of WP:COI, does not help matters here. In response to Guy's concern, I admit that I have also been pissed off by users of Wikipedia who I think generally do good work and are generally in-line with what I think should be done on this website. I don't want to see any of them to be banned, however. The ones I want to see banned are those who add no value. jps (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, you rather like bans, just for editors you think are unhelpful. A lot of things have been tried with QG, bans and otherwise... and he has indeed gradually improved... and I don't know what does or doesn't work. Re me: Seriously? Wikipedia has never made one's profession (as opposed to one's employer) a basis for WP:COI; do we really want to? Seems like a mind-blowingly stupid thing for an encyclopedia to say that professionals shouldn't edit their own areas of expertise! I think you're unfairly singling out acupuncture as a venue for possible self-promotion (e.g., health-care turf wars), and I'm confident that you're mischaracterizing my edits, possibly because your biases are so intense that you can't even identify good sources for acupuncture (that per consensus at WT:MEDRS). (sigh) But that (COI) is for a different noticeboard - specifically: WP:COIN#Acupuncture. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why one's profession should be any less of a potential COI than one's employer -- it depends on the editor. Some can write about their work or their company in a straightforward and neutral manner, while others are so strongly connected to them that they cannot achieve objectivity. In the case of a quasi-medical procedure like acupuncture, which, by its very nature, cannot be studied using double-blind tests, and therefore is largely reliant on anecdotal evidence, and is highly subject to the placebo effect, there's always going to be a certain amount of clashing between those who truly believe in the technique, and those want to see some objective proof of its efficacy. That means that we need to be much more concerned about the self-interest of the people who edit the article. Given that, acupuncturists who edit it are bound to be held to the highest standard, which means a declaration of their potential COI and, if their editing isn't pristine, following full COI procedures. BMK (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not really apply to quackery: to be able to write neutrally about homeopathy, acupuncture or chiropractic would require that you accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that they are placebo interventions based on incorrect views of human physiology. It would be impossible to accept this and still practice, unless you were an out-and-out charlatan. Most are not: they are deluded, but sincerely so. Guy (Help!) 01:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, except that I was specifically referring to acupuncture, since that seemed to be what Middle 8 was referring to. I can't say that I'm up on the scientific literature on acupuncture, but it was my impression that the impossibility of double-blind tests meant that it wasn't considered to be the equivalent of homeopathy or chiropractic, and that there was still some doubt about the actual effects of the practice not due to the placebo effect. As I said, I'm well prepared to be told that I'm wrong, and that the latest scientific studies have shown it to be totally ineffective. (And, BTW, there's also an in-between place where a practice such as acupuncture might create certain effects, but for totally different reasons then given by acupuncturists. Again, I'm not saying that's the case, but it stands to reason that putting needles into the human body would provoke some kind of physical response which doesn't have anything to do with the flow of qi through the body.) BMK (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at research into sham acupuncture. It shows somewhat conclusively that acupuncture's positive benefits cannot be distinguished from the placebo effect. jps (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's a little bit of a biased view... I would recommend to just read the efficacy section of the acupuncture article; there's actually quite a few reviews documenting that acupuncture works better than placebo for certain pain conditions (the argument is basically over whether the effect is clinically meaningful). Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite block based on current record of disruption and past block log.[8] Screw the topic ban. I don't give a flying fuck about acupuncture or any other topic du jour QuackGuru is obsessed with today, I'm just sick of seeing him edit war and revert on every single article without discussing calmly with other editors on the talk page. He just isn't suited for Wikipedia, end of story. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't generally agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so I would disagree that QG should be indef blocked.BMK (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit restriction rather than ban

I think this option should be discussed at the very least. The "all or nothing" approach to complete banning or being given complete free reign at this website needs to be re-evaluated in situations like this. One possibility is to request that QG should only edit articles once per day. This would address some of JzG's overwhelmed by edits concerns. jps (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given this article is covered by discretionary sanctions, AE might also be a good place to go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From [9] “Employees, contractors, owners, and anyone who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wiki-PR.com has, as an organization, proven themselves repeatedly unable or unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards. This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that Wiki-PR.com as an organization is willing to (a) divulge a complete list of all past sock and meatpuppet accounts that they have used, (b) divulge a complete list of all articles they have edited that they have received any financial benefit from whatsoever, and (c) pledge to, in the future, only edit under transparent, disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked if any uninvolved administrator honestly believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wiki-PR.”

According to the Signpost In Briefs section Wiki-PR has changed its name to Status Labs [10]. Checking the new site it's clear that it's the same company, using the same software, same style, some of the same boilerplate text. You can still check the old site for comparison [11]. I'd just like to make sure that the ban applies to "Status Labs" as well so I've added Status Labs to the Wiki-PR entry at WP:List of banned users

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any question that the ban extends to new names and urls, etc. Did we ever end up using filters or such to help keep an eye out for this group? If so, those may need updating as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the ban extends to any subsequent incarnation of the group, the founder, or any traceable derivative. For clarity, because they can be expected to seize upon whatever arguments against us they can imagine, it might be well to re-enact the ban saying so in no uncertain terms. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate some of the wording: ...derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wiki-PR.com or its founders are banned.... This makes it clear that the ban is meant for the organisation and its people, regardless of the name they use. Should someone actively seek an expansion of the ban so that it "officially" covers the organisation regardless of its name, I'll support (there's no way that it would hurt to expand it), but I don't think an expansion necessary. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sean.hoyland appears to be wikihounding and violating WP:Civility. He has made matters worse by impeding honest efforts at dispute resolution. He appears unable to control his battleground behavior. His comments are in clear violation of civility, namely, by "making snide comments, making personal remarks about editors, and being aggressive." He recently put me in the same category as "advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, and others who "deny the existence of evidence." (See WP:NPA: "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. [See also Godwin's law.]") I have done nothing to deserve such attacks.

• As can be seen, I have voiced concerns politely and made an honest effort to engage in discussion in Talk:Israel#Palestinian state, but he has responded aggressively to dispute resolution of a reasonable disagreement. It is an honest discussion that does not show any signs of WP:NOTADVOCATE, for which he cites as his reason for rejected any form of DR.[redacted]
• He said I and another editor lack "basic behavioral attributes," but never explained what he means, for his reason not to resolve the dispute.[12][redacted]
• In a search for guidance, I looked for editors who are willing to volunteer to help resolve disputes. I found an admin and made a polite request for advice for this situation. User:Sean.hoyland, apparently by wikihounding, made an aggressive, uncivil, and rude comment on the editor's page after my request:

  I am not refusing to "cooperate in any form of dispute resolution". I am refusing to cooperate with you. ... I also don't cooperate with advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, a variety of editors who deny the existence of evidence, because it is a waste of time.

I have acted professionally and collegially and have done nothing to deserve these abrasive comments. I have sought to resolve our disagreement, but this user is making that difficult if not impossible. He cannot control his battleground behavior, and while I have remained civil he is not making an effort to engage in dispute resolution, leaving many cases at a standstill. I kindly bring this to your attention. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I took the time to read first 20 edits of this discussion: Talk:Israel#Palestinian state. Precision123 is performing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in re-opening the unfamous case that West Bank and Gaza Strip would not be Palestinian (occupied) territories but disputed territories per WP:NPov. I can understand that the way he insists despite the responses that he receives could upset and make many lose their temper. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  (edit) And I lost my time. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no civil POV pushing at all. There are no fringe theories that I push or give any weight to. I fully support describing the Palestinian territories as the Palestinian territories. My position is against the POV pushing of "State of Palestine" on the borders. I fully support that the Palestinian territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the reliable sources do not refer to those territories as the state of Palestine. (Same with most WP articles). Please do not make those accusations. --Precision123 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why Pluto2012 is bringing up an unrelated edit that is a year old, to which I have made no further edits since. Pluto2012's edit was just quickly removed by another editor there just now, so I am not sure what his grievance is. I have made many improvements to articles of political parties (e.g., Hatnuah, Meretz, Likud, Green Movement, Ale Yarok, Yesh Atid, Shas, etc.) virtually all of them uncontroversial and accepted by editors still today. You may see. No accusations of POV pushing before. This is not related, so please stay on topic. --Precision123 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012:, you want to see civil POV pushing by Precision123 just look here: Talk:Haaretz.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is another case where Precision123 tries to make a case out of nothing against Sean.hoyland. Start being a useful contributor and you will surely get better replies and cooperation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow the admins to respond and read for themselves. This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. The diffs speak for themselves. A lack of civility and effort to cooperate is apparent. I have always been a useful and professional contributor and have been civil, so please leave your personal attacks to yourself. --Precision123 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precision123 says This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. WP:WIAPA says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. What's wrong with this picture?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used several diffs pointing to specific incidents, unlike the other editors' comments, including yours. Please avoid accusations and let the admins see for themselves. I have acted professionally and have done nothing to deserve rude remarks or aggressive comparisons to Holocaust deniers when I politely request dispute resolution. --Precision123 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Precision123 needs to be more concise—the opening paragraph is filled with irrelevant links (people here know what "intelligent design" is, and come to think of it, they know what CIVIL is as well). I looked at the first link that appeared to be about the issue, and found a perfectly civil and helpful comment from Sean Hoyland, currently visible here. The comment may be regarded as a little blunt, but all editors who have met WP:CPUSH contributors know that mediation is a waste of time in certain cases. My recommendation would be for Precision123 to examine the message in the comment and evaluate whether any of it may have merit. Wikipedia is not available for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I was trying to be as inclusive as I could, but I will take your advice. My concern is over an editor who essentially acts a stumbling block to dispute resolution as could be seen there. I have not done anything to be put in categories with people like Holocaust denier, intelligent design advocates, etc., with whom mediation might actually be worthless. Rather, I want to pursue dispute resolution, and this editor just responds abrasively and rudely to me. --Precision123 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precision123, can you please stop editing your remarks after people have responded to them? It's extremely confusing for everyone who's trying to follow the conversation, if anyone still is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it was confusing for you. I put a note that says [redact] because I took the advice to make it more concise. I do not want my statement to be misconstrued. Never would I do anything like POV push (civil or otherwise), and there is no evidence that I have. Dispute resolution is between editors who do not agree, not between those who do. All I ask for is an honest discussion, and an editor should respond in a manner that is civil. Responding so aggressively to a polite request for DR is disruptive and unfair. --Precision123 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not trying it get involved in admin matters or even know if I'm aloud to post here. If I'm not my apologies. Sean Hoyland isn't patting anyone on the butt and tucking them in good night but he's hardly breached civility. I'm involved with this dispute or or least the one involving regarding Israel. Sean maybe a stumbling block for dispute resolution. But all avenues of dispute resolution used have been optional. I hate to assume bad faith but that is all can assume here. I have to ask you Precision if this is an effort to get Sean out of the way temporarily so that you can have a better chance at forcing a consensus. Again my apologies administrators if I shouldn't have posted here. As party involved in the dispute that lead to this I thought would be appropriate. Echo me if I'm required here for anything.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not at all, Serialjoepsycho. I would love to cooperate with him or any other editor in dispute resolution. I have never requested that he be blocked. As you can see I am understandably offended by such abrasive comments; I did nothing to deserve them and it is disrupting an honest effort at dispute resolution. But I did not want him to be blocked or banned. We have a reasonable disagreement that is best guided by an admin or mediator. I think that would be great for all of us if he were to engage, and did not impede, dispute resolution. I am sorry if that was not clear before. --Precision123 (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the talk page, Precision123's behavior here and elsewhere, I have imposed an ARBPIA Discretionary Sanctions 1-week article ban on Precision123 editing Israel and its talk page. He is acting politely and within administrative channels, but in a persistently disruptive manner in which he is acting as if the others around him cannot have a valid differing viewpoint. This is not collegial; we do not require everyone sing Kumbaya and agree on the real world positions, but we do require that you respect that others can have differing opinions and that those are valid and need to be respected. Merely holding a differing opinion is not grounds for administrative challenges or disruptive behavior, even if those are done very politely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not previously familiar with WP:ARBPIA, or if I were in the past, I've forgotten it. Are you doing this under the "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, the remedy 6)? Not challenging, just seeking to be clear, especially since Arbcom's repealed some findings and provisions as well as enacting others that weren't originally included. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, standard discretionary sanctions are now enabled on all PIA articles. They enable any uninvolved administrator to warn any editor who they believe is editing in a disruptive manner in the field, which was done twice earlier this year for Precision123. Once warned, any uninvolved administrator can article or topic ban, etc. etc. Arbitration enforcement DS admin actions are not subject to one-admin overturn, but can be appealed or reviewed and overturned subject to a reasonable consensus on any appropriate noticeboard (which I think is AN, ANI, or AE). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Boomerang. I think from looking at those differences that Sean hoyland is the cool-headed person, besides being overall a constructive editor. Precision123 on the other hand appears to be a POV pusher and his overal behavior in my opinion warrants a topic ban of some sort. Pass a Method talk 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As per the current procedures for admins, any unblock requests for users blocked per Wikipedia:Username policy must be followed up by a username change request by the blocked editor themselves. But shouldn't the unblock request with the suggested alternate username be itself considered to be a Username change request? For example, User_talk:8022284499VT and User_talk:Imsindia1 are two users who have been unblocked so they can have a username change. But neither submitted any such request. It has been over 3 months since the former was unblocked (and even started editing after being unblocked), and over two months since the latter was.

I think that this case might be more common than it appears, and a possible solution would be to remove the bureaucracy and do away with the explicit username change request by the unblocked user. There could be a number of ways this could be implemented, but overall, it will end up making things simpler for the new users.

Any thoughts?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've multiple times submitted username change requests on behalf of other users. Of course we can't go around submitting changes in normal circumstances (imagine I hate Camelcase. Please change this username to "Theoriginalsoni"), but when you have a new user with a problematic username, there's really nothing wrong with submitting on the other's behalf. A simple link to the unblock request should suffice at WP:CHUS; in the reason parameter, we can put in something like "Submitting on TheOriginalSoni's behalf. He got blocked for a CamelCase violation, but he submitted a request for unblock with username change to Theoriginalsoni". Unless I've figured out the other user's password or convinced the developers to play around with the contents of the database, we can't deny that the other user is asking for the change, so the diff should be sufficient evidence. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• They should be re-blocked. I typically watchlist those who I unblock for username changes. I sometimes forget to return. We don't submit for them, and it's difficult to do so. Those who return to editing using their previous name will have trouble requesting a future unblock because they already violated their promises once DP 14:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Imagine that you're one of these users. You start editing, only to learn that you've been banned because you picked a name that's not in line with some crazy rule; they tell you to pick a different name, and if it's all right, you'll be unbanned. You follow the directions and pick a different name, and you find the situation stressful enough or annoying enough that you just go away for a few days. You come back, and you get a message saying that you can edit because your choice got accepted. Hooray! This done, you go off and start editing. Now Isn't this a plausible scenario? It's easy to misunderstand what's going on, make a good-faith request, have it accepted, and wrongly assume that you did everything needed. When we're talking about new editors, we really ought to assume cluelessness in lieu of assuming broken promises, making it easier for them to comply rather than showing them the door. After all, this scenario of unblocking for username change is only done when the username is the only objection, or when the user's other objectionable actions aren't enough to warrant a block (a vandal with bad username won't be permitted to request a change), so I don't see why we should reblock or otherwise sanction them just because they didn't request the same change at two different pages. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Nyttend. If the unblock request specifies a prefered new name, and that name is acceptable under the user name policy, and is not in use, then the unblocking admin ought to file the username change request on behalf of the blocked editor. if this is difficult, then the process should be changed to make it easier. Why make new editors jump through hoops needlessly and increase the chance of problems. DES ^(talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting a username change may seem a little intimidating, but there's actually a handy link on Wikipedia:Changing username that will take care of most of the work: Click here to place your request. Admins who do a lot of unblock-on-condition-of-rename work can click that link, enter the current and desired usernames, and save the page, and a bureaucrat will be along to take care of it. (The bot will complain that the person who submitted the request isn't the person who will be renamed, but that's nothing to worry about.) Admins aren't under any obligation to do this for the user, of course, but if any want to, just bookmark that link for future reference. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder... should someone tweak it so that any unblock pending a name change would re-block the existing account if it edits in mainspace, or after seven days, or something like that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with Nyttend and DESiegel. It's too easy for new editors to fall through the gaps; let's make it easier for them. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to unblock editors to request a namechange? That procedure seems unnecessary - the 'unblock for namechange' should (as it already has) a suggested new name, and that type of requests could then be handled by bureaucrats (instead of admins) who, solely based on the unblock-request, rename the account ánd unblock at the same time (or would the latter be out of the scope of what we expect bureaucrats to do?). In that way you don't end up with unblocked promotional usernames which do not request rename, editors with violating usernames who can edit using that account, or have to revisit cases where editors need to be reblocked because they did not carry out their suggested username change. I do however realise that this is more work for the bureaucrats - they would have to monitor a category for that (or a bot needs to transclude a username change request on behalf of such unblock requests). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(noting that declining the request can be done by others. Also, one could design a 'admin recommendation' into the system, like the 'unblock on hold' system). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One possible solution is that if a User xyz was being unblocked by an admin for a username change, the admin could replace the {{unblock}} by something like {{unblock namechange}} instead of {{unblock reviewed}}. The new template could look something like "Your unblock request has been accepted and is waiting for a Bureaucrat to change your username", and we could have crats monitor the template the same way admins monitor unblock templates. The crats will have some additional load too, but this would probably make matters simpler. Thoughts? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a good idea - doesn't add much more work for the 'crats (they simply need to monitor a single category, chekc the history to make sure that the template was added by an admin, rename the account, and unblock it). Most of our 'crats are admins, and the rest aren't because they've given it up. If someone thinks tghat monitoring that category is too much, we could even have a bot do that, filing the requests ta CHU. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recomended to Semi protection of Pakistan Idol (season 1). Some IPs trying to disruption editing on it. Please Protect it. Thanks - Cod Swick! (Reply here) 09:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of IP vandalism since February 6, so no protection is needed now. And for future reference, pleasse take requests like these to WP:Requests for Page Protection (RFPP). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

User:Kendite/User:يوسف حسين has been a disruptive presence on the Yemen-related pages for some time. Over the past week alone, issues involving him have included (but are not limited to) general rudeness, calling another editor out of name, page owning, using gratuitous racial language, abusing multiple accounts, revert warring with multiple editors including an administrator, avoiding talk page discussion, ignoring standard talk page etiquette, ignoring administrator instructions to seek consensus, and deleting another editor's talk page comments. He has in the process showed little to no understanding of the gravity of his actions let alone contrition, despite having been blocked twice over the passed few days, with his Kendite account indefinitely banned.

He originally used to post using the Kendite account, but later abandoned that for the يوسف حسين account. The user first started using the يوسف حسين account in April 2013, in the midst of a heated exchange with another user on the Sheba talk page [13]. He changed the signature two minutes later to point to Kendite [14]. The other editor in the dispute then sock-tagged يوسف حسين's userpage [15]. Kendite promptly removed this tag [16], claiming that يوسف حسين was “just the account i use on another wiki project” and that he “edited one page using this account without realizing it”. This was of course an absurd excuse since an account first needs to be registered on English Wikipedia before one can use it here. Instead of publicly disclosing on his user page that that was an alternate account, the user continued to edit-war with various users to conceal this fact. This was despite the fact that both accounts were used almost exclusively to edit (and in an often disruptive manner) the same set of Yemen-related pages. The Kendite account was eventually indefinitely blocked about a week ago after a sock case confirmed the relationship. However, an administrator generously gave the user a second chance by allowing the يوسف حسين account to remain unblocked, and warned him not to repeat this behavior [17].

Despite this, Kendite/يوسف حسين continued to edit disruptively, revert-warring on the Yemen page over slavery-related material with a number of different editors, including User:Inayity, User:AcidSnow, and administrator User:Materialscientist. The user in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he simultaneously revert-warred on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue ([18], [19], [20]). More disturbingly, a number of editors including myself also noticed certain racial overtones in the user's remarks. The most glaring example of this was Kendite/يوسف حسين 's gratuitous use of the antiquated epithet "Negroes", although the source itself did not use this language [21]. He was eventually blocked a second time within a week for disruptive editing [22]. However, here again the blocking administrator was generous and gave the user another chance by not indefinitely blocking his account. Instead of showing contrition and pledging to improve his behavior, the editor in his unblock request proceeded to attack other users and refused to acknowledge that he had even violated 3RR. His unblock request was predictably declined by another admin [23].

After coming off his second block in a week, Kendite/يوسف حسين promptly attempted to revert the same material on the Yemen page that he had been edit-warring over to begin with. He only stopped reverting when I reminded him of the blocking administrator's condition to “consider agreeing to wait for consensus” [24]. Instead of sincerely attempting to reach a consensus, the user proceeded to ignore standard talk page etiquette, accuse me of attempting to "show off" when reminding him to adhere to it, take my words out of context, repeatedly call me out of name, make snide remarks about what he presumed were the ethnic backgrounds of the other editors (which none of us had actually divulged), and aggressively answered comments I never even made [25].

Besides the foregoing, the user also has major WP:OWNership issues. He at one point threatened the user AcidSnow outright to "just stay away from any Yemen related article" [26]. One of Kendite's last actions in this vein was to delete the talk page comments yesterday of the user Inayity. When Inayity protested [27], Kendite claimed that it was another accident. The user then gave Inayity permission to post his own comment again, but told him to “refrain” from doing so “if it's not related to the discussion” [28]. To add insult to injury, the user signed this dictum with a smiley face. Ironically, this very thread likewise owes its existence to one of Kendite's myriad orders/taunts (“file a complaint! you keep circling around this in a pathetic way you know that?” [29]).

Given the foregoing, it's clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين has expended every last ounce of good faith that has been conferred upon him. He was repeatedly given second chances by administrators, whose collective trust he squandered by not only re-engaging in the same disruptive behaviors as before, but actually intensifying and multiplying them. I therefore propose either a permanent Wikipedia editing ban on this user, or at the very least a lighter permanent topic ban on editing the website's Yemen, Arab world and Horn of Africa-related topics. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would add I seriously believe my remarks, which were to the affect be concise on the TK page, spare us the extensive bulk of text. From the edit history it was NOT an edit conflict, but a deletion. I suspect the user, since believing he WP:OWN the page is in control of what I can post. As he has asserted I have no role on the page only to "Help a friend" my comments are worthless. I may have replied with some minor incivilities, because it is shocking to be told to keep the talk page relevant by a prolix TK violator *the cheek*. --Inayity (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the excuse that he/she “edited one page using this account without realizing it” is not as absurd as Middayexpress thinks. The يوسف حسين account was used on Commons and Wikidata in 2013. When he/she registered the Commons account it would have automatically created accounts in all languages' Wikipedias. If you have a Commons account under a different name than your Wikipedia account, then you also have a Commons account under your Wikipedia name, and a Wikipedia account under your Commons name. It is possible to accidentally edit Wikipedia under your Commons name if you click "keep me logged in" (and vice versa).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. However, he was apparently not talking about his account on Commons but rather one on the very different looking Arabic Wiki [30]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inayity must have utter balls to appear on this board after the shenanigans he was involved in. His comments were rightfully perceived as worthless. 173.245.221.11 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not engaged in any disruptive editing, see the Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and Talk:Yemen#Najahid. User Middayexpress ( i had to write that right because apparently he takes it seriously) reported me several times on different occasions. He accused me of having multiple accounts and sock puppets but this user check proved him wrong. I was blocked again not for having multiple accounts but for edit waring because i believed that this edits were unjustly reverted. So i was blocked for 48 hours and i was told to engage in a discussion before reverting even if i did not break the 3 reverts rule, so i did. I did not revert their edits until i could receive census in Talk:Yemen#Other Sources Regarding Sheba and the usages of words like "black" and "Ethiopian Slaves" in the article because apparently user Middayxpress perceive them to be offensive or " too general", therefore specifications must be made.

Regarding my other account, User middayexpress said that an admin gave me a second chance! You should not have resulted to this because anyone can check the page history. The admin indeed thought that i had a sockpuppet account but the user check proved that it was not. any admin can check that i have the same email for both accounts, this one and the "kendite" account. i explained myself to many editors that i have simply changed my name in Arabic language wikipedia from "kendite" to "Yousef Hussain" and did not create another account. I did upload a lot of pictures to commons indeed and maybe i forgot to log out i really do not know what happened. But one thing i am positive about is that i did not claim to be a different person or engaged in disruptive editing using multiple account. User Middayexpress keeps bringing this issue up even though the case is closed and i have read somewhere in here that this is against Wikipedia policies.

As for my edit warring in Yemen, the reason i got so convinced that arguing with user Middayexpress and his group is pointless, was because i got engaged on multiple discussions where the users disregard every modern scholarly work and reference to prove their own personal views. So i decided not to argue with what i perceived them to be "Afrocentrists" or "Pan Africanists". I still believe them to be but i realize now that by refraining from engaging in a debate i was only hurting my position. I got blocked for being unwilling to talk to any one of them any more without explaining my reasons to any admin. The block was lifted but as you can see user middayexpress and his friends keep bringing that up every time, here or in Talk:Yemen and i do not think that constitute a good faith. User Midday express accused me of every obscenity one can make while editing in Wikipedia. His friends called me a "liar" and "stupid" and above that they kept threatening me that they will report me, as if they own the project and have some sort of superior power on me. [31][32]

I never threatened User Middayexpress or claimed that i own the article. Read Talk:Yemen#Najahid to see what i am dealing with. This user disregard every source i provide to prove a preconceived notion. In all of his contributions, he never made a solid argument but kept referring me to Wikipedia policy pages and reminding that i got blocked for edit warring. He accused me of incivility and calling him out of name. I did not pay much attention to his user name and sincerely thought of it as Midwayexpress , i did not see the big deal but apparently it is. Nevertheless, they kept referring to me using my previous user name to indicate that i was accused of having a scokpuppet account. His attitude in general was not that of someone who wants to reach census on an issue but to discredit me and disregard my efforts to show my side of the story. Because i did try to reach a common ground with him but instead of agreeing he jumps on talking about a completely different topic. like he did here. I agreed about his usage of an awkward term like "Jazali slave" instead of "Ethiopian slave" although these "Jazalis" are basically an Abyssinian tribe which makes them Ethiopians in the end of the day. But i agreed to his condition and asked him to keep the historical narrative. He refused and started talking about another group in Yemen called Mehri people, to prove that the "original Yemeni" ( a term that i first saw here) public are black.

User middayexpress accused me of taking his words out of context. well, he quoted this text :

the culture and pigmentation of the people of the Tihama is testimony to the closeness of Ethiopia and Yemen both geographically and historically

and said that this a prove that "dark complexion" of Tihama is a native feature of Yemen. The reason he is so preoccupied to prove that the "original Yemenis" whatever that means are black, is to say that usage of words like "black slaves" or "Ethiopian slaves" (mentioned in the references) is not logical in the Yemen article since the population is black! that's his main goal behind all of this effort. I refused this interpretation and quoted the sentence just before the text he quoted :

Ethiopia is Yemen's nearest sizable non Arab neighbor and one that had an important impact on Yemen over the ages

and told him that the author he quoted is actually agreeing with what i have been saying that slavery and emigration (back and forth) between the people of the two opposite coasts, contributed significantly to the ethnic admixture of the Tihama region (western coastal strip), as i proved with many sources i provided. He insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis.

Bottom line is, proving that Yemenis are black is a big deal for him, and i as someone of a Yemenite background absolutely refuse to alolow such notion to be emphasized in the article. That does not mean i am a racist, Yemen is almost a failed state so there isn't much to feel cocky about but i do not want Yemenis to be described as something they are not. He stubbornly refuse to understand that the Najahid Dynasty did not rule the entire coastal strip of Tihama. Tihama is a geographical term as i tried to explain, it is not a name of a country or a specific land. It stretches from Aden in South Arabia to Aqaba in the far North. I told him that the Najahid were princes of Zabid and its surroundings. No sign of understanding was ever presented and he believes that this black slave dynasty ruled the entire coastal strip of Arabia just because he so badly wants to believe so.

regarding my smiling at his friend, i told him that i have received a message about an edit conflict. I was debating with user Middayexpress and asked his friend to please leave the discussion relevant. He started talking about how stupid that comment of mine was and i was just recently blocked. He came to support his friend and i told him it's fine (meaning that it does not bother me not that i own the talk page) just keep it about the topic not me personally, because he started the discussion by saying :"I see you are using the talk page now!". I do not think there is any problem with me believing them to be Somalis. That's not a snide comment i totally believe that they are and there is nothing uncivil in pointing that out.

As you can see user middayexpress keep circling around cases that had happened in the past, about the usage of the word "negro" or me telling him or his friend to "stay away from any Yemen related article" . I stopped using the word "Negro" because i was told the word is not proper in modern English, and i stopped and i only used it once or twice in my talk page. i never claimed owning ship to anything but i was disgruntled by his group effort to emphasize a sort of ethnic link and connection between Yemenis and people from the Horn of Africa. and as evident, that is their primary concern in editing the Yemen article and its related pages. He removed a sentence and a picture [33] about Sheba from the introduction and ancient history section of the Yemen article because according to him, "it's not widely viewed as such" even though the link he himself uses in the article identify Saba as biblical Sheba.And he then removed the picture because the source in common says :"own work"!! i am not proposing anything other than sticking to the sources not your personal interpretations. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being told about how a page is supposed to be used he comes here and writes a book. This is not the place for discussing the specifics of an article, And I wonder who this ip is ip out of the blue. The above text and the general attitude of this users is characteristic of an unreformed person who needs editor a block or a mentor. Now he says he did not know the word "Negro" was offensive. I cannot WP:AGF with this editor.--Inayity (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't advice your friends about "how a page is supposed to be used"? and yes it's really not offensive since i was discussing Ethnic features with your friend. He used the term "negroid" himself. --يوسف حسين (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop making things up. The only time I mentioned "Negroes" or variations thereof is when quoting your own apparent Freudian Slip [34]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not deny using the word negro in my talk page, so you posting a link to my talk page is pointless because i never denied using the word. But you used terms like "Negroid" or "Negrito" or whatever in a previous discussion. I am pretty sure of it but i am not apologizing for this because first, i used it in my talk page to describe an ethnic group. I did not know that "it fell out of favor after the civil rights movements" because i thought the other famous variation of the word is the one that i should avoid using. Anyway i used it once or twice in my talk page and by the way, the word Negro is equivalent to the word Zanj and neither are considered offensive. You will never get them to ban me on racial grounds, stick to "disruptive editing and second block in a weak" --يوسف حسين (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not posting your use of the word "Negro" just to show that you stated it. That's indeed already been established. I'm highlighting the fact that that's not my word use. "Negro" is indeed equivalent to "Zanj", but it's considered antiquated. Thanks for the tip, all the same. Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, glad i could clear that up :)--يوسف حسين (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kendite/يوسف حسين apparently missed the instruction at the top of this page stipulating that this noticeboard is not intended for continuing disputes. This is for actual editor behavior, which Kendite/يوسف حسين has indeed had continuous problems with. The rant above is an excellent, typical example. Those are not at all the facts of the situation, nor what I stated or how the discussion actually transpired. For starters, Kendite/يوسف حسين's claim that I supposedly "insisted that these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" is a fabrication. What I did actually do was quote a passage from a book stating "it has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea" [35]. So that assertion was neither coming from me personally, nor did the source itself even mention any "black" Yemenis or whatever. But since Kendite/يوسف apparently believes that anybody dark=black, he came to the personal conclusion that this is what I had asserted. Another example of the user's problems with the truth is his claim above that I supposedly "removed a sentence and a picture about Sheba". To "prove" this, he then proceeds to link to an edit by User:AcidSnow (!). Furthermore, although the user claims otherwise, he has indeed made many snide remarks about what he presumptuously believes is my ethnic background as well as those of the other disputants (please see AcidSnow's summary of those here). He has likewise repeatedly called me out of name in both talk page comments and at least one edit summary (e.g. [36]), which I have had to textually correct a number of times where possible. But of course, like his gratuitous use of the epithet "Negroes", he probably chalks this up as yet another "accident". From his rant above, it's also clear that Kendite/يوسف حسين still refuses to assume responsibility for why he was blocked (twice), even though an admin had to literally spell it out for him ("you were edit warring, plain and simple" [37]).

Bottom line, Kendite/يوسف حسين has long had major behavioral issues. They almost all in some way or another involve association of Yemenis with individuals and populations he perceives as being too "dark" (not "light" peoples, mind you; he doesn't seem to have any problem with that association). Although he tries in his rant above to re-frame the Yemen/Najahid dispute as one between him and "Afrocentrists" (I actually oppose Afrocentrism), the reality is, accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi. He employed the same tactic in an earlier, equally heated exchange with another user on the Sheba page. Predictably, that discussion also in part involved pigmentation; Kendite/يوسف حسين strenuously opposed an historical manuscript depiction of a dark Queen of Sheba for what his opponent described as "apparently biased reasoning" [38]. He actually revert-warred on two separate occasions to remove that image, and was reported for it too [39]. Similarly, he just attempted another non-consensus revert on the Najahid dynasty page despite admin sanctions [40]. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can read the pointless discussion at Talk:Yemen#Najahid and Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture Middayexpress , if you know the page policy better than i do why did you start talking about the "dispute" now? you could've just let me rant for ever. i'll be back shortly to respond.--يوسف حسين (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since user Middayexpress couldn't just let me expose myself with my rants, i think i am obliged to respond. He claims that i have fabricated facts about his work. I am quoting him right now :

You also automatically presume that the Tihama's dark complexion (which is hardly exclusive to them amongst Yemenis) is a legacy of recent admixture ( i actually never claimed that) , when there are in fact several alternative explanations. The main one is that the Tihama were the earliest inhabitants of the region i.e. the first/original Yemenis : "It has therefore been assumed that the dark-skinned people of the Saranik [sic] tribes, the largest tribal federation of the Tihamah, were the earliest inhabitants of the region, but in fact it is not clear whether they first lived on the Arabian or African side of the Red Sea

So where did i exactly fabricated your words Middayexpress ? Aren't you trying too hard to prove that the "original/first Yemenis" are black or "dark skinned"? Your source does not describe them as the "first/original Yemenis", he stated that it has been assumed that this confederation which is the largest in the southern Tihama, was the earliest inhabitant of the region, but he does not know whether they were of Arab of African decent and may i add that your quote was a snippet review? i am pretty sure there is more to that quote of yours. Meanwhile, i provided many texts, WP:RS that can be used in the demographics section. You disregarded and said and i am quoting you :

the author is mistaken because dark skin has been a native feature of many populations in Yemen

and you attempted to back your own personal claim with a picture of Mehri people. I think that is your personal opinion that you are working too hard to prove. You can say the author is mistaken and bring a reliable source to debunk his conclusion, Because nobody wants to read your own. I think Wikipedia has a clear policy regarding original research. The fact that i got blocked after your bogus accusation that i had multiple accounts does not count because i do not have multiple accounts and user check proved so. I do not have to explain myself over and over again, the fact that you keep bringing that up proves who is suffering from behavioral issues. My edits are not disruptive and they never were, and i think i explained my point of view regarding the Najahid ruling of Tihama before. As for the discussion with user "Till Eulenspiegel" that absolutely has nothing to do with you, he was disregarding modern scholarly works and archaeological evidence and say stuff like :"these Europeans with their arm chairs what do they know about Ethiopia"? or "you have agenda against Ethiopia". How am i suppose to discuss anything with such users? anyhow, stick to your encounters with me because the discussion i had with user "till Eulen.." in Talk:Queen of Sheba was normal. Even assuming that i had a " biased reasoning", that is not enough to ban me from editing and i haven't completed my discussion with that person. Do not take it personally man --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is another prime example of Kendite/ يوسف حسين's low regard for website policy, including this noticeboard's instruction to not drag disputes here. He asks where exactly he fabricated my words, something I literally just pointed out. I never stated that "these black Yemenis are the "original/first" Yemenis" like he claimed in his first post above. In fact, not once in my entire discussion with this user have I mentioned any "black Yemenis". Only he has and repeatedly, as a look at the Yemen talk page readily shows. As I wrote, the user does not make a distinction between "dark" and "black", and instead readily conflates the two even if his interlocutor does not. He also does not appear to understand how the "earliest inhabitants of the region" is essentially the same thing as "the first/original Yemenis". Regarding Kendite/يوسف حسين's first block, it was over one User:YemenWarriorBoy. While Kendite may not have been guilty of malfeasance here, that whole episode and especially YemenWarriorBoy's aggressive, precocious remarks definitely does not inspire confidence. His second block was over "edit warring, plain and simple", as an admin put it [41]. Further, while Kendite above disassociates his previous encounter with Til Eulenspiegel from the Yemen/Najahid affair, it's definitely related since it too involved the intersection of Ethiopia, Yemen, rulers and complexion. That discussion was more "normal", though, in the sense that Kendite back then actually used to write much shorter, more concise, and often even polite posts, including during my own initial encounter with him on a related issue [42]. Unfortunately, something changed along the way, and he inexplicably became really agressive under his new يوسف حسين account, now writing long-winded, semi-coherent rants. I nor any of the other interlocutors actually had anything personal against this user. However, from his numerous antics and snide remarks, it's apparently not reciprocal. That said, if Kendite agrees to from now on communicate with myself, Inayity and AcidSnow like he used to under his previous account -- i.e. using short, concise posts, no personal jabs, actually listening to others and working with them -- I am willing to close this thread. Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is sad. I am not repeating myself and i would advise you not to keep posting the same diffs over and over again. This is all you got? I used to be "polite"? i have the courage to apologize and retreat when i realize i am wrong about something. I was not rude to anyone and you can't prove that i was. My discussion with another user about a completely different topic is irrelevant but thank you for admitting that the discussion was normal and polite. I'll tell you something you fail to understand, ethnic admixture of the tihama people. As many source pointed out, "slavery and long-term migration have resulted in mixing with the peoples of East Africa, particularly in the Tihama region on the Red Sea coast". What part of that sentence you did not understand to come up with your "original/first Yemenis" theory?

Don't even get me started on your vigorous campaign to establish some ethnic and linguistic links between Yemen and East africa! Just read the shameful content of Yemeni Arabic and Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic, where in the world did you learn that Ta'izzi Arabic is also called Djibouti Arabic [43]?? Yeah what "Warrior Yemen boy" or whatever said here [44] (you accused me of being the same person but user check proved that was a gigantic lie [45]) about your contributions shows that i am not the only Yemeni who is sick and tired of your contributions about Yemen and its related articles! Yemen has nothing to do with the Horn of Africa clear and simple and you will have to learn to live with that. My god! anyone reading articles about Yemen in this cite will definitely assume that it's an East African country thanks to your effort.

Speaking of listening to other users, i was not the one who tried to prove a personal point of view with a picture i found on Google. I am not the one who reverted an edit and posted a link that actually support the sentence that got removed! i am not the one who is throwing baseless accusations at users and keep reminding them of their past mistakes. good luck--يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YemenWarriorBoy was no newbie, that much is clear. He was blocked for it too. According to Ethnologue (not me), Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic is also indeed known as Yemeni Arabic ("Arabic, Ta’izzi-Adeni Spoken[...] Alternate Names: Djibouti Arabic" [46]). But I'm not surprised that you have problems with even this much given your previous antics. At any rate, I tried reasoning with you and giving you yet another chance at improving your behavior, but it seems you're too set in your ways. Too bad indeed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

whatever he was, it shows that we are really sick of your emphasis in Yemen related articles. Ta'izzi Arabic is a variation of Yemeni arabic, it's not "also known" as Yemeni arabic. There many dialects in Yemen. Ethnologue does not say that Ta'izzi Arabic is also known as "Djibouti Arabic" as if the Arabic spoken in Tai'izz came from Djibouti!!! it says that The Arabic speakers over there ( pop 36,000) may speak Adeni Arabic. They speak french too and standard Arabic is an official language apparently. In their definition page of Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic as a "language" they never mentions anything about it being called "Djibouti Arabic". I and others have a problem with this and so many other contribution of yours. I read Yemeni Arabic article and i swear it was as if it's discussing an east African population. You are not in a position to give me chances here. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you are sick of me editing the Yemen related articles (which you don't own, by the way), but that is what WikiProject Yemen participants such as myself do [47]. As for Ethnologue, not only does it list "Djibouti Arabic" as an Alternate Name for spoken Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, it also gives an actual figure for the total number of speakers in the country (36,000). It seems you overlooked that too. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course i don't own it but that does not mean that i can't point at your mistakes. uh i did look at that just read the post again :" (pop 36,000)"! I am talking about their [main definition page of Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, no where does it say that this Yemeni accent is also called Djibouti Arabic. The Arabic that is used by 36,000 people in Djibouti may be the same or close to the arabic used in Aden but that is not enough to call it Djibouti Arabic since it was originated in Aden or Ta'izz. You have languages of Djibouti article, you can write that the Arabic dialect used there is that of Aden and an alternative name for THEIR ARABIC (Djibouti people) is Djibouti Arabic. Because the people of Ta'izz are not speaking a form Arabic imported from Djibouti or share some historical or ethnic link. People of Aden may be but not Ta'izz.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Djibouti Arabic" is not an error. Alongside "Southern Yemeni Spoken Arabic", it is what Ethnologue indicates is an alternate name for Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic, as shown. So does the Open Language Archives Community [48], Babelverse [49], and Multitree [50], among other official linguistic repositories. Middayexpress (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not revert my edit here? It was quite impolite. AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert any of your edits here! you and your friends should stop making things up. It's pretty sad and desperate--يوسف حسين (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you would continue to lie when everyone can see your edits. If you did not revert my edits than what is this, as it clearly shows that you did? Maybe you thought it would be "funny" to go and edit my response; though it does not seem likely. AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You spent a long time bolding your comment, ok? I did not change your edit or thought of it as "funny". try something else--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*, even after I showed you that you have, you somehow think that it is a good idea to continue to deny it. As for me bolding my comments, the diff you provided does not show that. In fact it shows me removing the vast majority of them. Why don't you just admit you reverted my edit and assume full responsibility? AcidSnow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middayexpress, do you really think he well stop just because you asked him to again? We have all requested him countless of times before to stop; so what makes you think he well stop this time? He has even asked to get reported several times and this is exactly what he got. So why change his ways now when he was told several times to stop and asked to get reported? Most of all he has broken the precursor to his return which was to receive consensuses for his edits which he would ignore and continue without it several times. As we can all see from his actions he has no desire to change. So what good well come out of a third chance to "reform" himself? AcidSnow (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks that way. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Inyaty", Didn't you ask me to tell what term the sources use about the slaves? didn't i answer you? and than you moved on talking about me and how i supposedly "threatened" your friend? In order to receive census you must discuss the topic first. not removing my edit and posting a link that actually supports me!!--يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place. Inayity's comment is further up. Middayexpress (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where were we told to receive "census"? If I remember correctly you are the only one here that was told to receive consensus for your edits. In fact you would ignore that precursor and go on without it several times. Its quite impolite you would do that after you were given a second chance As for the link, I have already explain what had happened. Maybe you should stop ignoring my responses so you would not be constantly bring it up? AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding me. Don't revert an edit with a link that is actually supporting the edit that got reverted!! You are the one who should have talked and discussed before reverting my edit. Here is the situation, i added a sentence to the Yemen article and you removed it because according to you, Yemen is not widely believed to be home of the Sheba. Fine, where is the source to back up you claim? because i definitely presented mine. You did not present any reliable source or even a reason to justify your revert and kept posting a link that actually mention the Sabaeans as Biblical Sheba! Why in the world should i be talking to you now? As for the art of ancient Yemen picture, whoever uploaded it took it from the British museum in London. True the upolader did not say that the sculpture is Sabaean but it's mentioned that it dates back to 1st century AD. (Sabaean Era). The British museum is discussing Sabaean art while using a picture of the same gravestone [51]. In any case, there is no reason to remove the picture even assuming that it's not Sabaean, (it could be from another tribe associated with them) it's of an object from ancient Yemen nevertheless. you could have objected the picture description not its usage in the Yemen article!--يوسف حسين (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to discuss the issue here as I have already done that before. I am really sick of "Kendite/يوسف حسين" continuous inappropriate behavior, as have constantly asked him to stop it yet he continues to do so. I would also mention the things he did before he was banned, but Middayexpress already did; for example when he threaten me to "stay away from any Yemen related article". Anyways, after I had originally told him to please not to call me Pan-Africanist, Afrocentric, etc, he still would not drop it. All of this is part of his "theory"; which is significant flawed as he also thinks that Til Eulenspiegel is African when he is not. He has also straight up lied when he claim that there was "support" for his "theory" from EdJohnston and that he said we are "pan-Africanist". In fact he said not such thing or even supported/agreed, but rather "As with the edit mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss.". So where did he get that EdJohnston agreed/supported him when there is no evidence?

I also never called him a liar (so once again he has twisted my words), which he claims, again and again with no evidence. Inayity also never called him stupid, but rather his comment was. I have also not attacked him in any way, but he on the other hand has continuously attacked me through the discussion; for eexample when you threatened me.

After he finally kept his "theory" to himself he began to move on to speaking for me, put words in my mouth, and try to twisting my words against me. This does not help him in any way as anyone can see what I have written. After each time he attacked me I would tell him to please stop, yet he would not, but rather use a different technique to so. As for "threatening" him, his diff does not show that. In fact it says "would you also like us to file one on the racial overtones of your messages and edits?. I said this in response it to "file a complaint!" to see if he would also like to include that as well in the report. This is no where near a threat, but clearly was a question. As you can see from this discussion he got what he asked for. I don't see the point of him doing that as everyone here can clear see and read the diff.

He also continues to tell me to stop "talking" about him when I am not. Its even more frustrating because he is doing the exact same thing! He tells me to stop when all I am trying to defend myself from his false accusation. He also told me to stop "ranting" about him and stick to the discussion. As you can see from here he would rather ignore all my request for him to stop, be hypocritical and pin the issue all on me!

He also claims that I have "completely ignored" his quotes when I have responded to them in every single one of my responses. When I told him that I was unable see his "quotes" because he deliberately changed them, he said in response, "if you can't find them than it's your own problem". I have no idea why he is acting so inappropriate even though I constantly told him to please stop. He not only says that, but that I have no even discussed the issue at hand. Its odd that he would continue to lie when anyone can see that I have. It appears that he would rather ignore most of the things I have written and would rather see what he wants to. Besides the "quotes", he goes on to claims that I have not even talked about his sources! I am really hoping he is joking as I have been doing it through the discussion. For example, if his "quotes" are coming from his book and that am discussing them am I not also discussing his sources too? He also continues to mention the picture I removed and says all this stuff about it when there is nothing besides Art from Ancient Yemen, in the image summary, so I have no idea where has gotten it from, but he claims to be "sticking to the sources and not personal interpretations". Maybe this is just another way for him to discredit me? He has been doing it before through this discussion, on his own takepage, and on the Yemen talkpage too! He also knows fully well that there are sources that go against him for the Sheba discussion, yet he continues to add it. This is why I never bothered to bring up sources that go against him, as he clearly from his past action would not even bother to read them. He has done the same by ignoring my comments about his "quotes" and sources and even continues to claim that I never said anything about them. "Just read his latest response on the matter. it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand", as you can see here he is being deliberately annoying. I highly recommend everyone in this discussion to read my second to last entry at the Yemen page and decided if I have discussed the issue or not!

I also never claimed that the link was mine; it just happen to come with my revert. Could you show me where I said it was mine/my own? Not just these, but he was also asked to use the talk page before he made edits so he could receive consensus. He, however, went on without receiving it not once, not twice, but rather three times! Odd that he would continue to act so inappropriately after generously being given a second chance. So what good well come out a third chance? I wont revert him right now since nothing good could come out of it.

Unfortunately, with no evidence he still believes that this issue is a "personal matter" of mine; once again he is still bring up his "theory". Just as EdJohnston said before, I am loosing interest following his continuous inappropriate behavior. AcidSnow (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sure is a lot of bolding. I thought you were trying to tell a story-within-a-story, but I can't make it out. Should I read it in reverse? 134.241.58.178 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could be a "story-within-a-story" nor how reading in reverse well "help" you. If you want to by all means go ahead. Anyways, who are you? You are the third "ip" that has "found" his/her way into the discussion. AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As if i am going to read all of this. Talk:Yemen#Sheba and the removal of a picture and Talk:Yemen#Other sources regarding Sheba you were suppose to discuss this with me but you did not. I don't care whos link you used, you were reverting my edit with a link that actually support my contribution. --يوسف حسين (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would not, just like all my other responses. I also never told you to read it so it does not really matter. I have already explained the link; maybe next you will read them so you would not be constantly bring it up? Anyways, who else did I discuss this with? AcidSnow (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All i know is that your revert is pointless since you are using a link that is actually approves my edit. You either discuss my edit in the article talk page like you are supposed to and bring reliable sources to back your claim, or your edit will be considered simply disruptive--يوسف حسين (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you actually read my response you would not be saying the same thing overt and over again? AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban

• Support – per OP. Middayexpress (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – This issue came up with another editor not too long ago, and the difference was he wanted to contribute by changing his ways, I do not think this is the case. And using ip addresses to tell me my comments are garbage means we have a problem personality.--Inayity (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – see original post AcidSnow (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute over content and sources. Have the participants been pointed towards dispute resolution options? —Neotarf (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AN is not about content dispute, but rather his continues inappropriate behavior after generously given a second chance. AcidSnow (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see he changed your comment here [52] to make it look like you had added bolding to it, but he was the one who added bolding. That's not right, and he should be asked to undo it. But it seems you are also arguing about sources. I have seen "Sheba's palace" in Ethiopia, and all the little tourist statues of Solomon and Sheba together, but would love to see the Wikipedia with more information about the Yemen sources. Arabic sources are terribly under-represented in the English Wikipedia, and I think it very worthwhile if more of them could be added in a way that respects the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But if you have so many disagreements, maybe a third party would help to keep the discussion on task. —Neotarf (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change his comment or even came close to it.He was the one who added bolding to his own comment.--يوسف حسين (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*, even after being caught red handed by two editors and shown clearly that you did you continue to lie (though not surprising its getting annoying). As for me bolding my comments, the diff you provided does not show that. In fact it shows me removing the vast majority of them. Why don't you just admit you reverted my edit? AcidSnow (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have archived this unclosed site ban discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 for further community input. When an admin believes there has been sufficient discussion, please assess the consensus.

  يوسف حسين (talk · contribs) was blocked on 15 February 2014 for four days at User talk:يوسف حسين#Edit Warring: Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic (permanent link) Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Timestamp to prevent archiving. Time step one week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]