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 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 126 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

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

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

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

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

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

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

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

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

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

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

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

RfC: Is the OCB RS?

(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 111 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

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

Talk:Charles_XI_of_Sweden#Requested_move_13_January_2024

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

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

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

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

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

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

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

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

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

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

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

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

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

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

(Initiated 73 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 60 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

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

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

I propose a community-discussion with regards to implementing a topic ban on User:Thor Lives that would prohibit them from contributing to articles broadly related to Paganism, and more specifically to the Pagan religion of Heathenry. This is to deal with the fact that they are responsible for disruptive editing on topics of this nature, perhaps motivated by their self-professed adherence to Odinism (a typically right-wing, ethnic-oriented form of Heathenry). More specifically they have a) carried out a range of disruptive edits to the Heathenry article entailing damage to the article and attacks on other editors, b) usurped the GA process to further their aims, and c) created a coat rack article.

During August and September they were particularly active on the Heathenry page, where they engaged in repeated edit warring,[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] acted against two consensus decisions (by both renaming the article to their chosen title [6] [7] [8] and adding disputed material [9]), deleted text that was sourced to (academic) reliable-references because they didn't like what it had to say [10] [11] [12], and repeatedly added citations to non-reliable references in order to push possibly fringe views, meanwhile erroneously insisting that primary sources should be used [13] [14]. On the talk page and elsewhere they engaged in personal attacks against other editors [15] [16], made false allegations of sock puppetry [17], actively misrepresented the actions and arguments of their critics [18] [19] [20] [21] and engaged in "outing", a serious form of Harassment [22] [23]. Throughout, I was forced to resort to RfCs and temporary blocks on editing the article to prevent the disruptive behaviour.

After their disruptive editing on the Heathenry page was thwarted by myself and other editors, Thor Lives focused his attentions on the Odinism page, which, as User:Snowded has pointed out, has basically been formed into a coatrack article in which Thor Lives has repeated many of the problems that were raised over at Heathenry (adding non-reliable references, pursuing an 'insider' Odinist agenda etc).

Most recently, when I nominated the Heathenry article at GAN earlier this week, Thor Lives nominated himself as reviewer (despite having never reviewed a GAN before) and from his comments it was apparent that he simply wanted to use this process as a platform to try and force his (previously rejected) ideas onto the article. Pointing this out to him, I terminated the GAN and re-nominated it. However, at this second GAN he again presented himself as a reviewer, at which I had to terminate yet again, and re-nominate for a third time. This pattern of disruptive editing has been going on for at least four months now, and is having a real detrimental effect on these Paganism-themed articles and a draining impact on the constructive editors working to improve them. Accordingly, I think that we need to have a community discussion about how to deal with this problem, with my suggestion being that a topic ban might be needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial discussion

Two comments, and I'll ignore everything else. (1) All GA reviewers have to start somewhere, but GA reviewers must be "unaffiliated" with the article; if you've previously been active in the article and/or its talk page, you have no business reviewing it for GA. If you keep it up, you need to be sanctioned. (2) The two outing diffs aren't outing; he's saying basically "From your editing, it looks like you're this guy". If he were outing you, he would say "Hello, name", not "Hello, name (or one of his acolytes)". Looking at a user's contributions and guessing thereby at the identity of its owner isn't fundamentally different from identifying sockpuppets by behavioral evidence (both are WP:DUCK), although of course it can be done in a harassing manner. No comment on whether it's non-outing harassment. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything about outing? Am I missing something? Otherwise I think it is time for a sanction, three attempts to usurp the GA process following a history of edit warring should be enough. The coat rack article really needs to be nominated for deletion. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you see no evidence of outing in Midnightblueowl's links, or you're confused about my comments? If the former, I agree. If the latter, look for the word "serious" (it only appears once in this section, as of now) and follow the diffs immediately after it. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThorLives' opened a conversation with me starting with "Hello, Mark Ludwig Stinson (or one of his acolytes)", and continued with "you seem to be Mr. Stinson or one of his followers". That seems like a clear attempt to establish my 'real world' identity (correctly or not, it doesn't matter) and thus a breach of our anti-Outing policy. As our policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment... Personal information includes legal name... Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts". ThorLives tried to identify my 'real life' identity and make it public here on Wikipedia. That seems like a contravention of the Outing policy to me, but I appreciate that other editors here might disagree with me on that. Either way, it is merely one component of a much wider campaign of disruptive editing, the evidence for which is abundant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it's a clear example of attempted outing. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec). I stand to be corrected if it was more than just a wild accusation. Thor seems to throw out accusations based on assumptions about people who oppose his view. I didn't take that too seriously. So no evidence of outing (the former Nyttend). The overall point is that we have a very disruptive editor here - there is the need for some sanction of restriction ----Snowded ^TALK 15:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to our outing policy, I'm not sure that it really matters whether it was a wild accusation or a more concerted and deliberate attempt; either way, it was a contravention of the policy. The intent behind it is not of particular importance, imo. However, I certainly concur with your latter point, Snowded; the issue of outing is not the main issue here but merely one aspect of a wider problem which needs to be dealt with through sanctions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where Thor got the idea that you're Stinson; your times-of-editing patterns are in line with your claim to be in western Europe, and they're quite bizarre for someone who lives in Kansas City, Missouri. Acolyte isn't made impossible by geography, but it's a stretch unless you've declared such a thing. Either way, it's obviously not some private information; he's guessing from your editing patterns. Meanwhile, if I'd looked at the GA reviewing more carefully before commenting, I may well have blocked for that alone, although (by itself) intentionally messing up the GA process is no grounds for an informal topic ban (e.g. "Make more edits in this field and you'll be blocked") or an outright indefinite block; you'd have to have a discussion like this one. No support because I don't feel like investigating enough to support, but definitely no opposition. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: would you therefore perhaps support separate action to deal specifically with the GA disruption issue that is independent to the wider debate surrounding a topic ban to deal with the persistent disruptive editing problem? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If your proposal passes, there's no need for separate action. However, sanctions are definitely needed somehow, so definitely supporting sanctions for the GA only, if the same thing isn't accomplished for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I shall divide this section into two then; one to deal specifically with the GAN issues, and one to deal with the possible topic ban. That way editors such as yourself can contribute to the former without having to commit themselves to the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GAN specific sanctions

As per the discussion above involving User:Nyttend and User:Snowded, this section is being established to deal with the proposal that ThorLives face sanctions specifically for their actions over at the GANs for Heathenry (new religious movement). It is not a place to debate the response to their wider pattern of disruptive editing, which will be dealt with separately in a different section below. Any editor may contribute to either section or both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hesitant to do this, as it's a potential distraction from the potentially bigger issue. I was suggesting GA-related sanctions basically as a backup to the other: if sanctions are warranted for the heathenism issue, the GA-related issue will be trivial, while if they aren't, we can deal with the GA after that. Let's just stick with the side suggestions that Snowded and I have made, along with others' similar suggestions if they get made. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I am happy to put this discussion on ice for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban

• Support Topic Ban from Heathenry, religion and anything remotely related. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nominator: My recommendation would be a topic ban on Heathenry, all forms of modern Paganism, and ancient/medieval Germanic society (three subjects closely interlinked with Odinism). Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose check the talk page completely, Odin has made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page, not all of them , to be sure, but some of his contributions were positive. Also, he seems to be having the same problem a lot of researchers have when they first come to Wikipedia, I'd hate to seem him T-Banned over it, rather, if he'll accept a mentor, he could learn and become a positive contributor.KoshVorlon 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect Kosh, I disagree. It was not claimed that ThorLives' edits were 100% negative, because they aren't: he is not a vandal and no doubt wants to "improve" the encyclopedia as he sees fit. However, the patterns of constant, recurring disruptive editing are very clear, and surely that cancels out any meager positive contribution that he has made? At what point does some small positive contribution redeem both the damage to the articles themselves and all the stress and annoyance caused to constructive editors who have to make repairs and put up with abusive remarks as they do so? (You note that he has "made suggestions that were upheld on the talk page" but from what I can see the only time this happened was when he recommended in passing that we add more information about Ragnarok into the article, which I myself endorsed. Everything else has been non-constructive at best, often disruptive, and sometimes abusive). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Moreover, I disagree with your presentation of him as a newcomer who just needs a bit more gentle guidance in how to use Wikipedia. He has been an active user since at least November 2011, which is more than enough time to learn the ropes and gain an understanding of policy. Further, if you read through that talk page, related user talk pages, and the page edit summaries, you will see that he has been made aware of how his actions contravene policy again and again and again (by myself and others). We keep linking him to the specific policies and explaining what he has done wrong and how to avoid it next time, but we're just being ignored; this can be seen for instance in his repeated attempts to incorporate primary sources by Odinist authors into both this article and related ones (namely his coatrack at Odinism), despite the fact that we have repeatedly explained how and why this is against our reliable sourcing policy. I could cite multiple other examples, but I don't want to bore you. He just doesn't appear to care about adhering to Wikipedia's policies, as is reflected in such statements as "Wikipedia jargon does not interest me." Frankly, I don't see how someone who has no interest in learning how Wikipedia operates and who is repeatedly disruptive is going to change their tune all of a sudden and become constructive and civil. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, it is okay to use primary sources in an article on the primary source if they are being used appropriately to reflect what it is the primary source believes. However from taking a quick look at the talk page Thor is not doing that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an infrequent contributor to the article, and a witness to ThorLives' repeated efforts to impose his personal views on the article. Stormkith (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban per nom and recommend mentorship. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban unless editor agrees to mentorship ----Snowded ^TALK 03:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. I've been musing over this for a couple of days, and the more I have looked at this, the more sure I have become that ThorLives is a problem editor. His claims to be an academic in this field are (I am around 90% sure) a lie, which strikes me as exceedingly bad form and a clumsy attempt to have others protect him and help him push his view. His battlefield mentality, disrespectful behaviour (insisting on calling MBO "he" despite her frequent polite requests to the contrary is, alone, problematic), wikilawyering (see the "outing" discussion below, for example), continual refusal to get the point and abuse of Wikipedia processes (edit warring, GA nominations) are typical of POV-pushers. He does not seem to be here to improve Wikipedia, which is regrettable, as he does have at least some knowledge of the subject matter to which he is contributing; with a clearer understanding of Wikipedia policies and, most importantly, a more respectful attitude towards other Wikipedians, he could have been in a position to make very valuable contributions to this area. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a regrettable but necessary topic ban on the editor in question. I've looked into this and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, I've seen enough. The editor in question is exhibiting all the typical characteristics of a POV editor pushing their own personal non-neutral, non-academic, and in this case, right-wing views. The fact that they are averse to the policies of Wikipedia is particularly disturbing. Their disruptive edits speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am familiar with the nominator Midnightblueowl, whom I have worked with off an on here on Wikipedia over a period of many years (we have written a few Featured Articles together) and, after seeing a number of their edits to the page in question, am reassured of her usual high-quality ethics and expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been four days since this debate opened (and two since anyone new cast a vote), and we now have eight votes in support of a topic ban and one in opposition. That seems pretty conclusive, and accordingly I think that we should administer a topic ban on ThorLives, preventing him from editing articles on Heathenry and broadly related topics (which would include articles on contemporary Paganism, related forms of religion, and Germanic society more widely). As I understand it, that would include banning him from changing redirects or posting on talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs related to those subjects (particularly as ThorLives has used GANs and talk pages as a place to edit disruptively). However, is it premature to bring this to an end and enforce the sanction after so few days? If not, it there an administrator who might bring this about (or can any editor do it)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could request a closure here, perhaps. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I have just done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose/Alternate restriction The editor has made some useful contributions. I suggest they be page-banned from Heathenry (new religious movement) but not its talk page, and topic banned from the subject of Midnightblueowl. Rhoark (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect Rhoark, what are those useful contributions? The only example that I can see is a single comment recommending that we could expand our coverage of Heathen beliefs about Ragnarok in the article. And even if you believe that there are a few more, how do these outweigh the constant disruptiveness? Does 5% constructive behaviour counterbalance 95% disruptive behaviour? Further, I don't see how a page ban would help at all; the editor has shown that they are also disruptively editing on other related articles (such as their coatrack at Odinism) as well as on related Talk Pages and GANs. A page ban that purely protects one particular article would offer little benefit and would not deal with the fundamental problem at all. It would be like trying to deal with a freshly severed limb by applying a band aid. A topic ban is completely necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Heathenry article is quite good. The Odinist coatrack borders on being unreadable. The Heathenry talk page also displays an editor that simply doesn't get RS or consensus and seems unwilling to learn it. One also has to question the claimed expertise of a supposed academic that is unaware that Germanic refers to historic peoples who shared Germanic languages and a certain commonality in culture as opposed to modern day Germany. Capeo (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of 18 November: A week has now passed, and we now have nine votes in support of a topic ban and two in opposition. At the risk of being accused of launching an ad hominem attack, it may be pertinent and of interest to users here that ThorLives is also currently being investigated for sock puppetry here, including the use of a sock puppet to continue their edits to Odinism and thus avoid further scrutiny of the ThorLives account. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence! Holtj has been dormant since 2008, magically reappears the day after ThorLives' last edit, and carries on right where ThorLives left off, even mentioning him by name on the talkpage: "CHECK THE EDITS OF THORLIVES. HE IS A PHD WHO LEFT WIKIPEDIA BECUASE OF THE ENDLESS ATTACKS OF THE PERSON ABOVE".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThorLives' response

If I am violating some wikipdia policy, I send my regrets. Frankly, as a sixty-five year university professor, I am rather confused by all of the various rules and regulations.

I do know academic content, however, and at various times I have tried to prevent wholesale changes that one person was making to articles connected to Germanic neopaganism. All of my attempted edits to Germanic neopaganism have been reversed by (talk) Midnightblueowl. Also, when I attempt to act in defense, he repeatedly tries to have me banned or blocked. (I believe this is the fourth time he has attacked me. )

I have made many complaints on the talk page, but the main problem is neutrality. The article, as presently constituted, draws almost exclusively from the work of left-wing Norse pagans, many (like Dr. Snook) have been expelled from mainline groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly. I attached a tag challenging the neutrality of the article, but it was deleted by the same person who rewrote the entire article and then nominated the piece as a "good article."

The present article also contains many errors of fact. I would correct them, but my edits on this article have all been deleted by the person who rewrote it. Example: the word for one of the souls is typically hugr--not hugh. (Norse pagans use Old Norse terms) I have also complained when the article was renamed Heathenry. The neutral term is Germanic neopaganism. Stephen McNallen, an American Asatru leader, avoids "heathen" because in the "public mind" it means an "ignorant, superstitious, or uncouth person." Stephen A. McNallen. Asatru: A Native European Spirituality. Runestone Press. 2015. p. 2 ISBN 0972029257.

Likewise, Dr. Michael Strmiska, a pagan who studies the subject, [24] made this observation: "I prefer Norse-Germanic Paganism as a catch-all term that covers all relevant bases and slights none."

Regarding banning me from the topic, I am a professor who lectures and writes on the topic. Indeed, Midnightblueowl even uses me as a source in her edits! I would identify myself, but Midnightblueowl seems to be a belligerent person.

For the record, I have never tried to block or ban him. --ThorLives (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--ThorLives (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it quite clear to you that I use female gender pronouns, ThorLives. You can convince yourself that I'm a man and that my profile is a total ruse all you want, but at least show me the respect of using the pronouns that I ask you to use. It is basic courtesy. Further, while your statement that you have "never tried to block or ban" me might be quite correct, it also brings up an important point: I have not done anything to warrant being blocked or banned. Conversely, you have.

As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one. This, coupled with several observations made by both myself and Bloodofox here, cast strong doubt as to the claimed academic credentials of ThorLives. An academic with a specialism in the subject matter would not make the basic errors of fact that ThorLives has made. They would be accustomed to structuring their argument in a logical and well-thought out manner, which is quite the opposite of ThorLives' rambling, disjointed, and poorly written style of commenting. They would be intelligent enough to master the comparatively simple rules and regulations of Wikipedia in a short period of time. If well acquainted with the field of religious studies, they would not make such an erroneous claim as "When studying a religion... an academic would rather talk to a pope than someone sitting in a pew in Philadelphia" (ever heard of the anthropology of religion, sociology of religion, or psychology of religion?). They would surely be more likely to refer to colleagues like Michael Strmiska and Jennifer Snook as "a religious studies scholar" or "sociologist of religion" respectively, rather than as "a pagan who studies the subject" and a "left-wing Norse pagan". Further, I very much doubt that they would condemn the citation of some of their colleague's publications simply because these individuals were "left-wing".

All in all, ThorLives has not exhibited any trait that I would associate with an established, older academic and university professor; instead, they have exhibited many traits that I would associate with a (possibly quite young) individual who has little or no familiarity with academia beyond perhaps reading a few scholarly books or, at best, a basic undergraduate course. It would certainly not be stretching the imagination to suggest that the "I'm an older university professor with a PhD" claim which ThorLives has repeatedly employed is simply a ruse to gain recognition as an intellectual authority from other Wikipedia editors. I can't help but suspect that there might be some relevance to a comment that they made on my talk page in which they declared that they admired editors who used "cunning" and "disinformation trick[s]" on Wikipedia. After all, what better way to try and gain kudos on an encyclopedia than to declare "Trust me. I am a published academic." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's be fair. A PhD isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless the person holding the degree gets to beat you on the head with it like a weapon in every discussion. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, every edit that I ever made to Heathenry (new religious movement) was deleted by Midnightblueowl. Usually, the deletions were immediate. (Normally, I was simply adding references.) Because I had no edits to the page, I thought I could comment on his nomination of the article as a "good article." --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: So a person (Midnightblueowl) can hijack and article, rename it (the neutral term is Germanic Neopaganism, not heathenry), delete the edits of everyone else, and nominate his own article as a good article, and then ban someone who complains about the quality of the article?

If that is the rule, I can respect it, but it looks rather unfair. --ThorLives (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are being totally misrepresented here. Similarly, ThorLives has omitted key details regarding these events in order to present their own actions as innocent and constructive, which they demonstrably weren't. All of the information that I deleted on the Heathenry article was either a) un-referenced, b) referenced using non-reliable primary sources, or c) otherwise referenced inappropriately (for instance using sources about pre-Christian belief systems to support claims being made about new religious movements). As policy dictates, it therefore required removal. Further, I did not unilaterally change the page name from "Germanic neopaganism" to "Heathenry" but rather (at the suggestion of another editor) initiated an RfC discussion on the subject, which resulted in a group consensus to move the article name to that most commonly used in academic reliable sources. Thor Lives then embarked on an edit war to restore his favoured title until multiple un-involved editors stopped him.

Hence, claiming that I have "hijacked" the article and am somehow a problematic editor is frankly preposterous and is simply a tactic to divert attention from Thor Lives' own disruptive actions and total disregard for policy and consensus building. Similarly, his claim that he is being threatened with a ban simply for "complain[ing] about the quality of the article" is again flagrantly (and, I believe, deliberately) ignoring the real reason why sanctions are being sought against him, which have been laid out ever so clearly. Once again, he is knowingly playing the innocent, presumably in the hope that this well help him to evade sanctions so that he can go right back to his disruptive editing ways. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several new points (before I leave.)

This is quickly becoming a wiki version of "Gresham's Law," that the bad will always drive out the good. (In other words, it appears I will be forced out.)

After Midnightblueowl hijacked Germanic Neopaganism, I started to make extensive edits on Odinism. Notice the wide variety of sources used. Notice also the neutrality of the aricle. Midnightblueowl in his Heathenry article mentions Odinists only to discredit them as "racists,"(the word Americans use), but not all Odinists are white separatists.

Midnightblueowl claims he used neutral academic sources only. Again, because he is not widely read in the field, he seems not to know that virtually ALL of his sources are pagan professors (including me.) Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, Blain, and so forth are pagans. Because professors tend to be liberal, they are all leftist. For proper balance, he must use other sources.

--ThorLives (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've asked that you please use female pronouns when referring to me; in doing the precise opposite, you are quite clearly setting out to annoy and offend, once again reflecting a total lack of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. Of course I am aware that many of the academics operating within Pagan studies are practicing Pagans (including Snook, Strmiska, Harvey, and Blain) as all make that clear within their publications, and the fact that I have included virtually every academic study on Heathenry ever published in the sources of the Heathenry article testifies to the fact that I am fairly well read within that field (it should be noted that in no way, shape, or form has ThorLives demonstrated anywhere near the same level of academic reading). Similarly, if you check my edits, you will see that in no way did I mention Odinists merely to call them "racists"; your claim to that effect is demonstrably false.

Moreover, if you want editors to compare the articles on Heathenry (new religious movement) and Odinism for themselves, then I would be happy for them to do so. They will see that the former is informative and well constructed; the latter poorly written and messy. The former is based on an exhaustive use of almost all academic publications on the subject; the latter has been put together using whatever unreliable references ThorLives happens to favour. The former is a useful article that will benefit those interested in the subject; the latter is simply a coatrack. Perhaps most importantly, I believe that the former will be recognised as a Good Article for its adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; the latter makes a total mockery of those, serving simply as a platform for ThorLives' own perspective on the religious movement to which he belongs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl wrote: As for ThorLives' claim that he has been cited by me, I can see that not a single one of the academics whom I have referenced in the Heathenry article fit the profile of a 65-year old male Odinist who works as a university professor. Not one

Trying to "out me" here? Is that not a violation of the wiki rules you are always citing?

As for the "65-year old [sic] male Odinist who works as a university professor," I confess I altered some details to protect myself. (Age, gender, or both?) Midnightblueowl has engaged in threatening behavior, so I cannot chance that he would use information about my identity to attack my books or my reputation.

I have never tried to have him banned. I have never threatened him. His behavior (as this banning attempt demonstrates) has been belligerent.

Indeed, perhaps the prudent thing would be for me to leave wikipedia.

Cheers! --ThorLives (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... no, I'm not trying to out you nor threaten you. At no point did I state that "You are Mr X", "I think that you are Mrs Y", or "all signs point to you being Mr P" and I most certainly didn't say that "I'm going to find you off-Wikipedia and harass you there by tarnishing your reputation". All I stated was that the claims that you made – that you were a 65 year old university professor with a PhD whose publications were cited in the Heathenry article – were demonstrably not true because none of the cited authors fitted that description, and that moreover your wider actions have cast strong doubt on your claims to having any substantial academic background at all. In effect, you were making false claims in order to bolster your credibility in the eyes of other Wikipedia editors, and I called you out on it. That's not outing. Maybe in the 'real world' you really are an author, perhaps writing Odinist books and articles in non-academic contexts, and perhaps even being something of a notable within the Odinist community. If so, good for you. I have absolutely no interest in harassing or upsetting you as a fellow human being in any way, shape or form; my sole focus has been in preventing you from disruptive editing here at Wikipedia so that the encyclopedia can progress and improve under the care of constructive contributors. Outside of the encyclopedia, it's a different ballpark, and a different game. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list of conflict-of-interest requested edits is at an all-time high of 130 requests; also, the list of semi-protected edit requests is also abnormally high, currently at 101. Any assistance in clearing the backlog is highly appreciated. There's another reason for urgency: while some PR editors initially comply with Wikipedia's COI editing protocol by making a talk page request, after weeks of silence they assume that their edits must meet our guidelines owing to the lack of objections, and make the edit themselves. Closer scrutiny by the community would probably have disallowed such changes. Many of the articles with pending COI edit requests are already littered with promotional material, and in the wake of the Orangemoody scandal, we should be doing all we can to clean up. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all,

I'm planning on sending out the mass-message sometime next week, once the voting for ArbCom has started. IF anyone wants to opt-out, please do so ASAP at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage/OptOut. The message is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage - please let me know if this can be improved at all! For the Election Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I motion to challenge WP:GS/SCW&ISIL with respect to ISIL in general, and the November 2015 Paris attacks article and directly related articles in particular. These community-imposed sanctions were progressively expanded starting from, if I understand things correctly, arguably-related ArbCom-imposed Israel-Palestinian sanctions, first [Syria] and then to ISIL, by allowing the "broadly construed" specification to let discussions with little participation ratify the broadening of scope.

I am not sure this really qualifies as "community consensus" for community-authorized sanctions, or even if community-authorized discretionary sanctions are a reasonable thing, but even if it does and they are, I believe this claimed consensus can be challenged on the grounds that less than a dozen editors formed it, while on Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks a comparable number of editors impugned it or objected to the application of the sanctions.

In fact, this sequence of events happened on the article's talk page:

• the original proponent of the Syria sanctions placed a notice that they were in effect
• I objected on the ground that keeping the recent high-traffic article under a strict WP:1RR policy would discourage editors such as myself
• An administrator removed the sanctions template under a multi-facted rationale
• There was support for this action, as well denouncing that the "broad construction" of these sanctions makes their scope indefinite
• I complained about receiving an 1RR warning notice shortly after I had newly objected to the sanctions, as a perceived act of intimidation fro mediting (the sender later assured me it was not, but I still think that's the practical effect, especially given the notice allows subsequent blocking without further warning)
• Proponents of the sanctions pointed out they still applied, regardless of the presence or absence of any template
• Fuzheado again removed the sanctions template with an explanation, although it was again pointed out that sanctions would apply anyway; but Fuzheado explained that the most important immediate outcome was to stop scaring editors away

Although the various points against the sanctions (at least on the particular article) were repeatedly stated in some of the above-linked diffs, I will make a summary:

• The community had created a decent working dynamic on the article without 1RR enforcement
• This is a current-events article with issues that are not primarily Syria and ISIL-related
• The potential for block with two reverts may have a chilling effect, when it's hard to follow the fast and often spurious edits
• Almost all editors involved at this point would be unable to revert without risking an immediate block, except for drive-by editors
• It's not an article among the ones in contention from the original and subsequently widely expanded ArbCom case

It is certainly due to my bias, but the points for the sanctions I could read basically amounted to:

• They were approved before

Therefore, I ask you to consider the following two questions:

1. Shall WP:GS/SCW&ISIL continue to apply unchanged on articles like November 2015 Paris attacks where there are arguably exceptional circumstances and a locally shared opposition to actively applying them?
2. Shall the current "broadly constructed" scope of these sanctions undergo new scrutiny and possible narrowing, considering it was previously expanded with little community input?
3. Shall the sanctions continue to exist at all?

My use of emphasis above is to underline the salient points of this motion as I recognize it is a relatively long read. LjL (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions ARE NOT related with WP:ARBPIA. There is similarity in concept, but that is it.GreyShark (dibra) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, by reading the archived discussion, that the Syrian sanctions were created because there was uncertainty as to whether the ARBPIA sanctions applied to the Syrian war (they were applied in that way, but then successfully challenged). If I'm mistaken, can you clarify? LjL (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that to be correct. What it seems happened was gradual de facto broadening of scope, caused by the slippery "broadly construed"-type language that is often used. Some administrators originally applied the ARBPIA sanctions to Syrian Civil War stuff, thinking that stuff related in a "broadly construed" manner. This became confusing, so ArbCom established a temporary 30 day sanctions regime specifically for the Syrian Civil War, which was then replaced with community sanctions that mirrored the ARBPIA remedy. Following this, with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and their entry into other fields, administrators began applying the SCW community sanctions to all ISIL-related articles, on the basis of a "broadly construed" connection to the Syrian Civil War. For this reason, I requested a clarification at AN, whereby the relevant administrators confirmed that they believed that this linkage was correct. RGloucester — ☎ 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding, too. I read that the first community discussion was started "to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions", the restrictions in effect being the impromptu 30-day ones made by ArbCom after the ARBPIA sanctions were deemed to have been incorrectly applied as the disputes did not "fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes", so it seems to me the restrictions are very directly related. LjL (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the people behind the installations of Syrian Civil War sanctions. Originally, the community demanded a sanctioned regime for Syrian Civil War articles and some administrator incorrectly applied ARBPIA, even though there is no direct relation. Then i asked to clarify this and answer the demand of the community by creating SCW sanctions and not trying to bend other sanctions. Syrian Civil War sanctions were then initiated following a community motion, with a wide consensus. Later, without my involvement another group of users expanded the SCW sanctions also to ISIL with the intervention of ArbCom. This is how SCW&ISIL sanction regime was created. If you ask me - it works great: much less edit-warring as a result.GreyShark (dibra) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But possibly also much less editing, at least on articles like the one in question where sanctions can have a chilling effect. This is my greatest concern. LjL (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A similar problem is happening on Metrojet_Flight_9268. There is less and less controversy over ISIL, with pretty much everyone saying they are bad. The exceptions are punk trouble maker editors and/or johadists who come along and put pro-ISIL propaganda in. Any post I've made saying the sanctions apply should only be interpreted as affirming their existence, not as necessarily my support for them continuing. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pulling back on over-application of the "discretionary sanctions" that are "broadly constructed," as prescribed in the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL guidelines. With no disrespect to the original folks who implemented them – the fact that we cannot even agree on whether it is an Arbcom or WP:AN edict should give us a clue that the entire situation is not very well understood or constructed. Also, only a small number of users were involved with that discussion that has massive impact across EN.WP's 5 million articles. We should open up the discussion for better context.

A summary of the main conflict as described above:

• For breaking news articles, it is extremely problematic to have the pall of the discretionary sanctions hanging over the page, which amounts to a one revert rule (1RR) being imposed on an article in flux. Whether it is intended or not, it creates a low tolerance, "assume bad faith" climate where it is very easy to accidentally run afoul of the guidelines, and wind up as a user block.
• If we consider the November 2015 Paris attacks page, which was the #2 most visited page last week, you get lots of visitors and even returning editors. You also have a number of admins monitoring the page. The vast majority of the article is not about the Islamic State per se, and instead hosts a lot of experienced Wikipedians trying to sift fact from fiction in the news cycle. Things were going fine, until the discretionary sanctions template was put at the top, and then a flurry of accusations about 1RR started to fly. It turned into a wiki circular firing squad.
• Out of WP:COMMONSENSE, I removed the template and proposed that we do away with the hair-trigger application of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. There was generally positive response from the editors on that page that it was removed. There was another exchange of adding the template to Talk, and subsequent removal by me.
• That's we are now. I offer that it's a very bad mismatch to try to impose remedies suited for long form historical articles onto fast-moving, obliquely-related current events articles. I'm assuming good faith by believing that there was a decent rationale (with limited scope) for the discretionary sanctions, but I think this is a classic example of Hard cases make bad law, and we should have a chance to fix the overly broad application of this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First of all, there is no question of "agreement". These are community sanctions, not ArbCom sanctions, even though ArbCom was briefly involved at the start. That's crystal clear. Secondly, you must understand that we are not a newspaper. Our job here is not to write articles as if we were covering breaking news. All of our articles should be in a "long form historical" style. Slowing down editing on a controversial current events article is something to be applauded, not rejected. Finally, I wonder whether you oppose the 1RR or the discretionary sanctions, or both? Perhaps the 1RR could be pulled back, whilst maintaining the discretionary sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's broadly construed, not constructed. That's the extent of my competence in this area, and of my contribution to this discussion. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removing the sanctions. Yes, the presence of discretionary sanctions and the 1RR restriction might slow down editing. That's a good thing. Per RGloucester's comment we are not a news wire service, we're an encyclopedia. We can approach the subject calmly and thoughtfully. And the restrictions will prevent the usual nonsense that occurs with high traffic, current event articles. Volunteer Marek  06:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, uh, to try and argue that this article is NOT Syria or ISIS related is... um.... disingenuous, to put it nicely. Volunteer Marek  06:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As per VM. The argument that it is preventing rapid updates on current events is not a bad thing. Likewise arguing that this is not Syria/ISIS related is... interesting to say the least. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Having thought about it more, I have to oppose any proposal to pull back the community sanctions (1RR and DS) in this area. Frankly, this topic area is one of the most fraught on Wikipedia. The sanctions have shown to be effective in preventing disruption across SCW and ISIL articles for years. We should thank the administrators who have worked to quicly enforce these sanctions, as well. There is no reason to provide an exception for this one article, which is ISIL-related, and attracts the same kind of controversy as at all the SCW & ISIL pages. Pulling back the sanctions across all SCW and ISIL pages would undoubtedly be detrimental. I imagine that if the sanctions were pulled back, we'd end up with an ArbCom case for this topic area in future, and that's something we want to avoid, no? I have worked on plenty of articles under DS and 1RR, and have never had any problems contributing. As I said above, we are not a newspaper, and have no need to be rapidly updating content as if we were. Encouraging talk page discussion, encouraging editors to think about what they add to such an article, that's a good thing. We want verifiable historical analysis, not every little bit of yellow press. For all these reasons, I must certainly oppose any revocation of the authorisation of these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – it's been working fine as-is. Don't reinvent the wheel. 98.67.1.155 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: here are a couple of examples of these sanctions being directly used to have a chilling effect: "I will report anyone that exceeds 1RR", "In any case, i will issue a personal warning and/or file a case for any violation of the sanctions". These imply that there won't be, at least from the part of those editors, any discerning on whether there is an actual edit war in progress or just any technical violation of 1RR (coming from partial or unrelated reverts, for example), something which had been used as "common sense" explanation that the sanctions would only be applied when really deserved. I'm not sure I want to risk my editing privileges over people trying to make a WP:POINT by reporting every possible thing... LjL (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These can't be "chilling effects" since "chilling effects" refer to ... effects. What you are linking to is just reminders to editors not to edit war. Since you've been reverting and edit warring on that article like crazy I can see how you'd find that objectionable. Volunteer Marek  07:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report me then. I am the third most prolific contributor to the article and I strongly suspect most editors respect the work I have done there. I'm not sure the same can be said about you, sending people more chilling notices because (sorry, I mean "shortly after", who am I to imply causal links?) they removed the sanctions template again with the agreement of many other editors (even though you promptly re-added it). You have previously accused me of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, but I'm not entirely sure how you can affirm that while keeping a straight face. LjL (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with User:Fuzheado and User:LjL. There is no evidence that these sanctions are needed or have any beneficial effect. Considering the emotive nature of the subject, editing there has been remarkably collegial over the past week. On general principles, the idea of accepting this sort of mission creep from a body with such a poor reputation as ArbCom has, is a terrible one. Wikipedia is not a police state, and should not be encouraged to become one. --John (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the motion. The SCW&ISIL sanctions are an excellent tool to reduce edit-warring and stabilize articles, as already proven in the past.GreyShark (dibra) 18:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting help with this matter, as User:Volunteer Marek is "totally not causing chilling effects" on me by sending me this sort of notice about an article that didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere, in a totally WP:POINTY fashion (I did self-revert as requested, by the way, but I cannot accept this bullying - I'm doing nothing wrong). Further explanation at this talk page section. LjL (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is anyone suppose to "help" you with? The fact that I'm warning you - which is doing you a favor because I could just report you - again for reverting repeatedly on the article? On both the Paris-attacks related articles you have been reverting people left and right, in flagrant breach of 1RR in order to basically enforce your WP:OWN version. Also saying that the article "didn't even have a 1RR warning template anywhere" is disingenuous (i.e. its an attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:GAME, almost as silly as the claims that these articles have nothing to do with Syria and ISIS (when the text under dispute is specifically about Syrian refugees) - you are perfectly aware that discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on these articles because... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it: You filed this freakin' motion!. Are you really trying to pretend that you did not know that 1RR applies to an article for which you're challenging the existence of the 1RR restriction? Seriously?  Volunteer Marek  21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marek, in that particular instance you are most definitely gaming the system. Drop it, please: consensus was well against you for inclusion of that material before you began lawyering to get your way. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about? How am I "gaming the system"? I am disagreeing with LjL. Disagreeing with someone is NOT "gaming the system". Volunteer Marek  22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umpteen people have disagreed with you about the Polish issue in umpteen threads. Certainly, it is true that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote but it seems to me that after several "losses", you then opted to lawyer towards your goal. The thread here appears to be the pertinent one. Dammit, even you acknowledge that you got the articles mixed up - many of us have done that, no problem, but to then lawyer about it as a means to remove the material just seems weird. You said initially that the material was more useful in the very article where you have subsequently invoked these sanctions to remove it after failing to achieve that aim by other means. I can understand you getting the two mixed up, and you acknowledged it, but to then try to lawyer it in your favour just seems like gaming to me. Maybe it isn't, but that's how it looks. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "invoke the sanction" to remove it. The presence of the sanction and my opinions about the content are not related. Also, if by "umpteen" you mean ONE then yes. And obviously the issue here is that this is a recent events article which means that what was relevant at one point in time may not be relevant a few days later. But really, content issues are not the topic here. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been doing this removal at two articles, even though you thought it was valid at one per my diff. Numerous people have opposed you, which means more than ONE. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • This is what the consensus actually looks like (though I've selected some statements by the people involved but there were many more, as this has spanned several sections). Not wanting to bring the content dispute here, but third parties looking at this need to know how things stand in term of WP:IDHT, WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:GAMING: Volunteer Marek removes statements against staggering consensus, and when I reinstate them (without even removing his further integrations at all), he asks me to self-revert because of claimed 1RR violation. LjL (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • • You filed this motion to remove the 1RR restriction on the article. You then hijacked your own thread by asking for "help" (not sure what that is, looks like either a canvassing for reverts or a request for a spurious block) in a specific situation. This sort of makes it clear that you really don't care about the 1RR restriction per se but are rather trying to find a way to circumvent it in this particular instance so that you can enforce your WP:OWN version of the article through edit warring. Which makes this motion a textbook example in making proposals in bad faith. Volunteer Marek  04:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1) No, the motion was about the other article, not the "Reactions" article, which is even less tied to ISIL 2) WP:CANVASSING isn't a thing when reporting thing on the general forum for the relevant topic 3) I made it already clear in this motion that application of the sanctions on the particular article is in contention, so you're not discovering anything new 4) as to WP:OWN, you're the one still insisting to have it your way against clear consensus against you 5) I'm at my wits' end with you because you seem like a textbook example of hard-to-deal-with bad faith. LjL (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per RGloucester and Volunteer Marek. If edit warring is still going on, then it is way too early to vacate these sanctions. The MMA topics are an excellent example of how sanctions can quiet down editors and really push them to discuss. There wasn't a time back in 2012-13 where not a week went by without a MMA complaing on AN or ANI. Regulars at those boards have barely heard a peep from them once sanctions were enforced. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I don't know why I have made this motion given most of the people who were of the same opinion as me (and I know there were several) have steered very clear of it, but, for the record, this report is an example of the sort of non-constructive application of these overly strict rules that I'm worried about. The editor being reported is, quite obviously to anybody who has followed the evolution of the article involved, one of the top contributors and most constructive editors on it. Now he risks a block for reverting three unrelated, stupid edits. LjL (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWNERSHIP of an article does not provide exemption from 1RR, and is in fact harmful to the development of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of WP:OWNERSHIP is completely unsubstantiated, unless by "ownership" you mean "having made many positive contribution to an article". LjL (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please close the TP discussion

Much of the above results from Talk:Reactions_to_the_November_2015_Paris_attacks#Consensus_about_Polish_reactions and a similar discussion elsewhere. Volunteer Marek is still reinstating the POV tag. I have just reverted. Can someone please review that talk page section and close as they see fit, otherwise this could ping-pong in perpetuity. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pages listed here are (speedy) deletion candidates. These are pages from Category:AfC submissions declined as blank and Category:AfC submissions declined as a test in draft or Wikipedia talk namespace.

• tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=AfC+submissions+declined+as+blank&ns[5]=1&ns[118]=1&doit=1
• tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=AfC+submissions+declined+as+a+test&ns[5]=1&ns[118]=1&doit=1

103.6.159.83 (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They'll come up for G13 in a few months each. There's also a possibility (however small) that the editor returns and revises the page to make it useful. There are times where I've taken an incomprehensible mess and made it into a plausible draft, even based on not much more than the page's title. See User:Linguist111/sandbox for example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that an RfC is now underway regarding an addition to the edit filter guideline, taking on board some feedback from the RfC for the recently updated page. Opinions welcomed. Sam Walton (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

1. There are 50,000 redirects listed here [25] with several thousand now in RfD. Various editors are working through the lists only to find many have been nominated already when one clicks on them. Given the consensus that many of these redirects are garbage, a number of admins have been speedy deleting redirects, but can we get some additional help quickly closing RfD's and deleting the redirects (even before the 7 days is up) so they go red on the lists. This way we don't have to spend time checking and rechecking ones that have been nominated and found to be deletion worthy?

2. I want to confirm that redirected talk pages should be speedy deleted. For example: [26]. Cause of that is the case, hundreds of Neelix redirected talk pages can be speedy deleted, which will shorten up the to do list for those of us sifting through his redirects. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is work to be done but the RfDs have to be consulted because often two or three redirects are kept while the rest are deleted. This also might be best if this was posted on WP:AN where it's more likely to be seen by admins who can delete these redirects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point, which I was trying to make when I said "closing the RfDs". I'll move the post to AN. See also this discussion [27] at RfD Thanks Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am against shoehorning the redirects into CSD categories that don't fit. That way lies a very dangerous precedent. If for these why not for others? Further, WP:RFD#HARMFUL explains, in effect, why we should not use WP:R3 for 6-year-old redirects. Just Chilling (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is redirect topic banned - can we use G5 creations of a blocked or banned user? Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - that would only apply to redirects created after the ban was imposed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix wins again!!!!!11112211lol111 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't get everything you want this instant doesn't mean he won. Shrill ranting helps no one. It took him a decade to create this mess, it will take a few weeks to get rid of it and the more we do it systemically and in process, the more likely there won't be objections when we deal with the next editor (and there will be another editor). That said, we should follow process and list them in batches, probably by the page they are directed to. Note that the related changes page (Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Anomie/Neelix_list) tells you what's the issue. I'd suggest splitting the page into smaller subpages of maybe 1000 or so and just culling them systematically. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm goes right over your head, Rick. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm used to the World's Oldest people article debates where "lack of notability is not a reason for deletion" is repeatedly somehow a keep vote. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are chunked lists out there and some of us are systematically going through them. I started with the most numerous per target (399!) and worked my way down, but now switched to some more by type of problem. Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok maybe a bot can go through and cut out the red links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This batch was a bad decision, deleting some reasonable redirects. They should have been kept. The nom and the only voter don't seem to grasp that Printmaking is not Printing, and that all the well-known Japanese stuff is indeed Woodblock printing in Japan. They should be restored. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly wrong; I've restored all of them. Beeblebrox, would you mind explaining how trashing these is at all resembling facilitating a pagemove, un-shadowing images from Commons, or history merges? Please read Just Chilling's words and act likewise. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted a parallel discussion about this at ANI yesterday and it has evolved into a proposal to explicitly state that Neelix-created redirects may be deleted under WP:G6 basically just so that the issue of which criterion to apply can be resolved (the rationale is more eloquent there). If you're following this thread, your eyes on the proposal would be appreciated. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, 1RR is enforced on this article. This affects my ability to correct errors done by other editors. Shall we make this article an exception and then go for 2RR instead? --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a clear 4RR drafted up on George Ho as he was reverting against over a dozen other editors. (he does not accept the Russian/UK/US/Irish finding of a bomb). I did not submit it because it looked like he was stopping. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We got Russia's "confirmation" just to "verify" the Western states' hypotheses. Having news media and Wikipedia retell Russia's is bad enough, but that's news for ya. --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy on edit warring, and this policy makes no exceptions for being right. And that's for a reason because all people are different and they might have different concepts of "rightness", "truth", etc. based on their upbringing, beliefs, perception of reality and what they themselves want to believe, after all. That's why our editing process is based on consensus building among multiple editors through discussion, instead of reverting the heck out of it based on what individual editors like or dislike. Max Semenik (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since the Paris attacks a week ago, followed on Tuesday by the Russian investigators' determination that the flight was destroyed by a bomb, we have had a flurry of IP edits wanting to add that to the infobox as a final cause. I edit aviation articles a lot and that isn't usually how it is done; instead normal procedure would be to wait for an uninvolved determination. I am highly INVOLVED in editing that article, (with 131 edits I am the second most prolific editor there) and I skirted 3RR in restoring the uncertainty to the infobox as I believe is proper. We now have a reasonable compromise in the infobox but the unhelpful IP edits have continued. I requested semi-protection but the request has now sat there for a couple of days without action. I see from the archive that a previous request was declined by User:Samsara on the grounds that IPs were making useful edits and that semi-protection would prevent this. I don't see it like this so I just semi-protected the article myself in an IAR moment. I realise that this breaks the letter of WP:INVOLVED so I am raising it here for scrutiny by my peers. If anyone thinks it is better to unprotect the article I won't fight them. Or maybe someone else will take ownership of the protection? On a high-profile article like this the matter may be challenged so it's worth having a discussion maybe. Obviously if anyone thinks my actions demonstrate unfitness for adminship, I suppose we could go over to AN/I and I could tie myself to the whipping post there. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I've looked at that report at least ten times since you made it and each time decided the article should not yet be semi-protected. There's no clear consensus on the talk page and a compromise could have been worked out. I would have semi-protected if there was general consensus and the IPs refused to discuss. I was also going to semi-protect if we had a couple more disruptive edits today but a month's protection seems excessive. I'd be willing to take ownership of a two week semi based on disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my impression is that a compromise has now been worked out and that this would be a good moment to semi-protect. None of the IPs have discussed the matter at all as far as I am aware. Two weeks would be fine with me as a compromise on protection. --John (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A wise move, I think. And also very wise words from Max Semenik. I agree wholly with John about "the final cause". Personally, I think the probability is 99.9%, but that's just a personal view. There is still an internationally-agreed legal process to be observed? So I find the use of that word "confirms" on the front page quite inappropriate, but I can't be bothered to make a fuss at the ITN talk page. At least with this protection we may avoid the flurry of IPs claiming a bomb was planted by Abdelhamid Abaaoud on his way back from Syria (well, possibly). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. The editing pattern looks different now[28] than when the earlier request was made/declined.[29] Samsara 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a big deal about this, but from what I've seen the IPs and most logged in editors have been very constructive. The main problem is George Ho who has been very clear he puts no faith in the Russians. His anti-Russian bias is causing any conflict, and semi-protection only assists him in fighting for his position. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I searched past discussions to prove that I'm not anti-Russian. I am unsure whether this (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2014#.5bPosted.5d Russian financial crisis) helps. I still believe that governments can state dubious things. FBI can say it; so can Russian Federal Secret Service. Re-reading the article, ISIS has claimed responsibilities for many violent incidents, including this one, although some confessions might not be always true. And how and where can they buy and/or use computers to distribute Dabiq? George Ho (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not run on what you believe, it runs on what reliable sources say. (Also, are you aware that ISIL is in control of two large, modern cities - Raqqa and Mosul - and has supporters in other more "civilized" places?) ansh666 22:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - just to clarify- the SCW&ISIL sanctions are relevant for 1RR on reverting registered editors. You can revert IPs as much as you like with no effect.GreyShark (dibra) 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by motion of the Arbitration Committee, that: Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,

1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Google has, for the first time in two years, published their Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2015/11/updating-our-search-quality-rating.html

The guidelines mention Wikipedia repeatedly (52 times) as a source of useful information. Those trying to maneuver to the top of Google will be here trying to engineer the right kind of content. Please consider familiarizing yourself with the above document, and watching for such activity. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. This document talks about Wikipedia being used to help determine the reputation of websites and companies. It also talks about assessment of authority of Wikipedia articles based on the number of references included. Updated Wikipedia articles are more likely to have a better reputation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is 6 months since my indefinite topic ban was imposed on the 20th May 2015.[30] I am now seeking a lifting of this ban.@Awilley:

Although the subject-area of my ban was initially confused, the locus relates to three subjects (1) alternative medicine, (2) WP:MEDRS and (3) human medicine articles. I have not edited any pages in these subjects or entered into discussions about them during the last 6 months. However, there was initially some confusion on my part whether the topic ban included my sandbox. It was subsequently pointed out how it did, which I accepted. At that time, it was unclear from the WP:Banning policy that personal sandboxes were included. Therefore, after realising the omission, I edited the policy article to specify this to improve the project and give more accessible and accurate future guidance for editors and administrators.[31]

Throughout the last 6 months, I have been highly motivated to remain a responsible Wikipedian and contribute positively to the project whilst avoiding violating my topic ban. To ensure this, I have on several occasions contacted the (final) closing admin, User:Awilley, e.g. here[32] and another admin, User:Slimvirgin, to discuss my potential edits.

During the last 6 months, I have remained a highly productive editor, focusing primarily on animal behaviour and animal welfare articles.[33] For example, I recently substantially re-wrote Pain in fish and started the article Pain in amphibians. I have also regularly contributed to other aspects of the project such as the science reference desk e.g. here[34]

I believe the fundamental reason for my attracting a topic ban was my lack of understanding WP:MEDRS as applied to alternative medicine. This meant I challenged the guidelines in what became a very pointy and tangential approach to editing Talk pages. I was trying to make the point that it seemed to me at the time, there was inconsistency in the way that sources were being considered as reliable or not. I have now fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:POINTY. I recognise and accept my actions leading to the topic ban were disruptive to the project. I apologise and I pledge it will not happen again.

Briefly, I believe my topic ban has prevented the topic area from being disrupted by myself for the last 6 months. During this time, I have reflected upon and learned why I caused this disruption in the topic area. I will adjust my future editing in the topic area to ensure I cause no further disruption. The topic ban has achieved its objective and I request it now be lifted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admin comment: I consider myself a Wiki-friend of DrChrissy, and I have conflicted feelings about this request. I have some questions for DrChrissy that I would be interested in having answered. First, do you really want to be able to edit in that topic area? If you can be productive editing in other areas, as I believe that you are, what good would come from you returning to edit about alt med etc? Second, there is a significant possibility that the GMO arbitration case, now in the proposed decision stage, will end up issuing a new topic ban, in the GMO topic area. How can you reassure the community, in that context, that it is really true that you have taken on board the lessons of the ban that you now ask to be lifted? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Brief non-admin comment: This editor has violated their topic ban as recently as late August. Yobol (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought when I read this was much like Tryptofish's. If your behavior outside the area of your first topic ban leads to a second topic ban, how can we believe that removing the first ban would be a good idea? Deli nk (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Comment by proposer Thanks for the format change Trypto. You raise an extremely good point. I actually do not want to make editing in-roads into the subjects covered by my topic ban. I have no plans to edit human medicine articles (the irony here is that I cannot recollect ever having substantially edited a human medicine page before - although I may have at some point). I also have very little motivation to edit alt.med articles, except where these relate to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. I feel, however, I will become involved in WP:MEDRS, but again as this relates to animals. I have not looked at the MEDRS/Talk page for many months. The last time I did, there were discussions to extend MEDRS guidelines to animals and perhaps other science pages. I feel I have something to contribute to these discussions, but please be assured, these will not be disruptive contributions.

So, why do I want the topic ban lifted? It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing. There are several editors out there playing "gotcha" with me. Some editors have argued that because I have included content on the environmental toxicity of a substance to rats, this means I am making a comment on human health and therefore I have violated my topic ban. In reality, my reason for entering the content was that rats are often used as a model for the toxicity of a substance to other mammals in general. Other editors have effectively suggested that if I am using a source, I should count the words and if more of the words relate to human health rather than animal health, I am in violation of my topic ban if I use the source! Working under this extremely negative, microscopic surveillance has been totally exasperating for me and I wish to return to editing articles without such scruitiny of my editing.

Regarding the current ArbCom case, I would like admins here to look at this diff, please.[35] Note the first diff of apparent evidence at the PD relates to my behaviour well before the imposition of my topic ban and shows only a single reversion by me. The 2nd-4th diff in the PD also indicate just a single reversion on my part. I would argue this is not disruptive behaviour, but rather, indicates the topic ban I received here has helped me understand and develop a more balanced approach to engaging in such disputes.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems. I see absolutely no benefit to the project in releasing him from any sanction they are currently under. Further, the reason given for wanting out from the ban "It is simply because I am totally, and completely fed up with looking over my shoulder whilst editing." Well, that's too bad, they shouldn't have edited in such a fashion as to be topic-banned - and the attitudes expressed 'All these editors are picking on me and looking over my shoulder monitoring my edits' does not bode well for non-combative editing should the ban be lifted. NO, just... no. BMK (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously do not see it in such absolute terms as you do. One possibility I am wondering about would be basically to leave the topic ban in place, but to carefully amend it, by revising it to decrease the ambiguities over where the boundaries are. Perhaps some veterinary topics could be designated as permitted within the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for editing pages related to animals such as Veterinary acupuncture. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the TB handcuffs DrChrissy from being the productive editor he could be in his area of expertise. It has become more like a punishment than a deflector of potential disputes and that hurts rather than helps the project. Atsme^📞📧 06:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I agree with Atsme that unshackling DrChrissy is more likely to help the project than hurt it. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose - I have to note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision a current case before Arbcom. Though it's possible they can change their positions before the close, right now it looks a whole lot like she's treading towards a topic ban in another area. I note the finding of facts here. This does not present much confidence to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DrChrissy did not violate his topic ban as Yobol suggests, DrChrissy was in fact banned
  User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine topics such as acupuncture, homeopathy, TCM, energy medicine, faith healing, etc. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)
  His post didn't cross that line. I'd say lift it. KoshVorlon 12:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I continue to think that the wisest course of action here is to better define the boundaries. Personally, I am very sensitive to the fact that it is unfair to DrChrissy to always have to look over one's shoulder. There is a difference between a user being required to be careful in adhering to a sanction, which is appropriate, and a user always having to worry about getting caught in a "gotcha", which should never deliberately be part of a sanction. If there are "gotchas", that doesn't constitute appropriate "punishment", but rather it reflects excessively vague writing of the sanction.

So, @DrChrissy: Would lifting the prohibition on alternative veterinary medicine, while retaining the restriction on alternative human medicine, be helpful to you? If so, would you be willing not to get involved in MEDRS? How would you like to define the boundary with respect to things like animal studies such as that study about toxicity in rats? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from OP Trypto, thank you very much for this. I know you are trying to help. I could argue for or against your proposal, however, I feel this ultimately comes down to the question, if the alternative veterinary medicine area no longer needs protection, why does alternative medicine and MEDRS need further protection from me? Where are the edits to suggest these latter 2 of the 3 areas of the locus still need protection from me? I feel very strongly that accusations here such as "DrChrissy's editing in other closely-released [sic] fringe areas has been combative and rife with obvious POV-problems." by BMK above should be supported by diffs or other evidence. Otherwise this may deteriorate into a drive-by shooting.

Just to indicate the difficulty of working with a topic ban on MEDRS, try explaining to a new editor mistakenly imposing MEDRS on an animal behaviour article with respect to primary and secondary sources without mentioning MEDRS! How can my inability to even point the editor in the correct direction possibly be beneficial to the project?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's useful to discuss the boundaries in this way, rather than just jumping prematurely to a concrete proposal. I see better now what you are saying about MEDRS. Perhaps you should be able to refer to MEDRS and to cite its proper or improper use in veterinary or animal-related discussions, without actually editing the MEDRS page or its talk page, or making or discussing proposals about how to revise MEDRS. As for alternative human medicine, I too would like to see specifics. From both "sides". I'd like you to indicate specifically what kinds of edits you would like to be able to make there, and I'd like other editors to indicate specifically what edits you have made that they think have been disruptive. Then, let's see where we stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make it clear that I have never edited WP:MEDRS and I see no reason why I would want to edit the main article in the foreseeable future. I have edited the talk page. At the time of my topic ban being imposed, there were discussions there about extensions of the MEDRS guidelines to include animals and veterinary science. I would contribute to these discussions - however, after having just looked at the Talk page, it appears these discussions are no longer ongoing. I would perhaps like to contribute positively in discussions where animals are used as models, particularly in behavioural studies and perhaps in zoonoses. Regarding alt.med articles, again I would like to edit where my knowledge of animal physiology, behaviour, and adequate design/controls for animal studies will benefit the article and the project. As I indicated in my OP, I have fully acquainted myself with WP:MEDRS and I would make edits fully compliant with these guidelines.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm pursuing this because I think it is becoming pretty clear that, no matter what, there will not be a consensus for a complete and unconditional lifting of the ban, so I'm trying to pin down something that would be better than nothing. I'm friendly to lifting the ban with respect to veterinary and animal-related topics. I think that, given what you just said, there may no longer be much reason for you to really be involved in the MEDRS talk page. Perhaps we can examine lifting the ban with respect to veterinary alt med (but not human alt med), and animal testing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not share your belief there will be no consensus for an unconditional lifting, unless contributors are allowed to make unfounded accusations against me without providing evidence. What is your evidence that MEDRS needs further protection from me? (Please note that animal testing is not part of my topic ban and never has been.)DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't have that kind of evidence myself, and I'm not claiming to. I'm just trying to discuss things, keeping in mind that this is not a vote. At this point, I'm going to step back and watch what other editors say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tryptofish, Yobol, and BMK. I see nothing that indicates the ban should be lifted at this time. That the editor wants such a ban lifted only 6 months later tells me they are chomping at the bit to start editing the topic banned articles immediately. And that tells me lesson not learned and disruption will once again likely be the result. If such is the case, what will the response be? An indef ban for the account rather than a topic ban alone? I don't see this request as a wise move on the requesting editor's part nor do I see that there won't be more problems for the editor down the road. The evidence just isn't there. More time has to pass, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to reply to each and every posting here - I have learned from experience that such an approach is not looked favourably upon at WP. However, Winkelvi (who I believe I have never interacted with before) misinterprets my keenness to have the topic ban lifted. I have already indicated above my future editing intentions if the ban is lifted - I will not re-hash these, but will re-iterate there is no desire on my part whatsoever to rush into editing any of the areas I am banned from. Winkelvi, please AGF. My chomping at the bit is to allow me to edit more positively and comprehensively (note the example regarding MEDRS I gave above - this is just one example where the project is actually suffering from my topic ban). You say "The evidence just isn't there." - could you please tell me what evidence you would like to see?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a follow-up - Tryptofish has not voted Oppose. He has actually made some very reasonable suggestions about a modified topic ban which are under discussion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I have not yet really "voted" either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per Supports above, and DrChrissy's statement just above. Opposers are utterly unconvincing and appear to be grasping at straws. This is a noted content provider that has served their time, and is not intimidated by the experience. Bravo! Jusdafax 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The editor is up for an ArbCom topic ban due to the same behavior that resulted in the current topic ban and people want to lift it? Makes no sense. Though I see a lot of the same names supporting here that are involved in said GMO case.Capeo (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Capeo: I have just left a message for User:Edgar181 below, but as you have posted a similar assertion, I will pose the same question to you. To help the closing admin understand your !vote, please could you state which is the "same behavior" you believe I was topic banned for and which you believe is now being looked at by ArbCom. What is your evidence for making such a statement, please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is my evidence? Seriously? There's plenty over on the case pages themselves for those who want to peruse it. The same behavior would POV pushing and some edit-warring as well. Capeo (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. You have still not provided evidence; you have simply said where evidence might be found. The case pages are enormous! You are proposing a huge time-sink for the closing admin to determine if your statement is legitimate and worthy of taking into account.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick follow up - the PD presented only 4 diffs, all of which were related to only 2 interactions but clearly showed goading of me by one very notorious editor. The diffs contained only 2 reversions by myself, one in each interaction presented as "evidence".DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Whipsers): Psst, DrChrissy, placing blame on another editor isn't helping you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Typto - heard and understood.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will indeed leave it to the closing admin to decide if my oppose is legitimate. Your history of conflicts in fringe areas is evident enough for them to see just from what lead to your current topic ban and the one soon to be imposed by ArbCom. Capeo (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence of which "fringe" pages I have edited since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me start by saying I do believe DrChrissy is a good faith editor who genuinely has the best interest of Wikipedia's readers at heart. I would add that there were some problems with the original topic ban, namely that users agreed to a ban on "biomedical topics" without really defining what that term means, leading to some messiness when trying to impose and define the scope of the ban, which in turn led to far more after-discussion than should have been necessary for a simple topic ban. Because of these factors I am inclined towards leniency/AGF here.

I'm not sure if the edit cited from August really constitutes a violation of the ban, but if it does I believe this was not intentional, and frankly I don't really feel like reviewing an entire arbcom case to see what's going on there. If arbcom feels a new, different sanction is warranted they are perfectly able to implement it, but I dislike the idea of denying this request because of an accusation there. As a former arb I am painfully aware of how many such accusations are made during cases, many if not most of which don't lead anywhere. I think we should give DrChrissy another chance, per WP:ROPE, which of course implies tht they also should understand that if they cause similar problems int he future the bar to re-imposing this ban will be quite low and there will be very little chance of getting it lifted again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your logic here: the initial ban was not precise and had to be restated in more precise terms. That happened a long time before the edit in question, plenty of time for DrC to unserstand the boundaries of the ban; but even if we wanted to show DC some leniency because of the initial ban wording snafu, we've already done that: DrC was not blocked because of that edit. There's is absolutely no logical reason why an garble at the beginning of the ban, and a posssible boundary-pushing edit for which there was no sanction equals a lifting of the topic ban because the subject of the ban is tired of it. I will lay odds that the subject of every topic ban gets tired of it at one time or another.

Also, I do not agree that DrC has "the best interests of Wikipedia at heart." I think their editing shows that they have the best interests of their fringe POV at heart, and what they want for WIkipedia is to skew it in that direction. BMK (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I am someone who would, if anything, would be pegged as having a POV opposite to what you ascribe to DrChrissy (not that I really do, but it is how I appear to be perceived), but I do not see DrChrissy the way that you do. And Beeblebrox, there are two separate topic bans involved here, and the one that is under discussion here at AN is not an ArbCom decision, but rather, a community sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody please tell me what my POV is in relation to this topic ban because I have no idea!DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have worded that inelegantly, but I wasn't trying to say that you have a POV. I was saying that the editors who want the ban to remain, full stop, seem to think that you have fringey views or something like that. But I don't think the issue here is really about POV, so I'm sorry if that's become a distraction. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, my reply was not really aimed at you. It was more aimed at BMK. His accusations are a mixture of vague, wishy-washy statements without providing any solid evidence. @Beyond My Ken: What Fringe articles have I edited? How are my edits on those articles indicating I am pushing a POV? What is this POV? I think your reply needs to be very careful because as far as I know, it is not inappropriate to have a POV, but it is inappropriate to push a POV. Please provide evidence that I have been doing this since my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was also not sufficiently clear in my remarks.

@Beyond My Ken:Note the seperate paragraphs. I was not intending to say that the ppossible topic ban violation was due to the earlier vagueries about it scope, just that it looks like a bit of a stretch and I do not believe it was intentional violation.

@Tryptofish: I am well aware of which topic ban we are discussing. Some commenters here have suggested that because another tban is a possible result of an ongoing arbcom case, that means this one should not be lifted. I don't think the two should be linked in that manner. I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the lifting the arbcom tban. (which if I understand the situation correctly doesn't actually exist at this time) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood what you originally said, to be referring to Arbs reviewing this topic ban. Never mind. But I think you are right about ROPE. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support Topic bans are silly and 6-month or more topic bans are ridiculous. DrChrissy is a good editor and he will either edit constructively or not in these areas. If not, there will be blocks and possibly a ban in the future. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support with alternate proposal I'm the admin who refined the wording of the current topic ban to what it is now, and I've been a point of contact when DrChrissy had questions or skirted the edges of the ban. I am encouraged that DrChrissy recognizes what the problem was with their editing 6 months ago, and though they have (in my view) been skirting the edges of the ban, I can also understand how it would be difficult to edit articles about animal medicine (their profession) without ever touching human medicine. Anyway, I think the topic ban has been a good thing overall for reducing drama so I'm hesitant to eliminate it completely. I would support, however, converting it to a voluntary "on your honor" topic ban, where DrChrissy promises to do their best to stay away from human medicine and MEDRS, but doesn't have to worry about being blocked if they mess up. ~Awilley (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, thanks for your input here. As ever, your words are well considered and very helpful. First, I don't think I have ever edited a human medicine article (I may be wrong here and other editors should feel free to indicate this if I am) and I have no desire to begin doing this now. However, although I have absolutely no motivation to start posting to the MEDRS Talk page at the moment, I feel that I may have something to contribute if animal-related matters arise in the future. I have worked extremely hard to build my reputation and integrity here on wikipedia. If I was to promise to do my best to stay away from MEDRS Talk and then edited there at some time in the future, there is no doubt in my mind there would be postings along the lines of "DrChrissy - you broke your promise. You have little integrity". In your proposal, I would not be blocked for the edit, but I feel it would leave me open to abusive and inflammatory posts. One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors).DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about this? You agree to stay off articles specifically about human medicine and human alt-med, and away from MEDRS for 3 months. This is more narrow than your current ban, so you won't have to count words, scrutinize sources, or look over your shoulder. Just don't edit certain articles. This would be kind of the test period to see if drama increases again, and it ends automatically without appeal, after which you can edit anywhere on the site. ~Awilley (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed in principle to negotiating bans with the subject of the ban. Discussion can take place between uninvolved editors, but to put it on a one-to-one basis between the banning admin and the subject leaves it open to abuse. BMK (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse? Who should bans be negotiated with if not the subject of the ban? And what's wrong with giving editors some control over where they can edit? The way I see it if somebody has enough input where they can agree to follow a topic ban, that is a very good thing, and they are more likely to abide by that sanction than if it was unilaterally imposed on them by forces completely outside of their control. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your words. I would be amenable to considering this if the wording was very specific to articles rather than topics or discussion. For example, it was very recently announced that GM salmon has now been licensed in the US. I was editing the Genetically modified fish article to reflect this. The RS I was using stated that the fish would not be labelled as GM because it was "nutritionally equivalent to non-GM salmon" (I think those were the words). I felt this fact should be included, however, I did not include it because it probably relates to human health which is a part of human medicine. I think your proposal would deal with this type of problem. However, it is probably worth noting that the "count the words relating to humans and the number of words relating to animals" and "rats are used in studies for human health results therefore you have breached your topic ban" both occurred on the Glyphosate article - a herbicide, for goodness sake. I can see the distinct advantages of what you have suggested. But, I am mindful that many people have already supported an unconditional lifting of my topic ban now that 6 months has expired, rather than my having to experience a further 3-month test-period. I'm sure the closing admin will take all these points of view into consideration.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would only apply to articles only. I too am aware of the supports piling up below, so you will likely be unbanned without needing my support. I think it's a good idea anyway, even if you just make the commitment to yourself and don't write it down on-Wiki. ~Awilley (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting of the topic ban. It has led to several "gotcha" situations, and no-one being clear where the boundaries lay. DrC makes clear above that his understanding of MEDRS has improved. Lifting the ban will mean that he can work unimpeded, particularly on non-human animal health. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unconditional lifting of the ban, with an accompanying understanding of WP:ROPE. I've seen enough discussion now, and I have made up my mind. I think that Beeblebrox makes good points, both about ROPE and about the non-dependence on whatever happens at ArbCom. I've waited for evidence of harmful edits around the boundaries of the topic, and nobody has really presented any. Lift the ban entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting the ban given DrC's recognition of what caused the problems in the first place. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would feel very comfortable using DrChrissy's suggestion from his response to Awilley above: One way around this would be for a voluntary ban to be time-limited to e.g. 4 weeks, after which I would be free to edit the entire site without question (of course, I would be adhering to the usual behaviour and PAGs expected of editors) I maintain that he should be able to edit this site without question, and would especially hate to loose his voice at MEDRS-related discussions. petrarchan47คุก 02:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The community will do what the community will do, but if the ban is lifted, I see a significant probability that we'll see DrC's name on the noticeboards again. Remember, you read it here first! BMK (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. DrChrissy - straightforward, cooperative, professional. The Tban implementation - poorly-defined, "gotcha", dysfunctional. (How does WP attract/keep expert editors? By draining them of morale?! DrChrissy is a stronger editor from this muddy experience. That deserves recognition not bad faith.) IHTS (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support a valuable editor, Wikipedia should be stronger, "knowledge-wise" with such an editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not recognise the editor described in many of the support comments here as the one who has been topic banned by the community. The editing environment has been improved in the topic areas covered by the ban. The fact that ARBCOM is examining those very same behaviours that led DrC to be sanctioned by the community suggests to me that this appeal is premature. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also interesting to note that I recognize many of the "support" voters as being other editors who generally support the fringe side of things (QuackGuru being the obviously blatant exception). BMK (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although it's true that there are some editors who predictably line up to vote (not !vote) for the fringey "side" every time, and it's also true that the decision here is not going to end up as a vote, but rather as an administrative assessment of the strengths or weaknesses of arguments, I really do not think that DrChrissy is someone who advocates for fringe material. Nor, may I say, am I (and I hope that my pointing that out will not be portrayed as "whiney"). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not including you in the group of editors I mentioned, nor would I characterize your participation here as "whining", as opposed to your ongoing disproportionate response to your 24-hour ArbCom block over a month ago, which I advised you to put behind you ("Get over it"), instead of dwelling on it unnecessarily. Other editors have been the recipients of unwarranted blocks for any number of reasons, and you don't see them making it their life's work to rectify the injustice. (That's assuming that your block was unwarranted, which we cannot know because we are not privy to the information that ArbCom was.) BMK (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I repeat: I see no evidence that DrChrissy will add fringey content. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I would say that your evaluation of their editing is suspect, and advise you to re-read the community discussion which lead to the topic ban in the first place. You'll find it here. BMK (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Roxy, thank-you very much for that first sentence. I could not have asked for a more eloquent piece of writing to indicate how much my editing behaviour has changed over the past 6 months, and how the topic ban has achieved its objective within the time indicated by the closing admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you deliberately misreading what Roxy wrote, or are you simply being disingenuous? What he said was nothing like your summary of it. He's saying that the subject area you've been topic banned from has improved significantly by your not being there, and that the description of your editing promoted by your supporters is unrecognizable to him when compared to your actual editing behavior. (Hint: It was bad for you, not good.) BMK (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear BMK. Lots of bold and underlining, but Roxy does not even bother to defend his own posting. Are you able to read his mind? He correctly identified that the community have recognised I have changed my editing behaviour subsequent to the topic ban and that is completely valid evidence for it to be lifted. I simply thanked him for that observation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I can't read Roxy's mind, but, fortunately, I don't have to, since I can read their words, in which they expressed quite clearly what is on their mind. I suggest you try doing the same, since he said nothing whatsoever about the community recognizing a change in your editing behavior. It probably would be a good idea to read it again, this time without reading into it what you want it to say, instead of what he actually says. While it's often the point of snarky remarks, reading comprehension really is necessary to edit Wikipedia properly, if one is to, for instance, represent accurately what reliable sources say rather than what one wishes them to say. BMK (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. Real life, and it was bedtime. I dreamed about leopards and spots. Perhaps I should get a vetinary to interpret ... Oh. -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will an admin please evaluate and close this discussion? Atsme^📞📧 14:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved

 – OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No remaining live edits, user blocked by NawlinWiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]