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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 19 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 74 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Discussion archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Reguyla-Kumioko community ban. Katie^talk 04:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed over the past month or two or more that IP's starting with 172 have been blocked. A message pops up when trying to edit saying all 172. IP's are blocked until December. This is preventing thousands of editors who use tablets, smart phones, etc. I tried to create an account and that was blocked as well. It absurd to block millions of T Mobil users. I guess Wikipedia is becoming a more exclusive club. Remember exclusive means less relevant and if it becomes to exclusive it becomes endangered. 208.54.38.175 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to give us more information - specifically what does the block message say. Looking down the Range block database for blocking starting 172 and ending in December 2015, I see 172.56.0.0/18 by @Materialscientist: which says "Long-term abuse, WP:BLP violations". It looks like you've experienced collateral damage, and as long as Wikipedia is available for anyone to edit anonymously, this situation will remain. If you have an account, you should have enough information to post an unblock request on your talk page, which can be reviewed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read post again.208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Unblock}} on the account talk page, and simply say you're caught in a range block for the reason. NE Ent 11:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting original user: "I tried to create an account and that was blocked as well."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And without knowledge of which account this is, there's nothing we can do about it. For all I know, the disruptive user in question is the one who reported it; even if not, the block may be justified for other reasons. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many IP's does the 172.56.0.0/18 block hit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It effects all American T mobile users which effects millions of people. I am unaware if it effects Canadian users as well but I believe it does. Why is it blocked for so long? As far as I can tell reading the myriad of bureaucratic rules this violates policy concerning broad long term range blocks. It appears this type of block is already sufficiently covered and recommended against. Additionally account creation is blocked as well. Why would anyone completely block millions of T Mobile users?208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The block 172.56.0.0/18 (like any /18) hits 16,384 IPs. This is Not all of T-Mobile, as they also use the ranges shown here (10,649,856 addresses total). The blocking admin (User:Callanecc) may be interested in contributing to this discussion. I will notify -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is Callanecc. His block is superseded by block #1586 by Materialscientist. The other 172.xxx blocks belong to Elockid who is having the more dramatic impact. I'm sure they have their reasons.

• 494 172.246.0.0/16 16 Elockid
• 826 172.255.0.0/16 16 Elockid
• 1701 172.56.8.0/23 23 Callanecc
• 1729 172.86.176.0/21 21 Elockid
• 1586 172.56.0.0/18 18 Materialscientist

We haven't been getting bombarded with unblock requests so the IP can simmer down...it isn't as they describe.:
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the 208.xxx IP as a sock. The account, User:Davidromano67 is one of his...based on the way that account looks in editing history there are probably more. I would leave all the range blocks in place...looks like it is having an effect on some of them. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Range block database appears to be wrong, which is consistent with Wikipedia:Database reports saying "many database reports are consequently broken. The actual record can be viewed at [5]; (note: I wasn't smart enough to figure that out myself, but I was smart enough to ask Diannaa on their talk page.) NE Ent 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NE Ent. It has the appearance that Callanecc only modified Material's pre-existing block without changing anything just so he could get the "<!-- ACC ignore -->" comment in there so that (guessing) the audit subcommittee or whatever audit group doesn't screw up and undo it. :) Forget it, 208.xxx, it isn't going to happen no matter how much you wikilawyer.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"<!-- ACC ignore -->" is so that users who create accounts at WP:ACC don't defer the request to CheckUsers. Regarding the blocks, there are heaps and heaps of hits in the CheckUser log indicating that there are many sockpuppeteers using these ranges so they are unlikely to be unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

172.255.0.0/16 and 172.244.0.0/16 are not allocated to T-mobile. Both those companies are webhosts. Elockid^(Boo!) 13:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Can an admin please edit User:Brustopher/common.js to end the enforced wikibreak on my main account? My exams finished far earlier than I expected when I set it. Thank you in advance. Bosstopher2 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Please consider updating the link on your userpage. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am requesting the attention of the administrative noticeboard regarding continued disruptive editing by Mohsin17 (talk · contribs) after a recent block expiration.[6]

Since October 2013, [7] Mohsin17 has flagrantly ignored repeated requests from the community asking that he or she puts an end to the continued introduction of unsourced content, be it in the form of unsourced original research or poorly sourced content attributed to blogs/web forums. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

See also the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics#Pakistani_cities_Transport_and_Economy_section

We have shown good faith to this editor for 2 years, and the responses received show an absolute defiance to our policies, going as far as making claims of discrimination. [17] [18] I feel that I, along with several other editors, have exhausted all attempts at communication with this individual and am now requesting community feedback on how to best proceed. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not ignored any requests by youtaor t anyone.The fact is that only a single person has objection on content added me and that's you. You are continuously targeting me, deleting my material and spreading hatred against me. Your behavior is totally biased Mohsin17 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If reverting your edits while assuming good faith to keep Wikipedia in accordance with policy and sending you notes to remind you of that means you're a target, then I don't know what to say. As multiple editors, Yamaguchi included, all agree that your edits are disruptive, you are by no means being targeted by an individual. It seems like that because you're the one in the spotlight. However, if you stop your disruptive editing and start editing productively, you'll find that you'll stop being called out. Amaury (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin17, please make note of my response to you at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics which reads:

Mohsin17, numerous messages have been left on your talk page indicating that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, and that sources are required for all significant content changes. I see on your talk page that you have been notified at least 5 times between now and October 2013, so I do not understand why you are continuing to add unsourced and otherwise poorly sourced content to these articles. Please adhere to our editorial policies and guidelines and I wish you well in you future endeavors. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC).

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, provided that your contributions can be attributed to reliable third party source. Take the List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan article for example, where you have continued to dismiss our WP:V policy by introducing original research or using web forums hosted by SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM as a reference despite requests not to. Examples of sources you have used recently include: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1696650&page=46 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1731754 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3608 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1698468 - et cetera. These are unacceptable per WP:USERGENERATED, please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or request assistance from the community via the respective talk page. Persistent edit warring in opposition of our core policies is not the way. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello— Today, Mohsin17 (talk · contribs) has relapsed back to citing internet chat forums as sources despite multiple requests not to. [19] In some cases, the thread will discuss an article somewhere which may actually have encyclopedic purpose, and in other threads not. In any case, the SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM forums have no place being cited here. Will an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor please assist? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsin17: Forums are not suitable reliable sources. I suggest you revert your addition else you will attract a block for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin17's reintroduction of internet chat forums as cited references on 07:08, 13 October 2015‎ remain in place in the List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan article at this time. I have disengaged from the article until an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor has an opportunity to review and intervene. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a clear final notice that if Mohsin17 doesn't discontinue this practice of using original research and forum posts for sourcing, he will face a block. It could be that a block is warranted at this point but I like to give editors one last warning that a block is on its way if behavior doesn't change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it for you, Yamaguchi先生. Amaury (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that these two articles have hit the headlines after Homeland Security IPs were identified as having edited them. There could be a fair bit of activity picking in the coming days, which may bring about some potential BLP violations. I would recommend that admins be ready with ArbCom DS notifications relating to BLP's and American Politics 2. Blackmane (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, revdels, blocks, page protections etc. Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Kevin McCarthy, though? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this one--MONGO 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Kevin McCarthy (California politician) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, the Speaker who never was :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have checked that it didn't just go to a DAB page. Blackmane (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DS imposition is necessary. There already have been some revdels. Right now both articles are semi-protected and being well monitored. A DS notification would just make it harder for the people who are monitoring and maintaining the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MelanieN. I only posted as a heads up to admins, how they choose to act with regards I leave to your (plural) discretion. The list was just options off the top of my head. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this purely punitive two-month topic ban (the continuation of which has a purely punitive effect, however preventative it was intended when issued)) by Future Perfect at Sunrise be lifted; it has been one month to the day so far. It's certainly not preventative of anything: The admittedly disruptive dispute at WT:MOS had already wound down and had moved to WP:ANEW; and two editors arguing about behavior at a noticeboard that exists for resolving behavioral disputes is not disruptive (though this WP:ACDS topic ban actually derailed that dispute resolution without any resolution being reached).

I can respond here, to address any questions or concerns over the next day, but I'm preparing to travel to Washington DC for WikiConference 2015, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to respond between late 7 Oct. and ca. 9 Oct, and will be AFK for much of 7 Oct., though available for a couple of hours from this posting, and again ca. 12 hours after it.

The ban was applied one-sidedly on a technicality (the other editor's discretionary sanctions alert had expired), although the admin had initially intended it to apply equally to both parties [20]. My repeated requests, on my own talk page (see [21], [22], [23], and [24] and that of the admin (see [25], [26], and [27]) for it to be narrowed or even clarified as to what it really means, have been totally ignored, as was my request (see diffs above from my own talk page) for evidence of its justification (the admin made accusations without diffing any evidence to support them, which is among the things that WP:ARBATC in particular was enacted to restrain, ironically). Weirdly, despite saying they would address these questions and concerns promptly [28], the admin has been active the entire time, even issuing further topic bans to others, then later archived the requests without any comment or action.

I've been just living with this TB in good faith, but it's getting to WP:IAR levels of impracticality at this point. All it's doing is muzzling me from routine participation, having the WP equivalent of a chilling effect on my ability and willingness to edit. I have a big pile of reliable sources to add to the affected article, and am just sitting on them twiddling my thumbs. The article in its present state is so bad that The Guardian publicly criticized Wikipedia for it, and that newspaper article is still in top-ten Google search results for the subject [29]. All this TB is doing is preventing me from genuinely improving a public-eyesore article (a genuine PR problem for WP) with RS research I've already done. Well, it's also denying me the ability to participate in any MoS-related discussion, despite the disruptive discussion having been very narrowly focused on one topic, and entirely a two-editor pissing match, not a general brou-ha-ha; a far more useful approach would have been an interaction ban for a while. But even that would not be needed at this point; ironically, I was in the middle of drafting a constructive olive-branch message for the other editor's talk page when FPaS dropped the TB bomb on me, and its overreaching scope actually prohibits me from posting it! What good is a TB that prevents editors trying to work out their differences?

I concede that my tone was intemperate in the original dispute, and it was a mistake on my part to allow myself to engage in a dispute that became too heated, circular, and lengthy. One month is more than enough time to re-think my approach to this issue entirely (namely just sourcing the question reliably beyond most further argument – though the overbroad TB actually prevents me from doing this! – instead of continuing to argue back and forth about the matter, and starting at the article, where resolving this really matters the most, since it's our encyclopedia content, not an internal question of style guide wording). I also have a long history of coming to peaceable terms with editors with whom I've had vociferous disputes in the past, and I look forward to that kind of resolution with the other editor in the dispute behind this incident (with whom I already agree much of the time on most matters). If not for this TB we probably would already have such a resolution.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Added info about The Guardian article and prevention of user-talk dispute resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In looking, it looks like SMcCandlish used dispute resolution , rather than just edit war, to resolve the issue and it didn't work, further, he politely contacted Future Perfect at Sunrise for clarification and it looks like FPOS just brushed him off. I'd say lift it. KoshVorlon 10:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Update:' Off to WikiConference. Probably incomunciado for a day or so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Got airport wifi for a few hours, if anyone wants to ask anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I think. I'll admit I haven't read over everything because frankly there's a lot of it and it's pretty dry reading. But I think it's worth giving SMc the chance here, he's handled the banning admin's lack of communication pretty well and he does sound like he's learned from the situation. Worst case scenario, the topic ban just gets reimposed, but I judge the chances of that happening pretty small. Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Request closure in favor of the request: This was open so long, without opposition, and without further comment but the supports, that a bot already auto-archived it once. If there are any questions/concerns, I have WiFi for about 20 min. (WikiConference is closed now, I'm at a café), and will again a few hours after that, at the airport.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The bot shouldn't have archived this rather new thread so quickly. I think it deserves more feedback if admins who are familiar with the topic ban could weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just lift it. I've already supported above, but this has been open for what four or five days and no one has opposed. FPAS is a good admin and I'm not saying the topic ban was a bad decision – certainly from what I glanced on my watchlist it was becoming an unhealthy and unproductive discussion for those involved – but it's now a month on and even FPAS doesn't seem to want to comment here (he has been editing while this discussion has been open) and say that the topic ban should continue. SMc will know he's treading a fine line in this area for a while and it's not like MoS talk pages are unwatched by anyone – I'm sure in the unlikely event he does anything silly it will be easy to come back here and re-apply, but in the meantime we should AGF for a long-term contributor who has clearly learned from the situation. Jenks24 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• OP calls the temporary topic ban "purely punitive", but I see no evidence to show that punishing him was the motivation behind it. Without supporting facts, perhaps he would be advised to strike that claim. In any event, I don't think it's appropriate to remove the topic ban without first hearing from the sanctioning admin, FPAS -- which could also shed light on the reason he applied the ban. So, let's call this a Procedural oppose until that happens. BMK (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise: in regard to the above. BMK (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Beyond My Ken:. Done. My intent was never to imply a punitive motive (what on earth would be the point of attacking FPaS's motivations when the TB was for allegedly attacking someone else's motives to begin with?), only that this long after the event, it has a punitive effect and no preventative one. See latest post on my talk page: Even the other party in the original dispute is inviting my commentary on a current MoS matter. This water isn't just under the bridge but has flowed well past it at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of a topic ban from MOS was to prevent you from participating at MOS. If your only real argument for lifting (from taking a look above) a reasonably placed ban is that its punitive because it prevents you from editing in the area its designed to prevent you editing in due to past behaviour... Well that is pretty much the point of it. Its 2 months. Take a break for 4 more weeks. Oppose Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of a topic ban for anyone from anything is to prevent disruption of or relating to that topic, not (constructive) participation in it. I've already explained why the TB should be lifted early. Given that, as far as I recall, every single one of the quite infrequent disciplinary actions ever taken against me in over ten years on this project has involved a sentiment that my posts leading up to and in defense against said action are long-winded and repetitive, I decline to be drawn into another re-explanation of what I already explained in probably too much detail above already, and which others seem to be accepting without coming to the assumption of circular reasoning you are. PS: I think it's rather injust to "procedur[ally] oppose until [it] happens" that I make a retraction (of something that you simply inferred and I did not actually say), then oppose anyway after I comply.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The point of a topic ban for anyone from anything is to prevent disruption of or relating to that topic, not (constructive) participation in it" is incorrect. "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." This was all the explanation ever needed. Any participation is banned. Period! You were deemed to be disruptive in the MOS topic area and temporarily topic banned accordingly. You may have never agreed with it or accepted it, but that is totally immaterial to the banning policy. You are allowed to neither disrupt nor constructively participate in the topic area until the topic ban expires. That's it in a nutshell. It wasn't punitive then, and it still isn't punitive after all this extra filibustering. Doc talk 08:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That comment seems to serve no purpose. I obviously understand that I can't participate in the affected topic constructively, or I would not be asking for the TBan to be lifted early on the basis that its interference with me doing so is more harm to the project than good. Doc did not actually understand what I wrote, which a about the the point of, not result of, a topic ban. I decline to re-re-explain this, for reasons already given above, or to address Doc in any more detail directly, for reasons already given below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not "re-re-explain" things, as that doesn't seem to work out too well for you. We are not under an IBAN at all. I can say whatever I want about you, and vice-versa. It does not behoove you to claim that the topic ban is doing more harm to the project than good. The utter hubris of that notion is something you need to get a hold of. The project will get along just fine without you, and you are very replaceable. We all are. Get over it. Doc talk 06:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There’s no compelling reason to lift the topic ban early. Are we supposed to believe that we are all really being punished or deprived by not allowing him to get right back into the MOS fray that much sooner? He has maintained that the block was punitive from the very beginning with his 8-point demand for an “explanation”. "Whatever the intent, this comes across as a "punish more who ever posted more or more loudly” decision".[32] What amount of “explaining” would satisfy SMcCandlish that the topic ban was ever justified at all? Filibustering was specifically mentioned; and this continued whinging about a simple 2-month topic ban has wasted enough time. He said right off the bat "I'm not going to whine about receiving a temporary topic ban as onerous”... but here we are! To claim that "only that this long after the event, it has a punitive effect and no preventative one" flies in the face of what he’s been complaining about all along. To claim a PR issue because he is forced to "twiddle his thumbs" instead of protecting the encyclopedia is just... reaching. I don’t blame FPAS for not wanting to waste a ton of time arguing with him (though he really should comment here). SMcCandlish was given a little “time out” from MOS for two months. Plenty of other things for him to do in the meantime. Explanation time is over! Doc talk 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, Doc is hardly a neutral commenter on this matter, given that I lodged two ANI complaints about him last month, and the consensus was we should avoid interacting with each other for some while. His comment here does not appear to qualify as doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – all done. Graham87 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A minor case of an improper move has occurred:

1. Protected areas of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is the original title, created December 2009, but is now a redirect to #3.
2. List of national parks of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a redirect to #3 but has the original page history.
3. List of protected areas of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is now the article, without the original contributors in the history.

I raised this at User talk:Spetsnaz1991#Copy/paste move but the editor has done a few more edits without responding, and it would be better if the issue could be fixed before anyone else edits the article. Would someone history merge #2 into #3 please. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: All fixed. Graham87 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999

1. I fear that sockmaster and sockpuppet are using TL;DR to disrupt and confuse.
2. By posting WP:WALLOFTEXT responses at the sock investigation -- they are trying to (unfortunately) decrease the likelihood anyone will take action on this.
3. The numerous WP:WALLOFTEXT posts all over Wikipedia can be seen as disruption, in and of itself.
4. Please evaluate this original evidence on its merits -- and decide to take action, or not, based upon the evidence.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also would appreciate action on behavioral evidence provided by myself and by DGG, at case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zeke1999 blocked. The other is more complex, I encourage other admins to look into it in detail. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much! Action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000 would be most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are here. Should we just block this account? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through all of the discussions on the talk page of the article. @Doc James: do you have an opinion (evidence) on who the master may be? They are clearly not a new editor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes not sure what other accounts they use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue for this discussion. It should be taken to WP:SPI. But to do that, you need actual evidence in the form of diffs, which Doc James doesn't appear to have. It's also worth noting he doesn't appear here with exactly clean hands. He's canvassed for his position in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Honey bucket and he's involved in a dispute on that page with Bebbebopp over what the outcome of the RM should be and also over what constitutes COI. His complaint here has a little too much of the feel of trying to take out an opponent for my taste, especially as an admin coming to an admin board where he might find friends rather than the correct venue where he might not. This complaint should be closed no action. If Doc has genuine evidence, he should take it to the proper venue. Msnicki (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Msnicki, I notice that you don't acknowledge that this account is not new and that Doc's suspicions are well-founded. You don't think this is a sock?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a new account and the behavior suggests this is someone who's been around for a while. So there's reason for suspicion. But that broad suspicion is not evidence. Evidence would be diffs showing that two accounts are likely the same person and that they're being used in a way we don't allow. It is entirely possible this is an individual who's been editing for years as an IP but finally got an account. We need evidence of wrongdoing, not just broad suspicion. And if anyone has some, the place to take it is WP:SPI, not here. Msnicki (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had more time this morning to look at the Bebbebopp's edit history and have decided I think this is a genuinely new user with very little experience simply doing his/her best. We should not WP:BITE. Bebbebopp's arguments about COI make it appear he/she is an experienced editor. I think it's just evidence he/she is trying to read and apply our guidelines. But this is definitely a newbie. Notice that in the first 4 of this editor's 9 edits, he/she had trouble getting the signature right. It doesn't get more newbie than that. I suppose a really cunning, calculating sock might do that, just to throw us off scent, but that seems unlikely to me. Msnicki (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely to you that a sockmaster would make make deliberate mistakes with a new sock just to throw us off? So... you've never seen that before, in any other sock, ever?

I see. BMK (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My observation is that people always seem to expect their behavior is normal. If they're constantly pushing the envelope, getting into fights and gaming the system, they expect this is normal behavior for everyone and it causes them to be suspicious of everyone, even if there's no real evidence. By contrast, I'm pretty honest and I try to follow the rules, so that's what I expect unless there's some real evidence. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, snap, pretty clever the way you did that, insulted me without seeming to. Well done! BMK (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent thread at AN/I [33] which discussed a/an WP:IBAN which was archived with no closure. The editors involved are: User:MaxBrowne and User:Ihardlythinkso. I propose that the IBan be vacated regardless of the formality of its institution, and that both editors be judged on their own actions going forward. — Ched :  ?  02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ched, I hope you don't mind if I say a word or two--some of you regulars know this is an ongoing affair. I want to ask all participants to keep it short and sweet. This is not about what these two users supposedly did wrong in the recent past, but whether the community is served by an iBan which, some argue, is not adequately enforced. Editors who were involved in that now-archived discussion, specifically in the section that discussed lifting the ban, are NE Ent, MaxBrowne of course, Sjakkalle, Cobblet, Penwhale. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (original IBan discussion) per link at WP:EDR — Ched :  ?  15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• I have read through the AN/I thread, as well as a talk page thread here. I have never felt that WP:IBAN achieved it's intended goal in most cases for many reasons. If two editors do not communicate well, it is best that they avoid each other, but I feel a forced "you two can't talk to each other" does nothing but increase tensions. For these reasons, and many more, .. I Support the removal of this IBan. — Ched :  ?  02:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For freedom to improve articles w/o added burden of observing iBAN restrictions re overlaying the each other's edits. The other editor and I have had no history of edit-warring over content. IHTS (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NE Ent 09:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think IBAN shouldn't be straight-up lifted without some other limitations, but it needs to go, IMO. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional - lift the IBAN for one month & observe how both editors get along or don't get along. Do this 1-month review for 6 months. Then go from there. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll see you and raise you 10 NPAs MaxBrowne (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If the IBAN is lifted i'm willing to abide by wikipedia policies regarding no personal attacks, dropping the stick etc. I'll even acknowledge that my behaviour has not been ideal. MaxBrowne (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't disagree. (It lifts a proven detrimental-to-everything-and-everyone-concerned sanction.) The reviews seem admin time-suckers, IMO they wouldn't prove necessary. But comforts Max, so OK. (Perhaps lower their frequency [e.g. to every 3 mos] and lengthen the overall time period [e.g. to 1 yr]!?) IHTS (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but only on the condition that this be raised to Arbcom. This dispute is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as the dispute between Hijiri and Catflap. It's blatantly obvious that the community isn't able to handle this so it has to be escalated. Blackmane (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not Blackmane. Arbccom is a harsh end. Folks disagree - let them work it out. Arbcom is notorious for making some extremely bad decisions. In fact - I can point to a case where an editor who had never been blocked, had never even been WARNED, was a party to a case and ended up being sanctioned and restricted. Total bullshit. They do their best, and it is a necessary evil to have a ruling body - But no - this is not for them. — Ched :  ?  04:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with no ARBCOM involvement. MaxBrowne said here that he'd be willing to vacate the IBAN. Just play nice and carry on. Doc talk 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose - No benefit to building an encyclopedia has been presented which isn't true of any I-Ban at any time. Unless the original conditions which provoked the I-Ban are no longer in effect, I don't see why the ban should be lifted, especially when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't - implying that one of the two will benefit more than the other. The edits of Wikipedia contributors are always judged "on their own merits", and sometimes their lack of merit, which leads to sanctions such as an I-Ban. If there's a general problem in enforcing I-Bans, that's something that needs to be dealt with with the admin corps. BMK (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am always hesitant to lift an IBAN when both parties don't agree that it should be lifted as that generally creates greater problems. IBANs need to be enforced robustly and vigorously, if they are, they work. But as BMK says that's a problem with policy and administrative enforcement. To lift any sanction I look for the sanctioned editors to note the problematic conduct and show how they are going to change their behaviour. This is slightly different (and note I contributed to the original discussion) in that it was imposed as more of a 'no fault' IBAN, that is both editors were unable to be constructive around each other. So I'm looking to see if both of them can move forward without further drama and I can't see that so I oppose lifting the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then how about you being the admin to enforce blatant edit undo violations? I went to three admins (Blade, Brad, JgZ) and got no help! Also, why don't you be the admin to tell the other editor what they can and cannot do under the iBAN, the editor has openly said they refuse to check edit histories and "don't care" if they undo edits contrary to iBAN. So far no admin has corrected the other editor's understanding, they appear to think iBAN does not apply to theirself. Also there are two edit undos that were disimprovements, and I'd like to know what you intend to do about getting the edits restored, since even the content disimprovements in violation of iBAN were pointed out at article Talk and explained at ANI as well, the other editor has not restored the edits, and has even in one case shown their intention not to, at article Talk. I've been asking for a way forward at every turn so as not to violate iBAN myself, have never received instructions or directions. I'd also like the iBAN clarified re personal derogatory remarks the other editor has made in ANIs opened re iBAN violations, and at admin article Talks. (Where is this governed or controlled at WP:IBAN?? I'm not supposed to point out the hypocrisy and dysfunctionality??) IHTS (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they edit in violation of the ban I'll block them (assuming I'm online and not on wikibreak) and that includes undoing your edits. As it is everywhere the onus is on the person making the edits to show that they are within policy (which, in this case, means checking to see if the other editor has edited the page, such as through this tool). If you give me the page histories and diffs of your edit and their undo of that edit I'll revert it as ban evasion. "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" does not include making "personal derogatory remarks", so if these are personal attacks or are casting aspersions then I'll make use of the block button (again assuming that they are recent and I'm online and not on wikibreak). Hope that helps. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with all of that. But it occurs to me iBAN lift is better for health of WP and users' time. (You do have an unusual hard & fast view re rule enforcement from your background at Arb. But yes, your offer is a way forward under the iBAN that I've been asking for, so thank you.) p.s. As long as you are forthgiving of answers, WP:IBAN prohibits editors in iBAN from "interacting" with one another, or undoing one another's edits. But it says they can edit the same articles, and even the same article Talks. My question is this: if they are permitted to edit same article Talks, and article Talks are for content, then may they or may they not make contributions to same thread in article Talks, about same issue (whether their views are different or same)? And if the answer is yes, they can contribute to same article Talk thread on same issue, as long as they do not "interact", the discussion is assumed about content, which might be content contributed to the article by any editor, even one of the two editors in iBAN, yes? So then is it OK to comment re content of the other, as long as no "interaction between users" takes place, and discussion is purely about the topic of said content? Or is content discussion limited, if the content was the contribution of one of the editors? (I've been long here to be specific and clear. My Q is in good faith. It is not my fault that WP:IBAN does not spell it out. The content discussion contributions I've described don't appear to me to be prohibited at WP:IBAN, which makes sense to me since is consistent with allowing editors to update same article and article Talks. Anyway the fact it isn't spelled out is not my fault, my Q isn't "game-playing" or "wiki-lawyering" if I in good-faith want to know. [I've already been accused and threatened from those arguments. Nothing you did, I think.]) IHTS (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but I think IBANs need to be enforced that that, as they tend to be very easy to game.

may they or may they not make contributions to same thread in article Talks, about same issue (whether their views are different or same)? Yes they can

(editor X and Y are mutual IBAN'd) If the discussion is about content which editor X added then editor Y cannot comment (third dot point). If the discussion is about content which neither editor added then they can both comment in the discussion just not replying to each other or referring to the other's comments (intro para and second dot point).

I'm hoping that answers your question? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have me confused ... You say "If the discussion is about content which editor X added then editor Y cannot comment (third dot point).", but, the third dot point (if I'm wrong correct me) says: "make reference to or comment on Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly" (where "Y" is an editor, not a piece of content). I don't get you. IHTS (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant that I was basing that point (read interpretation) on "make reference to or comment on Y" in the third dot point, that is by discussing content they added (and hence are responsible for) you're commenting on them and hence breaching the terms of the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, this discussion doesn't belong here of course, but I wanted to followup to let you know I don't think things are so straightforward as you suppose. First, that is not what WP:IBAN says. (I think you're adding what's not there, and even what the original WP:IBAN language authors did not intend, or want.) Also, I asked my Q in a framework where topics at article Talk were separated by identifying which editor added them. Your answer was in accord w/ that separation, but you weren't obligated to answer according to that separation. (Consider this gray area that flows logically: Editor 'A' brings up a topic at article Talk. Since editor 'A' opened the discussion thread, not editor 'X', editor 'Y' adds to it. But! - the same topic or close relative was brought up by editor 'X' previously in a long-ago archived Talk thread. Since editor 'X' is still feeling passionate about the issue, they join in the current discussion, avoiding editor 'Y' in doing so. [iBAN violation according to your prescription, or not?] There's even gray re edit undos, which otherwise seems pretty clear at WP:IBAN, consider: Editor 'X' makes an edit, then editor 'A' reverts it. Editor 'B' restores the reverted edit, then editor 'Y' comes along and reverts the restore. [Did editor 'Y' undo the edit of editor 'X'?]) Cheers, IHTS (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose absent a mutual showing of agreement to collaborate better. IBans are usually instituted because either a) two parties' continual interpersonal conflicts are disrupting a topic area, and/or b) one party is being harassed by another (or sometimes both are harassing each other). Either way, there needs to be clarity that both parties, not just one, are agreeing to go forward in a more positive light and to avoid a repeat of the disruptive conflict. (And this is not all that difficult, honestly, unless one party is a grudge-holder, in which case they're probably bound for an indefinite one-way IBan or worse eventually).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless the issue is referred to ArbCom. MaxBrowne has opposed lifting the IBAN, and having looked at IHTS' commentary here and on Drmies talkpage, it looks like he still feels he has done no wrong, even though the issues were very real and the imposition of the sanction had strong consensus support. This issue has gone on for two years and needs to stop. We could request a binding resolution at ArbCom in which case the IBAN should be lifted so that both parties are free to submit evidence. The alternative is a considerably more rigorous enforcement of the existing sanction. MaxBrowne should note that edits such as this, with a provocative edit summary to boot, will almost certainly lead to blocks in the future under a more strict enforcement regime. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have not posted an outright oppose in this thread. All I want is some assurance that there won't be a return to the constant sniping which occurred prior to the IBAN, but any attempts to raise this concern are perceived as attacks, and are met by attempts to play "your diffs are worse than my diffs" and "my grievances are worse than your grievances". This gives me no confidence that he will modify his approach if the IBAN is lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle, excuse me, when did a lift iBAN AN proposal initiated by Ched, add expectation or condition for the confession of sins? And even if that logic is granted, how do you suppose or imply with a straight face, that the other editor was the only injured party? Or that the other editor's offenses were less? Especially when the actual fact is, the other editor's complaints at the original AN that imposed iBAN, were a pittance compared to their unprovoked epithets thrown at me in an ANI just days before that AN? (I guarantee you, or anyone else, the other editor's complaints basis for requesting iBAN at the AN, consisted only of an irritation over having their username often mentioned, in threads of mine with other editors where they were not directly involved. And nothing more. *That* was an issue of ETIQUETTE, and someone telling/warning me to stop it, which would have been a reasonable request, and which I agree I overdid [sorry Max]. The "strong consensus" you name for that AN was a misguided giving of iBAN to a user profusely complaining and moaning for one, to statisfy them. [Not a good basis for handing out iBANs!] And I believe the !voters in support of said iBAN somehow thought the magic of iBAN would gracefully put away all the fuss and a rainbow would appear suddenly over the horizon. When in fact the user has subsequently been actively following my edits for even a smell of iBAN violation they can claim at ANI--which they've done alot with your support--and doing what they supposedly object to from me--sniping with derogatory comments in all the iBAN violation ANI threads and at admin Talks, in retaliatory fashion. [The editor has publicly stated they "despise" me. I really don't care, but there you go.] Lastly, if you take a look at the ANI that JgZ opened re the edit undo violations, there you will see the other editor attmpting to rally editors to slap me down that I dare bring up iBAN that might apply to them re undoing my edits, because they are "contributing to the encyclopedia", and apparently my role is that of nuisance to be trashed or banned?!? He wanted the darkest forces of WP to put me down, that is for sure. [Continued in-fighting? On who's part?! "Needs to stop? On who's part?! BTW I already said at the ANI, when Max was sounding positive about iBAN lift, that I felt we both have learned what the other editor doesn't like and won't tolerate. I also said I could go into detail if needed, with or without Max doing same, to get specific. I implied that doing so would probably be unnecessary, because there's little doubt about what the issues are/have been. At no time have I ever struck out at Max with unprovoked incivilities, I have no reason to do that. Ditto Ched. But I also accept that I rub people the wrong way sometimes, and then they want to eat me. So much for human nature. Nevertheless, I harbor no grudge, I want Max to enjoy editing as freely as I want editing for myself. The bad stuff is not clinging to me, Sjakkalle, so please clean up your act and get off my case!? Thank u. p.s. Arbcom!? So more people's time can be sunk over an issue of ETIQUETTE? If you must know, I've long-ago dropped any idea that Max might apologize for his classic epithet. [I have dropped that stick, why don't you drop yours Sjakkalle?]) IHTS (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explicit requirement that you "confess sins", but when you seem to think the IBAN was totally unjustified, there is cause to believe that you will resume the conduct that led to the IBAN once it is lifted. As for why I am commenting here, I was pinged to go to this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "seem to think it", I very much think it was out-of-order and unnecessary (despite "consensus"). You apparently do not allow possiblity that editors can learn & grow!? (Drmies has noted it. Ditto Ched. But I don't expect you would/will, as you have carried a grudge [re my comments to Quale, your "long-term friend"].) So INDEF me if your worst fears come to pass. p.s. It's my understanding a ping is a simple notification and does not beg a response. IHTS (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose more or less per SMcCandlish above and below, by which I mean, make it clear that the i-ban need not necessarily apply at WP:DRN, WP:ANI, or similar noticeboards in which the input of other editors is actively sought-out. At such locations, it should be fairly easy for some admin reviewing the situation to determine if a comment crosses the line and discusses the other editor involved too directly. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have expressed my misgivings re lifting the IBAN in the thread in question. Basically, lifting the IBAN would be unacceptable to me if it means a return to the status quo which existed before. Please don't play dumb and make me explain this in detail; just refer to the original thread leading to the IBAN, and the events leading up to it. I have no wish to attack the other editor but my concerns are genuine. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, one-sided/unbalanced expression of concern re the other editor's behavior. Well *my* concern is an order of magnitude greater than the other editor's. (The difference might be, I'm willing and able to back up/demonstrate in an extended subthread anywhere, with a moderator[s], if needed, to sort it out. But I also know that WP and no one gives a whit to figure out what is distortion and what is not. No resources for that. So anyone gets by saying anything. And everyone knows that. [Theoretical Q: It's fond to be said here, "serious accusations need serious proof". But can anyone show a single thread where the serious proof or non-proof was ever sorted out!?]) IHTS (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I want to ask all participants to keep it short and sweet." - DrMies, 03:03, 13 October 2015 MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Questions for Ched}: (1) What were the reasons the I-Ban was put in place? (2) Have those conditions changed? (3) How does removing the I-Ban help to build an encyclopedia? (4) Are you asking for the I-Ban to be removed on general principles or for a reason specific to this particular I-Ban? BMK (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @Ched: BMK (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK, the ANI thread from last year led to the iBan, and if I had to guess I'd say it was the back-and-forthing between the two that led to some exasperation on the part of those following the discussion. I can't speak for Ched, but IMO removing it will save us time and energy on ANI and associated boards, if only because we won't be asked to investigate the technicalities of whether something was in violation of the iBan or not. (Didn't we have another such thread a couple of months ago? Didn't we have talk page discussions too?) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK, "when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't - implying that one of the two will benefit more than the other." Do you know what you're talking about?! The other editor has expressed openly that they refuse to abide by the editing terms of the iBAN, specifically saying they refuse to check article edit histories and "don't care" whether they undo edits by the other editor. To unburden them from checking edit histories I have been doing that leg-work for them (since it's easier for me to recognize my own edits), and documenting on the respective article Talk pages where they inadvertently undid an edit. But that effort has been ignored. When I subsequently restored an overlaid edit I was reverted by the other edtor and told to "get lost". In the ANI you will see the other editor rallying support for his position that he shouldn't be under restriction of iBAN because he was working in good-faith to improve an article. I believe him (tho as explained, none of the four edit undos were improvements, and two were disimprovements). My being proponent of lifing the iBAN was for benefit of unburdening the other editor to edit freely, plus my dislike of the fact iBAN turns into a roving topic ban (for example, I'm active Project Board Games editor, the other editor created Backgammon match strategy, I'm not allowed to help improve the article, not even punctuation or grammar fixes, seeing that all the edits to that article are so far the other editor's). IHTS (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ched started this thread, and it's his responsibility to present the evidence which supports his suggestion of removing the topic ban. I naturally take the comments of the subjects of the ban with a grain of salt. BMK (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • BMK, just one point - "I don't see why the ban should be lifted, especially when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't". I don't think an editor wanting an iBAN (whether the orig imposition or in a later AN proposal to lift) s/ be given the significance you give it re deliberations. (Why? There are plenty of editors who like to irritate or add sanction to an editor whom they don't like, via asking for iBAN, I've seen that alot on the WP, yes? And those threats/requests are typically seen as a form of harassment and don't get serious traction, yes?) Also I think your assuption that one of the parties objecting to an iBAN lift always does so for genuine and valid reasons, especially where there is past discord/friction between editors, is taking good-faith way too far and you need to open up to other realistic possibilities - there are distinct non-valid/non-genuine possibilities too. (E.g. a user might object to iBAN lift along the lines of continued in-fighting, with the philosophy "what my opponent wants can't possibly be good for me, so I'll object to it". [Do I think that might be relevant to this AN? Absolutely. For example the editor specifically requested iBAN provision denying undoing one another's edits--which incidentally they later argued didn't apply to themself due to WP:IAR!--when there was never any history of edit-warring re content or anything else between editors. Also do I suppose my expression at the AN that imposed iBAN, that I didn't like iBANs because they can morph into roving topic bans restricting freedom to edit, could have something possibly to do with the editor specifically insisting on that additional provisio!? Same answer.]) IHTS (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Max, I do fully understand your hesitancy here. I have had difficult discussions with IHTS in the past as well. To the point where I made a statement that I am still ashamed of (in email). I have also seen what I consider a very positive move in IHTS's approach, and I think it would be best for the project to drop any "IBan" items, and judge all editors on their own merits. — Ched :  ?  03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken (1) I don't know the details of the original IBan. ( 2) Since I don't know the original conditions, then No, I don't know if they've changed. (3) I think it improves the project because it removes the ambiguity of what is and what is not allowed. Each editor is judged on their own actions. (4) Partly on general principle, but also noticing an improvement (IMO) in IHTS's approach. — Ched :  ?  03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A lot of the support from admins for lifting the IBAN appears to come down to (1) "IBANs don't work anyway" (in which case, that is a matter for policy/process discussion, not a matter for discussion in relation to an individual case) (2) "I can't be arsed enforcing it" (understandable, but that's part of the "janitor's" job, isn't it? upholding community decisions?) MaxBrowne (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The "IBan's don't work, because we spend too much time trying to figure out if a particular response on some noticeboard thread was technically a violation of the IBan" is easily solved by narrowing the IBan, so that it doesn't apply to noticeboard commentary involving both parties. If they really need to hash something out, they can do so, in a venue prone to WP:BOOMERANG for unclean-hands vexatiousness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another pointless iban violation

And is this corner IHTS continues to posts walls o' text above, and it that corner MaxBrowne seems unable to avoid pointless poking at IHTS [34], indenting what was a properly indented comment -- IHTS was replying to Sjakkalle, not MaxBrowne ... No one liked my outta the box Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Proposal_.28Nash_Equilibrium_iBan.29 suggestion based on misguided notions of "fairness." Please see WP:NOJUSTICE. Is it fair that the dispute resolution community has spent so much time on these two? MB complains above "I can't be arsed enforcing it" (understandable, but that's part of the "janitor's" job, isn't it?" The answer is NO, admins get the same crappy pay the rest of us get: it's not a job, its folks volunteering their time, and admins have numerous scutwork tasks to do, they shouldn't be expected to expend any more time on this. NE Ent 13:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The indentation was purely to separate my concise statement from what followed, yet you attribute bad faith to it. You have consistently done this with respect to my edits, and consistently tried to blow smoke and confuse the issue any time I have complained about Iban violations. You have shown a consistent bias against me and in favour of IHTS. Fact. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh zip it. I agree with NE Ent, except I might have used the word "crybaby". I think it's a word we don't use often enough. This seems to be going nowhere. MaxBrowne, Ihardlythinkso, good luck with it; please don't come to my talk page with perceived violations. Beyond My Ken, this is why we wanted the iBan lifted--so AN/I wouldn't have to deal with figuring out which one reverted which one's edits blah blah blah. You'll see this topic coming up again and again, I think; maybe you should run for admin and then you can take care of it. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Nah, you just want me to run for admin for the fun and hilarity that would ensue. <g> I sympathize with the plight of the overburdened admin corps, but isn't this what you all signed up for, cleaning up after other people's messes? Personally, I wouldn't have much problem replacing many IBans with mutual topic bans or even indef blocks, but you saw how far I got with that on Catflap/Hijiri, which was (I think) much more virulent than this case. BMK (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way to guarantee BMK will never run for adminship, threatening him like that indicating he could handle conflicts like this one on his own if he were an admin. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, John, if you ever see my name at the top of an RfA, you and the whole of Wikipedia have my permission to bring in a team of top psychiatrists and psychologist to examine me, because I would clearly have gone off my nut. BMK (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In similar fashion to how a block can be considered a de facto ban if no admin is willing to reverse it, is an interaction ban considered "de facto lifted" if no admin is willing to enforce it? (not meant to be serious, but for what it's worth...) kcowolf (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Is it fair that the dispute resolution community has spent so much time on these two?". For the record, at no time did I ever ask any DR community to get involved. (Only individual admins, single-threaded, Blade, NYB, JgZ.) I consistently favored proposals to lift (NE Ent, Drmies, Ched). I suggested the ANI w/ lift iBAN proposal be unarchived, then a summary closure provided (by Sjakkalle based on his comments there, turns out Ched could have done it too), even the other editor conceded the consensus there was to lift. IHTS (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposer's comment

The hell with it - I'm gonna be outta town for a couple weeks anyway, so I'll just say it straight out. This comment is mostly to Max. Trust me - I FULLY understand your reservations. I've been acquainted with IHTS for years, and I could point to a few threads (somewhat of an understatement) anyway ... But that is in the past. Anyway - I noticed the tone and the conversation at both the aforementioned ANI and at Drmies talk. My impression is an honest attempt from IHTS to put aside things and that he/she is making a very honest effort to communicate and collaborate with others. To be honest, I doubt that IHTS would ever think much of anything I had to say - but from my perspective? I've seen some very mature growth over the last few months, and I am one of those "give them every chance" kind of people. And let's be honest Max - (perhaps in frustration), there's been times you haven't exactly painted your self in perfect light either. (not that I have myself).

IMO - this whole "IBan" thing is a bunch of crap. Wikipedia is not supposed to be some daycare center, or playground for kids who should be out growing and learning how to deal with real life. Yes - adults don't get along too - we suck it up, deal with it, and focus on what is best for the concept of global knowledge. Adults can have their little bitchfests on talk pages - and move on. I just don't think it's right to turn our backs on those who make an honest effort. And the truth is that IHTS has put a LOT of work into improving our chess related articles.

IDK - and quite franky .. IDGAF. I just want someone to close this whole shitfest so we can quit wasting elecrons and stop abusing keyboards. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Probably a bit irregular to reopen this (sorry Spartaz and Ched), but I'm still open to removing the IBAN, because honestly it's a pain in the ass to everyone involved - me, IHTS and the admins. Only condition I'd like to see (apart from the obvious - strict enforcement of NPA, CIV etc) is Softlavender's suggestion - neither of us talk about anything that happened between us prior to 16 October 2015. No arguments will be had about whose fault it is or whose diffs are worse. It's gone. Over. Doesn't exist. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no strict or even monitored enforcement of NPA, CIV, etc. after an IBAN is lifted. You just have to be nice to each other like everyone else. It looks like the ban should just be lifted. Like, yesterday. Doc talk 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know this edit was probably a technical violation, but you know what? I don't gaf. In the end improving the encyclopedia is what matters. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

HI, Hoping you can help me with a change please to the external link on the Hotel Saskatchewan page.

Marriott International has taken this over from Radisson and the external weblink needs to be : http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/yqrak-the-hotel-saskatchewan/ are you able to assist me please?

Sorry for the trouble, this is my first foray into editing, I did most of the other content on my own successfully!

Thank you,

Jennifer Worden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jword850 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made the change you were looking for. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: the target page had two edits to it so it needed an admin to delete it before the move could be made. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Ah. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly should be at VPT, but it's more admin than tech. How do you remove a user from Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy? They're unblocked and name changed, but the new name is in that cat, and the Hidden Cat note is on their page. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked off-wiki to note the following :"ShakespeareFan00: can you drop a note for me? ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#A_CAT_query and a note that http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/cat_username_unblocked.py is a listing of all unblocked users in that category" to this thread ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err, thanks (to both of you...). The one I'm on about is in that list. It still seems to be in the other list too. At 'Cat:Wikipedians who are indefinitely', in the blurb it says to remove ones that are unblocked. Damned if I can see a way. Still can't... Peridon (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That list of 'unblocked' ones has blocked ones in it as well. 8-( Peridon (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the few I checked, it was just a matter of Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy being on their talk page from an old block template message. As its a talk page, the category is mixed in with the substituted template code, and not at the bottom of the page as one would normally expect. I'm guessing we have no systematic process in place to remove that after a rename/unblock, unless there is another problem on top of that. See: [35][36], maybe should be a bot task? Monty₈₄₅ 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a couple of occasions (at least), I've seen someone come in after I've unblocked someone and remove a cat, but never took much notice. Got it! I'm not sure whether it should be described here though per WP:BEANS.... Having a bot do it would probably be a good idea, anyway. Peridon (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This summer, I asked about whether it would be a good idea for me to go through this category, see if they were active accounts, whether they were blocked or not, see if the usernames were no longer a problem, but with 41,034 accounts in this category, I was told maintaining it wasn't a very high priority. There are more urgent areas that needed attention. If a bot could handle this task, that would be great! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an RfC be needed, or a request at Bot Owners, or a request to a bot creator who is able to do it? Peridon (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just a bot request. This kind of thing would be simple: bot opens each page in the category, checks to see whether the user's blocked, does nothing if he is, and removes the category if he isn't. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there's nothing that can be done about it, but over the last day I've seen two articles under go concentrated attacks by both random IPs and newly-created accounts, all from the same country: one vandalised by accounts from Austraila, the other from Sri Lanka. Both have been carpet-bombed by nonsense vandalism. The articles themselves are apparently randomly chosen, but the attacks are the same - random and continual vandalism from accounts all from the same country until the page is semi-protected. HalfShadow 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide links to the edit histories of the articles in question HalfShadow. Without them it is difficult for admins to assess what needs to be done. Then this thread could be closed without any help or advice being given. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albertus Seba and Shanudrie Priyasad

I know you won't be able to do anything, since it's random, but I thought it was odd enough to mention. HalfShadow 19:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the links HalfShadow. Looks like both article have been protected at this time so that should allow you to clean up any mess those accounts made. MarnetteD|Talk 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Sri Lankan actress was probably on television shortly before the vandalism, which is quite localised. The other was probably school vandalism. They seem dissimilar and unrelated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the Australian IP vandalism is due to the use of this subject in the New South Wales Higher School Certificate English exam. The HSC is the exam that all students take as their last high school exam and serves as the entrance exam to university. We don't have colleges in Australia. It's something like the US SAT. Looks like there was someone rather disgruntled by the use of Seba in the paper. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration clerks would like to welcome Amortias (talk · contribs), JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs), and Miniapolis (talk · contribs) to the arbitration clerk team as trainees. For the arbitration clerks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New arbitration trainee clerks

Hey, if anyone is experienced in handling new LTA cases and doing the approval process, can someone take care of the small backlog at Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval? It's not a long list (9 cases) but some of them have been sitting around a while, and probably need to be actioned one way or the other. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which aims to identify the issue(s) with our current system for selecting administrators. Please do not comment in this section, but rather post any comments about proposals in the relevant section, or on the RfC's talk page for general matters. Thank you. --Biblioworm 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be three editors who would be willing to be part of the closers' panel for this RfC when it ends in about a month? The RfC is still far from ending, but I think it is generally advised to have closers ready a time before the RfC ends. Preferably, the volunteers are administrators who are familiar with the issues surrounding RfA and have a good track record of experience closing discussions neutrally. --Biblioworm 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from gun control-related edits imposed as Remedy 4 of the Gun control case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Gaijin42 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Gun control amendment

Might be time for an uninvolved admin - if there is such a thing - to make a careful close of this RFC? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Earlier today, I saw the request [37] at WP:RFPP to protect the article because of the edit-warring. I went to the history, checked that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) made eight reverts of the same material within an hour, and several other users reverted them back. I checked that BMK was under understanding that the material represents an unambiguous BLP violation, that they were aware of the fact that some user oppose qualification of this material as BLP violation, and that they were aware of the existance of 3RR. Then I blocked them for 72h, declining protection. There have been two topics about BMK at WP:ANI/EW, one about their edit-warring in this article, and another topic about their edit-warring in a different article which I did not even check [38]. Since I have already blocked BMK, I closed both topics. Eventually BMK filed an unblock request and was unblocked by Drmies (talk · contribs). I did not object to the unblock, though I refused to unblock BMK after they started bad-faith accusations against me. The discussion is at their talk page. Simultaneously, Sladen (talk · contribs), the filer of the RFPP request, asked me to take the issue to AN/ANI for independent review. Please note that I will be leaving to the airport in several hours and might be unable to participate in the initial stage of the discussion. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring against consensus sure. But where a (potential) BLP violation is not clear-cut, the appropriate place to take it is the BLP noticeboard, and the only two people to comment there (and I concur with them) do not think it is a violation. But that was after the block - you probably should have warned him before blocking (do this or I block you) to stop edit-warring and take it to the BLP noticeboard first rather than block straight off the bat. BMK knows how the process goes where BLP issues are not obvious/unambiguous - but also that is rather the point, it was quite clear that it was not an obvious BLP violation, and again BMK should have known when faced with multiple people who disagree with him that he needed to get further input. Basically sub-optimal from everyone all around.

Including Drmies, unblocking BMK who said they will not edit war further, then edit-protecting the page they were edit-warring on *in BMK's preferred version* is ridiculous. Since there was highly unlikely to be any further edit warring by BMK, why the need for protection? Given the consensus so far (excepting swarm) has been against BMK, it leaves Drmies open to accusations of favoritism. Blocked user gets unblocked after minimal time served AND gets their way at the article despite consensus against them. It basically justifies BMK's conduct and states to others that he can get away with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this on the last point. Doc talk 07:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You win my internal 'who is going to link wrong version first' lottery. Wrong version is for when a request for protection comes in and whichever admin responds to it protects the page to stop the edit war. In this case the edit war was clearly already over, BMK had said he was not going to re-start it, so protection was unnecessary. Its also not a defense for Drmies because he had clearly already taken a look at the dispute, seen that BMK was acting against consensus and protected it in BMK's preferred version anyway. Given that a request for page protection had already been declined, the only explanation I have is that Drmies thought the edit war was going to continue, like I said, sub-optimal from everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. What's the remedy? Doc talk 08:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trout everyone. Unprotect page. Wait for BLP discussion to be resolved. Job done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed content is highly questionable and borders on UNDUE / SYNTH / POV. However I do not regard that as a blatant BLP violation and should not have been relied on as an exemption from 3RR. In any case its removal was not so urgent and BMK could have left it to another editor to revert, discuss it on the talk page, or post at BLPN rather than edit war. As such I find Ymblanter's block entirely appropriate and the unblock premature and questionable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So does BMK get re-blocked or what? If I had a dime for every time I saw an admin unblock an editor "prematurely" over another admin's authority... I'd have a shitload of dimes! Doc talk 08:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, I do not contest (and I did not object) Drmies's unblock of BMK.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drmies unblocked BMK and protected the non-controversial version because BMK made an extremely cogent argument on his (BMK's) talk page for why the material should be excluded. (The argument was the main gist of his unblock request.) I personally was highly convinced by the cogent argument (see my comments as a TPS on that page after I read it). Having now looked at the article's talk page and the article itself a bit more, I'm a little more ambivalent about it. The material is still a conspiracy theory, but it's one that has popped up in the media several times, either to sell papers, or because journalists actually feel it has some merit, or both. I can't read Putin's mind or the murderer's mind, nor do I know all the ins and outs of Russian politics. I will say that the version of the material that BMK was reverting was highly inflammatory and completely conjectural in that the text of one of the footnotes stated that Putin rewarded the alleged person behind "gifting" Putin the murder on his birthday by making him President of the Chechen Republic, which is so wrongheaded for Wikipedia to print that I think anyone would agree that it's a double BLP-vio and could not stand without intervention. As to whether the people in favor of the "birthday" mention are single-minded Putin-bashers I cannot say, but if they are, their opinions on neutrality in this article should probably be given a good deal of skepticism. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis mine) As the content is clearly sourced: see Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Sources_for_Politkovskaya_being_murdered_on_Putin.27s_birthday, it's not a BLP violation and therefore the block was justified, and the content should be restored in some form to the article. NE Ent 10:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree with that, based on the actual edit involved. The article-body text that was added was neutral, but the two footnote texts (and I mean footnotes, not citations) clearly state that Putin was responsible for and/or pleased about the murder. Read the edit: [39]. In fact the footnotes contradict the body-text. Also, WP:BLP is 40,000 bytes long, not just one sentence. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK is not the first editor to believe they have an unlimited right to revert anything they personally think is a BLP violation. The definition of BLP depends on community consensus, and it takes general agreement. The fact that he had never taken the issue to WP:BLPN could have been taken into account by the 3RR closer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, how is that footnote not a BLP violation? "they knew that Putin would be pleased by a gift from them on his birthday. Apparently the gift did please the recipient.". That's only a hairbreadth from "Putin ordered the killing" (which, of course, is the insinuation that people are trying to insert). Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with Ymblanter. BMK is the edit warrior par excellence, blocked five times in just over five years amid probably dozens of 3RR reports. Sure, he really believes that BLP justifies eight -- yes, eight -- separate reverts to the Anna Politkovskaya article. But while that edit war was still raging, BMK was undergoing a separate edit war at Union Square, Manhattan, for which he was reported at the 3RR noticeboard. That case was closed because he was already blocked. Let's reopen the Union Square edit warring violation and just block him for that case, where there's no fig leaf of a BLP excuse. Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with Black Kite, there is no way that footnote is not a BLP violation. Thinly veiled accusations of assassination are not BLP violations? As much as I can't stand Putin, there is no way we would allow those kinds of innuendos directed towards any other living person. I see a list of sources over at BLPNB, most of which refer to 'conspiracy theories'. While there seems to be some disagreement on this, the default action should be to not have this in the article until it's resolved, not edit warring/tag teaming to keep it in. Dave Dial (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the BLP issue is valid, but the problem is that, as noted by Alansohn, BMK then took the dispute to an unrelated article, and engaged in a non-BLP related edit war, for which they should have been rightly blocked. Once again, we have the problem of "User A was correct in one little aspect, so they were justified in acting inappropriately everywhere in everything they did..." No. The BLP issue at the Anna Politkovskaya was a legitimate BLP concern, and should have been left out of the article. BMKs further vindictive edit warring at Union Square should not be tolerated, however. We cannot say "Well, he was right in the Politkovskaya article, so he can go off the handle and do whatever he wants to get attention..." --Jayron32 15:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that is not the order of the events. The Union Square, Manhattan editing happened first, in which both editors were edit warring, and even though BMK was technically correct(User:Yanping Nora Soong did not follow BRD), he surpassed 3RR. It was then that Yanping Nora Soong seemed to follow BMK's edits over at the Anna Politkovskaya article and join in the tag teaming to keep the claimed BLP violation in the article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Except WP:BRD is an essay; WP:3RR is one of our most fundamental Wikipedia policies, one that BMK violates with impunity. There is no BLP fig leaf for the edit warring at Union Square, Manhattan, and that 3RR report was closed by Ymblanter as BMK had already been blocked on the Anna Politkovskaya matter, despite the chronological order of the reports. Whatever the issues between YNS and BMK regarding Union Square and Politkovskaya, BMK made six separate reverts by four other editors utterly involved in BMK's other active edit war. This isn't just about BMK's record of five blocks in five years, this is a chronic pattern of edit warring in multiple articles in one day. The only question is whether BMK deserves a sixth block or a seventh, and if so for which of these two concurrent edit wars. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user NottNott vandalized the page, by removing multiple sources. see [40]]. Guanches are only considered to be part of berber people by some scientists only. Doesn't make them elligible to be in the list of related people instead of Genetically proven related people. That's vandalism and its untolerable. Guanche language is unclassified language, similarities may only be a substratum and not a relation at all.
Best Regards
41.143.222.134 (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at WP:AIV, not here. Doc talk 08:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admins,

WP:DUCK case:

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

Socking disruption of WP:GA process, request admin attention please.

Thank you for your attention and action on this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "extra" is going to be done here. The SPI is at SPI, and there's no reason to open an additional report here at AN. Doc talk 12:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added notice here as SPI appears to be backlogged these days and we have ongoing disruption of our Good Article Nomination processes, in addition to Featured List nominations disruption there, as well. — Cirt (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at a couple templates and noticed {{Banned user}} appearing on userpages for users that aren't actually blocked (discounting sandboxes/lists of templates). This might not be an issue at all, but it seems like one of the few userpage templates that should really only be used for its intended purpose (though there's no restriction in the template documentation, as far as I can see) so it seemed worth mentioning here. In a couple cases it looks to be non-serious (Voldejenn, MegastarLV). Rick73s looks to have added it himself (out of frustration?). Empengent and Carlisle Rodham have sock puppet tags but the block was removed by WP:BASC. And a few others were just never blocked: Macallla, Jumpika025, and Wanli. That's all. Feel free to close this thread if there's already consensus that these can be displayed on non-blocked accounts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]