Template:Active editnotice

An RfC[1] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.

I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [2] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [3], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [4], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [5] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [6] [7] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [8]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.

And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.

If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author

Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [9] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[10]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [11] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your altering of the header[12] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

source

As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My determination would be as follows:

• A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
• B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
• C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.

I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[13], Guardian[14], NY Mag[15], Vox[16], and Intercept[17]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[18] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[19]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[20]

I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Notice: user !voted in the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Seems like a bad compromise situation to me, perceiving voting for something as also not voting against the other options is a small nuance that seems to have been missed here. MrClog has explained it fairly well, leading me to think that this deserves a reclose from another uninvolved editor. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This notification is to report behaviour by Snooganssnoogans (S) on the Brexit article and request a topic ban.

A few days ago I had an edit to that article reverted several times by S. I took it to the relevant talk page and the discussion about it is here. I added my edit was back in, there being a clear majority in my favour. 4:1, no-one was on S's side. I made the point that S had lied in his or her edit summary of one of the reversions. [here]. This falsehood continued in the discussion. When S said "There was a RfC (the most embarrassing one I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia) where editors decided not to include a peer-reviewed study on this very subject." s/he was referring to this But editors didn't decide one way or another - there was an even split, followed by administrator judication.

Brexit is a highly contentious subject, which makes it one over which editors must pay special attention to fairness and their allowing information to be presented which they disagree with. Unfortunately, with the edit under discussion there, S appeared to disagree with that concept, writing that "a working paper, which flies in the face of the broad assessment by economists, should not be included..." But the working paper was not just a snappy judgement by whoever, it was a survey undertaken by the Central Bank of Ireland. Therefore. the fact that it came to a conclusion contrary to information already presented in the article and supported by academic surveys (forecasts) is not relevant. Wikipedia is all about fairness and balance. We all know this.

So there were major problems with S's arguments.

Now all this would be something not unheard of it were not for the following. Other editors have raised the question of WP:OWN in relation to S. Octoberwoodland did so in the discussion linked above, while the comments of PaleCloudedWhite in the same place also relate to it. Futhermore, PCW drew attention to this unsolicited post by another editor on his Talk page, which says: "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article (WP:OWN). Just look at his talk page to get an idea of his conception of a collaborative encyclopedia. The only way to shut him up would be to make a consensus building talk, as I think that most people agree that the Brexit page cannot only rely on academic studies..."

Not surprisingly, S refuted the idea of him or her being involved in WP:OWN, but then said "As someone who has added pretty much every academic study to this Wikipedia article..." - which kind of flies in the face of that refutation.

I also draw attention to the last comment on the Talk discussion about my edit, wbich says: "Got to laugh about the warnings on the talk page. I did a similar thing in User:Knox490's talk page when he started editing saying "Just to give you a heads up, there is a long history of people raising similar points to you about this page.....and a long history of people giving up due to the aggressive a relentless push back from a small group of editors. Not to discourage you, but be prepared to put in a lot of time and effort if you want to change anything." " Surely Wikipedians should not have to put up with the kind of behaviour being talked about? It is wearing. It puts good editors off of Wiki, sometimes permanently.

A day or so ago, in that same discussion, I wrote: "I feel that should there be the same kind of activity again here on the Brexit article, it really should be reported." S duly "obliged" with more reversions. I had by then read a lot of S's talk page, which shows this (discussion with an Admin about avoiding a ban) and a multitude of 3RR warnings.

I am of course far from being the only editor who has had edits to the Brexit article reverted by S. Asarlaí has also experienced it. See here. And I should add that IMO Asarlaí's contributions are exemplary, far superior to mine.

I would like it to be possible to make good edits to the Brexit article without there being any risk of reversion for spurious reasons by S.

Two more edits by me were reverted by S overnight. One in particular I am bringing to attention. This is the comparison. S uses wording in his or her edit summary which frankly I find distasteful. But much more important is the problem with the reversion. A study which makes a forecast of something is a forecast. It cannot be anything else, no matter how reputable the people or organisation responsible. So the phraseology "It forecasted that Brexit would ..." (my words) is correct. Whereas the statement "The study found that Brexit would..." (S's words) cannot be anything other than incorrect, because the study is a forecast, and therefore saying that something would happen, when it is only what the study says, is a misrepresention. This may be considered a minor point - I disagree. I wouldn't and couldn't of course make the following point in the article, due to SYNTH , (although if I noticed an RS that made the point I'd include it) but there were a multitude of pre- and post-referendum forecasts and studies which said that a pro-Brexit vote would be next to cataclysmic. Yet employment in Britain has as it stands right now never been higher. So study after study turned out to be so much waste paper. And therefore to say that something will or would be the case in the future wrt. Brexit is itself a contentious thing to say. But saying something is forecasted, no problem with that. I have not taken this to Talk:Brexit as talk discussions take up a lot of time. This has, too, but it's far more important.

I feel that there is a major issue with S. By coincidence, at the very top of this noticeboard, in this discussion, yet another editor is alleging harassment by S. And that's on top of all that I have already written about. How many reports are needed? There are probably more that I haven't seen. I regret that I have to ask for a topic ban on Snooganssnoogans for Brexit-related articles. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 08:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't examined all the points raised, but it's hard to fault the revert by Snooganssnoogans at 12:07, 12 September 2019. The edit summary was "remove partisan commentary used as a rebuttal to academic research" and examining the edit suggests that summary is very accurate. From the ref, "new analysis was conducted by researchers at Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in the Netherlands, rated the world’s top university for agricultural research". The ref also said that a fisherman who had founded the Fishing for Leave group, disagreed. Articles should be based on the best available sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't time to post anything of substance, but would request that this thread is not closed down quickly without thorough examination of the situation. As I have stated on the article talk page, my belief is that Snooganssnoogans is only interested in the Brexit article presenting a negative view of Brexit, and is hostile to material contrary to that perspective. I suspect that there are several editors who no longer edit the article due to the aggressive stance of Snooganssnoogans, who, in my view, edits the article so it is not "Brexit", but rather "Wikipedia's assessment on whether Brexit is a good thing or a bad thing". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant investigation would be needed to check that, but on this one point (which I found by looking at recent edits), it is standard procedure for an article to state X where X is an assertion backed by academic research from (according to the ref) a leading authority on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is rich. In a recent RfC, PaleCloudedWhite argued that a peer-reviewed study on this topic should be excluded.[21] However, when a working paper on the very same subject that reached an opposite conclusion was being considered for inclusion on the talk page, PaleCloudedWhite failed to stick to his principled position and he did not advocate for the exclusion of the working paper.[22] A principled consistent editor would stick to the same position, regardless of whether the research in question reached a pro- or anti-Brexit conclusion. One example why editing on the Brexit article is dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article. Yes, the Brexit article is, overall, negative towards Brexit. When the government's own research shows the likelihood of massive disruptions to trade, interruptions in the supplies of key medicines and food, and inflation, and every single mainstream economist puts the impact at between 5% and 10% shrinkage of the UK economy, and when there's a risk of reigniting the Troubles and the Cod Wars, it's really quite hard to say much positive about it (unless you arte a tax exile hedge fund investor and are have massive short positions on the pound and UK companies, of course, in which case it's looking pretty rosy). Guy (help!) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:OWN accusations stem from the fact that various editors hate the fact that the Brexit article clearly and comprehensively explains the consensus in the economic literature that Brexit will harm the British economy, and have forcefully argued that the article should omit this relevant fact - when they try to scrub this content in the absence of consensus, I revert them. When editors are not arguing for scrubbing peer-reviewed research, they want to include rebuttals by politicians of the peer-reviewed research (e.g. "Studies XYZ say Brexit will adversely the British economy, but Boris Johnson says it will make the British economy stronger") - when they do in the absence of consensus, I revert them. See this Wired article for a decent summary of the discussions on the Brexit page.[23] That Wikipedia should rely on peer-reviewed research and academic assessments, and that academic research should not be rebutted by partisan actors are long-standing principles that I've applied consistently across Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the specifics in OP, my stance is very simple: We cannot include a working paper that reaches conclusion A on issue X if we exclude a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue. That's a brazen violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Either both are included or neither. I explicitly said in the talk page discussion that my preferred position was to include both. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that Snooganssnoogans is continuing to cloud the issue, by re-stating his or her anger about the exclusion of “a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue”. I made the point several times in the Talk page section above-mentioned that the peer-reviewed study under contention was one of the possible effect on investment values. Yet the subsection that it was eventually excluded from was the UK financial sector, which an industry - not the same thing. At least one editor made that point in the discussion of whether or not it should be included. Further, there was no uconsensus in that discussion, so no precedence was established. Ergo, the argument is invalid. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop regurgitating comments made by random Wikipedia editors (OP is full of 'random users XYZ said this about Snoogans"). This study[24] is about the UK financial industry, regardless of what some random editor who did not read the study claimed on a talk page once. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you wrote “I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article.“

1. I wasn’t aware that any such request had been made?

2. You would topic ban an editor for one such transgression?

Or was the comment a curious case of sarcasm? I’m confused. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Could be referring to the heading of this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^This, and/or Guy could be referring to the Boomerang; as for the OP, without prejudice to either position at this time, I'd refer you to the fact that we needn't give equal validity to viewpoints to satisfy NPOV, nor should we as it appears in this case. In any event I still think this is mostly a content dispute. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But then the over-riding concept must always be, as stated in the guideline you quoted, John M Wolfson, Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Thinking along those lines, of fairness in particular, in the case of the legal establishment in the US, judges who have strongly-held views on a subject must disqualify themselves where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Does the same principle apply in Wikipedia disputes? Boscaswell talk 20:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fairly as described by reliable sources, not by politicians or the general public. And there is a form of recusal here on Wikipedia, but it applies only to actual conflicts of interest, paid editing, and/or close personal connections, rather than merely having a strong opinion on something. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:INVOLVED for users with advanced permissions or acting as such. Uninvolved users may also be summoned to close RFCs, and depending on the contention in the RFC, should generally be the ones to do so. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of which situations apply to the underlying dispute at hand, IMO, which is about potentially-tendentious editing and nothing more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is one of false balance. The supermajority view of professional economists is that Brexit will be economically damaging to the UK. There are, to be sure, a handful of dissenters, and some primary research which lies in the long tail of the normal distribution of estimates, but there's no way to argue that the median is anything other than a substantial economic detriment.

Leavers have discounted these predictions since day 1, calling them "project fear". Before the advisory referendum it was predicted that some major UK car makers - Ford, Honda, JLR, Mini, Nissan , Toyota and PSA/Vauxhall all of which are foreign-owned - would scale back UK operations. This was dismissed as "project fear". Since the vote, investment in the sector has fallen from a run-ate of £2.5bn per annum or thereabouts to £90m, according to the SMMT. Honda is not jusrt scaling back, it is closing its Swindon plant. PSA is closing Ellesmere Port. Ford is closing Bridgend, the largest engine plant in Europe. Nissan has dropped plans to build new models in the UK. JLR is moving Land Rover production to Slovakia. So the realities, even before the deadline, are actually considerably worse than original forecasts. And that will affect, for example, the University of Birmingham, a significant proportion of whose engineering graduates go to Ford and JLR.

So yes, you can cherry-pick the occasional rosy estimate, but when the government's own Yellowhammer documents, the IMF and numerous other sources all predict 5%-10% shrinkage oft he UK economy, you don't get to offset that with a single document by the Irish central bank that thinks maybe UK banking won't be that hard hit for example. Especially when the big accountancy and consulting firms are all predicting large profits helping banks to move out of London to Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris. No passporting? No deal. The determination of hard Leavers to be outside of the free movement zone is a killer for international banks with European hubs in London (i.e. my customers), and you can bet your life that Frankfurt and Paris, especially, will be falling over each other to offer them deals, because they have been eyeing these prizes for a long time.

In fact, I have yet to see a single tangible benefit of Brexit proposed. Even Leavers coned it could be 50 years before the economy recovers. There are no sunlit uplands to be had. A few businesses will profit by lower wages and destruction of employment rights, and perhaps the more speculative goal of Leavers to set up Europe's offshore tax haven might come to fruition, but Europe is clamping down on that and I don't see them giving us a free pass. The Russian mob will be happy to hoover up some London real estate, of course, but for the majority of Brits it's going to be brutal, and the currency markets agree: the pound is at a historic low against the Euro and the US Dollar, albeit on a slide that started with the manifestly ineffective Austerity policies.

Now, you can still decide that you hate the EU so much that it's a price worth paying. That would be an ecumenical matter. Straight bananas, and all that. But Wikipedia is about the mainstream view, representing all significant views according to their weight, and the mainstream view, for all that half of the UK is in denial about it, is that Brexit is an economic clusterfuck. So this is really very much akin to the creationists arguing for equal weight in evolution articles. Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @JzG:, I agree with the policy related part of the above (on a personal basis I agree with all of it, but the latter part is not particularly relevant to the TBAN discussion), but dear god...paragraphs, man! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soz. Kept getting ECd and shit. @Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted paragraph breaks into Guy's long comment, to increase its readability. Guy, if you object, feel free to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Nosebagbear commented, that spiel was not particularly relevant. It also clouded the issue of that one content dispute. And was misleading. Unless one wishes to blame every problem concerning UK industry on Brexit.

Clouded the issue? Yes, because that one edit was pertinent only to the UK financial sector, not to the rest of UK industry, service or otherwise.

Misleading? Yes. Taking some of those vehicle manufacturers one by one, JLR had to close plants for long breaks some time ago, due to collapsing demand. Nothing to do with Brexit. Nissan models: it is manufacture in Sunderland of their luxury Infiniti brand which is to be shut down - it hadn’t been a success and they are pulling out of Western Europe altogether. Again, nothing to do with Brexit. PSA: this company took over the Vauxhall brand and plant. This has had falling sales for years, decades even. Very little to do with Brexit. Ford closed down its UK vehicle manufacturing operations years and years ago. I presume that this was because some execs with incredible foresight realised that Brexit was inevitable. See what I mean?

Again I ask, is it legitimate - as asked on my next previous edit - for Wikipedian Admins with very, very strongly-held views to make judgments on those with whom they disagree strongly on content matters? This question was not the purpose of my original post. I thought that there was going to be a “fair hearing”, I had some faith in the “judicial” machinations of Wikipedia. As things stand at the moment, it looks as if I was wrong. That faith I had has been severely shaken, if not completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscaswell (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a substantive response to the points raised above. I was the first to comment and mentioned a recent edit that I had investigated. Do you agree with what I wrote? If so, please state that so we know the boundaries of the situation. If not, please respond to the substance of what I wrote. Similarly for JzG's comments—respond to the substance rather than using debating tactics to deflect. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about content, it's about conduct. You came here to complain about Snoogs and showed evidence that he had made unambiguously correct edits. That suggests to me that Snoogs ain't the problem here.

My views on Brexit are not exactly a secret, but have nothing to do with the well established fact that anything claiming benefit or zero detriment to the UK economy from Brexit is an outlier. Just watch the FOREX markets. Every time exit is pushed out or becomes less likely, the pound rises, and when no-deal became a real possibility after BoJo took over, the arse dropped out of it completely. The huddled masses can be fooled (we know this from the history of early 20th Century Russia and Germany). The currency markets are much harder to hoodwink. That's why George Soros is a billionaire, that's how Rees-Mogg is cashing in right now, and the truly bizarre thing is that the Tory Party, the party of the Blessed Margaret, can see the market positions and is putting its fingers in its ears and chanting "Laa laa laa I can't hear you" - the last time we tried this was withthe ERM, and that did not end well (though a friend of mine bought an E-type with the bonus he made betting against the pound that week).

As one who grew up in the late 70s and 80s, at one of the oldest and most conservative schools in the world, I find this stunning. About the only thing on which Thatcher and Ted Heath agreed was that membership of the EU was a good thing for the economy. Thatcher got us far and away the best deal of any member state, in fact. And the most troubling part for me is that it is not actually possible to work in or close to any area directly affected by Brexit without realising it's going to be bad. I work around banks and fintech. My friends are musicicans, doctors, professionals in IT and the motor industry. All these areas have seen brutal impacts already and expect far worse once we actually leave. Again, you can take the view that this is a price worth paying, that's not our problem to fix, but to deny that the price will be paid, and is already being paid, demands intellectual dishonesty, and that is our problem. Guy (help!) 14:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: It is not an encyclopaedia's job to seek 'The Truth' - either one way or the other - about a subject matter that, as part of its very nature, is a debate. It doesn't matter from an encyclopaedia's point of view if one position is right and the other wrong, or if one is more right than the other: unless the debate is framed in its entirety, readers will be left short-changed. That is one part of the issue here. The other is indeed the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. I posted here because I was pinged, and because more than one editor has, independently, commented that Snooganssnoogans 'owns' the article. I am not necessarily here because I wish to see anyone topic-banned, however I do believe that Snooganssnoogan's conduct should be questioned. In my view they are far too aggressive in seeking to make the article say certain things. The incident I give below is an example: how is it consistent with Wikipedia's processes for there to be a general support for forking a section of the article, then when the section is forked, Snooganssnoogans almost immediately reverts it back in? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PaleCloudedWhite, This is not about WP:TRUTH, it's about reflecting the supermajority professional view of a subject. Per WP:UNDUE, we doo not give outliers more prominence in the name of "balance". That's what Boscaswell is demanding. In fact, he goes further and demands that Snoogs is topic banned for adhering to our policies against giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. Guy (help!) 10:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the general view of economists should be stated and summarised, but the article is already very long and should not devote a significant portion of its text to what are still, despite people's professional standings, essentially predictions and forecasts about what may or may not transpire. Also, you have not addressed the second part of my comment, regarding the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I wonder if you could be kind enough to offer a comment from Wikipedia's administration regarding the specific actions of Snooganssnoogans that I refer to above (namely edit warring against consensus)? Thankyou. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PaleCloudedWhite, My response is, discuss it on Talk. This is what RfCs are for. Guy (help!) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, it has already been discussed on talk, that is the point. Are you saying that when editors vote by eight to one to fork an article, then that counts for nothing because it hasn't been strictly formatted as an RfC? Is that your statement on how talk pages work? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During that discussion, the section in question was trimmed by 40% and the content was forked to the other articles. What you're talking about is just a desire to scrub the article entirely of any text whatsoever on what the peer-reviewed research and academic assessments have to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was that the article was too large and that the impacts section should be split off. The article is now even larger than it was then, and the 'impacts' section (something of a misnomer, since Brexit hasn't happened yet) still occupies about 30% of the article, so the argument for splitting it off has not diminished. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that has gained traction at the Brexit article (espoused particularly by Snooganssnoogans) is that academic economic literature is the 'best quality' and must be used in preference to other sources regarding predicted economic effects of Brexit. This sounds very reasonable to the average Wikipedian, but it is a false narrative here, as Brexit is not a purely economic entity; indeed, it is primarily a political one, albeit with economic implications. But the insistence on citing economic studies has helped create an unbalanced and unwieldy article that is not likely to answer the fundamental question of readers as to why people voted to leave despite all the predictions of doom and gloom. That is the heart of Brexit, and this article barely addresses it. It should not be the purpose of the Brexit article to make an assessment on which side of the Brexit debate is 'right' by focussing on predictions of economic outcomes - particularly as economics is a social, not natural, science. Currently about 30% of the article is taken up by an "impacts" section, with significant text about the economic 'impacts', even though the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet. There was general support to split much of this off into a separate article, yet when it was split off recently [25], Snooganssnoogans reverted the text back in, stating that "this text should not be forked" [26]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to take Boscaswell seriously after the first couple of paragraphs. That RFC that's being referred to concluded with "maintain the status quo until a consensus is formed", which was to keep the peer reviewed study out. To accuse Snoogs of lying because "well ackshully there was no consensus and that's why the study can't be included" is at least as misleading. So then we get to the banking scenario. It does not fill me with confidence that in a dispute over reliable sources and neutrality, Bos cited a press release instead of the actual study. And looking at that study, the way it was included definitely makes Bos look like a tendentious POV pusher. In brief, that study was clearly included as a counter to dismal estimates of Britain's economic future. "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay." However, by citing only the headline finding that "London will remain a large global financial center" and probably not even reading the actual study, key context is being missed. What the authors are concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's top financial centers in terms of competitiveness, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. Using this as some kind of contrast with earlier research, Bos is either trying to push a POV or he didn't actually understand what he was citing. I'll allow him to let us know which it was. Either way, to have gotten so far as to drag another editor to ANI for disputing the inclusion of such indefensible content, I have to support Guy's suggestion that Boscaswell is topic banned from Brexit. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like I’m gonna be topic-banned for an edit for which I didn’t actually read the survey, as proposed by an admin who abhors Brexit and brings up inaccurate bleuuggh about it, seconded by another who also misleads (this is WP:AN and not WP:ANI; I raised a series of points, not just one.) Anyway, my raising a series of points has been conveniently ignored. Into the too hard basket with it, let’s penalise that confounded bugger who dared raise the issue, eh? WP:OWN? Not just raised by me, there are several editors who did so, and are most likely, like me, completely over it. Anyway, go ahead, topic-ban me for a. having the nerve not to be a remainer while b. kicking up a fuss over a steamroller editor. Disgraceful behaviour. And by the way, if you’re gonna start topic-banning editors who don’t read surveys, there’ll be virtually no-one left. Snooganssnoogans, self-confessed king of the survey-citing editors, will be kicked out the door before you can say ‘Remoaner’. (Though I doubt that any of you guys will use that word.) So maybe this hadn’t been such a bad thing after all. Boscaswell talk 06:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your “consideration” of the points raised. Please don’t imagine that I’ll be responding further, or even reading any further comment here. It’s not possible to close my Wiki account, but if it was I would. As o said, my faith in the probity of Wikipedia has been destroyed. It was fast diminishing, and is now no more. All that having been said, it would be good if investigation could be given to the points raised by PaleCloudedWhite - who expresses him or herself exceedingly well and therefore deserves credit and an ear that both hears and listens - in addition to those raised by me re. Snooganssnoogans. “It would be good” I write. Go on, surprise yourselves. Boscaswell talk 07:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of information, it's not possible for anyone at Wikipedia to "close" your account, but you always have the option of scrambling your password. And, of course, you can always just walk away and do something else.

Just be careful, though, if you scramble your password and come back to edit with another account, you have to either declare who you once were, so that you won't be accused of sockpuppetry, or stay completely away from articles and subject areas you edited with this account, as well as avoiding old disputes with other editors, as you would be making a "WP:Clean start", and those are the conditions for that. If you walk away, and then come back and continue editing with the same account, there are no conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all Tbans here First, Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules or even that they won't listen to alternatives. Like minded editors are allowed to work on the same articles. If they are shutting out good edits then we have dispute resolution procedures to help. Like representatives democracy it's not always perfect but it's so hard to find a benevolent dictator these days. Boscaswell certainly should not be Tban'ed. There isn't strong evidence here of anything other than understandable frustration combined with inexperience. Sadly my feeling is the Tban suggestion had more to do with silencing a voice that didn't agree vs any reasonable protection of Wikipedia (the reason why we have tbans). From the outside looking in it seems like you have a group of experienced editors who don't want their view of the subject challenged. That challenge is coming from an editor who has much less experience navigating the Wikipedia ways and thus is both getting frustrated. That frustration, combined with less experience may be getting near a problem but our first resort should be understanding this is a good faith editor thus give them a hand rather than push them off the ladder. This complaint is a great example of needing a hand. I would suggest we close it, let them talk to an experienced, uninvolved editor or admin then decide how to best get consensus to fix the things they see as wrong with the Brexit article. If their posts on the Brexit page are like the opening post here, well I can see why they aren't getting any traction. Springee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springee wrote: “Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules...”

Thank you, Springee, I agree.

So - forgive me for this plain-speaking comment - but it would be very, very helpful for the ongoing improvement of Wikipedia if all you Admins were to work out what you’re going to do about it. Work out how the rules can be changed such that what is grossly unfair editing behaviour can be stopped or even prevented. The status quo is failing, because it not only allows this behaviour, but Admins with the same POV cheer it on.

Being condescending to someone who in effect has brought this very important point to your attention is not a solution to anything. Lecturing that same someone about his point of view is not a solution to anything. Saying well done to the one lecturing with his POV is beyond useless. Admins responding to my OP have done all of those things; the lecturing happened repeatedly.

If you were to do that successfully and fairly, you would not only put Wikipedia in a far better light, but also gain some respect. Boscaswell talk 23:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just attempted to split down the size of the lede in the Brexit article, and as expected, User:Snooganssnoogans reverted the entire change and posted the following vitriolic edit summaries which are completely dishonest and threatening."restore the lede. it's bonkers to have a two-paragraph lede for something as massive as Brexit, but the desperate attempts to scrub the page of peer-reviewed research and academic assessments knows no bounds" and "the kind of in-the-weeds nonsense that some editors want in the lede out of desperation to shoehorn some pro-brexit propaganda in there". [27][28] What's disturbing about these statements is that I changed NO CONTENT WHATSOVER in the article. I simply moved the bottom three paragraphs into a section titled "summary" and moved the Table of contents up since the lede is way too large and other editors have tagged the article as needing liposuction performed on the lede, which contains a lot of materials which is too much for most readers. I did not at any time insert any "pro-Brexit" materials as alleged by this user. I don't plan to edit war, but it's time for someone to reign this editor in and stop their hostile, contentious editing style which prevents other more consensus based editors to be able to edit this article. Their constant edit warring and reversion of just about every edit made to this article by other editors is absolutely ridiculous, as well as their failure to observe any reasonable standards of working together with others and trying to get consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts but these edits were not useful because the lead should be a summary of the article—hiding part of the lead in a new "Summary" section defeats the purpose of the WP:LEAD. People like to fiddle with articles like this, and adding a "too long" tag is a perfect example. However, it is obvious that the topic demands a long article so trying to squeeze it into someone's idea of an ideal length is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what did you think about those edit summaries John? – Levivich 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is remarkable - an admission that Snoogans is adding text that they describe as "in-the-weeds nonsense", in response to text added by someone else that Snoogans tried to revert out and described as "too in-the-weeds for the lede"[29]. So, either they are being pointy and making an edit that they believe to be detrimental, or they were being dishonest when they criticised the other editor's addition, and really they don't care about anything other than ensuring the article pushes a particular political position. Either explanation is indicative of a problematic approach to editing the encyclopedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously can't comprehend the following? This is not rocket science[30]: (1) The lede should not contain a discussion about the implications of Brexit for UK and EU law (because of WP:UNDUE), (2) If the lede is going to contain content on that issue, it should reflect the totality of RS content on that issue and not just some misleading unnuanced pro-Brexit propaganda about how the Brits are "taking the law back". In other words, if it is to be included, it should be WP:NPOV-compliant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all comprehend and the general consensus is that you are adding extremely POV materials and positions to the Brexit article and will revert and edit war with anyone who adds content which contradicts your view of the world. The Brexit article is extremely slanted due to your editing and POV pushing of "academia only" and negative Brexit viewpoints. I have a suggestion -- how about you take a break of let's say a month (30 days) from editing the Brexit article so consensus based editors can add balanced content to the article without constantly having you revert and edit war with anyone or everyone you disagree with. As it stands, that article is inferior and unbalanced and it's mostly your doing. And you may want to review what an editor actually has done with an article in terms of edits before posting the types of dishonest edit summaries you did when all I did was move the table of contents around to break up the excessively long lede for cosmetic purposes which was suggested by another editor on the talk page who said the lede was too long. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You think that your absurdly poor edit which removed all the content that you personally disliked from the lede (because "experts are idiots" or something along those lines), placed it in some bizarre new section just below the lede (to make it less visible), and turned the lede for Brexit (the by far most substantial issue in British politics since the end of the Cold War) into two meager paragraphs, is a good example of a great edit that was cruelly and unfairly reverted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed NOTHING from the lede and I changed NO CONTENT or the order which the content appeared in the article. The edit I did was cosmetic only and was no different than placing a tag. One way to pare down the lede and make it concise is too determine a cutoff, split the text into a lower section, then other editors can come back and refine and reinsert relevant content and rework it. Most of what is in the lede doesn't all belong there without some refinement, but this process which should naturally occur as other editors review the content cannot happen when a lone wolf editor runs over everyone constantly and prevents any edits they disagree with from being placed in the article and completely ignores consensus of editors. And then when an editor disagrees with them they post this type of comment, "The lede is very large, so let's add some misleading nonsense to it." Can't make this shit up."[31] Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I removed NOTHING from the lede". This is just pure brazen straight-up lying.[32] Perfect example of why the Brexit page is dysfunctional. It's getting very tired to respond to these confused and deceptive comments. If anyone needs me, ping me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As is pointed out above, a section called "summary" is the same as the lede. My edits moved the TOC to split the second paragraph and it left no substantive changes to the order of any text or comments in the lede. The article had exactly the same text and the same order, and I did that by design so that the main points raised in the lede could be individually addressed. None of your pet text was touched. The decision to split the content after the first two paragraphs was entirely arbitrary and based on the natural ordering of lede materials. And your bait and switch diff you displayed above does not support your allegation that I am lying about anything [33] Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that according to Snooganssnoogans, if Editor A adds text that Editor B thinks is undesirable, Editor B can revert it with an edit summary that says, "if this gets included, then it'll have to also include this", and just by virtue of saying that, it automatically comes to pass. Think of it as a kind of insurance policy, or future-proofing the article. I wonder why it's not mentioned at WP:BRD.....? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octoberwoodland's above comment at 23:48, 21 September 2019 started with "I removed NOTHING from the lede". That is obviously untrue—compare the lead before and after this edit. Anyone denying that Octoberwoodland's edit removed text from the lead, appropriately enough in the context of Brexit, is using dishonest debating tactics, or is blatantly lying, or is clearly not sufficiently competent to be editing a complex topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you posted shows I just moved the TOC tag up. I tagged the remaining lede as "summary" which you yourself stated is the same as the lede. The way mediawiki works is there has to be some sort of anchor or the TOC won't show up in the right place. My apologies for posting the summary heading. Anyway, I'll try do to better next time. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And at no time did I post any "pro-brexit" materials as alleged by Snooganssnoogans in his edit summaries, nor did I "purge academic assessments" from the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Brexit is not a complex topic, as much as people from the UK want everyone to think so. All the various peoples and governments in the UK have a long history (thousands of years) of fighting among themselves and with each other and the current Brexit situation, especially the position of Scotland in the Brexit mess, is a reflection of hundreds of years of infighting. I have spent many hours watching the House of Commons live debates on the issues of Brexit, and all the fighting and disagreement trying to understand all the points of view. The UK was very smart to retain their own currency system rather than go with the Euro, which has primed the UK economy to exit with a strong economic position. Post-Brexit the UK will be just fine. The Irish backstop issue is just another reflection of the infighting and historical conflicts. I understand Brexit very well, so all the negative studies and economic forecasts are not helping people to understand the world after Brexit. It's a tempest in a teapot as near as I can tell, the people in the UK should have hope and not being fed constant negative viewpoints. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is something everyone here should read, because this is a perfect encapsulation of what these disputes are about and the kind of editing I'm up against on the Brexit page. In other words, this is just "My own feelz and original research should supersede RS content, peer-reviewed research and expert assessments". Wikipedia policy, principled positions and consistency get thrown out of the window because editors believe they have a unique understanding of the subject and have a duty to make sure that the British people are "not being fed constant negative viewpoints" on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. At no time have I ever placed any original research in the Brexit article, in fact, I have refrained from editing the article and worked through other editors on the talk page for the most part. So this is just another one of your misrepresented comments. I stopped directly editing the article after you reverted me twice.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the text that Snooganssnoogans added to the lead here wasn't in the body of the article at that time - is that correct? I've scanned the article as it existed then, but haven't found that text. Indeed, it was later added to the body by a different editor (here). Could Snooganssnoogans either point to where that text was within the article body, or confirm that it wasn't there? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Snooganssnoogans hasn't responded to my request, it seems right to assume that they did indeed add material to the lead that wasn't in the article body at that time. This leads to two further points. First, Snooganssnoogans claimed that the material they were adding to the lead had to be added for the reason of balance, but if this were the case, why did this only concern them when the other material had been added to the lead, and not when it was just in the body of the article, where it had resided for 2 weeks [34]? Secondly, there is a double standard being operated here, as shown by Snooganssnoogans' instructions to other editors generally to respect that the lead should only have information that is in the body e.g. [35], [36], [37], [38]. It is this kind of conduct - the twisting around of Wikipedia processes to suit their own argument at the time - that I believe is problematic with this editor. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: 30-day article ban for both editors

Proposing that both Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boscaswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned from editing the Brexit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article for 30 days. – Levivich 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer – Both editors continue to edit this article in a very WP:BATTLEGROUND way. Forget the edits themselves–forget the content dispute part of it–and just look at recent edit summaries:

  1. Bosca [39]: "Converse view on one of the fish studies *gasp* This is called balance ;-)"
  2. Snoog [40]: "this is a study. not random-ass speculation"
  3. Bosca [41]: "re-word sloppy phrasing...this is patently untrue and tbh ridiculous"
  4. Snoog [42]: "...this is not the place for incoherent partisan rhetoric..."
  5. Bosca [43]: "...Stuffing the article or any section with more opinions..."
  6. Snoog [44]: "removing unattributed fringe nonsense..."
  7. Bosca [45]: "Reverting another of Snoogans' edits, which had the effect eliminating any positive potential outcome and replacing it with overwhelmingly negative ones"
  8. Snoog [46]: "of course it's fringe nonsense..."

  Note that they're not just reverting each other, but also other editors. The high number of reverts and snarky edit summaries are part of that "red team/blue team" BATTLEGROUND method of editing. Look at Talk:Brexit and you see the same thing: a high number of edits, very few of them collegial or productive towards consensus-building.

  Though a broader TBAN was originally proposed in this thread, I think we should try something smaller first. I suggest a 30-day article ban to give both editors a "time out" from this article. Remove the primary combatants from the battlefield, and hopefully it'll stop being so much of a battlefield. Let the other editors work through the content issues without all the reverting and without the battleground environment. See what happens. Both Snoog and Bosca, upon returning after 30 days, will be unable to revert whatever consensus developed during their absence. Hopefully, that will encourage them to find a new way of editing the article–one that is built on collaboration rather than confrontation. – Levivich 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a shock: Levivich calling to get me banned for nothing? Every time someone a brings a complaint against me, no matter how meritless and weak, this editor must enter the fray calling for sanctions on me. Levivich has been on my case ever since he sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying - pretty much the same behavior that makes the Brexit article dysfunctional), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[47] shortly after it was approved in a RfC (started by me).[48] Ever since, he's been in every discussion where someone raises a complaint about me to argue on behalf of the filer of the meritless complaints (when those filers are inevitably boomeranged) and/or saying I'm a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the second time I've entered the fray calling for sanctions against you. – Levivich 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose simplistic "solution" based on false equivalency. --Calton | Talk 17:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I disagree with the tone of Levivich’s contention regarding my editing of the Brexit article - I saw myself as being loquacious and giving a helpful and healthy level of explanation of my edits in my edit summaries, which is rather different to the snappy and in some cases rude summaries of Snoogans - it may surprise you to learn that I’m OK with the proposal. If that’s what it takes to have Snoogans t-banned, then so be it. Time and again s/he’s been in a minority of one in Talk page discussions, time and again s/he continues in the same manner, making it very wearing and very difficult for other editors to proceed. Boscaswell talk 20:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only do I NOT care if you're "OK" with a two-way article ban, the fact that you say explicitly that your intention is to get Snoogans t-banned means that not only I oppose it even more strongly, I would support topic-bnning YOU from the page. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• General observation Imposing a 30-day restriction on any editor for something Brexit-related at this time is a singularly bad idea; that means that (depending on exactly when the sanction is imposed) the restrictions will expire either on or immediately before B-Day itself on 31 October, which is precisely when we don't want anyone remotely problematic touching what will on the day be Wikipedia's most-viewed article by multiple orders of magnitude. ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 40-day topic ban Extend it to 40 days per Iridescent. Edit warring isn't about being "right" but about how one goes about editing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No action — understanding that you're trying to address snarky comments and repeated reverts on both sides Levivich, reading through the diffs it doesn't seem like things are that bad. Maybe both editors could just agree to take a break for a few days, try to calm things down when back, and then get 3O or dispute resolution after that. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Calton: simplistic "solution" based on false equivalency. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I stated in the section above that the problem with Snooganssnoogans is their twisting of process to suit their argument - what I have elsewhere called a kind of disingenuous gerrymandering. But it doesn't just occur at the Brexit article. I looked at their recent contributions and selected this one at random, because the edit summary was a bit confrontational. Could an administrator who doesn't hold strong views on the article subject (Tulsi Gabbard) offer a possible explanation as to why, under the edit summary "she supports nurses?", the sentence "she supports GMO labeling" should have the link changed from the straightforward and obvious GMO to the strangely specific Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana? I did a quick google of "Tulsi Gabbard GMO Ghana" and nothing came up. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ^A perfect example of the kind of clutching-at-straws mindset that motivates complaints against me in this discussion. The link should have obviously been to [49], but yes it's an outrageous crime, and an admin needs to "offer a possible explanation" for this completely unexplainable, outrageous behavior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you haven't described any of my other comments as "a perfect example of the kind of clutching-at-straws mindset" shows that you don't believe it can be applied to them. I ask administrators to look again at my complaints above, in which Snooganssnoogans:
- fights against an 8 to 1 vote to ensure their preferred text remains in the article
- counters the addition of what they regard as 'too detailed' text by adding more of what they call "in the weeds nonsense" in order to 'balance' it
- pre-empts the outcome of a discussion by saying - in an edit summary - that 'if you succeed in adding that, then I'll have to add this' - and then acts on it
- adds material to the lead that isn't in the article body, despite many times telling editors elsewhere that such actions aren't permissible.
Snooganssnoogans uses such aggressive tactics because - they like to claim - they're only acting to keep the article 'balanced', but this has always been in only one direction, and the result is that other editors - editors who have neither the time nor inclination to interact with such aggressive tententiousness - stop bothering to edit the article. One editor, who hasn't commented here, even posted on my talkpage to tell me not to edit the article - "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article" (see here). "Don't bother editing" - is this what administrators want Wikipedia editors to be advising each other? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Agree with Calton that this is a false equivalency. Neutrality^talk 14:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata
• Draft: Operational Chow ring history
• Copy-paste move to undo a move in good faith, causing more problems
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination)
• History of Draft:Microfunction

Again we have editor TakuyaMurata, who seems to believe that they are the only one qualified to edit a nest of Draft sub-stubs that have remained in the Draft Namespace for years with trivial edits designed to allow them to keep their empire of contepts (many of them post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts) that either need to see consistent improvement or have any of the Alternatives to deletion forcably enacted. Consider the history of Draft:Microfunction. A user nominates it for G13 on September 15th at 22:10 UTC, and Graeme Bartlett restores it from a WP:REFUND request, I notice it be restored. I look at the previous content and see that it was proposed by Taku to be merged to Algebraic analysis on March 10th 2019 (6 months before the September 15th G13). I presumed that since the page had sat for 6 months and there was no objection in Algebraic analysis that all the content that was presumably worth saving was already spliced over. I redirected citing the MFD and the Merge proposal. I specifically noted that the previous content is in the page history to allow others to grab content if it was missed. This is significantly important. Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect. We go back and forth a few times arguing in edit comments and I decide to let it go. In a little under 25 hours after I first attempted to redirect, Taku merge/redirects it to the same target. This, in my mind screams "Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". The content and formatting previously in the page was still available, yet Taku demands that no page started by them can be changed unless it has their blessing. I specifically chose these ways of redirecting without a move so that the original page history remains so that they could extract content that might be useful.

So, because less strict sanctions have failed to work I therefore propose: TakuyaMurata is topic banned from undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace. Further TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace.

I am attempting to get at the heart of the issue: Taku's stubs that sit around for years that get trivial improvements made to them to avoid the CSD:G13 sweep. Interested users who appear to still be active: Topic ban participants (Cryptic—Unscintillating—Alsee—power~enwiki—Premeditated_Chaos—Beyond_My_Ken—RileyBugz—Johnuniq—Ivanvector—Cullen328) Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) MFD participants (Robert McClenon—SmokeyJoe—Hut 8.5—UnitedStatesian—Mark viking) Submitted: Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have reverted the disruptive edit to the draft page Draft:Microfunction that overrode the outcome of the MfD (which was merger). After revert, I had finished the merger and redirected the page to mainspace. I ask other editors: which is more disruptive? A constant attempt to override the community consensus and disrupt the ordinary content development? Or having math draft pages in the draft space? I personally view this topic ban request itself as a disruption and has been put forth in the dishonest manner (whence, my proposal for interaction ban below). Again what is the real disruption? as opposed to the perceived but unreal one. -- Taku (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On closing the thread, it is a probably good idea to close the thread after #AfC and G13s is closed; since depending on the outcome of the latter, the problem behind this thread might become moot. —- Taku (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Ideally I'd like to count the 1 successful refund backwards, but I understand that may be problematic. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll let TakuyaMurata weigh in before I !vote, but I do feel like the proposal does a good job of addressing the issue while being minimally invasive. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have followed this User:TakuyaMurata & perpetual storage / refunds in draftspace for some years. Although I don't fully understand why Hasteur can't just ignore it all, I do agree that TakuyaMurata is using draftspace outside the ever intended scope of draftspace, and that he is perpetually perverse and obstinate about it his idiosyncratic use of draftspace.

I would prefer the following:

User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: The gist of the issue is on how the draft is supposed to use. As can be seen from discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), there is enough supporting voices that having draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages (many of them are not mine) in the draft space is not an issue as long as the drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace, which they are. (I hope I'm ok to express my view on the draft space in this thread.) -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taku, get the pages you believe to have positive potential out of draftspace, and put them under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/....
Your views on draftspace are an underlying cause of this whole dispute. Put these views in a useressay, and in the meantime stop drafting in draftspace. Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below. -- Taku (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banning Taku from using draftspace is completely consistent with his topic ban from even talking about draftspace. In fact, I think it is an necessary co-condition that was overlooked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading too much into it. If he'd been banned from draftspace, it would have been clearly delineated. It was not:

"TakuyaMurata is indefinitely topic banned from any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further banned from participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability (broadly construed)..."

No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace}}. Exactly. A foolish oversight that has led directly to this perverse problem. There is no reason for him to use draftspace, and he is doing it in accordance with his mainstream-defying views of draftspace, which he is forbidden from explaining. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: Taku was disrupting rule/policy/guideline/suggestion pages so a topic ban was proposed to restrict them from disrupting As the one who penned the topic ban I'd like to provide some context. The reason why we only went for discussing suitability of pages in Draft namespace is because at the time Taku was making proposals making counter proposals, and edit warring on rule/policy/guideline pages to argue effectively that GSD:G13 is "optional", that WP:REFUND can be requested indefinitely, that the requirement for improvement is only a "suggestion", and that their entire future topic dump is not only allowed, but encouraged by the charter of Draft space. Making counter and retalitory proposals to attempt to get his critics sanctioned or banned (see proposed Interaction Ban below) only demonstrates that TakuyaMurata still does not get the message. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Please be civil. Calling such actions "foolish" or "perverse" is unnecessary and should be avoided. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not criticising any person, just the end result. An unintended consequence, it was unexpected that Taku would put his head down and insist on carrying in practice on with his idiosyncratic opinion on how DraftSpace should function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the proposal by User:SmokeyJoe. It makes more sense to ban Taku from all use of draft space than to ban him from talking about it while he can still use it. The current situation makes no sense, but it is clear that Taku is using draftspace as a dustbin. It is also true that Hasteur, and another previous editor, have been going to absurd lengths to keep draft space clean, but there can be abuses both ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Query @TakuyaMurata: Why not move these to user space? Where is the harm there? Buffs (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buffs: Because those drafts are not mine and it makes sense to put them at the place for drafts development. The harm would be putting them in the user page would give a wrong impression that they need to be treated differently than other math drafts in the draft space. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @TakuyaMurata: How would they be treated "differently"? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buffs: For example, some might hesitate to make minor or major edits, assuming they are my drafts and instead of drafts belonging to the community. —- Taku (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  They indeed may hesitate to do so, but that is contrary to policy:

  WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page...Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier... While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations."

  Additionally, you can mitigate that by posting a note right at the top stating that constructive edits are welcome and appreciated. Likewise, there's no reason such information cannot be incorporated into existing articles. Such information doesn't need to be 100% perfect. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Query @Hasteur: What is the harm in allowing a draft to linger? Why the rush to delete at 6 months? Why is it 100% ok in userspace, but not in draftspace? Buffs (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buffs: I have no problem with letting it linger for one or two 6 month periods, however some of these drafts have been sitting (even after repeated reminders) for over 3 years. I have no problem with it living in Taku's workspace for an eventually I'll work on this, but for it to sit in the Draft namespace for years without any substantive (i.e. make some actual effort at improving) improvement suggests that either it's some sort of neologism/WP:MADEUP/Original Research/similar that would (if it is a thing) be best served by using regular editing and inserting it into a parent level article and improving the content enough to justify a WP:SPINOUT. 6 months is the pescribed timer under CSD:G13 which has (over time) been expanded to include both AFC drafts and non-AFC drafts. The purpose of Draft space is to have a collaberative area where multiple editors can edit and improve content to get it to namespace. I believe I have expertiese as I was instrumental in the original drafting of the namespace including defining CSD:G13 and it's various modifications. In Taku's userspace it's not eligible for CSD:G13 plain and simple. In Draftspace the pages show up on the "not edited by a non-bot in the last 6 months" so people who like working backlogs (like myself) see them and try to action them. In some cases we action it by Nominating for CSD:G13, in others we Nominate for MFD, in still others we redirect the page and the talk page to as closely related mainspace page we can find so that energy and effort can be focused into developing a Encyclopedia and not spent chasing these drafts around every 6 months because Taku objects to any of the Alternatives to Deletion yet doesn't make any effort to actually improve the drafts unless it's in front of a deletion process. Hasteur (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @TakuyaMurata: A year seems like a reasonable time to wait. Why haven't you improved them until an AFD? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buffs: It’s not like I always we wait for an MfD (please see the stats at #Votes below). MfD or not, the drafts tend to get finished and moved to mainspace. I don’t have a particular order for working with drafts, but an MfD is a feedback process (in the form the editors use today): it can raise some issues and I don’t mind working on them when they are raised. If an editor raises a concern at the talkpage (or less optimally make a disruptive edit), I can also respond to that (e.g., Draft:Microfunction); that’s how Wikipedia tends to work. One editor makes an edit and the others respond. —- Taku (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, @TakuyaMurata: see above. I see no reason you cannot incorporate these into existing articles, make them a standalone article, or userfy them. Keeping them in perpetual "draft" state is a pointless endeavor and detracts from other editors. If you're refusing to incorporate into existing articles, make these articles, or userfying them, then I see little choice but to ban you from such creations as you are misusing a process and becoming disruptive via that refusal. 6 months is more than ample time for even someone who is busy. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, could you look at the states I mentioned below? "perpetual", I agree that can be problematic. But that's just not true; the drafts started by me do get finished and get moved to mainspace as part of existing articles or standalone articles (or deleted in MfDs); I don't think there is an exception. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I didn't notice your response. I have responded to you below. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, let's keep it here. You have at least 4 articles in draft space for over 3 years that I've seen presented as evidence here: [50] [51] [52] [53]. I don't know if there are more or not...I don't care. There's no reason to hang onto these in draft space this long. Hasteur is coming across as brash and draconian, but he also has a point. Your claims of "I don't have articles perpetually in Draft state" doesn't hold water. You do. By doing so, it unnecessarily adds to a list of articles that need help. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This whole thread is pretty involved, and I don't really want to support or oppose any particular remedy, but for what it's worth, I wanted to point out this comment and edit summary made by Hasteur to me in an AfD discussion which is apparently related to this stuff. Whatever other issues are going on between these two, it feels like it's spilling over elsewhere (to me in this case, who wandered in fairly innocently). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You are invited to read WP:BADGER and see how your commentary throughout the entirety of that AFD could be perceived as an attempt to water down and argue to a "No Consensus" position. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Present as further evidence: Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory G13ed, restored, G13ed, restored, G13ed again, G13ed again (this time by @Credo2020 Unumisit: and sustained by @Fastily:). Clear demonstration of the same back and forth game of putting things in G13 space only to not do anything about it. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

• Support as proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm amazed that this problem is still hanging on by its fingernails. I agree with Hasteur that an end needs to be put to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took an extended sabbatical/temper tantrum from Wikipedia and the other persistent statuser has been indef-blocked for what appears to be reasons beyond the scope of this locus of dispute. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very good to have you back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although it is clear that someone is upset, MFDs have also resulted in a keep vote. An MFD that results in merge or redirect also should then not be overridden by a G13 nomination or deletion. Probably drafts that have survived MFD with some result other than delete should be tagged so that subsequent editors know how to proceed. I think that much of what is there should be in Taku's user space if he wants to hang onto it longer than years before promoting to article. Undeleting is fairly simple, and Taku is one of two users that I will undelete for on request even if nothing was done to improve since the previous undelete. Other serial undelete requesters I will question to see how interested they are on improving the draft. But as you can see I agree with TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I remember the last time this came up. My take on this hasn't changed since then. I think TakuyaMarata is being absurdly stubborn about this. But, he's also been a highly productive content creator. What he's doing may be silly He's being an ass, but it's relatively harmless and the effort that's been put into this vendetta far exceeds the benefit of chasing down a few ancient drafts. I am reminded of the North-going Zax and a South-going Zax. Move on to more important things. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I will support almost any measure to check Taku's insistence on using draft space as an archive for what are essentially topic titles. The previous topic ban, which had to do with discussions of policy, has not worked because it just causes Taku to engage in preterition about draft space. Something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as formulated (also see below). First “undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace.” seems moot since I never undo constructive edits (only the disruptive ones). “TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft” doesn’t quite work since I also routinely request refunds of drafts created other than me. My understanding is that there is no community consensus that having draft pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages is disruptive. What is disruptive is precisely a thread like this. Drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace. If some particular old draft is having an issue, there is an MfD for that. I don’t understand the issues here. I agree with RoySmith; I am getting tired too. Can we just move on? See also User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning. Is this really how we want to Wikipedia to work? -- Taku (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this unfortunate solution to TM's WP:Failing to get the point; if he would simply move all his (and he makes it very clear he is the "owner") content to his userspace, we wouldn't be here. But no. The draftspace is for drafting, and abuse of the six-month G13 window is detrimental to the efforts of many editors to build the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see how this benefits the encyclopedia. These drafts are usually viable mainspace articles, or at least viable parts of mainspace articles. I have restored plenty of them at WP:REFUND when I wouldn't have done so for another editor, for exactly this reason. Wikipedia does accept articles on technical or inaccessible topics, denigrating them as "post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts" isn't helpful. Preventing somebody from writing them just because they take a bit long and don't do so in their own userspace isn't helpful either. I do also have to object to the statement above that "Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect." The MfD in question was closed as Keep, so Taku has a point there. Hut 8.5 06:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a topic ban as such, but I do support moving all of these useless substubs to his user space, since a) he's made it clear they're his private personal property, and b) the vast majority are unlikely to ever see the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - doesn't solve the problem with Hasteur's fanatic obsession with keeping the draft space "clean". Prefer interaction ban below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - draft space isn't meant to hold articles forever. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please clarify? I don't think that's anyone's contention here. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It is Taku’s contention, which he is topic banned from talking about, and it is the rationale behind what he does in draftspace, which he s banned from explaining. Perverse? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Without getting into rationale and such, the relevant stats is that (1) like 90% of drafts started by me are moved to mainspace within 1 week (2) almost all other drafts are finished within one month or two (3) there are a few exceptions that can take months or even years to finish (often due to referencing matters) but are eventually moved to mainspace. (4) There are absolutely no drafts that are kept indefinitely. —- Taku (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If it takes years, there is no reason you can't move them to user space and work on them there. Buffs (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. I have to agree that say "10 years" would be too much (I don't think there is a draft that old). On the other hand, for me, a one-year-old draft don't seem problematic. Technically I am not allowed to discuss the draft usage policy. But, for me, 2 or 3 years seem to be acceptable amount of time to be allowed before the drafts need to be userifyed or require some other form of intervention. If some editors really believe I intend to keep drafts "perpetually", I can agree with some terms making it explicit that's not the case (since the drafts are not kept perpetually anyway, I don't lose anything.) -- Taku (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  SmokeyJoe, please don't bait Taku. The question at hand was directed to another editor. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Bait?? I’ve been trying to help Taku out of this shallow hole for years. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm not seeing the evidence to support such action at this time. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - prefer #Yet Another Proposal below. – Levivich 02:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: interaction ban with Hasteur

I completely agree with "an end needs to be put to it". This proposal is a much cleaner and simpler approach to the dispute. This thread itself is enough evidence supporting such a ban. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A few have suggested the proposal is invalid because it is a counter-proposal. That’s not really an argument; please discuss the merits of the proposal independently. — Taku (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the argument is being made that it is a retaliatory proposal, with no supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below. (If “retaliatory” is a reason for the rejection of the proposal, the first proposal/strike should also be automatically rejected; that’s why it’s not an argument and the vote is invalid. It cannot be one-sided.) -— Taku (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppose as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Hasteur being the main person voicing objection to Taku's use of draftspace does not mean that Hasteur is the only person troubled by Taku's non-standard use of draftspace. Taku, please take your drafts to userspace. Anyone can collaborate with you there. To generally invite others to work on your mathematics drafts, use subpages of WikiProject Mathematics. Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. You use of draftspace is disrupting the fragile working of draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And "Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users" is precisely my problem. Because it is not and it is not intended to be. Draftspace is precisely the place for the collaborative development of the content. -- Taku (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much history of practice that demonstrates this to be wrong. Draftspace is not functionally suitable for collaboration. WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TakuyaMurata: I believe your statement just above violates your previous topic ban. I suggest you strike it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that, in this thread which is the continuation of the previous one, I am ok to express my view on the draft space, in order to respond to SmokeyJoe in a meaningful way. But ok I struck that. -- Taku (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Again WP:Failing to get the point, TM ignores all the other editors that have a problem with his edits in the draftspace and his misuse of WP:REFUND. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If I am misusing WP:REFUND and the draftspace, that depends on what is the proper use of the draft space. Many other editors seem to be more bothered by the dispute itself not the drafts. This proposal will end that dispute. -- Taku (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- silly tit-for-tat retaliatory proposal. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just talk calmly to each other, and interaction can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Except the user seems incapable of working with other editors in civil manners; here is one evidence User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning (maybe it was a bait for me to make mistakes?) —- Taku (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support one-way interaction ban (Hasteur banned from interaction with TakuyaMurata) - by their own words Hasteur came back from an extended wikibreak just to push this issue, and wasted no time recruiting all their old allies to go after TakuyaMurata again. Hounding is defined as "the singling out of one or more editors, ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." Many editors commenting here are not familiar with the history of this dispute but I am, and it's been going on for years. Every time it comes up we see that Hasteur (or rarely one or two other users) has a bee in their bonnet because someone has got in the way of their principal activity of purging things from draft space. The problem of draft space being used contrary to Hasteur's personal criteria is a problem for Hasteur. The problem for the community is the massive waste of time and energy we go through each time six months passes from the previous dispute when Hasteur brings it up again. Forcing Hasteur to stay away from TakuyaMurata will solve that problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as malformed. As phrased, such an IBAN is not clear as to whom is banned and who isn't or if it's both. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I didn’t think that matters; it is all the case that User:Hasteur first makes a disruptive edit (e.g., vandalism on draft pages or overriding the community consensus) and I revert the edit. One way ban on him or two ways don’t make a difference. — Taku (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Such a funny thing, calling a Bold action Vandalism. Clearly someone hasn't read WP:NOTVAND in a while. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of you stop your snide remarks toward each other, the disparaging remarks, and stick to facts. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Retaliatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is quite odd; it is ok for User:Hasteur to raise a concern but I, on the other hand, am not allowed to raise a concern? I have been thinking that an interaction ban is needed for some time and this thread just gave me a push for proposing it. Perhaps this emery vote shows you actually don’t have a counterargument for this proposal. — Taku (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I invite the proposer to read WP:PUNISH and self strike this proposal. On one hand we have a demonstrated pattern of disruption including attempting to get their critics Interaction banned from TakuyaMurata, and on the other hand we have repeated suggestions/warnings/consensus debates all saying the same thing. I further refer to TakuyaMurata's continued WP:NOTTHEM arguments that everyone except themselves is responsible for their current position. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon-like alternate proposal

Both User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata are topic banned from draft space (broadly construed). Anything currently in draft space for which TakuyaMurata is the primary author is moved to their user space. Two-way interaction ban between User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, second choice to what I guess is proposal 4 (see my comment under the original "alternate proposal"). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - When cutting Gordian knots, a two-edged sword is often useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain: This is not something I can support, obviously. (People forget but I routinely work on math drafts started by editors other than me). But I am not going to oppose it either (otherwise I will probably be ass). — Taku (talk)
• Oppose Going with the a pox on both your houses or the "cut the baby in half solution" is a non-starter for me. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as absurd. Hasteur is needed to help with draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Goes way beyond anything needed to solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see good edits from both people...they just need to know when to back off rather than continue discussing. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I like the solution below better, which addresses the issues without resulting in the encyclopedia losing both editors' constructive contributions to draftspace. – Levivich 02:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - User:SmokeyJoe has persuaded me. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another Proposal

Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion or of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old and are not currently under dispute as of 1 October 2019 and may not contest edits to such drafts after community consensus for deletion or merging/into an article, broadly construed. Exceptions: TakuyaMurata may continue such discussions as that already exist and may request pages to be restored in his own user space, but cannot create new drafts to circumvent this process. TakuyaMurata is also permitted to contest such edits in relevant fora: AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom, but is cautioned to not use such an option outside of exceptional circumstances.

Limited IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all direct communications with TakuyaMurata except as required by policy (such as notifications or technical requirements), broadly construed. Exceptions: Hasteur may bring Draft pages primarily edited by TakuyaMurata to relevant XfD pages, but must be solely for procedural reasons; remarks about TakuyaMurata are not permitted. Hasteur may also bring disputes with TakuyaMurata to relevant AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom pages, but must not engage with TakuyaMurata in such a discussion outside of ArbCom. Hasteur is reminded be brief in such a discussion, to WP:AGF, and to be WP:Civil.

Rationale: TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Support here should be construed as support for the whole package. It was never intended as separate proposals. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I perceive this to be a "dilute any consensus to effectively nothing" proposal (when a RFC is initially proposed with 3 options and progressively gets counter-proposed up to 13 different options) to make closing this even more difficult. Second I note that the TBAN (as currently written) could be interperted as prohibiting TakuyaMurata from making any improvements to articles already in draft space. Should Taku wish to make an improvement they will have to move it to WP Mathematics space or to their userspace. I perceive this to be less than desirable. My goal is to get the drafts off the CSD:G13 rail and actually moving towards being workable mainspace content. Third, The locus of dispute moves is intermixed between a content (the drafts and their stale-ness) and conduct (labeling Bold actions as Vandalism, yelling at opponents through edit summaries, accusations of lying, etc) that makes it such that conduct and previously observed patterns of behavior are germane to the topic of "willful/WP:IDHT/WP:NOTBURO resistance to community improvement". Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It should not be interpreted in that manner. The ban is on articles HE'S created in draft space that are over a year. If he's contributing to drafts of others, I see no problem with it; that's behavior we WANT on Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buffs: Only to help me understand I wish to pose 2 hypothetical cases to understand the scope of the iBan.
  I discover (through some method) that Draft:Example Math Stub has been created by TakuyaMurata in the past, has been unedited in at least 200 days giving the impression that it is abandonded/stale, and has a practical mainspace larger topic. To affirmatively test the community consensus I nominate for XfD and request a redirect-merger so that content is preserved and I introduce into my nominating statement the history of the page. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban?
  Second: Effectively same as the first, except instead of nominating for XfD I redirect the article to what appears to be an appropriate mainspace partent topic as a WP:BOLD action, leaving the actual merger as an exercise for a knowledgable editor to perform at their leisure through the page history of the Draft still being available. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban? Is TakuyaMurata prohibited from reverting the redirect?
  Hasteur (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Valid questions. No, none of these fall afoul of such a ban as you aren't addressing TakuyaMurata. Based on the limited information you provided, TakuyaMurata is allowed to contest such a redirect. We aren't looking to just delete everything. I'm seeing a lot of drafts that are resulting in good additions to articles. Edit warring will result in standard bans. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  After seeing clarification, Support Topic Ban, Oppose Interaction Ban As referenced below, providing the perverse incentive to silence one of your critics is never appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (but prefer 2 year period to 1 year): This seems the most sensible proposal yet (kudos to proposer Buffs). As I said, if some editors really believe I have been and still been planning to use the draft space (or user space) for the purpose of keeping my personal study notes, this agreement would address that concern very well. My only gripe is that “1 year” seems too short (just because sometimes I don’t have time to edit Wikipedia as much as I like, depending on my real lift situations). — Taku (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and kudos to Buffs for the well-rationalized proposal. As for the length of Taku's restriction, 1 year is plenty; if you haven't addressed a draft in a full year and some other editor wants to do something with it, let them. If someone improves it then that's what we're all here for, and if it gets deleted you can ask for it to be restored to your user space for when you do eventually have time for it. While wanting them to stay in draft space for others to collaborate on is a noble goal, the simple reality is that in several years none actually have attracted anyone to collaborate. I would offer to help, and I think I have before, but your topics are well above my level of knowledge. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – 3 years is too long for a draft to be in draftspace, but Hasteur also needs to step back from policing Taku. This is a simple but surgical solution. – Levivich 02:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. This is a user who seriously believes that it's appropriate for mainspace to have content like "Let M be a real-analytic manifold and X its complexification. (The definition of microfunctions here)." Diff You need to be followed carefully (no interaction ban), and if you do this frequently despite cleanup, you need to be shown the door. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for this diff I think, not the idly adding a reference diff you actually linked to. But yes, this is typically how mathematical information is presented. Maybe it shouldn't have been presented this way in an encyclopedia article, but you could have tried to fix it instead of just blindly reverting, couldn't you? This seems very "damned if you do (promote your work to use in an article), damned if you don't (develop article stubs left in draft space)", doesn't it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur (Also there's a typo in the first line, "or" for "of".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TBAN for Taku / Oppose IBAN for Hasteur as BMK. Taku is exploiting everyone's WP:AGF while Hasteur is trying to apply the norms that apply to draft space: it is not perpetual storage for someone's notes. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for the specific TBAN. I think it is a more complicated version of my own proposal: "User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. It IS a more complicated proposal. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the limited IBAN. Apart from some heated uncivil comments, for which I blame the community for allowing this long running perverse situation of allowing someone the idiosyncratic draftspace behaviors while banning them from talking about it, there is nothing in support of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  At some point, someone has to step up and be the adult. We cannot continue to have levels of hostility like Hasteur is bringing to the table. Regardless of the "perverse situation", Hasteur is accountable for his own actions. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as far to complex to enforce. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce correctly pointed out that the oldest AfC drafts are approaching the 6 month mark and thus vulnerable to G13s. I'm duplicating here for two things:

1) An immensely non-subtle request for some more reviewers (and active reviewers) to work on the oldest drafts to work us away from that time.

2) Notwithstanding the above, we were hoping those admins who handle G13s as part of their workflow would agree that drafts awaiting review are not subject to G13s. This is distinct from the 2nd criterion of G13 which reads "Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template" - with modern AfC the issue lies on us not being able to review quickly enough rather than a specific abandonment by the user.

Thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an interim solution, one could just mass-edit drafts which are up to review.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why shouldn't G13 apply?

We have a problem with good drafts getting lost in our broken article creation process (the only way I know to write articles is for a permissioned-up editor to write them offline and then paste them in as a fait accompli, already robust against CSD and PROD – everything else is broken). We also have a large backlog of drafts. However when I review those drafts, I typically find just a couple which are worth adopting and moving to mainspace, and several thousand which are barely more than obvious spam.

I'd like to see more people filtering through the drafts backlog and saving what's appropriate (even just editing them a bit will delay things). But for the vast majority, I'm not going to miss them in the slightest. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea behind the introduction of G13 was to remove stale drafts, which have no chance to be accepted and are not of any interest to anybody, including the creator. The means to prove this is to see whether the draft has been recently edited. This is not an ideal means, but one can argue that indeed if a draft has not been edited in a long time then nobody is interested in trying to get it moved to the article space. However, if the draft has been submitted, somebody is interested in getting it out of the draft, but usually it does not make sense to edit submitted draft, because important feedback would be coming as a result of the rejection (or even the draft will be moved). Thus, the fact that a submitted draft has not been edited for half a year does not mean it became stale, only that we do not have enough reviewers. This is why they should not be eligible for G13.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're talking only of drafts where they've been waiting for review a long time? I'd be happy that they're not G13'ed, agreed. Any delay there is WP's issue, not the author's.

But most of what I see have been submitted and have been reviewed (and rejected). The delay has come in at that point, where no rework has been done, and I'm still happy to G13 these. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree on both points, and indeed this is what I (and, if I understood correctly, also Nosebagbear) was talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have appropriate links to the best categories by which to find these sets of drafts? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the problem here less about lack of reviewing, and more about lack of reviewers? It's a walled garden where only "accepted" reviewers can take part. No wonder there aren't enough of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what it was at before this thread but I did a few and saw some others doing a few and we're currently at the 5 month mark for the old submitted for review. This is obviously closer to 6 than ideal. I will state, as I have whenever G13 are brought up, that I think G13 should not be a speedy but instead a PROD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it likely that the backlog is due to well-written, properly formatted, borderline notable drafts/articles, which would take effort (shifting through more than three refs not always clear which three, more than one page of google search result, foreign language sources). Agreeing to accept all borderline cases (perhaps adding the notability tag) that have no other problems might be the way to solve this problem long-term. The volume of new drafts/articles is only going to increase, while even admins seem to have problem with being versed in all notability/deletion guidelines. If the focus was on the most critical problems (are) vandalism, obvious hoaxes, copyright violations , and defamatory material about living persons, followed closely by pages that exploit Wikipedia for money (think spam/promotion) -WP:NPP, the users that currently are active (or want to be) might be able to handle the load. I could have already reviewed hundreds of pages if it were so, while right now, while I try to get myself well-versed in PAG (an endeavor that will take months), all I'm doing is handling only the most obvious cases, and going by the competition at that end of the pie (don't tell me pie has not, ends or corners), I'd say many, if not most, others are, as well. An overworked, understaffed security system ought to be guarding against utter shite, no more. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not just move them to userspace and leave redirects in place to that user space? Buffs (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if they were written by IPs? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Well G13 should not apply to a submitted but unreviewed draft. Anybody tagging to delete or deleting such pages should put their effort into reviewing them instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If the AfC backlog is causing a conflict with G13, suspend G13 until the situation is resolved. I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps drafts are indeed cheap. But what's the spam-prune mechanism for AfC? Is there one? At present, G13 fills (slowly!) that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G11 works just fine. My feeling is that if it's not really csdable aside from g13, it probably shouldn't be g13'd (some exceptions.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like Praxidicae said, the spam-prune mechanism for AfC, like the rest of Wikipedia, is G11. And it's much faster than G13. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But is G11 faster? (on average). Most (well, practically all) of these drafts aren't being reviewed at all for G11. G11 needs some active intervention by a reviewer, G13 gets there eventuall by inertia.

I've seen two G11, both of which were pretty obviously WP:N even if their current articles were problematic Draft:Gin Mare (already discussed on WP:CSD) and Draft:The Savile Row Company. I challenged Savile Row Company's CSD this morning, but another admin deleted it anyway, without discussion. So it's also a problem that CSDs aren't challengable or discussable, they're just deleted anyway (see WP:CSD, where even discussing the problem attracts threats of blocks). G11 is neither appropriate for Drafts (at least, as practiced today) nor is it practical, as no-one is doing bulk reviewing to apply it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb I very strongly support this. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. If a draft is either a) abandoned without ever being submitted for review or b) reviewed and rejected and then ignored for 6 months it should still be eligible for G13. By excluding submitted and unreviewed drafts, it is clear we aren't holding our shitty processes against people. --Jayron32 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to make two distinct points here.
  • First, it's obvious that the G13 clock should start from when the draft was last reviewed. Most review systems (code review, manuscript review, responding to a parking ticket, whatever) have some concept of who's turn it is. When the author submits something, it becomes the reviewer's turn. When the reviewer comments, it's back to being the author's turn. Depending on the process, there may be more than two parties involved, but it's always somebody's turn to do something next. In our case, we don't have assigned reviewers (or, for that matter assigned authors), but there's still clearly times when it's the author's turn, and times when it's the review team's (i.e. our) turn. It's absurd to count time when it's our turn against the author's clock.
  • Second, the definition of G13 talks about, "not been edited by a human in six months". I often find declined drafts that were last edited several months ago that I think should never make it to mainspace. Sometimes there's a useful comment I want to make, but I don't because I know doing so will reset the G13 clock. That's just stupid. I shouldn't have to play wiki game theory to decide whether the benefit of adding my comment exceeds the harm of resetting the clock. So, the clock should not be reset by a reviewer leaving a comment.
  • -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draft:Running on Waves is a perfect example that I found today. It was last declined on 18 March. Since that time, nothing significant has happened. On 21 May, it was resubmitted with zero changes. On 30 September (i.e. earlier today), a reference was removed because the URL was redirecting to a porn site (don't say I didn't warn you if you go look). And, then I came along a few minutes ago and declined it again. Why should any of those things reset the G13 clock? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: A few observations as I precieve that several editors are trying to hijack this for their personal objectives:
  1. CSD:G13 says unedited (absent a bot edit) for 6 months. The goal is to keep pages improving or admit defeat on them. Originally it was just pages that were enrolled in AFC as the editors knew that they'd get a review to help them fix issues. It was subsequently expanded to all Draft namespace pages as it was discovered that there was just as much Adspam/BLPVIO/Test pages/hopeless content that was in draft space but not tagged for AFC.
  2. If pages are falling out the back of AFC for being submitted but not yet reviewed, then we need more people reviewing submissions (or commenting on issues) which magically resets the Last Edited date and saves it from being G13d. I note it appears the current backlog is 2+ months.
• If people want to disable G13, then we will start racking up more and more questionable content that will never serve the purpose of Mainspace improvement/content. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I like to think that no admin would ever do a G13 on a never-reviewed draft.

A better response would be an alert to submitted drafts approaching six months. Possibly, specify “never reviewed” drafts, separated from resubmissions. Is there an easy link to navigate to these? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: only to make sure your intention is clear, you are referring only to pages that are in the AFC pipeline that are being requested for review, not pages that aren't in the AFC pipeline i.e. just random pages without an AFC header on them. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Referring to the hypothetical case of a properly submitted AfC draft that has failed to receive any review. Has such a case occurred? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of qadis of Mbarara District is the oldest never-reviewed draft, and it's from 8 May 2019. As far as I know there's no fool-proof way of determining if a page has never been reviewed unless you do a quarry looking for only a single submission template. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Primefac has found one (and one that I was reviewing in the meantime). I figure if I'm going to defend CSD:G13 and not claim that things are falling out the back end, I should review some of the oldest AFC submissions and deal with them. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G13 does not *require* the admin to delete the page, but there are so many routine G13 deletions that it is probably unreasonable to expect every G13 to be given a critical look, even brief. Are G-13 eligible pages that are pending review specially flagged? I see that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is empty, which suggests to me that some admins are very quick to empty it. Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old is large at (1,088 P). It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago, but these pages have been edited post-review. Is the tracking of pending submissions robust? How many could be quietly falling off the backend deleted per G13? I note that these pages are, broadly, difficult to review. From a review of several, I think it would be better to auto-move to mainspace than to silently speedy delete (delete by the standard G13 process). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair amount of scare-mongering, and completely untrue. The oldest extant draft awaiting review at this exact moment is from 13 May, which is still 1.5 months away from being G13-able. No, G13 pages that are also pending review are not flagged (other than being theoretically in both the "pending" and "G13-eligible" categories). At the moment none of the pending drafts will be "falling off the backend" for at least a month or two. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My questions were genuine questions. I am not up to speed with these things. Are you guaranteeing that no submitted draft will be deleted before being reviewed? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I took It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago as your preface to concerns about pages being deleted. As I said, there is no "pages that are 6+ months old that are both pending and G13-able" category, likely because it's never been an issue (and still very unlikely to be one).

I am going to interpret your latest question as "deleted via G13" (as unreviewed pages are G11'd etc all the time), but no, I can only guarantee that will not happen for at least two months from now because there are no pages that fit that bill; there is no technical way of preventing it at the moment. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course sorry. I've sort of tongue tied myself there, because I am not convinced that there are not any submitted drafts that should not be allowed a quiet death, such as hopeless repeatedly submitted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I've seen plenty of admins who speedy-delete pages that obviously don't qualify except under a blatant misreading of the criterion (e.g. a page is deleted at XFD, and a completely different page on that topic is G4 deleted as a repost), and just like with the other criteria, G13 needs to reflect its intention clearly. The point is to delete content that's been forgotten by its writer or that's been rejected as inappropriate for the encyclopedia: if it's still waiting for review, and none of the other speedy criteria applies, there's no way it should be deleted without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Draft space is specifically designed to remove the urgency around controlling abuse in article space. We have time to sit and think. Guy (help!) 11:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

1. Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13.
2. Maintenance edits, including declining review, are not counted when calculating staleness.

That would seem to fix the problem? Guy (help!) 11:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite see how those would work. They seem right, but are a bit vague in their expression. Consider the following:

Valid timeouts (and thus automatic processing to G13 is practical):

• Not submitted for review. There have been no reviews.
• Submitted for review. Reviewed, failed. No more edits until timeout. The last edit was a failed review.

Timeout was WP's fault for slow processing (so no G13 is appropriate):

• Submitted, not yet reviewed. Last edit is a review request.
• Submitted, reviewed, re-submitted, but still pending a re-review (any number of times). Last edit is a review request.

Impossible to judge automatically or trivially, thus must not be actioned automatically.

• Last edit is a "non-content, non-review edit". Neither a review, nor a review request. Automatically we can't tell what else it was, either a "content edit" or a "maintenance edit". In such cases though, we should err on caution, not G13.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the principles Guy lays out are correct but agree with Andy that if we're codifying them in some sort of way (which is probably needing an RfC) that the language would need tweaking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone review the closure of this RfC? Editor who performed the closure claims an 8:6 majority constitutes consensus for making a major change that has severe NPOV implications.GideonF (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Suicide methods#RFC: Hatnote at top and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide both need to be revisited. This has been discussed over and over again since 2005, and the consensus has always been not to include disclaimers on articles (even if they're disguised as hatnotes). This represents a substantial change in thinking about some of our core content policies. – bradv🍁 14:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I also want to ask for secondary review per Bradv's reasoning above. Retracted, as Steven Crossin has already had an uninvolved admin review and approve of his closure, as linked below. I still strongly disagree with the decision, but I also know when to drop the stick. Gimubrc (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer of both RFCs here (I am disappointed that I was not notified of this posting, as I should have been). I will be offline for a period, however I am happy to expand my rationale on the Talk:Suicide note close if so desired (I feel the closing rationale given for the VPR thread is significant enough to not require expansion, and note that before closing the Village Pump discussion, I asked for an independent admin to review my proposed close. (they agreed with the outcome). In both discussions, I weighed the strength of arguments and not only the numbers. I also took into account on each discussion, the alternative hatnotes that were proposed as the discussion went on, and the outcome of the VPR discussion had an impact on my close of the Suicide methods RFC. I don’t believe that these closes should set a new precedent for underlying content guidelines, as this is an unusual situation (albeit justified by the discussions) and explicitly mentioned at the Village Pump close. That said, the discussions were closely related enough to factor the outcome of then VPR discussion at the Suicide methods discussion.

For the record, I believe there was a clear consensus in both discussions on the implementation of a hatnote linking to Suicide prevention, and in the VPR discussion a clear consensus on the wording of that hatnote. In the Suicide methods RFC, two different wordings were proposed in the Alternative methods section, and the consensus for which version of implementation was less clear, so I chose the most supported option, but noted in my close if alternative wording was desired, that this could indeed be implemented after being discussed.

I am happy if so desired to give further explanation for my closes, but I stand by both of them. As per the closure review process, I would be disappointed if these were overturned solely because I am not an administrator. Many of the RFCs at WP:AN/RFC, where I found this, are extensive discussions and often difficult to close, and I personally try to justify my rationale in pretty much every discussion, to ensure I’ve given appropriate rationales for my findings. I stand prepared to give further explanation if requested by uninvolved members of the community. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 18:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved editor...procedurally, it seems to be clear that there is support for this with regards to the change when weighing the arguments. This does not appear to be a case of WP:SUPERVOTE in its assessment of the situation. The outcome appears to be an appropriate attempt to invoke WP:IAR and serves both WP principles as well as common decency over administrative and bureaucratic measures. Therefore, I concur with 100% support for the outcome. Lastly, the closer should have been notified; that procedural oversight seems to decry any attempt at saying this was a procedurally incorrect closure. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the closure of both proposals was a reasonable weighing of the arguments posed in each of the discussions, performed by an experienced editor, and that the outcome of one was relevant to the outcome of the other. There is by no means an overwhelming consensus, but I would have probably reached the same conclusions myself, although my tangential involvement in the topic would mean I was not a good choice to close the discussion. I thank Steven Crossin for his work in stepping up to the plate. Neither of those were easy closes to make. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It was a reasonable close and I'd have reached the same conclusion. The hatnote does not look obtrusive to cause any concern either. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Good close. I don't agree that adding the hatnote "This page is about the cause of death. For information on prevention, see suicide prevention. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation)." is a major change that has severe NPOV implications or that it represents a substantial change in thinking about some of our core content policies. Seems to me like a compromise that gained consensus following discussion by a number of editors. (Well done, Steven.) – Levivich 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As the uninvolved admin who reviewed his close and felt it was fine, thanks again to Steven for being willing to close this, and for adopting such a thoughtful and careful approach to closing a sensitive discussion. Fish+Karate 13:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow administrators! It's that time of the year again! :-) I try to post a yearly reminder to this noticeboard for all admins, and ask that you take a few moments and go through the list of indefinitely blocked IP addresses and ranges, locate any indefinite blocks that you've placed, and review them. If there are accidental blocks that you've placed on any IP addresses or ranges indefinitely (heh, I know that I've done this a few times in the past), please take a moment to remove those blocks. If there are indefinite IP address or range blocks that you've placed intentionally, please review them and verify whether or not the indefinite duration is still necessary. Obviously, if they're not, you'll want to either set the duration to expire at some point in time, or remove the block completely. Taking the time to review the indefinite IP and range blocks you've placed will help assure that we only apply and maintain blocks and other sanctions and restrictions if they're correct, accurate, and necessary, and avoid collateral damage and having any old or outdated blocks affect innocent users. Thanks for taking the time to do this, and I wish everyone an excellent day and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder, Oshwah! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo - No problem; always happy to help! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number there created by Admins who are no longer around or are no longer Admins, including a couple who are blocked. User:Xeno you're obviously still around, do you want to comment on yours or just let other Admins deal with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except the one placed at request of the school district administrator, these all appear to be modifications of existing indef blocks (mostly converting talk page protection to talk page restriction). I personally have no issue with those being lifted, but you might want to check with the original blocking administrator.

Also in general I have no issue with other administrators modifying my past administrative actions, except those marked as done in an arbitration capacity (in which, consult the current committee). –xeno^talk 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge (which is the wrong place, but that's neither here nor there) for Draft:Bad Apple!! to be moved to Bad Apple!!. The problem seems to be the double exclamation marks match an entry in the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Is there some reason why I shouldn't complete this move for the person? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's matching an entry that is meant for generic vandalism page moves. If that's the legitimate name for the article, then it's totally fine to move it to that title. ST47 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by JJMC89. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back in January 2018, I was topic-banned from XFD entirely due to a considerable amount of disruptive nominations. Last August, it was downgraded to only a ban from initiating XFDs, but not from participating in them, a ruling which I found fair.

I would like to make another appeal toward this and move back to being allowed to initiate XFDs again. I have several articles and templates watchlisted which I would like to nominate, and I have used this time to make certain that they meet deletion criteria. (For example, Second Glance (film) has been on my watchlist for many months after I saw The Cinema Snob review it, and so far multiple searches have yielded almost nothing of note.)

I understand why my topic-ban was imposed in the first place, and I will chalk it up to an overzealous attempt to clear out cleanup categories which led to a great deal of reckless nominations. I admit I've touched XFD less in general, but my interactions in that namespace have been a lot smoother. I have also shifted my focus toward article creation and improvement, as seen by the large number of good articles I've passed through since then.

I think that my above-mentioned method of watchlisting articles or other content that I find suitable for deletion, and watching them for a period of time before determining whether or not to nominate, will help me take a more measured, uncontroversial approach to the isuses that led to this ban in the first place. I think it's been long enough now -- nearly two years. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support allowing TPH to initiate XFDs again. I'm sure they understand that a resumption of disruptive nominations would result in a swift re-imposition of the ban, and see no reason not to take them at their word that they have a new approach which will avoid the problem. TPH seems to clearly understand what was unacceptable about the behaviour, has obviously given it a great deal of thought, and has a plan to avoid the same issues in future. -- Begoon 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Second Glance (film) was the original source of the "Hey, Scotty. Jesus, man!" meme, and as such consistently gets more interest than your typical straight-to-video Christian movie (it still gets fairly regular readership spikes each time the meme starts circulating again). I'm not sure it's really the example you want to be using of something you've found that's self-evidently non-notable. ‑ Iridescent 07:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not inherited from a meme. I will elaborate on my extensive searching of sources for the film, but I don't want to deviate too much from my appeal. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would imagine Iridescent isn't claiming that notability is inherited from a meme, but the meme and the corresponding interest in the film make it more likely there are sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Maybe this isn't the case but that would require sufficient research probably also made difficult by the age, specialised interest, and confounding results (e.g. the Jodi Picoult book). It's great that you did you research but "don't want to deviate too much from my appeal" would seem to further demonstrate what I think is Iridescent's point. While you would still need to check for sources, it would be a lot easier for you if the example you chose was something anyone looking could tell from a glance "there is no way in hell this is notable" Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I struck that part out so as not to further distract. I do have a thorough explanation drafted up for how extensively I was unable to find anything for that movie, but if you'd like a more straightforward example of something that should be sent to XFD, then Template:Tucker Beathard is a clear-cut WP:NENAN with too few links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• While you withdrew it as an example, since you said "unable to find anything" out of interest, why did you reject this source [54]? Did you feel it wasn't an RS? I initially thought maybe you simply couldn't find any sources besides that one but your comment seems to suggest there were none point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Among the ones I checked were newspapers.com (two hits that are just mentioning that local churches were screening the film well after its release, plus one false positive), Google Books (just the director's and lead actor's autobiographies, one film database, and a ton of false positives), Rotten Tomatoes (bupkis), and passing name-drops as "David A. R. White's first film" when discussing the clearer notability of his later works. I would absolutely consider that one an acceptable source, but absent anything else I'm still on the "non-notable" side. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @TenPoundHammer: for clarity are you saying you weren't aware of that source before I mentioned it? Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nil Einne: Correct. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah. The example TPH led with was an obvious drama magnet, and exactly the kind of thing that caused the problme in the first place. Guy (help!) 18:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly how was it an "obvious drama magnet"? Would you prefer that I do show my findings to show that I am taking this one seriously? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, if you don't understand how nominating a Christian film for deletion is a drama magnet, either you've never been here before or you've never listened to listened to God Awful Movies. Guy (help!) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: So nothing of a Christian bent should ever be nominated for XFD ever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I said. Guy (help!) 07:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- Yes, this ban has gone on long enough and I don't think it's accomplishing anything useful anymore. Reyk _YO! 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose with regret. TPS has a long history of being warned for personal attacks and harassment, often tied closely to deletion discussions. If their behavior had been exemplary in the past two years, I would support lifting the restrictions. But TPH was blocked in March, 2019 for one week for personal attacks and harassment and one of their edit summaries was "then find sources, you fucking dipshit". They were blocked for one month in April, 2019 for personal attacks and harassment, with an edit summary suppressed. Their behavior five to six months ago was very similar to the behavior that led to the topic ban, and XfD is an area that seems to trigger their bad behavior. In addition, TPH admitted two years ago that they lack adequate Google skills necessary to properly complete WP:BEFORE. In my opinion, lifting this editing restriction is a really bad idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At what point did I "admit that [I] lack adequate Google skills"? The above mentioned incidents, while justified, stemmed entirely from one editor, and my interactions since the last unblock have been nothing but civil. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be here. And here. And here. And here. And for what it's worth you were still ranting and swearing at other editors as of a week ago. And adding obviously inappropriate notability tags as of two weeks ago. And tagging as non-notable a book which ten seconds on Google would have showed you has been in continuous print for 25 years and has sold 200,000 copies a month ago. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• TenPoundHammer, at ANI at 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC), you wrote: "But every AFD I've ever made has been in good faith, I've just had the misfortune of extremely poor Google-fu and some confirmation bias to seem way more destructive than I am." Excellent "Google-fu" is required for constructive participation at XfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) The Steinbach edit summary was not targeted at anyone specific, just my bemusement that a practice that I thought had vanished from Wikipedia in 2008 (namely, putting location lists in department store articles) had somehow made a onetime return. And what is wrong with the Pigin to da Max tag? It's not like I'm trying to say "hey, someone send this to AFD for me" by placing the tag. I will gladly remove a {{notability}} I've placed myself if I've been proven wrong, which I did on the Kylie Rae Harris article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, @Cullen328: This is why I pointed out a solution to that. By watchlisting articles that I feel are potential XFD candidates, I am giving myself more time to search, re-search, and research the subject at hand. I know the problem far too well re: my bad Google-fu, which is why I proposed the above solution. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support allowing Mr. Hammer back to deletion debates again. He'll be under scrutiny for civility towards those he disagrees with, we can always revisit the topic ban if it becomes a problem. I have confidence he's grown. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per WP:ROPE, although I'm wary of TPH's apparent continued battleground mentality. Miniapolis 22:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cullen and Iridescent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - he’s done his time, and understands the issues. Additionally, in my experience, AFD has been lacking in participants lately, especially knowledgeable ones, and I’d prefer to get more participation going. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Participation is not what he's asking for. He wants to nominate articles, and his example was something he's clearly been obsessing over for ages. That's a reallybad sign with this particular user. Guy (help!) 23:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Obsessing over for ages"? You're clearly reading too much into it. You act like this whole appeal is just because I want one specific article nominated at the expense of anything else. If I were "obsessing" over it, then I wouldn't have other potential XFD candidates on my watchlist, nor articles that I'm actively trying to improve, or anything else that I just plain think is interesting. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, largely per Cullen328 (FTR, Cullen, the edit-summary you refer to is only deleted, not suppressed; and it was deleted because it was egregiously insulting). If they are going to fly off the handle in that manner on a regular basis, they shouldn't be opening AfDs, because that tends to create a certain emotional investment in their outcomes, which TPH isn't currently handling well. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not very happy with the "he knows the consequences for recidivism" argument to remove this restriction. Yes, he knows the consequences; but, like most potentially productive editors with a blind spot, he overestimates his own capacity for staying calm. If we lift this, and TPH returns to being insulting towards others at AfD, he is looking at a site-ban; why go down that road at all? He is capable of being a productive editor already; offering ROPE makes more sense when there's been a decent amount of time with no gross incivility. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support best case we get a productive contributor, worst case WP:ROPE -FASTILY 00:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, why does TPH need to initiate XfDs in order to be a productive contributor, since this is a gigantic encyclopedia with countless other tasks to complete? That specific area has been highly problematic for this editor for many years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's completely irrelevant to my !vote rationale. The fact of the matter is that TPH wishes to work in XfD and has made promises to change their behavior. I strongly believe individuals can change for the better if given the opportunity, so I'm inclined to take TPH at their word. And as I've already mentioned, WP:ROPE applies. If TPH fails to keep their end of the bargain, they'll be blocked (likely indefinitely). This means your options are as follows: 1) we keep having these discussions every 6 months, 2) enjoy a permanent solution by lifting the topic ban and reaping the benefits and/or letting TPH get themselves indef'd. -FASTILY 04:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I would be fine with a WP:ROPE situation here. It's been long enough -- nearly two years-- and one of the things I hate the most on this site is the phrase "no consensus". Few things bother me more than a discussion going around in circles for months and months without an outcome (did I ever tell you about the diaster of a discussion that was the Halifax, Nova Scotia article?). Should the ban be lifted, I would have every reason to understand the careful watch I would be under. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose TPH can be productive enough in participating in XfDs without the time sink incurred by allowing him to initiate them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly how is a nomination a "time sink"? Your opposition does not seem to have any support. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's in bad faith and creates drama that consumes the energy of Wikipedians who would be better off building the encyclopedia, as your previous nominations had done as I understand it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - I supported the original tban, but tried to qualify it saying it should be a temporary tban. Time to end it and see what happens. A word of advice, though, looking at those concerning diffs linked above: if this winds up coming back to ANI, something more than a tban will likely be on the table (not saying I'd propose or support it necessarily -- that's just the trajectory I'm seeing, which is worth considering when jumping back into an activity that may breed negative interactions). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So far it seems like the scales are tipping a bit on the "support" side. I didn't know about WP:ROPE before and I think it's an intersting argument. One of my biggest pet peeves on this site, whether in XFD or otherwise, is discussions that go around in circles without reaching a consensus. Fastily (talk · contribs) makes a good point re: "we keep having these discussions every 6 months". Should the ban be lifted, I'm willing to let myself get hanged by the rope I'm given (reinstated ban, indef block, what have you). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Since WP:ROPE is directly mentioned nine times in the previous appeal you link in your initial request I'm not sure you're doing the "I'm going to start reading things properly from now on before I comment on them" claims any favours. ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. TPH is a grown-up and knows what's required and what the consequences of failure will be. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support provided it's very explicit that this time when we say "last chance" we mean it, and any more nonsense like TPH's deletion nominations of Battle of Pęcice, Public domain film or Chad–Sudan relations, any more fake edit summaries to try to prevent people noticing that an article on their watchlist has been tagged for deletion, and any more "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attacks on anyone disagreeing with him, will result not just in TPH being re-restricted from deletion, but banned from Wikipedia altogether. Oppose under any other circumstances; we have well over a decade now of TPH faithfully promising to follow the rules from now on, only to go back to nominating things for deletion because he hasn't heard of them and screaming abuse at anyone who challenges the deletion, and I have no confidence that he'll actually comply with any request unless it's backed by a credible threat of immediate severe sanctions. Ideally, I'd propose that even if TPH is permitted to initiate XfD discussions his restriction on {{prod}} nominations remains in place; he has a very, very long history of bulk-tagging topics he doesn't like for proposed deletion regardless of notability, and I have no confidence at all in allowing him a route to deletion that doesn't entail the multiple additional eyes each nomination will receive at XfD. ‑ Iridescent 09:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose I say regretful because I genuinely like and respect TPH and appreciate his devotion and hard work. While I originally would have liked to have taken the Conditional Support stance of Iridescent, I'm just seeing too many posts as replies by TPH in this very thread/request which all seem to come across as wiki-lawyering. To me that shows an argumentative side which doesn't seem to have dissipated over time. (at least not yet). So I feel it's best to oppose right now, with no prejudiced towards a future request. — Ched (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cullen. The more recent incidents do not grant me the confidence to believe that modifying any existing sanctions would be a good idea. --Jayron32 13:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per ROPE and Boing! – Levivich 14:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, TPH has already had more ROPE than most, despite pretending not to know what it means. Similarly he's denied ever admitting he can't use Google, but he has done so, frequently, as per the links provided. I can only presume "I can't use Google sorry lol" is his go-to excuse when pulled up for not doing the checks one should do before nominating content for deletion. There's also no evidence his habitual rank incivility has improved, and people dissenting with his XFD nominations was always one of the triggers for this. Fish+Karate 14:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cullen and Vanamonde. It doesn't appear that the reasons behind the ban have been sufficiently addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - unpairing the BEFORE issue from the CIVIL issue, TPH's performance has improved dramatically. Before their ban TPH had an accuracy rate below 50% on AfD noms and had !voted to delete in nearly every one they participated in. Since the ban was reduced to just nominations, although they still !vote to delete nearly half the time, their accuracy rate has jumped to 85%. (See stats). Technically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Wiseau was a topic ban violation, although it was clearly an April Fools nom. On the AfD issue I'm willing to support removing the restriction. But if anyone brings to my attention any edits of the completely unacceptable sort that led to the blocks earlier this year, the block I set will be indefinite, whether this restriction is lifted or not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Boing! and ROPE - Not entirely thrilled with those linked above by Cullen however people change and I'm sure TPH knows the outcome if he fucks this up (which I'm 100% sure he won't). –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per WP:ROPE and Ivanvector's remarks. I don't see any unnecessary disruption in the future at his behest. Go forth and do no harm. Buffs (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as time served and as the rope principle, also noting that User:TenPoundHammer has been found to be right after the fact in multiple requests to delete unsupported portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support per Rhododendrites; i have to say, however, that in mine opinion TPH would be best advised to withdraw the appeal, because if he runs into trouble again i don't see a simple topic ban as the outcome. In addition, fourteen years, a quarter of a million edits, and he's not aware of WP:ROPE? Hmmm, possibly worrying. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sysop, I got a request:

Can you delete the user page User:AbdulZakir? Reason: Spam-only account: Spambot. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this. It looks like everything has been taken care of. By the way, on English Wikipedia, you can report spam-only accounts to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you can request page deletions by applying a speedy deletion tag on the page if its actually meets at least one of the criteria. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just swung by the requests for unblock category page and noticed that a lot of the entries have a block expiration of 49 years. not really a pressing matter, but thought I would just mention it. --Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already raised it with the bot operator. Presumably, he'll get around to fixing it when he has enough spare time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the blocks expired in 1970. Κσυπ Cyp   10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has resolved by motion that:

Supporting: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned

Opposing:

Did not vote: AGK, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis

For the Arbitration Committee

Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Icewhiz banned

Fixed the discussion link. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently being threatened of being blocked on The Casagrandes Wikipedia page. It is mainly edited by two people and two people only. They keep on adding false information help me. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) These two people are namely @Aumary: and @Magitroopa:. Literally Summary uses the term "dumb fans" in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ginika1555: all information in Wikipedia is required to be cited to a reliable source. Since none has been provided for either picture format for this show, I have removed it. We also have a policy against edit warring which you need to pay attention to. Please discuss the picture format on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name is being brought into this, should probably be known that the user here is the one constantly edit warring and WP:DE, after multiple warnings. They have commented on the matter on the talk page, but wanting it the way they want it, while everyone else is properly discussing it. Our names are mentioned in here, but myself and @Amaury: were not notified of this discussion on this page whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ongoing dispute on 2017–19 Peruvian political crisis, please extended-protect the said article, President of Peru, Vice President of Peru, Martín Vizcarra, and Mercedes Aráoz. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice to your request, it's better suited at Requests for page protection. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the pages in question. I think one or two of the four could possibly use semi-protection for a bit, but the other three or two are more or less untouched. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes Barkeep49 Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno JamesBWatson → JBW Interface administrator changes Evad37

CheckUser changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens Oversight changes Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Greetings, Take a look at this page of hits from Sept 23 version history for ANI. Everyting up into Oct1 also looks struck out. Is that an accident of some sort? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it has to do with this. Killiondude (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Those entries were suppressed because they contained a bit of text which needed to be removed from the archives. The edit that introduced the problematic text, and every subsequent revision that also contained that text, has to be removed altogether from the edit history. In this case, it looks like the offending text was present for a very long time. That happens, but there's not much that can be done about it. Suppressed text is not discussed on-wiki, as any such discussion would return the text to public record, which is what suppression is supposed to remove. There's really nothing to be done about it. --Jayron32 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I did not realize rev delete did not cascade through later versions behind the scenes. Thanks, my mistake NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, they were suppressed, and not rev-deled, which just means that the removal includes a higher class of editors. Revision deletion only removes the versions for non-admins, while suppression removes the versions for everyone except the highest permissions (i.e. normal admins can't see them either). --Jayron32 17:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I run face first into the mountain things I didn't know I didn't know! Thanks for the correction NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer right is supposed to be automatically included with the Administrator flag. However, beginning this afternoon, I'm getting the following error message when I try to approve pending changes, "You do not have permission to review..."

And while I was typing this and going back for the exact words of the error message the problem seems to have resolved itself.

Anyone know what happened? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is phab:T233561#5537850. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you look at this deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Najran attack(The link was added after El_C reply). It is saying that the article should be removed because the Saudi said it is not factual. I think there are no page watchers or anything. The nomination is malformed. It is not categorised. The tag on the head of the article says it was nominated three times. I don't think it was nominated three times. Help please. I can't waste my time with this and I don't know what to do it remove the deletion tag from the article. I think if an admin interfered the editor might understand but I dont think I am able to make them understand their mistake.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What page is this regarding? El_C 16:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Najran attack--SharabSalam (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've since refactored, but your original report had no links at all. Anyway, I, myself, would be inclined to allow the deletion discussion to take place, even though I suspect that the article is likely to be kept. Disclaimer: I am involved as the editor who first added the information to Wikipedia. El_C 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. Sorry. You reply very fast. I wasn't expecting that.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't create the article. When I came it was badly written. It still needs some fixes. I followed Graull contributions who is a very new editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a need for admin action here. The AfD may be misguided, but it's not so far out of bounds that we need an admin intervention to fix it. If the outcome is obvious, there's no need to worry; if it isn't, then the AfD was obviously necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been fixed thanks to editors who fixed it. I needed help from experience editors. I didn't know how to fix it. I usually use Twinkly when nominating for deletion.

Related question: in these situations where I need help from experienced editors, where can I ask for help?. If there is no noticeboard for this then I think it would be a good idea to make one.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam If you need help from experienced editors but do not necessarily need administrators, there's always the help desk and the village pumps. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have seen this link (help desk) many times before. Never clicked on it. I thought it is for guidelines, I didn't know it was a board. There is an IP editor who also reported the same issue I reported here.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:TEAHOUSE is also not a bad place to go. It's meant for new users, but there's definitely experienced editors there who can help with more complex questions. Another option is approaching individual editors that you've previously had interactions with. Very many editors that I would now consider wiki-friends became such because they asked me a question out of the blue, or I asked them a question out of the blue. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This discussion at templates for discussion has been open for nearly one month. It's transcluded across the BLP template on all talkpages, so it shows up quite a bit across WP! I'd be grateful if someone could take a look and move to close. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been consistently adding copyvios to articles, with warnings dating back to 2017. Despite numerous warnings, this user has persisted and has never edited their talk page. While they seem to be operating in good faith, their lack of any response to the issues raised on their talk page lead me to believe that they should be indeffed under A lack of competence. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]