Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts WP:AN WP:ANB For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 13 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 80 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 77 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 77 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 23 May 2024) Last response was 50 days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 2 June 2024) Appears to be going nowhere. Personally, I think no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal2701 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tom B (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	3	16	19
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	4	31	35
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

(Initiated 56 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 18 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 58 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CBAN, I'd like to respectfully suggest that RHB100 (talk · contribs) impose upon himself (or herself) an article ban on GPS and its talk page, and possible a topic ban on related articles. Several different users have tried to interact with him over the last couple of months years but he doesn't seem pleased and insists on controversial edits. It's detracting potential contributors to the article -- e.g., I'm about to unfollow that page. The situation brought by his 332 edits is vastly documented in Talk:Global Positioning System and many of its archives. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Pinging users who have edited Talk:GPS: @Kendall-K1, Woodstone, Siafu, DVdm, Crazy Software Productions, Mike1024, and Dicklyon: @Mmeijeri, Roesser, Kvng, EncMstr, NavigationGuy, TomStar81, and EdJohnston:.) Fgnievinski (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided competent, honest, and objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page. In proposing that the section "Geometric interpretation" of the GPS article is a disaster and should be removed, I have discussed what is wrong with the section and why it should be removed without mentioning any editor. It is important to look at the article and judge it objectively without biasing the judgement in any way by who may have written and edited the material. This is what I have done. I have noticed there has been a systematic deterioration in the quality of some of the sections in the GPS article and the Geometric interpretation section is one of the worst. This criticism is desirable since it can lead to a better quality GPS article. I have pointed out in "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article that there are statements made attributed to a reference which are in no way supported by the reference. I have pointed out that there are misleading statements which are incompatible with good quality GPS references. The "Geometric interpretation" section of the GPS article is terrible and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place for this discussion. I think you want WP:AIN. Having said that, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that such a ban would be best for WP. I know I would engage more at the article and on its talk page if things were less hostile there. RHB100 agreed to stay away from the GPS article, and although he has toned it down a bit, his hostile attitude continues on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall-K1, criticism of the GPS article does not imply a hostile attitude. The criticisms I make of the GPS article on the talk page are in no way motivated by hostility. Your accusations of a hostile attitude are in no way justified. I criticize the Geometric interpretation sections of the GPS article because this section is bad. This section involves the use of a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point this out. This does not imply a hostile attitude. RHB100 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CBAN says: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." Fgnievinski (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel forced to agree with User:Fgnievinski. As I discussed a few months ago in my post to WP:ANI/3RR, the situation has been uniformly frustrating for years now. User:RHB100 has an extremely narrow view of how the GPS article "should" be written, and primarily reinforces it by questioning the credentials and intelligence of his fellow editors. Additionally, he has shown very little interest in familiarizing himself with wikipedia policy or making any attempt to work with his fellow editors, insisting that they are not "licensed engineers", and has no regard for the uniform and consistent consensus against his narrow view. I have essentially stopped contributing to GPS, despite GPS being the main subject of my professional work, since it results in nothing but frustration and repetitive arguments over the same topic. siafu (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is the link to the 3RR report that siafu (talk · contribs) mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:RHB100_reported_by_User:Siafu_.28Result:_Voluntary_restriction.29. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have engaged with other editors in debate after debate. I have the view that the GPS article should be written correctly and in accordance with good quality references. I have stated my own qualifications but I have never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors. My focus has been on the content and not on people. We should continue to remind ourselves what is wrong with the Wikipedia article since that is the first step toward improvement. RHB100 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors". Really. Just a couple examples: [3][4] siafu (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this just in: [5] siafu (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apologies for these statements, siafu. These are honest, objective, and true statements. There is nothing wrong with these statements. The section, Geometric Interpretation, in the GPS article involves using a reference to justify a statement which the reference in no way supports. It is quite proper to point out this misrepresentation. RHB100 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you do not regret any of the offences below demonstrates your incivility and why your long-term violation of Wikipedia's conduct policy deserves a topic ban. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Well if you people say [...] then you do not have the level of competence characteristic of a licensed Professional Engineer." [6]

• "I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right" [7]

• "The fact that the equations in the Problem description are equations for spheres is certainly well known and should be obvious. Nevertheless, I have provided a detailed explanation of what should be obvious. Authors may not always point out that these equations are spheres but this is because it is obvious." [8]

What these people are calling hostility is valid and much needed criticism of the GPS article. I am not criticizing people, I am criticizing a part of the article which is wrong. We should never censor valid criticisms of the article. If you check the references I have given rather than the expressions of resentment of siafu, Fgnievinski, and Kendall-K1, you will see that my criticisms are valid. My attitude is based on improving the content of the GPS article. These other editors are just expressing resentment over my criticisms. We need free and open criticism of the article on the talk page. RHB100 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept in mind that a situation can arise where one editor is right but is in the minority. There is such a thing as tyranny of the majority as pointed out by de Tocqueville. This is the thing that we are experiencing in this discussion where these other editors are trying to censor me just because I make valid and correct criticisms. This problem should be fought against by making sure we have the talk page open for valid criticism. RHB100 (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the folllowing list of archived talk sections, dating back to 2010, speaks for itself:

• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#WP is not a discussion forum
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS - Can't make heads or tails of it
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 6#Accusations that Multidimensional Newton-Raphson for GPS section violates Wikipedia policy are false
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Undue weight on Bancroft
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Bancroft method made even more neutral, current reference retained, new may be added
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic operation
• Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Basic concept of GPS needs additional sourcing and explanation

and finally:

• WP:Wikiquette assistance/archive94#RHB100 (about questioning the credentials and intelligence of other editors)

Nothing seems to have changed: persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS. Unless he gets his way, RHB100 does not back off, so I tend to avoid both the article and its talk page. - DVdm (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example I looked at, from the list above, Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 7#Multidimensional Newton-Raphson calculations, does not show this so-called persistent orthogonality to wp:CONSENSUS accusation that DVdm makes. I look at this and I see my remarks as quite reasonable. So DVdm own reference shows that I am engaging in rational and reasonable editing and that the above accusation of disruptive editing is false. RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had disagreements with DVdm. He has accused me of doing personal research when I have merely stated the obvious. Some may have gotten a little contentious and the heated nature of the discussion may have resulted in some unflattering remarks. However, we should concentrate on what triggered the complaints. And that is my writing of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article.

Here is a copy of the "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" section from the GPS article talk page. This is what triggered the accusation of disruptive editing. This is what we should be concentrating on. Now tell me, what is disruptive in this post? Keep in mind that critical editing in no way implies hostile or disruptive editing. Some editors may be slow to see what is obvious to me. This post contains new information showing false use of a reference. Tell me what is disruptive about this post? RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, to start with. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fgnievinski, I have investigated your accusation that I do not follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and I read the post below that I made on the talk page of the GPS article. I claim that I do follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines completely. A criticism of a section of the article and pointing out that the GPS article can be improved by removing the section is not a hostile edit nor a personal attack on anyone. I am using the talk page in exactly the manner in which the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines say the talk page should be used, to discuss how to improve the article. RHB100 (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even follow Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Not to mention all the rest -- WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:MULTI, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fgnievinski, You make this trivial comment about this so-called not indenting. This shows just how pathetically trivial your complaints are. You fail to mention the dishonest use of a reference by some editor, possibly you, who refers to hyperboloids. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Geometric interpretation section is a disaster and should be removed. It would be more correctly titled if it were called the Geometric misinterpretation section. It looks like a forum for people to enter their favorite shape. All we need to have in the Navigation equations section is a statement of the equations to be solved as in the Problem description section and methods for solving these equations as in the Solution methods section. In the Spheres subsection of Geometric interpretation, there is a statement that the solution is at the intersection of three sphere surfaces. This is a completely misleading statement which is incompatible with the need for four or more spheres as concluded in the Langley paper and as we have tried to make clear in the Problem description section.^[1]

It is also stated in the paper, ^[2], that "GPS fixes are found as the point of intersection of four spheres centered on the satellites with radii given by the PRs corrected for user clock bias".

The Hyperboloids sub-section does not in any way enhance the understanding of GPS. The paper by Abel and Chaffee referenced does not even mention the word, hyperboloid, in any form.^[2] The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.^[1]

For gaining an understanding of GPS, the concept of four dimensional spherical cones contributes nothing but instead only adds confusion. You don't need to know anything about four dimensional spherical cones to understand GPS and you should not waste your time on this unrelated topic. RHB100 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC) . .[reply]

"We have discussed this several times already. See Talk:Global Positioning System/Archive 8. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

[Please note that the above line, although written by me on a different page, was inserted here at WP:AN by User:RHB100, not by me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Well what I have said before is absolute truth and what I say now is absolute truth. Although I clearly understand the incorrect and misleading nature of this section, there are some who don't seem to understand. I am here presenting the great disregard for honesty and integrity which characterizes the writing of this section. No one has ever presented good arguments why this section should be retained. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degree from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. When you say, "We have discussed this", that is a very vague and ambiguous statement. There are several points that are made in what I have said above, you don't say whether you are talking about hyperboloids, three spheres, spherical cones or what. RHB100 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a lot like WP:SYN and WP:TRUTH. There is substantial evidence of behavioural issues. A topic ban seems likely. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you say a topic ban is likely. Based on what? I have done just what I have agreed to do. I have refrained from editing the article, without a clear consensus on the talk page, as I have agreed to do. I have concentrated on making clear and objective statements on the talk page in order to show what is wrong with the GPS article. I make an objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page and you want to put in a topic ban for that. Look at the section "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the GPS talk page and tell me what is wrong with that. This is honest and objective and correct criticism of the GPS article. My writing of that section is what triggered the complaint. You tell me what is wrong with that. RHB100 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In my exchanges with user RHB100 (s)he has often been rather insulting, not willing or able to actually discuss the matter on hand cooperatively and technically, and refusing to accept well sourced alternative views. −Woodstone (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstone has consistently refused to engage in a reason based discussion. He has insisted on putting material on spherical cones which have nothing to do with GPS into the GPS article. He regards any disagreement with his views as insulting. He seems to be motivated by the desire to make the GPS article confusing. RHB100 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the reference (my emphasis):

P4P is the pseudo-ranging 4-point problem as it appears as the basic configuration of satellite positioning with pseudo-ranges as observables. In order to determine the ground receiver/satellite receiver (LEO networks) position from four positions of satellite transmitters given, a system of four nonlinear (algebraic) equations has to be solved. The solution point is the intersection of four spherical cones if the ground receiver/satellite receiver clock bias is implemented as an unknown.

No more comment necessary. −Woodstone (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is an obscure reference. The better quality references such as the Langley paper explain GPS clearly working with ordinary three dimensional spheres.^[1] Since it is explained quite clearly with three dimensional spheres there is certainly no need for these four dimensional spherical cones. It appears, Woodstone, is trying to make the article confusing as seems to be his habit. RHB100 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We're here to discuss user behaviour, not article content. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fgnievinski, you complain about my edits on the talk page saying they are controversial. But edits on the talk page are quite often controversial and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. My post on the talk page of the section, "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" is what triggered your complaint. But this is a valid criticism of the GPS article. Your attempt to stifle criticism of the GPS article is very harmful to Wikipedia. RHB100 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I now count three of us who have been driven away from the GPS article because of this. Is there some way to expedite a conclusion to this issue? Is there some more formal process we should pursue? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CBAN says: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours... If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator [emphasis added] notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed..." I kindly request JzG (talk · contribs) to close the present discussion, as he/she seems to meet the requirements and has commented here before.[9] Then if he/she is unavailable, it'd seem we could request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did briefly contribute to the discussion, and have been watching since, reluctant to get involved. I support the consensus proposals above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC); edited 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken the liberty of filling in a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. (There's some related material at User_talk:JzG#GPS Article.) Let's wait and see what the admins say about the strength of the consensus. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall-K1, I don't know what you are talking about here. But criticizing a section of the GPS article and proposing its removal so as to improve the article is the way the talk page should be used. I am very proud to be a licensed professional engineer and I am very proud that I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I know that I am well qualified and I know that the section, Geometric interpretation, in the GPS article is definitely incorrect and should be removed. My edits are good and I am very proud of that. RHB100 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few examples of things RHB100 has said on the article talk page after his voluntary restriction was imposed on 23 June:

"On the other hand if you want to degrade the GPS document make it less understandable, you may oppose the inclusion of this explanatory material. So let's find out who the good people are and who the enemies of Wikipedia are or otherwise explain your position."

"What you say, Fgnievinski, is idiotic nonsense... You don't have the competence to decide what will be taken and what will not. I don't believe you even possess a license to practice engineering."

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?"

"We should devote our efforts to maintaining the superiority of the GPS article over the inferior GNSS article. GPS was developed by Americans using the money of American taxpayers. GPS shows American technical superiority in navigation and position finding. This should give us the incentive to maintain that same technical superiority of our GPS article over the GNSS article."

"Woodstone, nothing you are saying is of any value for the purposes of GPS, as far as I can tell. And it's certainly not interesting."

— Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes necessary to be honest and objective in discussions on the talk page. Several of these statements were made long before 23 June 2015. The honest and objective statement made to Woodstone was made after 23 June 2015 as was the statement about the superiority of the GPS article. The two paragraphs made to Siafu were long before 23 June 2015. According to Wikipedia guidelines that I have read, you are allowed to say that someone has made a stupid statement but not allowed to say that someone is stupid. I have followed Wikipedia guidelines in all cases. RHB100 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall-K1 is correct. These quotes [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are timestamped after the restriction of 23 June. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this conversation with siafu was more recent than I recalled. I made the mistake of relying on memory rather than looking up the dates. But I think these remarks need to be put in context. Here is the context, "For n satellites, the equations to satisfy are:

${\displaystyle (x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}={\bigl (}[{\tilde {t}}-b-s_{i}]c{\bigr )}^{2},\;i=1,2,\dots ,n}$

or in terms of pseudoranges, ${\displaystyle p_{i}=\left({\tilde {t}}-s_{i}\right)c}$, as

${\displaystyle {\sqrt {(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+(z-z_{i})^{2}}}+bc=p_{i},\;i=1,2,...,n}$ .^[1][2]

Comparison of these equations with the Equations in R3 section of Sphere in which ${\displaystyle (x-x_{i})}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle (x-x_{0})}$, ${\displaystyle (y-y_{i})}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle (y-y_{0})}$, ${\displaystyle (z-z_{i})}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle (z-z_{0})}$, and ${\displaystyle {\bigl (}[{\tilde {t}}-b-s_{i}]c{\bigr )}}$ corresponds to ${\displaystyle r}$ shows that these equations are spheres as documented in Sphere.

Since the equations have four unknowns [x, y, z, b]—the three components of GPS receiver position and the clock bias—signals from at least four satellites are necessary to attempt solving these equations. They can be solved by algebraic or numerical methods. Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions are discussed by Abell and Chaffee.^[3] When n is greater than 4 this system is overdetermined and a fitting method must be used.

With each combination of satellites, GDOP quantities can be calculated based on the relative sky directions of the satellites used.^[4] The receiver location is expressed in a specific coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude using the WGS 84 geodetic datum or a country-specific system.^[5] RHB100 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially the exact same argumentation used before, and as before not only do the equations not, in fact, represent spheres, the sources you have cited also do not, in fact, claim that they do. siafu (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

Here, siafu is saying that the above equations do not represent spheres which I find to be absolutely ridiculous. And I still don't know what in the world he could have been talking about. I can't understand why anybody with any kind of an engineering education would make such a statement. I then made the comments below. These comments in this context are certainly quite proper.

"Siafu, if you want to be taken seriously on Global Positioning Systems, you need to go back and review the equations for a sphere in Analytic Geometry or elsewhere. Your comments indicate that you do not understand the equations of a sphere."

"I find your comment that the equations above do not represent spheres completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe that? ... It is absolutely mind boggling that you would make such a statement. Haven't you studied Analytic Geometry and Calculus?" RHB100 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this whole discussion seems to be aimed primarily at taking frank and honest comments out of context and pretending there is something terrible about being frank and honest. But telling someone they need to review Analytic Geometry is sometimes quite appropriate. But the more important aspect of human behavior, putting correct critiques and proposals for improving the article is ignored. No one has been able to point out anything wrong with the technical content of "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" which I placed on the GPS talk page. RHB100 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that in view of the fact that all indications are that I am better educated and more professional being licensed as a professional engineer, my time is too valuable to spend further contributing to the Wikipedia article on GPS. The fact that other editors seem incapable of comprehending the fact that the section, Geometric Interpretation is a disaster and should be removed causes me to conclude that these people are not of the quality I want to continue to work with. I have been one of the primary authors of the section now called Problem description and I have written much of Error analysis for the Global Positioning System but now we have very hostile, highly disruptive editors working on GPS and I do not care to work with these kind of people. RHB100 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to impose upon yourself an article ban on GPS and its talk page, as kindly requested initially; your understanding is very much appreciated. fgnievinski (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would affect the position of administrator. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was already announced once on this page, and archived by the bot. If you want it to stay on the page until the RFC closes, you'll need to fake a timestamp or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note! I looked to see if it had been announced, but didn't find it. I didn't think the bot would archive it so fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here: Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

• Thanks! I did not know about {{bump}}. I did now find the archived notice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you guys are aware, this and other relevant community discussions are posted up in the centralized discussion, which is posted at the top of both AN and ANI. See? You can even transclude the {{centralized discussion}} template on your own user or talk page so as to stay up to date on any major community discussions! No problem with stickying this post, just a little PSA. :) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well aware, but thanks. Issue was raised at the RfC that this RfC was not publicized enough. I was attempting to respond to that. Yes, the centralized discussions are posted liberally, but realistically few pay attention to that list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, since I might be a closer on this one: so far, I've generally announced on this page any intention to close RfCs that show up at CENT, mainly for transparency and to try to get other closers to sign on. One problem is that I don't want to interfere with other closers, so I'm not going to do that any more. (Another problem is that someone who wants to be a closer now may not be so enthusiastic when it's time to close.) So, fair warning: if an RfC is at CENT and I'm interested in closing, I'll make a perfunctory statement in the RfC itself, so that a closing process or statement doesn't catch anyone by surprise, but I won't advertise for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a closure review for Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment. The RfC was closed by Kingsindian (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2015 in response to an WP:ANRFC request. The close was hidden as a contested close by Red Slash (talk · contribs). There is discussion about the closure at Talk:Kosovo#Post RfC.

There is a re-closure request here at WP:ANRFC, where Red Slash wrote:

Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you.

But per the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review:

On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.

Kingsindian put a lot of thought into his close. His close should not be summarily overturned by an admin. Therefore, I am taking the close here for review by the community.

Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (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) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsindian did a good job on the close. I say leave it the way he closed it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my version of events.

A short account of the sockpuppet matters.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There was some disruption by a sock in the RfC comments. Robert McClenon suggested on WP:ANRFC that the closure be handled by an admin because of the sock disruption. However, by the time I got around to closing, the sock had been blocked and its comments struck out. I asked Robert on his talk page as to his judgment about whether this needs an admin close, and he said that since the sock has been eliminated he does not see any obvious need, and told me to use my judgment. So I closed the RfC.

According to comments on the talk page, Red Slash thinks that my closure is vague and that it is a "supervote". I am not sure what he means by this. I explained my reasoning in detail, and my closure is unambiguous: consensus against option "#1" and consensus for option "#2 and #3", which I even clarified on the talk page. It is not a "supervote" in any form: I just assessed the consensus of a complicated discussion by looking at the arguments for all options, and determined that "#2 and #3" is the best (or the least bad).

As to the point about non-admin closure, my feeling is that Red Slash in not acquainted with policy here (especially since he asked for re-closure at WP:ANRFC instead of starting a closure review, as I advised on the talk page). As I explained to him before, there is nothing special in being an admin; any uninvolved editor can close RfCs, provided they explain themselves thoroughly. Please see WP:ANRFC (point 3). Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian I think you wrote a very detailed closing, and I want to ask before assuming, did you find any consensus in that RFC, or just something close to consensus but not actually consensus? AlbinoFerret 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps my last paragraph in the RfC close is not as unambiguous as I think it is. I definitely found that the consensus is against option #1. For the rest of the options, option "#2 and #3" came the closest, and in my judgement, was close enough to be considered consensus. I clarified this on the talk page here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am another editor closer. I have found when a 50/50 question in my mind arises to just as the person to make sure. While I personally would not have touched this RFC with a ten foot keyboard cable, its a good close. Since the sock issue was cleared up, I dont see why an editor couldnt have closed it.AlbinoFerret 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to comment here, firstly - no disrespect to admins - but just as trained judges are not "superhumans", persons with admin status are not somehow better qualified to cast judgement than any third party uninvolved editors. I cannot help but think that the editor to request admin closure is using this track as a sneaky "appeal" because he personally disagrees with the decision of Kingsindian. Seeing the closing statement by Kingsindian, I see all the hallmarks of a good judge who read every comment and weighed through them to arrive at his rational conclusion. If he became an admin tomorrow I doubt he will have suddenly acquired new observation methods, we are all human beings. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not directly edit this section; if you must reply in-line, do so on the user talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wasn't there just an unblock request here at WP:AN for Technophant? Did it get removed somehow, or am I just remembering wrongly? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the last bit of his above post -- there was a request for his TPA/email to be restored so he could appeal the block properly. It was successful and TPA was restored to allow him to appeal his block. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reason to believe that the behavioural issues that led to this block won't return. Technophant was blocked both for the topic ban violation and for repeatedly lying. I don't see anything in his unblock request that addresses the issue that he lied and lied again when he was confronted about the lies. Instead, we get a big waffle about how Wikipedia policies have shifted away from "verifiability, not truth". What would be the motivation for unblocking?—Kww(talk) 03:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not seeing it. The comments from Technophant in this discussion are not at all convincing to me that he's here to edit in a way that will improve the encyclopedia. My impression is that he is trying to Wikilawyer his way out of a block. That does not sit well with me. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Too soon. There are half a dozen edits, all in the short period since Talk access was requested. The purpose of the Standard Offer is to allow people to demonstrate commitment to the goals of the project and a track record of acceptable quality contributions - a handful of edits in the last 48 hours does not do this, and the last edits before that were in May. Come back when you have several hundred uneventful contributions over a period of months. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• JzG: Just to clarify, you are talking about the simplewiki edits, correct? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's the Standard Offer, is it not? Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That consideration was taken out of Offer quite a long time ago. Blackmane (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting new use of "taken out" that I hadn't come across before. "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects." - Wikipedia:Standard offer #Variations. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Inconsistency Although the editor makes a vague reference to a "Wikimedia child porn scandal", their previous account was blocked for one or more WP:FRINGE-related topic-ban violations which have not been addressed. Miniapolis 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The block was apparently related to this notice. This block was quite inappropriate: Technophant was simply remarking about his opposition to the use of "fringe" and using a commonly accepted medical concept as an example. Not alternative medicine and not acupuncture, and unless the ban were extended at some point between the initial banning and the block, this wasn't a ban violation. This is where verifiability, not truth comes in, if I understand correctly: he's saying (quite correctly) that WP:FRINGE is routinely used to advocate The Truth by demeaning positions that aren't widely accepted. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me translate that: FRINGE is routinely used to advocate accepted mainstream scientific and medical positions held by the vast majority of scientists and doctors and validated and verified by more references from reliable sources that you can shake a stick at, as opposed to unproven and speculative fringe positions not accepted by the vast majority of scientists and doctors -- yes, that is quite true. BMK (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Which perfectly illustrates the point that he was making. GregJackP Boomer! 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, it's sorta like complaining that "WP:RS is routinely used to advocate VERIFIABILITY by demeaning sources that aren't widely accepted." BMK (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Technophant: - note that Kww was recently desysopped. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock request. Editors are judging too much on past editing. Technophant has convinced me he has changed and I welcome him to return to Wikipedia. People make mistakes. We are all human. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Strong Support. Anyone you can handle this level of criticism by others and remain cool should be allowed to return. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per QG. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support User:Technophant are you requested both an unblock and a lifting of your topic ban or just an unblock? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see reassurances that high quality sources will be used and paraphrased going forwards as their was issues with both of these in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User acting in good faith. Desires another chance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support, provided the Alternative Medicine topic ban remains in place and the user commits to stop "banning" people from their talk page and to be less combative. In my opinion the sock block stuck not because the logged out edits were disruptive (they were pretty much harmless) but because Technophant showed an inability to disengage from conflict. There was also some WP:IDHT exemplified by their choosing to interpret an (admittedly less than tasteful) comment as a "death threat" despite evidence to the contrary, and excessive "talk page banning". The user's statement above is encouraging, and I think they're a good candidate for the "standard offer", but I'd like to see more of a commitment to avoid the more serious problems as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Also, could this not have been done with a standard unblock request? This was just a regular old block, not a community-imposed sanction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  EDIT: Removing support based on edits of the past 24 hours, which go directly against the conditions of my "conditional support". Besides, I can't support an unblock request that attacks other editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Believing that any other bans should be raised separately, should Technophant wish to appeal, to avoid them overshadowing the central issue. Per wikipedia's blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users ". Banak (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's been long enough for Technophant to have worked out whether they are going to edit according to accepted norms. If they are, then an unblock is a good idea; if not, then reblocking won't be a problem. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree that it's been long enough and they should now be prepared to edit under accepted wikipedia norms. I'm not aware of the topic ban on Alt med that Adjwilley mentions but if it was indefinite it should remain intact. Technophant can later ask that it be lifted. There also seemed to be somewhat of a personal dispute going on here at the time. I don't see a need for a iban but I would urge caution on the part of technophant in interactions. I'd also urge caution in any prior areas of conflict.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems a reasonable request. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Technophant was blocked for somewhat minor infractions. I believe the main reason they have remained blocked this long is because of his generally unpleasant disposition, ridiculous talk page banning and his zero-tolerance for criticism of his edits and behavior, resulting is some comments and e-mail that exacerbated the problems. Aside from that his editing was generally pretty good and it has been 8 months since the block, so I'm willing to give another chance.--Atlan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to oppose an unblock at time, per this edit, in which he snubs GregKaye, tells us he isn't answering questions pertaining this unblock request not because he's being evasive but that he simply won't respond to "verbal attacks", and that his block was a "silly misunderstanding". Clearly nothing has changed in the past half year. If you can't even muster a bare minimum of cooperation in an unblock request, you are not suited to edit Wikipedia.--Atlan (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was notified because he and I encountered some extremely peculiar oversighter behavior, where people were being prohibited from mentioning the name of David Cawthorne Haines even though all the non-British and even some of the British media were using it. That was around October 20 and by November 10 he was blocked over a Syria-related edit. I don't have the time let alone the patience to look up the whole history of his life on Wikipedia, but my feeling is that the breakdown in civil order here started at the top with heavy-handed oversighting decisions and that this loss of confidence in the system set the stage for any problems that followed. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This user was very thoughtful, kind, and patient with me when I was still learning how to navigate this site, especially in regards to censored topics and the lack of a documented policy in regards to an explanation regarding the need for the censorship. At the time, I had no knowledge of the undocumented policy of site censorship regarding hostages. In hindsight, I understand why it was done, however the lack communication from oversight (there was none) and the lack of an actual documented policy to help guide a new user of the circumstances, in combination with still learning how to navigate the site, created a very frustrating and confusing situation. This user was one of only a small number of users who actually made an effort to help me.MeropeRiddle (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that everyone ought to read User talk:Technophant#Other people's talk page edits, and consider if Technophant has addressed that issue in his unblock request. To read Technophant's talk page one has to look through the history because Technophant has in the past selectively deleted comments which Technophant dislikes (eg diff). While there is no prohibition on doing that, my experience is that editors who do that are often in denial when it comes to understanding why they have been blocked. It concerns me that in the new section User talk:Technophant#WikiProject Syrian Civil War (dated 18 August 2015), Technophant is reopening a contentious issue even before his block is lifted! Not withstanding my comment on Technophant's talk page at 14:13, 16 November 2014 (diff), I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors. I would be interested to hear if any editors have opinions on such a temporary ban option.-- PBS (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It has not been my impression that Technophant is emotionally involved with the subject, if you are referring to the ISIS page, where I used to edit regularly. His edits there were predominantly on technical matters (layout, etc), not on the subject matter. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved issues In his second unblock appeal here and, with no relation that I could see to a sock puppetry case, Technophant made uncited accusation that I was hounding him. I questioned this at the time in one of the sections of comment that Technophant is shown above to have deleted. In a recent post I again addressed the hounding claim, in what was turned into a talk page subthread to present the view that, "I would prefer for either evidence of this to be presented so that the matter be discussed or for such claim to be struck." Technophant then framed the issue within a context of forgiveness which, in effect, is just another way of revisiting a claim of wrong. I think this fits with the interpretation by PBS that denial may be an issue.

As context to this, on my own talk page another editor commented"I have had many email exchanges with Technophant about all sorts of things and am at a loss to understand why he has been as he has recently, especially to you, .."¹ and "I am glad my words helped in your attempt to settle things with Technophant, but never dreamed they could be influential."². All my edits were made in good faith and I would welcome other editors thoughts on content. In contrast to my talk page interactions Technophant jumps into other editors conversations which in this case involved the cryptic leaving of a pain related reference to a Latin text that I still do not understand.

GregKaye 07:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I made this comment on a user's Talk page at the end of April this year: "Interesting that three out of four editors here no longer edit in Wikipedia, after various debacles involving them. (1) Worldedixor - indeff blocked; (2) Technophant - indeff blocked; (3) P-123 - three-month IBAN and TBAN, now expired. Only GregKaye - three-month IBAN now expired - still edits. WP has its ways of driving productive editors away to the extent that they no longer wish to return." I still hold to that view. I think there should be no more fuss and that Technophant should be unblocked. It seems to me that he has been given unnecessarily harsh treatment in connection with this block. He was a colleague on the ISIS page from July last year and was very helpful to this neophyte editor. He was also a valuable contributor to the ISIS page, dealing with technical issues in a way that no other editor could match at the time. His loss as an editor would be Wikpedia's loss, in my opinion. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was exactly what I didn't want overshadowing the unblock request, and why I specific didn't want any other blocks or bans to be mentioned here, so they can be appealed seperately. Let's focus on the matter at hand. Banak (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the comment upset you. This unblock request has to be taken in full context, in my view. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mainly to counteract influence of other involved editor P-123 and to present further information relating to the information above. Firstly, Worldedixor, who has not otherwise been mentioned in this discussion, was banned following an I think highly evolved content at User:Technophant/Requests for comment/Worldedixor 2 that I allege was gratuitously co-presented with P-123 and which I have called into question here. In the final section of the RfC Technophant's behaviour of repeatedly refusing to answer direct questions is blatantly apparent and this is a behaviour that Technophant currently persists with on his talk page. Editors must be accountable for the things that they do and say.

The IBAN between P-123 and myself came in response to a reaction of mine to an edit on the ISIL talk page with content "... Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me. It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else. ISIL are also terrorists by any common sense view. Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries." Not wanting to escalate drama on the talk page I raised issues privately with P-123 in this then much edited thread. In my third post on the thread I overstepped the mark by saying "you continue to argue dirty". Again, this wording was presented privately on a talk page, was instantly redacted on protest and came in context of substantiations presented in that thread.

To, I think, P-123's credit her 11:27, 13 December 2014 (as at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 23#RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL) was redacted to remove not only the uncited accusation of the weasel out and twisted or denied with sophistries accusations and also to remove opposition to a proposal that, I think, had otherwise been entirely opposed on the basis of OR.

My only issue with P-123 was on the basis that I did not view it as practical for two editors to edit the same contents effectively with an IBAN in place I, for this reason, raised a number of issues at ANI, a process that we both contest should be for dispute resolution. We both had qualms in regard to the rapid closing of the case which occurred prior to final evidence being presented.

I can also cite efforts that I made to circumvent a difficulty that was arising between Worldedixor and P-123 at latter date and this is just to contextualise both his irrelevant mention here and the irrelevant mention of other bans.

None of this, however, has relevance to the current case which other editors should consider on its own merits. GregKaye 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GregKaye says there "Technophant's behaviour of repeatedy refusing to answer direct questions is blatantly apparent" in the RfC. This comment has to be put in context. The RfC collapsed because Worldedixor was failing to answer the "charges" brought in the RfC and diverted proceedings by asking Technophant questions irrelevant to the RfC. The RfC collapsed after that last set of questions from Worledixor on that page and was then closed down (but not by Technophant). (I might add that GregKaye knew nothing of the events that led to the RfC and his comments on it are out of order, in my opinion.) ~ P-123 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, should editors want to you can follow the links such as at the final section of the RfC in assessment of Technophant's behaviour in regard to the irrelevantly mentioned Worldedixor (whose actual misdemeanors, BTW, I am not defending). GregKaye 20:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per BMK, Atlan and Guy. This editor is not ready to rejoin the community, as I see it. Jusdafax 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (This is a withdrawal of previous support.) I'm rather shocked by the "Protective IBAN" request above. I got to my PC and found a ping about this among the 72 tabs(I love Firefox!) I currently have open. It's rather bizarre, considering I actually was among those requested to comment on whether Technophant should be allowed to return. I !voted for them to be allowed back. Now I regret doing do.

• Here was my !vote to allow them back, which was seen, accepted, and thanked by Technophant:

I'm somewhat open to letting them back under certain conditions: No personal attacks on other editors. Focus on content. Agree to disagree agreeably. AGF. Talk page problems should not happen again. User talk pages are for communication, and that includes communication from editors with which one may be in conflict elsewhere. Even if it's unpleasant, don't block communication by banning other editors from the page or removing their comments and warnings. Be open and discuss. Nothing is secret here. Editors do not have a right to privacy or to be left alone. That's the way we roll here. Don't call warnings and criticism "harassment". "Informal iban"? I got an email on 9/2/2014 which told me: "Ok well if you don't want to help then please just stay away from me. Informal iban. Stay off pages where I'm a lead contributor." There is no basis in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or culture for taking such an order seriously. This is a form of ownership behavior. Technophant still has an indefinite topic ban which still applies. We don't want to see anymore socking problems. They must only use their registered account. This should be a time limited probationary offer. A review of the editor's interactions during that time should happen before full reinstatement. There should be nothing but peaceful interactions during that time. It's possible to do this even when there are differences of opinion. None of us is perfect. We have all been newbies, and we've all made mistakes and done things we regret. I hope this renewed attempt to get back in the saddle and ride better will succeed. I wish Technophant success. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to retract my initial support. I extended an olive branch and was really hoping for the best. My trust was obviously misplaced. I hate to be naive, and when in doubt I like to AGF, but this repetition of former behavior makes it clear that we cannot AGF in Technophant. They still have the same basic mentality which got them blocked. (There were many other, and much more serious, issues involved in their blocks than just block evasion and socking.)
• The repetition of the weird paranoia over a supposed "death threat" is even more bizarre. Does Technophant have a very short memory? When they first complained about my comment, I explained to them very carefully that they had nothing to fear and that my comment was obviously metaphoric. Then, when they persisted, several other prominent editors and admins also explained to them that they were wrong to persist in this way of thinking. It should be a long-dead matter and deeply buried, but instead of letting this go, they now revive it! There is a lot of deja vu over this behavior. Wikipedia will not be well-served by allowing this unbalanced (by their own admission) individual back.
• We have a boomerang situation here. Of all times, while seeking reinstatement here, this is the worst of all possible times to immediately launch into attacks on other editors. It totally violates point number three at the top of this whole thread:

• 3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

Their response to that was:

• As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and "extraordinary reasons to object to a return".

• Well, we now have a nasty demonstration. We don't really care much what blocked users do in their private lives while they are blocked and not active here. We DO care how they behave here, and this is beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Note that the long list of undesirable behaviors in my posted list above was very carefully worded and considered. I didn't just throw out some vague, emotional, personal attacks. Each point will be recognizable to multiple editors who were dealing with Technophant before and up until they were blocked. This attack on me demonstrates that those issues are very accurate, serious, unresolved, are currently lurking, and are already breaking out as behaviors we can assume will reoccur when Technophant returns. I therefore must oppose any return, and we may as well rescind their talk page access and email privileges once again.
• My response here may scare Technophant into retracting their request for an IBAN, but that won't solve the matter. They have tipped their hand and we now know what they are really thinking and what they are really like. We're dealing with the same old Technophant. I was prepared to completely let bygones be bygones, AGF, and really start over with a fresh page, but this is a total dealbreaker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More observations:
• As I look through his most recent comments during this proceeding, I find disturbing signs that he still does not acknowledge or understand his faults in this whole debacle. He says he was blocked for "a silly mistake", when it was much more complicated. Socking and block evasion were only a minor part of the problems, but since it's easier to make a sock block than a behavior block, the socking was used as the reason for the block. Actually a whole lot of serious behavioral problems were involved, and they were anything but "silly mistakes".
• When he again minimized his problems as a "silly misunderstanding", User:PBS rightly called him on it. (Edit summary: "You were not blocked for a "silly misunderstanding."") His very unwise and revealing response was to say that PBS was "making a mountain out of a mole hill."
• He also speaks of this AN proceeding as "kangaroo court proceedings" He is clearly not taking this very seriously, but just as something to be endured as a means to getting back here. There is no contrition or understanding.

• Here he addresses User:QuackGuru and says that he will forgive/forget QG's past: "People should be judged for who they are now and not what they've done in the past." Yet he then requests an IBAN against me, who poses no threat and has had no interaction with him after his blocks/bans. He's not very consistent.
• This adds more damning evidence for why he should not be allowed back. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no consensus. In fact, some editors have stricken their support and changed to oppose because you have yet to show any understanding for why you were really blocked. You even attack other editors and still try to shift blame to them. This is the very worst time to do such a thing. You have really shot yourself in the foot.

By failing to respond to other editors' comments about you right now, in this very AN, including mine above, you demonstrate that User:GregKaye is right when he says that you repeatedly refuse to answer direct questions and deal with problems brought to your attention. You haven't even responded to comments above or even tried to defend yourself. Serious charges against you have been made above, with diffs and quotes, but you show no evidence that you have even read them.

Your way of dealing with such things has been (this is a very exact description):

• to call critical comments "personal attacks",
• to claim that editors with such concerns are "hounding" and "harassing" you,
• then block them from your talk page,
• then seek IBANs against them, and
• continually refactor your talk page and delete unpleasant information so that it was unintelligible what was going on.

That's the exact behavior which got you blocked! This is not how we deal with conflict and disagreement here. First of all, we try to not get into trouble in the first place, than we act like adults and discuss things, even if they are difficult and unpleasant matters.

For the thousandth time, you are NOT in danger! NONE AT ALL! No one has threatened your life. Many editors and admins have explained to you that you misunderstood the comment originally and are now deliberately misunderstanding a metaphoric comment. Even though you misunderstood it in the beginning, I and many others reassured you of the actual meaning and that you had nothing to fear. Here is a notable one from admin User:Adjwilley to refresh your memory:

• "Note: BRangifer's comment on my talk page was not a death threat any more than your "cease and desist" comment above was a legal threat, and I have already seen several users correct you on this point. Continuing to repeat this claim in the face of contradictory evidence is not helping your case. (It's also slightly ironic that you invoke WP:AGF in the same paragraph.)" - [User:Adjwilley]]

That you resurrect the matter is on your own head and reveals you have a real problem, one we can't help you with. Your perseveration over an explained misunderstanding is pathological, and Wikipedia and its editors can't help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brangifer, I think you are taking this way too far. Technophant is obviously extremely stressed and seems to be suffering from medical problems at the moment. He seems to think that you somehow have it out for him, and your extended participation here seems to be proving him right, further aggravating him. He's already done more damage to his unblock request than anybody else could have, and you've already had more than your say above. Also, with the many times your less-than-tasteful comment as been dredged up I don't recall seeing anything that looks like an apology from you. That alone would have gone further than all the free advice you've given Technophant. Rant over. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support Adjwilley's judgment and comment. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley, yes, you "probably shouldn't be posting angry rants this late." Let's get some needed perspective here. If you were aware of it you wouldn't have written as you did and you would retract much of what you wrote. Here's the timeline:

1. I have had no interaction with Technophant since he was blocked (except for getting that very nasty email from him, resulting in him losing email privileges). I had completely dropped any issues with him.
2. When he applied for removal of the block, I was notified and posted a tentative support for his return. I was trying to help him!
3. Then this whole AN proceeding started on August 16 without my knowledge. Note that I still have had no interactions with Technophant.
4. Suddenly I get a ping that he's posted an IBAN request against me above. That was a shock, since I expected a favorable response to my support.
5. THAT is when I wrote my long Oppose !vote above. He had provoked me without ANY cause and I responded, but only after carefully examining all his edits since his attempt to return. In that search I found plenty of evidence that he's not ready to return, is still the same old Technophant we knew from before his many blocks, and I did what we are supposed to do; I presented that evidence, with diffs, and no one has refuted it, not even Technophant.
6. Then, still without having responded or interacted with me in any manner, he posts his "Request for closure" above, and in it he doubles down on his attack against me.
7. That's when I wrote this response. I have only responded to his direct attacks on me. I have not initiated any type of aggressive actions against him. I had supported his return!
8. Now you object, but I suspect it's because you don't know this history.

Please reconsider/retract some of what you've written. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BR, I was well aware of the timeline, including a point you missed: on 18 August you got a notification of this discussion on your talk page. (Minor point, but it seems relevant between items 3 and 4 in your list.) Anyway, my issue isn't with your reaction to Technophant asking for the interaction ban, or with the substance of your arguments. I too changed my vote when he asked for an I-ban with no provocation. What is bugging me is you becoming accuser #1, creating an entire new section to counter Tp's request for closure, and this when you know that he's in a bad state and wants nothing to do with you. It's like continuing to kick somebody after they're down, when the right thing to do would be to walk away and let an uninvolved admin take care of things. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley, first off, I totally agree that we shouldn't kick someone when they are down. My impression is that, although he is now placing notices that he's having an exacerbation of his mental health issues, at the time he made the attacks on me he wasn't down enough to keep from making strong attacks. I responded. What would you have done?

If you'll look here (Special:Contributions/BullRangifer), you'll see a gap from August 14-22. That notification was on the 18th. I was on vacation and literally out of internet and cellphone range. I was in the mountains and fishing. It was a blessing to get some fresh air and take a break from internet activities. (I also caught 29 trout.) When I returned I had literally hundreds of emails to deal with and many other duties. If I even noticed that message, I chalked it up to a duplication of the other similar notification higher up on my talk page from August 10. The notification you mention had no link to indicate the location of activity, so I didn't do anything about it.

As I wrote above, the first thing I knew about this discussion was when I was pinged by his posting of his IBAN request. I followed the link and discovered that the old discussion was gone, the one where I supported his return, and that there was a new thread in progress. I had no idea it was happening.

I will take your advice seriously and will try to back off. I have not been the aggressor here and have only responded to his attacks. I suggest someone get him to drop his attacks on other editors and follow his own declarations that he was prepared to forget the past. He is obviously not prepared to do that, but seems to be returning here in battlefield mode. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer, Thank you, I think the closing admin will see it that way as well. My own hypothesis is that the stress of having this thread rolling for over a week and not being able to respond in-line contributed to pushing him over the edge (figuratively). Also, I wasn't trying to say that you knew about this new discussion and had chosen not to participate...I figured you had gotten the two threads confused, as did User:Nyttend above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, the rules of the English Wikipedia should be equal to that of other wikipedias? I have observed that the policy of the English Wikipedia is different from the others wikipedias I think all Wikipedias should have the same rules. Best Regards. --Silver Man 77 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) — Silver Man 77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

The various Wikipedias are administratively separate from one another, and policies and guidelines don't carry across. If you've spotted some good ideas which you think we could adopt, please suggest them on the relevant guideline/policy's talk page or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things we do better, some things we do worse, some that are specific to the problems at the speicfic wikipedia, some that are somewhat reflective of national customs. To take examples of two things we do better, we are considerably stricter in demanding inline citations for BLP than any other WP, and the deWP has chose to exempt itself with Foundation acquiescence from the terms of use regarded undeclared paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 07:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

es.wp and de.wp do adminship a lot better as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies that apply to all Wikipedia languages, and all Wikimedia projects too; but they're not discussed here - or anywhere else on English Wikipedia, it's a matter for meta:, see meta:Policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way, Frog? Be interesting to see if that could be replicated here. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Both the Spanish and German projects establish something that's called "voting rights". These are rules that determine how and when an editor can participate in an community-driven discussion as well as other venues such as some RFCs. That is applied to RFAs, where the procedure is a straight vote, with some minimal discussion and candidate questions performed in a separate page. In es.wp an RFA runs for 14 days, in de.wiki there must be at least 50 votes to establish quorum. There are many other differences, but the key is that it's just a dry ballot pretty much, which eliminates most of the drama we have here. In my humble opinion, if someone wants to support or oppose a candidate then they should not have to explain at length why, and no one should badger them when they do, so long as they are established editors per the voting rights charter of the project. Of course there's no such thing as a voting charter around here, which is perhaps the root of a lot of problems. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with formalising voting rights. But moving to an unexplained vote would be a retrograde step. I can understand voting against someone without explanation in an election like Arbcom where you have a limited number of people to elect and may simply prefer someone else. But for RFA there is no limit to the number of mops, so if someone opposes that should mean there is a reason why they think the candidate is unsuitable. Giving a rationale means the candidate and others know if they have spotted something serious, have misunderstood something, care more about some particular attribute than most voters, or are simply making a personal attack. !Voters misunderstanding something is surprisingly common, and RFA benefits by that being pointed out to them. ϢereSpielChequers 08:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, in some cases the Voting section of the RFA has degenerated into little more than a brawl. There is something to be said for having a section that allows editors to vote with an added comment. E.g. Oppose - See talk page for rationale. This would keep the RFA page relatively tidy without all the acid commentary or badgering cluttering things up. Blackmane (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting discussion; I feel a better place for it would be the Village pump, so I'm copying the last three messages to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Suggestions for removing clutter on RFA. — Sebastian 03:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverman. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that much of the decision making is done by the volunteers, and therefore is done in a decentralised way. That has many advantages over a hierarchical system where someone in headquarters makes decisions that everyone is then supposed to implement. But it does mean that some things will be different - for example the Germans have a more efficient system for dealing with vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useitorloseit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user requests a WP:OFFER unblock:

I'm requesting the standard offer. It says to contact willing admins by e-mail/IRC but I can't find a list of the willing admins nor anyone's e-mails, so I'm just posting this. I have stayed away for over 6 months, and while I am not the world's most frequent Wikipedia contributor (I am not an expert on a lot of things), I believe I have made helpful contributions and can make more, and I'd like to move past the drama that took up all my time/attention before. 129.174.252.6 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What went wrong: I made a textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. 1000% guilty there. After that point (mid-February 2014), I think I was a lot better at keeping to the rules, but by then there were understandably very few people who had the time/inclination to bother with me. One person who did, retired admin SGGH, noted the before/after split by saying my earlier behavior was "not particularly good" but later I had been "appropriate and diplomatic." But arguing about changing consensus for a contentious edit that is not that important was not going to convince many other editors, for obvious reasons. Going forward, to avoid a repeat of the situation I would: follow the rules very closely and ask if I was uncertain about the proper etiquette; work collaboratively and if faced with contentious editors, use the dispute resolution process and let the chips fall where they may; understand that not every edit is worth a huge amount of time fighting over; and remember that there's no time limit on improving an article so some things take time and that's fine. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts. Max Semenik (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what the sanctions mentioned in the block log were, and where we can see any discussion that may have resulting in your final block. Chillum 22:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that the IP 129.174.252.6 is assigned to Useitorloseit, the claim that they have stayed away for 6 months may be a tad premature([10]). However, the edit done under that IP address ([11]) was not disruptive and appears to be a good edit. That being said, I weakly Support the user's petition for unblock. User has owned up to their past mistakes and I believe that the user has demonstrated that they understand why they were blocked in the first place. In addition, editor has promised to strive towards following Wikipedia's editing guidelines and to follow WP:DR in the future. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stabila711, the April usage of this IP address is irrelevant: it's assigned to George Mason University. It's highly likely that these edits were made by other people, especially if it's a dorm address. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, let my comment be stricken. Thank you for clearing that up Nyttend. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for striking it. I found my on-campus IP addresses changing almost daily when I was in graduate school, so I know how unlikely it is to get an address you had months ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User clearly acknowledges what was wrong before and what will be different this time if they're given a second chance. Yeah I'd have no problem accepting this request per the standard offer, WP:AGF and WP:ROPE. Swarm ♠ 05:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:OFFER. GregJackP Boomer! 16:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, all the right noises being made here. Worth giving them another chance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose, He was reblocked in august for abusing alternative accounts so i dont think he should be unblocked

• That wasn't a reblock. That was a change in settings done so the user can edit his own talk page to request WP:OFFER. The last time he was actually blocked was in July of 2014. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Lankiveil, WP:OFFER and WP:ROPE Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The worst that happens is that we end up coming back here in a few days. Second chances are cheap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. All water under the bridge - give him another go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A months-long spate of hoaxing has been generated by IPs from the extreme south-east of England:

• Hastings, East Sussex
  • 86.132.110.35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 81.135.194.231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Saint Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex
  • 5.80.249.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 5.80.249.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 109.146.186.120 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 109.146.184.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 86.132.109.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

An alarming amount of disruption has been aimed at the BLPs John Mariano, John Barrowman, Brad Garrett and Toni Collette. The IPs are difficult to rangeblock. Any ideas? Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block all IPs? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is IPs doing the disruption you could always go to WP:RPP and request that the page be semi-protected. That would stop any IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from editing. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking all IPs would suit me just fine, Lugnuts. I think everyone should be required to create an acct. In the meantime I have semi'd these 4 target articles for 2 weeks to start. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that, sister. BMK (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 . For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Malik Shabazz case request

With a sense of disappointment and most humbly i wish to appeal against a topic ban enforced against me at the article Bhumihar, here. I must admit that i could see the ban coming for some time, or may be some harsher sanction, given an administrator's continued displeasure , expressed at all times, at any suggestions made at the talk page Talk:Bhumihar and some previous unsuccessful effort of his to get me sanctioned for similar reasons at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CIR_at_Bhumihar. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The eagerness to ban me could be gauged from the fact that the last edit i made at the talk page Bhumihar was partially accepted , although grudgingly. The other part of the edit , which was rejected and is the apparent reason of my ban (apart from some perceived POV pushing) consisted in my removing a vague reference made in the article sourced from a book by Jeffery Witsoe (citation no 16 ). The reference in question commented upon the official categorization of the Bhumihar caste as Shudras by some "earlier British colonial censuses" conducted in India (Earlier here implies - prior to 1889 A.D.). The colonial census in British India is a well documented , systematic, annalized historic record which can be easily accessed and is not so inaccessible so as to be left to speculation and guesses. The administrator instead of appreciating the records made some unrealistic speculations as to the date of the census without ever giving the catual date or the exact census in question.

The edit and removal act i did at the article was at least 4-5 days after i requested all editors to clarify the vagueness of the reference in that it neither gives the date of the census it refers to , nor it's number nor anything about it that could make it identify which exact census it was referring to.

The reference to categorisation of Bhumihars as Shudras is wholly incorrect and unfounded as they were never categorised as Shudras. Many people had pointed out the same thing on the Bhumihar talk page earlier than i, but none was replied to.

The same administrator has dismissed authoritative sources such as James Prinsep as every Tom , Dick and Harry unworthy of being quoted and didnot even bother to reply to my suggestions insofar as i did not edit the article.

That i did not edit the article after the warning and yet the ban.

That i should be 'judged' for my last edit which was partially accepted and is worthy of full explanation and eventual acceptance should anybody bother to verify.

I call upon all the reviewers in supplication if any to afford me a just hearing.

rahila 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishitch (talk • contribs)

rahila 20:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above may be a little confusing, but I've followed this user somewhat, and so I know that by the references to an/the administrator they mean User:Sitush. Chrishitch, Sitush is not an admin, just an editor like you, and he didn't topic ban you. Abecedare did. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

↑ What Bishonen said. Some relevant links for reviewers:

• Locus of disruption and IDHT-behavior that led to topic-ban: Talk:Bhumihar
• Prior complaints about and feedback to user: ANI discussion and user talk page:
• Rationale for topic ban given here. See also prior appeal on my talkpage.

If there are any questions, feel free to ask. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging the ping from Bish. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They strive to see a pattern in my editing (disruptive) with the intent to push a POV but what they can't see is the simple fact that each one of the suggestions i made on the talk page (yes precisely the talk page) were different from the other.

I raised some very relevant issues , few of which were addressed very reluctantly and after repeated pointers at my incompetence ,tendentiousness ,disruption and the rest.

They say it's been a long circular effort on my part to push my POV. Well, there was a series of efforts ,linear in shape and undefined in dimensions with many marked by article improvements and marred by warnings and complaints which was as is solely aimed at pointing out the flaws in the sources and vagueness in the content.

If anybody wishes to research a bit in order to help the article , go through the fallacies i have pointed out; because i follow the errors , not any patterns -neither circular nor rectangular.

User:Chrishitch rahila 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you having problems, signing your posts, properly? GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse topic ban. There are competence issues here, exemplified by the inability to learn how to sign a post, despite attempts to educate. The request for overturn is phrased in such a strange manner that it does not give confidence in the opening party's ability to contribute constructively. DrKiernan (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May i hope there could be issues more important than the One about my signature ? The particular wiki article is spreading lies and whosoever points at it is met with a stern warning not to indulge and is accused of being a POV pusher. The new editors are scoffed at and reminded about their incompetence subsequently. I don't deny i am taking time to get used to wiki methodology and technicalities to say the least . However , i am very sorry to say that the other editors seem so much more concerned about my inability to contribute Constructively ( i don't know if pointing out the specific misinformation or lies in the article, albeit with trusted sources qualifies to be called so) that none appears to have had the time to read the talk page or even spare a few minutes to get into the details of the article.

Is anybody interested in going into the details of the ' dispute ' ? Or is my incompetence the biggest issue facing the article Bhumihar on wiki ? Can anybody spare some time and efforts to check the veracity of article ? rahila 15:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure if this is the right venue, but I wanted admins to take a look at a comment I received on my talkpage regarding a copyvio issue. Normally I would have responded with a brief hello, and pointing them to WP:DCM, but I'm not sure if more is warranted in this instance. Guidance would be greatly appreciated. The comment in question can be found HERE. Also, the editor of the article in question has also left a message that I'd like to respond to (HERE), pending any suggestions you all might have. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what s/he was trying to say there; it looks like the post was written in broken English. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried using range contrib gadget which I've used successfully in the past but cannot figure out how to get it to show results for 2600:1:e400::/48. Any ideas or other tools I can try? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultratools? [12] JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see contribs. Don't think that will help? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try with the longform 2600:1:E400:0:0:0:0:0/48 ? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work but I learned something! The gadget is case sensitive. 2600:1:E4* works, 2600:1:e4* doesn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a heads-up, not a request for admin action at this time.

COI editing is picking up over at WP:COIN. The latest generation of COI editors mostly follow Wikipedia rules. They disclose their COI, they don't edit war, they add references, and they write well. The end result is heavily promotional. Writing by COI editors is not from a neutral point of view, and presents WP:NPOV problems. Such articles contain only positives for the article subject; negative info is not mentioned. Advertising-like language is used. (My current favorite: “Our design is an integration of volumes that flow into each other and, following a coherent formal language, create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble.” - article about a proposed condo for sale in NYC.) Subjects of marginal notability are pumped up with weak references to give the subject a Wikipedia presence.

All these problems can be dealt with within Wikipedia policies. It's a lot of work. Balancing an article written by a PR firm requires searching for references and writing substantial amounts of text, and may require subject matter expertise. It's not a quick "delete" or "block" action. Toning down promotional language per WP:PEACOCK is quite possible but time-consuming. Dealing with paid editors is a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Deleting a promotional article where notability is marginal means a full AfD, which requires the attention of many editors, especially when the COI editors argue strongly against deletion. For uninteresting articles, getting enough votes to close the AfD may take weeks.

We also seem to be developing an ecosystem where PR firms use a pool of paid editors recruited on freelancing sites, so that no one editor is associated with many articles. (Many ads for such editors are showing up on freelancing sites).[13][14][15] There are people advertising as their portfolio the actual Wikipedia articles they edited for pay.[16].) This is probably sock/meat puppeting as Wikipedia usually defines the term, but it's hard to detect and deal with. This is a growing problem. See the last few weeks of WP:COIN. Somehow we need to get a handle on that. Suggestions?

It was easier when the paid editors were incompetent. Their actions were blatant and obvious. Eventually, they'd be blocked for disruptive editing or sock puppeting. The new generation of COI editors present new problems. We have no way to block a PR agency and all its minions. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that this pulls people off quality article writing to instead having to clean up the COI editor's mess, in order to get it to Wikipedia standards, so we are essentially working for the PR firm, for free, instead of on core articles. Allowing COI editors to edit if they disclose is better than trying to disallow it and forcing it into the shadows, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that WP:CORP has the bar too low for many of these, which get just enough mentions on marginal sources to slide by. The only way to deal with it is to change GPG/CORP to a higher standard for inclusion, from what I can see. Then we AFD the fluff off the site. Changing GNG (and by extension WP:CORP) in regards to corporations would require an RFC and would be a fairly large undertaking with plenty of contention. Personally, I think we have the standard for WP:N too low as it is. Yes, we are digital and there is no risk of running out of space, but the manpower to police every song, every minor band, every minor company is huge and takes away from our core responsibility. The entire encyclopedia suffers due to all this marginal baggage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dennis. Since policing is becoming impossible, raising the notability bar will help. Miniapolis 20:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I was just looking for a NYC condo that is an integration of volumes that flow into each other that follows a coherent formal language to create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble. The place I am living in now has a really incoherent formal language and no overall ensemble sensibility at all.

Seriously, though, other than what we are already doing (COIN, encouraging the good guy paid editors who create encyclopedic and non-promotional articles) there is another method that Wikipedia has not tried. Now I am just throwing this out as an idea, not a polished proposal, but what if the WMF used a tiny percentage of the millions it has in the bank to run some sting operations and get some lawyerly cease-and-desist action going? We could pretend to be a customer, contract for a page that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, study how they respond to our current anti-POV efforts, then sue the bastards. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We might not need to change policy, just interpret it more strictly. WP:CORP, WP:PRODUCT, WP:GEO (which covers buildings) and WP:BIO set out tougher notability criteria than Wikipedia generally enforces. WP:CORP discusses whether all NYSE-listed companies are notable, and says even some giant companies might not be. WP:PRODUCT discourages product articles separate from company articles unless the product is really well known, as with Diet Pepsi. We could take the position that, in the presence of promotional/COI editing, Wikipedia's existing rules should be strictly enforced. We need to think this through, to keep it from being used as a bludgeon. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A major problem is that people take a way-too-loose interpretation of policy in many cases. Nominate an article for deletion because it's gotten nothing but flash-in-the-pan news coverage, and all the keepers claim that they're secondary sources because they're not affiliated with the company. Close a different deletion discussion as "delete", ignoring the keepers because they make the same argument as in the first discussion, and you get hauled to DRV and shouted down by the Randies who call you an idiot and idiosyncratic when you attempt to explain slowly and carefully (using academic sources) that their precious newspaper articles about the subject's latest activities are primary and unable to demonstrate long-term significance. We need to begin more systematically ignoring "keep" votes at AFD from people who haven't a clue about the actual meaning of the terms they throw around. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is entirely within expectations that as WP becomes the major place people go for information, every commercial and noncommercial organization in the world will want a page here. We have various mechanisms to deal with the undeclared paid editors, but we will never eliminate them as long as we maintain that the principle of anonymity is more important than anything else. For declared paid editors, we need to deal with the articles, not the editors. I have three suggestions, which would help individually, but would help best in combination:,

One This requires no policy or guideline change, just a change in our attitude: At afd, accept the argument that Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion.

Two Increase the notability requirements for organizations, particularly new organizations. That's not where all the problem is, but its the key area at present. The problem is how to do it fairly across all organizations. I like a previous suggestion, I think by Kudpung, that the presumption for a new organization is that it is not notable. This would be a change in the WP:Deletion policy or in the guideline WP:ORG.

Three accomplish the same effect by a change in the guideline for WP:ORG or WP:RS that Sources primarily giving information about the motivation for founding a company and its initial financing are not reliable for notability on the basis that they are inevitably PR or inspired by it. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur entirely with everyone here. However, the major problem that everyone is missing is that we only have one firewall against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. It's called NPP and it's the most important single operation on Wikipedia; anything that slips through, 'patrolled' and untagged, is safely and securely in Wikipedia for ever. The total paradox is that unlike Rollback, PC Reviewer, or the AfC that persistently creates more talk than action, NPP requires absolutely no prior experience and no demonstration of maturity or clue whatsoever to check 1,000 pages a day, and the New Pages Feed & Curation Toolbar which I/we fought tooth and nail to get the Foundation to build for us is only as good as the people who use it.

In order to seriously address the issue of professional spammers, we would have to start by significantly racking up the criteria for AUTOCONFIRMED, insisting that all non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs create their articles through the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard in the non-indexed Draft space, merge AfC to NPP (we already have consensus for that), add a couple more boxes to tick in the Curation Toolbar, and merge Rollback and PC Reviewer together with NPPer into a user right with a suitably high threshold of competence. What's left of AfC which is basically a minor project, could be merged to WP:ARS.

It still wouldn't completely solve the problem of spammers who apply for and get those rights in order to patrol and pass their own articles (it happens more often than one would care to believe) but it would be a major step in the right direction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's proposal, "Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion," sounds like a good start. That would presumably apply to AfD, deletion review, and proposed deletion, and would make it much easier to remove promotional material. How can we make that formal policy?

We might also want to reconsider who can remove a PROD. Right now, WP:PROD policy says "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag". That's an old policy, and predates newer restrictions on article creation. This forces many promotional articles to AfD, which takes a lot of editor time. Many such AfDs fizzle out, simply because few editors spend time on the boring process of voting on AfDs for uninteresting articles. Perhaps PROD removal should require the same privileges as those required to create an article without going through Articles for Creation. Also, at present you can remove a PROD on an article you created. Is that a good thing? This requires a bit more thought. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who tags articles for PROD, BLPPROD, CSD, and AfD? The NPPrs. Some of them (far too few) do an excellent job, but far too many of them don't fully understand what they are doing and haven't read WP:NPP or WP:DELETION before starting to use the Curation tool as a MORPG. If I spend an hour a day at NPP, I find myself spending more time educating the patrollers and correcting their tags than actually patrolling the new articles myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike V • Talk 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per m:Global bans, I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general.--GZWDer (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]