Fort Towson

Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 17 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 133 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 130 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 114 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 81 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 63 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 50 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 49 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 48 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 43 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 35 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 34 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 25 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(Initiated 118 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 118 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 112 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 109 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 100 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 94 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 94 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 87 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 80 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 67 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 60 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Novogrudok#Navahrudak_is_the_right_transliteration_from_the_native_languge_of_Belarus

(Initiated 58 days ago on 6 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 54 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests#Requested_move_24_March_2024

(Initiated 40 days ago on 24 March 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 17 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these are easier than others.

I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.

The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.

If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 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) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles).[1][2][3][4] —sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Is anything happening with this request? Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs, but I'd like to contribute to the centralized discussion if there is one, or start a new one if there's nothing active. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It might help to get a list of the RMs that are still pending... Also... perhaps a list of any recently closed RMs. The results should be discussed in any future RFC. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I know, these are the current or recent RMs:

  • Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
  • Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr.
  • Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.
  • Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr.

  If there are others anyone knows about, feel free to add. Dohn joe (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd ask that the 'Martin Luther King Jr.' page be returned to 'Martin Luther King, Jr.' That page and many other MLK pages were decommatized without an RM or discussion, even though it is obviously 'controversial'. I put a note up on the MLK talk page, asking that the comma be returned pending a time someone might want to start an RM to remove it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:52 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

These comma removals should not be controversial, since the MOS says that the omission of the comma is preferred. However, it appears that junior commas are inherently controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Those comma removals should not be controversial, but they are because the wording you settled on in the MOS was not explicit in deprecating the commas as had been proposed in the RfC and editors who don't like it are using this as a basis to discount MOS. —sroc 💬 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I closed was to leave the wording as it was. If the consensus was to omit the "preferred" clause and forbid the comma, then my closing was incorrect. If the implication is that I should have used a supervote to close without consensus and remove the "preferred" clause, then that isn't my understanding of how closure works. What is the consensus at this noticeboard, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Your closure did not reflect consensus. The proposal was for the following wording at WP:JR:

This was supported by Atsme, Dicklyon, FactStraight, Herostratus, Tony1, and yours truly based on a list of reasons enumerated here. Collect and Randy Kryn supported the status quo ante, which allowed an exception for the subject's preferences. DrKiernan said: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way. ... So, neither or both should be acceptable." Aside from the proposal being supported by 6–3, none of those with a contrary view addressed the various reasons for the proposal. The consensus was clearly to adopt the proposal.

DrKiernan later unilaterally, without any further discussion or support, changed the wording of WP:JR to:

This was the wording in place when you closed the RfC stating: "The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is." However, this wording was not supported by consensus in the RfC.

If you now accept that this closure was incorrect, then you should reverse the closure or revise the closure to reflect consensus from the RfC (i.e., to adopt the wording originally proposed). Otherwise, perhaps this needs to be raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. —sroc 💬 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review the closure. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the issue should be raised on WP:ANI. The procedures on closure state that closures should be reviewed at WP:AN, which is here. If there is consensus that my closure was incorrect, then it can be opened and reclosed. Alternatively, my closure can be re-opened here, and an administrative re-closure requested here. I made this request here, nearly a month ago, because this and not ANI is said to be where closures should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only suggested AN/I because the edit screen has this notice: {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}}. —sroc 💬 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The situation of the two Martin Luther Kings (Jr. and Sr.) shows the problem and why the language should allow both forms. Dr. King is known and famous, and that widespread recognition of his name includes the comma. It is used in governmental honoring, on all his books, etc. Not to argue the case here (and I've asked several times for the Martin Luther King, Jr. article be returned to its proper name because the move which moved it was made as 'uncontroversial', common sense to know that it might be controversial, so can an admin please put it back to the previous name? Thanks). A hard and fast rule, one certainly not decided on by the community but by the small amount of people who inhabit MOS pages, and even that discussion seems inconclusive. Maybe let it be "argued out" at the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, which should be a good forum for an extended discussion of this. Suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 17:48 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The MOS exists for a reason. It sets guidelines for the style adopted by Wikipedia. If the community consensus is not to include commas before Jr. and Sr., then this should apply regardless of individuals' preference; we follow Wikipedia's style, not the style of individual subjects.

The problem is well illustrated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library which have apocryphal titles using mismatched commas: all style guides advise that, if a comma appears in a name before Jr. or Sr., another comma must appear after as well; the fact that some individuals or bodies flout this rule of English pronunciation is no reason for this encyclopedia to follow in their folly. This is another reason to omit the commas altogether and avoid repeated arguments over proper pronunciation over and over again on article talk pages. —sroc 💬 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose reopening the discussion – Whatever way this closure review goes, the MoS changes instituted by this process will always be on extremely shaky ground. According to our policy on consensus, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community". I would say that not enough participation was solicited for such a massive change, and that even if it was, the subsequent errors in assessing the consensus that did develop (in favour of removing the comma) completely destroyed the potential stabilising factors that this RfC needed. I support the change, but was not aware of the RfC at the time, despite having various MoS pages on my watchlist. That's an indication that what we really need to do is reopen the RfC, widely advertise it in appropriate places, and generate a firm consensus that cannot be challenged across many pages, as is happening now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Closure of Closure Review

This closure review request has been open for nearly a month and has gotten nowhere. Is it time to close it as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this review has gone stale is no justification to support "no consensus" following your controversial closure of the RfC with a conclusion that did not reflect the discussed consensus, effectively overruling the consensus. We urgently need resolution of this issue.

It should be noted that this controversy has now been used to block page move requests supported by the RfC discussion:

• Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library § Move discussion in progress)

• Barack Obama, Sr. → Barack Obama Sr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

• Martin Luther King, Sr. → Martin Luther King Sr.

(Open: see Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

—sroc 💬 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus here? Regardless of whether I made a mistake in closure, I think that something should be done rather than leaving this issue open for more than a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've presented a possible option in my latest comment above. Randy Kryn 17:54 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

Blaming the closer for not following the exact dynamics of what happened is not a good scheme. The problem is that some editors who were not involved in the discussion don't like how it came out. Might as well just start another RFC to see if they want to overturn what the MOS has said since 2009, or the recent tweak to it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I mistaken, or did the recent 'tweak' remove the option of keeping the comma? Tweaks which limit actions are not little changes, but major moves, and those are the ones which should have much wider participation than just the few regulars who now create (and often restrict, such as this comma decision) the MOS guidelines. There are so many pages and so many walls of text that the vast majority of editors won't know when something important is being changed. Even people reading those pages aren't following everything, and like the recent back-history I looked up about how the "rule" about upper and lower case titles came into being, sometimes a major change is in the middle of the wall of text and not seen by many editors. The problem with MOS is too much of it in the hands of too few editors, with people who know how it works putting in their own favorite site-wide changes which then create controversy (as with this Jr. and Sr. thing, should be on a article-by-article basis. Dr. King has always been comma-Jr., and changing it is literally changing his name). Randy Kryn 5:23 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Even back in the 60s, the comma was sometimes omitted, even in Ebony magazine. Do you think they were trying to change Dr. King's name? Seems like a stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It removed the exception of keeping it at the preference of the subject, since there was no reason for that exception and no way to determine it. And it removed Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of that; his name had had the comma inserted at random; most of his albums and many of his biographies, including one by his daughter, omit the comma, so the random claim of his preference was specious. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way." Randy Kryn: "... something important is being changed." Mmm, right. It is annoying when people who are dedicated to language and style issues agree on what guidance MOS should provide (based on style guides written by experienced language experts) and those who aren't invested in it lobby to ignore MOS when it impacts a topic they have some interest in (preferring what they're used to over what's right). —sroc 💬 06:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Davis Jr. must have asked that the comma not be used on his albums. The difference is that Martin Luther King, Jr. used the comma on all his books, so he thought of it as part of his name. I guess this is a generational thing, that the new generations will look at the comma in the name as 'old style'. But should Dr. King remain as 'old style' as he was known in his lifetime and how the U.S. government refers to him at his Memorial and the day named in his honor? Yes, I personally "see" it as part of his name, and seeing his name without a comma looks odd. Again, that could be generational. But it is historically accurate. How far from historically accuracy should Wikipedia go? If the only difference is a comma, then I'd suggest keeping the comma for sake of accuracy. Randy Kryn 6:29 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Dr King's style or his publisher's style? And what difference does that make? As a matter of style, we are free to choose whichever style we prefer for Wikipedia, as documented in our MOS. Wikipedia routinely changes quoted text for typographic conformity with our MOS irrespective of others' preferences (Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations §§ Typographic conformity). In any case, this was all covered in the RfC. The issue here is that the RfC was closed incorrectly. This is not the forum to re-hash the arguments all over again. —sroc 💬 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this from WP:ANI, where it was originally posted. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a topic ban on all pages about Wikipedia for Chealer.

Chealer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to be disruptive on Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. This user has been previously blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring on Wikipedia-related pages (most recently in March 2015 by Swarm). There have also been ANIs (1, 2) and WP:AN3 (1, 2, 3, 4). Chealer has a history of disruption on Wikipedia-related pages in general as well as engaging in WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages (and in response to the most recent block, see here).

Chealer apparently disputes any internally generated statistics or information regarding Wikipedia (despite WP:SPSSELF). Their most recent efforts have been against a table related to page rankings (see Talk:Wikipedia#Odd_tags_for_stats for discussion). If this were a case of not understanding the WP:CALC used to generate these numbers and charts, that would be fine. They also quibble about the meaning of "importance" on the table's talk page (link). But Chealer went further and "froze" the source page for this info, replacing the bot-generated template with a static version ([5]).

This recent disruption of the bot-generated table (which was the last straw for me), in addition to past disruption on these pages and recent bad faith edits on my user talk page (here and here), has proved to me that Chealer is unable and/or unwilling to productively edit on these pages and that a block did not stop this behavior. While I am open to other options, a topic ban seems warranted given the length, scope, and tenacity of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nyttend. I have notified Chealer of the move ([6]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Update - Chealer again edited the template ([7]) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointing to see the stats page reverted to static again before any effort to talk about the problems raised here. O well lets get this over with and move on. -- Moxy (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Engineering Guy: FWIW Criticism of Wikipedia was part of the AN3s I linked above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE - editor is now trying to delete the grading scheme Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 13#"x-importance articles" categories -- Moxy (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the scope of the proposed ban

• Oppose because the proposed ban is really vague. Is this a ban from editing mainspace pages that are Wikipedia-related, or a ban from editing mainspace and talkspace pages that are Wikipedia-related, or a ban from projectspace pages (ones beginning with "Wikipedia:"), or something else? As currently worded, it could mean any of several things, and if enacted, it could be misused to block him for things that you're not envisioning. I don't know the situation, so if you clarify the proposed ban, I'll simply strike my opposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not quite used to defining ban scopes. I guess what I intend to say is any pages related to Wikipedia as a website, company, or foundation, including pages related to internal statistics. I can't just say "mainspace" because the table generated by the bot is not in mainspace. But I don't want to ban Chealer for any Wiki projects (unless the project is about Wikipedia itself). Though I am worried Chealer would use the project spaces to argue about importance rankings as they have done elsewhere, but that might be jumping the gun at this point.

Given these rambling thoughts of mine, what wording might work better? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps best to say all article covered under Category:Wikipedia ...this may solve the problem. at hand. I would support that. -- Moxy (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could say "all articles about subjects that are Wikipedia-related, and their talk pages, and all pages in other namespaces that focus on these articles, aside from the usual exceptions". That's a rather clear definition, and if that's your proposal, I'll drop my procedural objection. I still won't offer any opinion on whether we should ban Chealer from this stuff. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my idea is broader than Moxy's: both proposals would prohibit editing Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, but while mine would prohibit editing Church of Scientology, Moxy's wouldn't. Maybe Moxy's would be too minimal (if his editing's disruptive, it wouldn't stop him from being disruptive from tangentially related articles), but its scope is clearer than mine (even a bot can determine whether a page is in CAT:WP or its subcats), and probably better as a result. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to incorporate the global summary table he broke in this topic ban? Cant have more bots broken because someone is not getting there way in main space.-- Moxy (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could propose "all pages in CAT:WP and its subcategories, and all of their talk pages, plus pages A, B, and C", or "all pages in CAT:WP..., plus all pages that do A, B, and C". Just be careful to provide a clear definition for your proposal. The whole problem here is that it's not practical to ban someone from the topic of Wikipedia — one can be banned from most topics reasonably clearly (see the guidelines at WP:TBAN), but banning someone from the topic of Wikipedia could be construed as banning them from all project discussions, and if it's refined to be narrower, its scope is lush ground for wikilawyering. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not just add Category:Wikipedia to User:WP 1.0 bot (I dont deal with cats ever not sure if allowed) .. this seems simple and the fact it is a page dealing with Wikipedia its self. -- Moxy (talk)

Discussion on enacting a ban

Support Category:Wikipedia ban per disruptive unilateral changes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban and Grading scheme ban after seeing the bot stooped again I see no other choice. -- Moxy (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban Per the above and per this is an exceptionally disruptive case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support unless there's a really compelling explanation for some of the recent changes, apparently WP:POINTy edit-warring and such. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban in response to [8] JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics ban for a month. If, after a month, Chealer continues to make inappropriate edits (i.e. edits against consensus, e.g. "freezing" the table), then an indefinite ban on these 3 pages may be appropriate. Chealer's contributions show that this user has also been editing other Wikipedia-related articles like List of Wikipedia controversies and Criticism of Wikipedia, but I do not know whether any problems have been caused there. It may be alright if Chealer is allowed to edit talk-pages, to participate in discussions. On talk-pages, if this user suggests any inappropriate changes, then they can just be ignored. --Engineering Guy (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hes been blocked from editing for the same thing over and over I dont see a month solving anything...will just lead us back here in a month. The editor does not even show basic courtesy in reply to the concerns raised here. Is there any indication that the behavior will change....i dont see it -- Moxy (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To my direct question if he knows why he got blocked twice in March, the first time for three days and the second for a week Chealer replied that there is apparently no reason for the blocks, or if there is he doesn't know it and he told me to see his talkpage. Getting blocked twice for a total of ten days and still claiming that he doesn't know why he got blocked betrays a total failure to understand the impact of his actions and that is assuming in good faith that he is not feigning ignorance, or trolling. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. For those of you who are supporting a "bot ban", could someone please explain to me what that encompasses?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I meant that, in response to [9], the editor should be banned from editing pages (project space or talk pages) related to wikipedia bots, broadly construed. I suspect someone could wordsmith this. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Another question - why are we discussing a limited, hard to define topic ban for an editor who has just bounced through 2 blocks for edit warring and disruptive behaviour, wikilawyering endlessly on their talk page through it all, only to resume being disruptive? Wouldn't the sane thing now be an indef block until we are convinced the pattern will not continue? Begoon ^talk 16:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that the refusal to even acknowledge that the two blocks were in any way justified, or that he understood that he caused any kind of disruption at all, is extremely concerning. This type of behaviour suggests that he will export the same behaviour wherever he edits. In addition his silence regarding any input to this thread is also difficult to understand. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment I think the following exchange can perhaps shed some light on the clueless disregard by Chealer of even the accepted simple norms of behaviour. During his edit-warring on the 3RR archive, I told him in my edit summary: (Reverted 1 edit by Chealer: Comments cannot be added to archives because they cannot be replied to. Please stop edit-warring at the archive. . and he sarcastically replied: (Undid revision 651802397 by Dr.K. (talk) just click Edit to reply to comments) as if I didn't know how to add a comment if I wanted to. And that response was after Bbb23 had already warned him on his talkpage that he would be blocked if he continued his edit-warring at the archive. I think this is a case of either trolling or WP:CIR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to explain to him why he couldn't go into the 3Rs/EW archives and rewrite or delete text and he kept asking me why, why, why as if he didn't understand the concept of archiving. A simple, "You can't edit archived pages, especially archived noticeboard pages" just caused him to ask me more questions on why this was policy. He's not a new user so his recent conduct, behavior and claims of ignorance is a little baffling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming no trolling or WP:CIR the most logical explanation for this type of behaviour is a really bad case of wikilawyering with intent either to exasperate his perceived opponent or to avoid recognising his disruption or both. It is a form of passive resistance. But then again this behaviour is another form of trolling. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal for 1RR restriction on Chealer: Since Chealer has demonstrated that he has no grasp of what constitutes edit-warring, despite repeatedly being blocked for it, I propose that he be placed on a 1RR restriction in addition to the bans proposed above. The 1RR restriction should apply to any topic that Chealer may edit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We have a lot of different proposals floating around here, some of which have not been clearly defined as to their scope. I suggest someone regroup and start subsections with concrete, clearly defined proposals. There can be alternative proposals, but they should be separated somehow to be clear. If that is done, there is no harm in notifying those who have already voted that they may wish to vote again. Otherwise, my concern is that, as currently presented, an administrator will have a hard time determining a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored from archive. This needs a close. Begoon ^talk 17:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support total ban from Wikipedia...guy does not even have the courtesy to reply here now trying to delete the whole thing. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 13#"x-importance articles" categories -- Moxy (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all interested in who is right or wrong, only in what is best for Wikipedia. In this instance, an interaction ban is the obvious solution. There is an ongoing request for Arbitration [10] which looks likely to be declined specifically because no solution has been sought at AN/ANI first. There was a discussion that was archived and which I was forced to hat here [11] It contains enough links (as does the Arb case) to provide a convincing argument as to why an interaction ban is the best solution here. Then if that is not enough, further action could be taken. I would recommend standard IBAN rules, as there is nothing that extraordinary here, just two editors who simply are never going to get along. If we put the needs of the encyclopedia first, it is my opinion that this is an obvious first (and hopefully last) step in achieving peace.

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, per recent history, I would myself support an additional i-ban between Hijiri88 and myself, possibly joint i-ban if necessary. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can propose that as a separate item below, as some might pick one and not the other, so we can't lump them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, probably long overdue. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - like Dennis, I can't work out who on earth is right and who's wrong, but I do know that the conversation on WT:WER was not conductive to retaining editors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This does seem like the obvious solution. BMK (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As I myself have requested for an i-ban here [12]--Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I do however hope that the i-ban will include other accounts/names used by the other party involved. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take note of my comment here: [13]. I will not interact with user:Sturmgewehr88.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Catflap08: an i-ban is an interaction ban between the individuals involved, under whatever accounts or IPs they might be editing from. Granted, in some cases, if the IP or other account does not clearly acknowledge their identity, it can be harder to enforce, but such actions also in general qualify as sockpuppetry and abusing sockpuppets to avoid sanctions is generally itself actionable. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do make my own conclusions upon reading the latest rather lengthy statements of the editor involved. The statements leave me being a bit baffled and the conclusions I do come to I’d rather not post. Since I received some emails concerning the editor in question and also by reading about some past conflicts that did not involve my person I would just like to ask again if the I-ban would affect the editors no matter which user name they may choose. I myself have only used this name for nearly 10 years now. Some users do tend to change their names, so I just want to make sure that in future I do not run into the editor in question. Does an IBAN consider other names that may be in use?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Catflap08: Yes, if he interacts with you under another username (or IP) then he would not only be violating the IBAN but he would also be violating WP:SOCK. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a problem in proving that the IP or other account is the same, and that might require input at ANI or elsewhere, maybe at WP:SPI, but any time an individual already under an i-ban abuses socks as well, then the penalties tend to be rather longer than they would be for either behavioral problem individually. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then the procedure does have some flaws. If an IBAN is indeed imposed a WP:Sock should take place at the same time or not? Given the facts presented to me via mail the wish to see me being banned for Wikipedia is indeed a reoccurring pattern of past behaviour. On a side note I did indeed initiate a small number of articles – most of them alive and kicking without the need of a further input by myself – I do not regard the input on Wikipedia to be a contest on winning or losing. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please look into this suspicious email contact? It's almost certainly my long-term stalker continuing to harass me and mislead people years after being site-banned. (I know he's still watching because of his other off-wiki activity.) The fact that neither Catflap08 nor John Carter have public email addresses means this person has an active sockpuppet account. Additionally, I would like Catflap08 and John Carter to provide some shred of evidence that I have been editing under sock accounts or undeclared IPs over the past year before continuing these ridiculous allegations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per my statement at ArbCom. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I'm extremely skeptical of IBANs as a general rule; in my experience, they almost always lead to more drama than they resolve, especially if one or more of the involved editors shows a proclivity for being unwilling to let issues go, which there is certainly evidence of in this case. That being said, I don't think I can recommend a better course of action as the next reasonable step, and with at least one of the involved parties indorsing this approach, it seems worth a try. I'm not really sure if either side has stopped to think about the implications this would have to their editing, however. Both work in some common articles and areas that have very few other active, regular editors. I wonder how feasible this solution is when both sides have come to be as atangonistic as they have in part because of their attachment to these areas and an inability to reach compromise over relevant content issues. One or another of them will have to give way in order to abide the IBAN, and I'm not sure both are capable. In circumstances where discussions only involve two or three users, it's not as if they can abide the IBAN by speaking to the content issues alone and staying away from comments about eachother's approach and behaviour; if both were capable of doing that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. So yes, my basic sentiment is that this is our best hope for resolving this situation short of one party getting blocked, but I won't be surprised if it's not too long before ANI sees the first report of a violation of the ban... Snow ^{let's rap} 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Catflap08 has provided few diffs to illustrate my "personal attacks" and "stalking" of him. This is because any fair reading of the evidence would indicate otherwise.

I don't think an IBAN is appropriate, given that I have done nothing wrong here. Catflap08 has a particular POV and when other users respond by saying the sources don't support him, he responds with forum-shopping and personal attacks. A mutual IBAN would protect his more disruptive edits from me. A one-way IBAN would at least protect me from his continued and unapologetic personal remarks. But the project as a whole would be much better served if Catflap08 was indefinitely blocked.Opposition withdrawn.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A one-way IBAN? Sorry, that's not how it works. I didn't even know you two were still going at each other (in the past, I asked for an admin to put a stop to it myself), so I fully support an IBAN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The purpose of an interaction ban isn't for the sole benefit of the two users, it is for the benefit of the community. It is an alternative to using the block tool, so we get your contributions, you both get to stay unblocked. At this point, it is obvious that interactions by the two users is causing problems outside of a single article. Who is to blame? Frankly, I don't care, as it is clear that any interaction is disruptive to the project as a whole. What I want is a good editing environment for all editors, which takes precedence over any single user's desires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that we've already seen administrative involvement fail to separate these two. By the way, did anyone remember to inform SilkTork about this, since he was the last admin to attempt to halt this nonsense? As its now down to a community vote, I'd like his insight in particular and I think he might want to know what happened here, in light of the conduct he requested during his mediation of the issue between the pair. Hijiri seems indignant at the implication of the IBAN, but I think, in opening this discussion, Catflap may have spared him a block for that whole affair and his persistence in seeking this conflict out. And that's rather the point I started out to make here. IBANs only really work when both parties really want them to and have accepted there is no solution but to cooperate in not cooperating. It's silly, but if it works and stabilizing the problem, who cares, right? The problem is that one or both of the parties is determined to continue the fight, IBANs collapse in on themselves and become the community fabric equivalent of super-massive black holes, sucking up indescribable amounts of community effort and contributor man-hours in acrimonious discussions of the IBAN itself and whether it's being violated and, if so, whose fault it is. And it can be unending. And you can bet it won't be long before these two cross paths again, because they both operate in some shared (and very niche) spaces, and both clearly have strong feelings on said topic. In short, I don't see this IBAN would work, short of a mutual TBAN in those areas as well...

I really honestly sometimes think IBANs are broadly a mistake and ought to be abolished for anything but voluntary application. If someone is not behaving in accordance with our behavioural policies and can't be convinced to, they really ought to just be blocked. The rationale behind IBANs is "Well, we don't want to lose two or more valuable contributors, and this seems to be limited to their interactions with eachother, so let's just remove that factor." The problem is that, if an editor shows a willingness to break with our community principles of conduct in one context, there's almost certainly another context in which that user could be compelled to do so again. No matter how specific the frustration seems to be to that user, there's at least a handful of other editors out there who will rub them the wrong way in basically the same way, and if said user can't comport themselves in those circumstances then, at a minimum, the community should acknowledge as much (and probably impose sanctions as necessary), not try to patch around that core issue. When two editors lock horns and can't let it go, when they come to uncivil words and personal attacks, an administrator or the community broadly should step in. If they can't head the advice being given them in those administrative/community processes, then a line should be drawn for them, beyond which their behaviour cannot be tolerated, as was done in this case by Silk. The party that next insists upon that problematic behaviour should then be blocked. This is all spelled out in policy.

IBANs attempt to allow us to avoid assigning blame and/or spare someone a block, but in the long run in most cases, I don't think they do the involved editors any favours and certainly not the community. All they ever seem to do is prolong the ugliness. So I think we need to think carefully about whether to institute an IBAN here if both parties are not going to embrace it. If that proves to be the case, I say we ask SilkTork if he wants to apply any of the blocks he seemed prepare to implement if his administrative proscriptions were not followed. There's been a lot of WP:IDHT in this case and I suspect at least one of the involved parties will fail to hear the IBAN, so if both parties are not going to work at settling this issue, we should send a message composed of substance, of the type that starts at 24-hours in size. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The whole idea is that instead of reading through walls of text, it is possible to simply block them if they violate the iban, without having to get bogged down in the merits of the arguments. I am not a fan of ibans, but sometimes, they are the lesser of all available evils. This is one of those cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support two-year IBAN Okay, I've changed my mind. I've had enough of this hassle, and want the IBAN if only to get Catflap out of my hair. But I think a definite-but-very-long time limit is preferable to indefinite for the following reasons:

1. Past experience has taught me that even having a block log is enough for AGF to go out the window, so having a ban permanently in effect is not attractive, especially if the ban has no purpose (see 2 and 3 below).
2. Catflap has announced his retirement/semi-retirement. If this is genuine, then there's no point keeping what would effectively be a one-way IBAN in effect indefinitely.
3. My CIR and NOTHERE/BATTLEGROUND concerns regarding Catflap still stand. Even if I am not the next one to take him to ANI, his state of always being in conflict with one or more users has not changed. If he doesn't retire voluntarily, I am 90% certain he will be blocked within the next two years.
4. His comments on this thread make me think that if he doesn't retire, he will immediately violate the IBAN himself by accusing the next Japanese IP he comes into conflict with (it happens a lot) of being me. He's already done it on the Kenji article, but there was no IBAN then.
5. If after two years of us both editing English Wikipedia constructively with no violations, one or both of us wish to renew, it can be discussed at that point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also an IBAN without further clarification would be technically difficult. Before imposing the IBAN, could someone take a look at the Kokuchukai article and clarify whether one or both of us would be banned from editing it? Catflap created the page first, but 90% of the current article is my work, and both of us are intimately aware of these facts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:IBAN and see exactly what it discusses. It refers only to direct interaction, it does not rule out the possibility of developing articles independent of discussion between individuals, or much anything else, just directly discussing each other or each other's edits. And I would myself

Support indefinite i-ban as per the standard form, with perhaps a possibility of review after no less than one year. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: So Catflap is allowed knowingly alter my wording, and I am allowed knowingly edit an article he started? Unless someone else radically alters the page again (not likely) or the page is deleted and recreated (even less likely) this situation is not going to change. Please actually read my question before posting an inane remark that doesn't answer it at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, stop with the personal attacks. You've been told this before. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: What are you talking about? Where in my above question is there anything approaching a violation of NPA? Yes, I have been told to cut out the non-personal-attacks-that-other-people-choose-to-read-as-personal-attacks before, but you (and Catflap08, and John Carter) were also told (repeatedly, by multiple users) to stop choosing to read such things as personal attacks when they very clearly aren't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your use of the word knowingly seems a rather obvious jump to conclusions contrary to WP:AGF. And, yes, Hijiri, I did read your comment to which I responded. Only after the fact did you do something to indicate that you saw a problem. Rather than rather presumptuously assume bad faith of others, maybe it would make sense if you bothered to make coherent statements which actually say what you want them to say from the beginning, rather than make irrational assumptions that everyone will automatically as a matter of course review the entire edit history of the article and find edits with which you disagree. So, in the future, if you have reservations about others, please show the good grace to actually indicate what they are. And I note you still have not provided the clear evidence by diffs on this page to support your insinuations, which is generally considered good form. And, finally, Hijiri, although I think it has been rather obviously indicated by multiple users now, maybe it is time for you to realize that if other people consistently say you are wrong about something, like your personal view of what are and are not personal attacks, even if you believe otherwise, maybe you are wrong. This lack of clarity in speech and thinking might also extend to other matters, like your refusal to actually support allegations through diffs, or even specifically indicate what they are in a timely manner, as per your above revisionist comments which indicate allegations only after the fact, and then insultingly put down others for not having reviewed everything for you, rather than do the polite thing and actually indicate the behavior you are objecting to from the beginning. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was simply referring to the "inane remark" comment. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: No, you see, if I have already directly stated that I know Catflap started the article, and Catflap has already directly stated that he knows 100% of its current wording is now mine, then it can't possibly violate AGF to assume that one or both of us know the things we say we know. I made all of this clear in my initial question before you posted a response that didn't answer said question. Also, could you please stop insisting that multiple users have consistently told me I am wrong? You are literally the only person who has disagreed with me on any of this, which is precisely why I am certain that unless Catflap radically alters his Wikipedia activity he will be blocked within the next two years with or without an IBAN. I am not the first person to say this, and in two months you are literally the only person to say otherwise.

@Erpert: Well I can't very well say "your intelligent and considered remark that completely ignored my question", can I?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a degree of extreme prejudice that the first offender is blocked. We are no longer at the stage of second chances or listening to any more time-consuming chest beating or excuses. With warnings given to both of them for their behaviour it is either this ban or a time-out. Hijiri's recent outpourings suggest that user has lost the plot regarding Catflap, and is heading for Wiki-suicide unless this ban works. And Catflap's refusal to back down or strike inflammatory comments indicates a user who is sucking the energy out of those drawn into this personal dispute. We are an encyclopedia not social services - if folks can't conduct themselves reasonably we are not here to counsel them and hold their hand, we simply restrict them or ask them to leave. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: So you're supporting a two-year IBAN, given the circumstances that Catflap is retired and/or semi-retired and the odds of us continuing to "interact" with each other after an IBAN working for two years are infinitesimally small? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "retirement" or "semi-retirement" is more often honored in the breach. Best to have things covered for the (almost) inevitable return. And if the retiree doesn't return, the IBAN has no effect on you whatsoever, because there's no one to interact with. BMK (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, Hijiri...you seem surpised that SilkTork is in favor of the IBAN, yet you were the one who proposed it in the first place. Have you changed your mind or something? (Wait, maybe you have.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: Why would you think that? I wasn't the one to propose an IBAN (John Carter was first, then Catflap08, then Dennis Brown), I opposed an IBAN for the reasons given above until after the current thread started, and I'm still skeptical about an indefinite (read: permanent) IBAN, since punishing me by having a "permanent" ban on my record seems to be Catflap and John Carter's motivation (why else would Catflap propose an interaction ban with me specifically if he has no intention of interacting with anyone on-wiki anyway?). I know this isn't the actual meaning of "indefinite", which here should actually be "as long as necessary", but that's clearly not how some users are reading it.

@BMK: Technically you're right since if I alter an old edit by Catflap by accident AGF should protect me from accusations, but what if someone reverts such an edit and calls it an IBAN violation, I'm then effectively not allowed to revert back. This means that even if Catflap is retired I am still restricted by an IBAN while he is not (a de facto one-way IBAN).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I mispoke. I meant to say that you were in favor of it in the first place. But just like all the other discussions about the issue, this is really going nowhere, so IBAN or not, this needs to end. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: Hold on a sec, I didn't say I was against an IBAN, I just said that making it indefinite, given the fact that one of the subjects is retiring, seems more punitive than preventative. I agree this needs to end, hence my above agreement to the IBAN. Unlike Catflap, I actually want to get back to creating articles, which I was doing happily in accordance with SilkTork's advice until Catflap and John Carter decided to reignite this dispute on the editor retention talk page. (Seriously, check the dates: that's exactly what happened, and I don't appreciate people insinuating that it's my fault that it came to this.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do two year bans - the ban will be indefinite. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, it means that the ban's time is not fixed. We generally don't listen to appeals to lift bans until 12 months have passed, but after 12 months if an appeal is successful the ban can be lifted. The arguments you are making are part of the reason we want the ban. Our priority is building the encyclopedia - folks who suck out the energy of those building the encyclopedia need to be restricted or removed. The community is patient and tolerant, because pretty much everyone has encountered problems in editing at some point, but after a reasonable period of giving advice, assistance and warnings, our patience and tolerance wears out. It has now worn out. The more you persist in arguing with folks, the clearer it is that something needs to be done. It is time for you to take a deep breath and let it all go. The community loves a user who can handle themself and walk away from a disruptive dispute. As regards damaging your reputation by getting an i-ban - well, your reputation is already damaged. But you can start to rebuild it by the way you deal with this situation now. And as regards Catflap making an edit you disagree with - well, if the edit harms the encyclopedia someone is highly likely to remove it without your intervention. From my own involvement in an editorial conflict between you two, I found your editorial stance to be the one that was the more inappropriate, and Catflap's edits to be what we expect of users. Your attempts to suppress his edits were unpleasant, and you were close to being temporarily removed from editing Wikipedia for such an approach. In your favour you initially listened to my advice, and responded well. But you have since lost the plot. Listen to me again - stop this chest beating, and adopt a more collaborative approach to editing or you will find yourself not just facing a restriction on interacting with one user, but a restriction on editing Wikipedia. What is being adopted here is designed to help Wikipedia and to help both you and Catflap. Take note of that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Okay, I understand all that, and that's why I'm prepared to accept an indefinite ban that's actually indefinite (i.e., not permanent, but that can be lifted after an appropriate period of time if certain conditions like one user not actually editing the encyclopedia any more for one reason or the other). But (Decided the rest of this reply belonged on SilkTork's talk page, since it has nothing to do with the IBAN discussion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article source clearly states: DO NOT ADD ISRAEL. PER Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below), ANYONE WHO ADDS ISRAEL WILL IMMEDIATELY BE BLOCKED. User:Emesik added Israel yesterday: [30]. Please deal with appropriately. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That text was added to the template by a non-administrator [31] and oversimplifies the discussion at the 3rr report. Someone who was not party to a discussion 2 years ago, making a change now, isn't likely to get instantly blocked for doing so. Also pinging @Black Kite: the admin who made the statement you are basing your request on. Monty₈₄₅ 02:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I provide a RS for that claim? In fact I provided two. Are they newer than the do not add Israel text? Yes, they are. Please put my changes back in. Otherwise it smells of blatant censorship. --Emesik (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emesik you are completely aware of what a highly contentious and unproven claim this is, and you have been blocked once before for issues relating to this same subject matter. Nulla Taciti (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is nothing like a ban on adding Israel to the supporters list an you should have known it well after reading the noticeboard archive that you have linked here. Such explicit ban cannot exist on Wikipedia, as it would be simply an act of censorship to forcibly adhere to some point of view despite RS claiming something else. Second, my former ban has nothing to do with that matter. If you want to discuss the topic of Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War, I invite you to the talk page which is much batter place to start discussions than here. --Emesik (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media has up until recently only reported on Israel giving medical aid to civilians and milita members. The Washington Institute for Near East Studies source (Israel Is Cautiously Arming Syria's Rebels — And Has A Fragile Unspoken Truce With An Al Qaeda Affiliate) appears to be legitimate however, and includes the sentence: Some rebel groups maintain constant contact with the IDF, including frequent secret meetings reportedly held in Tiberias, but only a modest amount of weapons have been provided to them, mainly rocket-propelled grenade launchers. This is still fairly weak sourcing, but as long as you get clear consensus (e.g. a talk page poll), I for one have no issue with you readding Israel having finally seen a (single) WP:RS. I consider this matter closed seeing as admins seem unwilling to take action based on the previous 3rr discussion. Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want consensus, go to the talk page and discuss like a civilized person would do. Reverting my changes and calling admins is far away from consensus. --Emesik (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I previously got wikihounded by an obvious group of sockpuppets. MelissaHebert created on 21 February 2015, PortugueseManofPeace created on 21 February 2015, Akafeatfausty created on 22 February 2015, Shazam puta created on 23 February 2015. This resulted in several ANI reports and an SPI, eventually three socks were indeffed on CU evidence. But the disruption lasted for months, especially because nothing was done about the ANIs that preceded the SPI.

Here we are again, see the ANI report I opened [33] and the revenge one by the sock. [34] It is obvious from the first ANI that the sockmaster had to repeatedly log in and out to create this iteration of the bizarre puppet show. His statement of "just forget to log in" is clearly untrue.

I edit in a very technical niche topic area and it seems there are not enough experienced editors around to enforce policy. More than 70% of the articles I edited have "fewer than 30 watchers". I am pretty much on my own dealing with the sock and proxy IP disruption. If we are to bring this campaign to drive me away to a halt, the obvious socks need to be swiftly dealt with. Letting this iteration again go on for who knows how long is only going to encourage the next one. Kristina451 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) user:kristina451 is having edit war with many IPs that are not proxy. example here - and here . these are belong to Princeton University and University of Cambridge. also my IP is belong to my company in Japan and is not proxy. they are secure, you cannot even ping them and so cannot be guest or proxy network.

(Non-administrator comment) admin already notice this pattern and tell her stop edit war because she revert many edit. Mkb764920 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask user:kristina451 nicely on her talk page why she always revert my edit. i also use article talk page to provide many refs to support my edit. she still revert and tell me use article talk page, which i did . She ignore discussing with me on talk page and go straight report me on admin noticeboard. if she is going ignore talk page why she put revert reason as "use talk page"??? she claim she is productive editor, but block log tells me not credible. Mkb764920 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a 4-month backlog for processing statements of permissions sent to permissions-en and volunteers are desperately needed. We're telling users who have done good work finding free images and obtaining permissions that they need to send in permission for the image. They dutifully do so, never hear back, the image gets deleted, and the user gets frustrated. Volunteers are desperately needed to help out. You don't have to be an admin to volunteer, although there are some times when an image has been deleted where an admin will need to restore it (if you are not an admin and are seeking to have an image restored because permission has come in, you can ask at WP:REFUND with the ticket ID). You don't even have to make a huge time commitment. If maybe 10 people would process a few images a week, the backlog would never get like this.

It really isn't that hard to process the permissions messages and there are template responses you can use for most of the common situations. If you are willing to volunteer, please do so at m:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you, --B (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS team has asked a few times on this noticeboard, but it seems that reviewing new accounts is a slow process. There are five users from en-wiki awaiting review as of 7 April (full disclosure: my application is included). Is there any process in place that would prioritize acceptance from high-need wikis? Nakon 04:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Rjd0060:, one of the OTRS admins. --B (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, B - the process of reviewing applications on Meta lasts a minimum of seven days where the app will remain on the site for other users to be able to comment. After the seven day period, the application remains on Meta until an administrator has a chance to review all feedback provided as well as comments from other OTRS admins when they will then process the application, and remove it from Meta. Just because there are backlogs does not mean we can "cut corners" as far as the review process. This is of course given the sensitive nature of the work. Does this clarify your question? Rjd0060 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thanks for the clarification. Nakon 00:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have evidence (in the form of an OTRS ticket and a deleted article) of a new (to me at least) mode of paid for-profit editing that involves searching out a company or group, creating a viable article about it, and then contacting the company to extort money from them. If the money is not produced then the editor marks the article with {{g7}} and is promptly deleted. Because I have only one article and one known account with no other contributions, I'm wondering if this is a scenario where CU might be used to find more of them. I assume this has worked on occasion for them. But I'm not terribly familiar with the limits of how CU can be used. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not answer the main question, but to me deleting an article with {{g7}} if the article demonstrates notability of the company is an absolute no, borderline vandalism. May be admins working on speedy deletion should be more careful.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always look at the history of an article marked with G7 to make sure the creator was the one that placed the tag and there are no other major contributors. To me a G7, especially for a company or other less encyclopedic subject, is equivalent to honoring the request of someone who changed their mind for whatever reason. Maybe they're going to develop it further in a sandbox, maybe they decided the subject doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines, maybe they don't have time to work on it further, etc. I have no problem with those. And I would have honored this particular G7 just as the deleting admin did. Obviously it would have never crossed my mind that the article was part of an extortion attempt. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds absolutely awful to me because often readers believe that articles are written by WikiMedia staff. They don't quite get the "everyone can edit" principle or maybe don't understand how it works in practice. I'm less concerned about one article than I am about companies believing this is Wikipedia's hard-ball way of doing business. This is especially unclear if the editor gives the impression that they have the power to get an article deleted. I think this needs to be handled aggressively because we don't want this editor(s) appearing as if they represent Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and I'm open to suggestions because beyond CU I'm not sure how we can catch these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could just not allow G7 deletions on articles that are of reasonably good quality. Monty₈₄₅ 20:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist that I am, I've always looked at G7 as the most dubious of the speedies, and I've been known not to grant them if the reason for deletion appeared to be spite.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the criterion says If requested in good faith..., having said that, perhaps the stock deletion message for G7 should state that the page can be restored by WP:REFUND. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why timing is important. I like to write articles offline and make them as fully formed as possible before putting them on-wiki. In the past, I've accidentally created some articles with just part of the content that I intended: they demonstrated notability, but I clicked the wrong button ("save" instead of "preview"), so I either request deletion or do it myself (I'm an admin) within a minute or two of publishing it. When a page is very new, we shouldn't question the G7: you're not trying to revoke licensing, extort money, or anything else. This is why I will routinely decline an author-placed G7 request for old pages, unless they have problems, e.g. the author G7-tagged a nonfree image instead of placing it in the deletion queue, or the author G7-tagged an article that's at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should handle this just as we always have. People playing silly buggers externally are really not our problem. I don't think it's common and t OTRS has a boilerplate response for "why was my article deleted" that covers the next steps for article subjects. The biggest problem here is that while the original idea may have been extortion (and we don't have a lot of proof for that from the few I saw back in the day), inclusion of articles is not the subject's call, it's ours. Any OTRS agent can undelete any CSD'd article if they think there' s a genuinely good reason. Equally, OTRS agents should remember the mantra "trust but verify" and not fall into the trap of believing that a subject has a valid view on whether we should have an article or not. And I have seen some subjects invent the most self-evident bollocks to try to get an article. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desks are currently under attack by vandals. A few administrators, including User:Smalljim, are fighting the good fight and blocking the vandals. I would, first, like to thank the administrators who are blocking the vandals. I would, second, like to request any admins in the Pacific region to check on the Reference Desks when the United States and United Kingdom are asleep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just semiprotect them? Also, I'm not going to link to it, but there's a few boards that need some revdels. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe activate pending changes for a few hours? They'll eventually get bored. -- Luk ^talk 23:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, under the circumstances, semi-protection for 24 hours would be a good idea. The vandal is now using throw-away accounts rather than IPs, and semi-protection would work against those also. (The Reference Desks also have a problem with IP trolls. I wouldn't mind longer-term semi, but some editors think that it is important to leave the desks open to unregistered editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An hour or so of semi-prot may be a good idea. It's just one vandal, but I can't recall what time he usually gives up.  —SMALLJIM  23:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of us jumped on it and took care of it. This is a regular, well-known troll, and this current instance of losing his shit has happened before and matches his standard pattern of behavior. --Jayron32 00:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're back. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request is made to replace/merge the existing article Battle of Buna–Gona with the article at Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona. The rewrite and proposed merge have been notified on the talk page of the current article without significant dissent. A request is aloso made to re-title the two 'order of battle' pages for consistency of formatting

Battle of Buna–Gona Japanese strength and order of battle

Battle of Buna–Gona – Allied forces order of battle

Proposed titles are:

Battle of Buna–Gona: Japanese strength and order of battle

Battle of Buna–Gona: Allied forces order of battle

Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The process for this is through Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinderella157, moving it this way would be a horrid idea. You're asking for a history merge, which is only a good idea when there aren't any overlapping edits in the page history. However, now, we have a lot of overlapping edits. If we did a history merge, we'd have a ton of mess, and diffs would be radically changed; for example, this simple coding fix would suddenly become a major edit to tons of the article. You can request that we copy/paste the draft onto the article (is that the purpose of the "Progressing" section at the draft's talk?), because that would have the effect of bringing in the draft's contents without mangling the history. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe my message isn't as clear as it could be. I'm only referring to your request to move the draft on top of the article. Your other suggestion, moving the articles from their current titles to new ones, is completely different; if discussion concludes that they should be moved, I don't see a reason not to do it. Nyttend (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a cleaner solution would be to move the draft page and talk page to become subpages of the article article, and then copy the text of the draft article on to the article page. That way people could do diffs with the current article. The edit summary could reference the draft article page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant with the "copy/paste the draft" sentence. We can move the draft so it's a subpage, or redirect it to the article: the only things we need to ensure are that it's out of the way (not mainspace), that it's not going to be considered abandoned (so it can't hang around as a draft), and that it's not otherwise deleted (so proper attribution is possible). Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first question is whether this will be attended to as a result of this request? Secondly, regarding the specifics of the process, I am uncertain of the best way to achieve the desired outcome, although the intent is relatively clear. Regarding the 'order of battle pages', I am the principle contributor and I see nothing controvertial with harmonising the titles, I am not familiar with the process however. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cindarella, you don't need administrative assistance. Once people are in agreement at the talk page (or once you've asked and gotten no real input either way), just copy the contents of the draft page into the article and use an edit summary of "Copying from Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona" (be sure to include the link), and you're done. As far as the title, I have no opinion on that; again, get agreement or discover that there's no opposition, and move it. If you have any difficulty doing this, leave a note at my talk page or request assistance at WP:HD. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Done as per Nyttend Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the alleged sock puppets of CensoredScribe and I am confused as to why Tranquility of Soul was indefinitely blocked for a first time offense. From what I can gather the only things Tranquility of Soul and CensoredScribe have in common are having too broad a definition for categories and creating new categories; most of which are still being used; that and they both seem to be Goths. CensoredScribe mostly added references to non fiction, even when using sock puppets, and reported themselves before being caught; Tranquility of Soul was much more focused on categories and just seems to have pissed off Marnette for some reason. I would like to here from Marnette why they think Tranquility of Soul is CensoredScribe; this looks like a trigger happy witch hunt run by an administrator blinded by their own powerful political views without providing any real evidence except for making new categories.

I think both Tranquility and Censored are promising though editors who deserve a second chance given it's been 6 months for both of them; that said they both need to cut out the drive by categorizing, but short term blocks would act as a better vandal brake than having a zero tolerance expulsion policy that is prone to abuse. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• MarnetteD is the soul of sobriety, and seeing a new account whose main targets seem to be talk pages, Jimbo and the reference desk, without any developmental period makes one wonder why Bullets and Bracelets itself has not been the subject of an SPI and subsequent blocking. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A) I don't know why my name is on this. B) I wasn't informed of the thread. C) I did not add ToS to the SPI D) I am not an admin. I would note that CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) was banned by community consensus here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Ban Proposal: CensoredScribe. I wonder why an editor who has been here less than a month and has less than 260 edits is asking these questions. BTW this is the same kind of drive by categorizing that was a hallmark of the other editors mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 02:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, Bullets and Bracelets, what the heck are you talking about? Next to nothing in your post made sense, and if you don't give some links and some substantiation of whatever you are talking about, I think this thread is going to boomerang on you. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD is fine. And after seeing Bullets and Bracelets at the Birth control article, and then looking into the Bullets and Bracelets edit history, I was of a similar mindset as μηδείς. Bullets and Bracelets isn't fooling anyone who can instantly spot a WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pinging Zad68, who is familiar with CensoredScribe's erratic editing and often odd, incoherent posts. Zad68, does Bullets and Bracelets's comment above and editing style remind you of CensoredScribe? Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have extensively checked the history of editing by Bullets and Bracelets and by known CensoredScribe sockpuppets, and there are far too many coincidences, so I have blocked Bullets and Bracelets. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick action on this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm late to the party but I concur with the analysis and support the action. Zad68 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase sigmabot III failed to create a page for two threads it was archiving and so 'lost' two threads. I'v notified the bot owner but as it was a one-off I just tried manually creating the page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Apr 1, to complete the task but I was was blocked by the spam filter objecting to the content I was trying to add. Probably needs an admin to do it and override it, or temporarily disable the filter. Look at the difference between the last changes to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Mar 1 for the two missing/unarchived threads.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: Admins don't have any special powers to override the spam blacklist. I've fixed the problem by replacing {{LinkSummaryLive}} with {{LinkSummary}}. Graham87 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems to be up with {{hat}}. On several pages today, I've clicked on the 'show' link and it just takes me to the top of the page. Anyone know what's causing this? GoldenRing (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reproduce. However, it sounds like a javascript problem. Try disabling any userscripts you may have running. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a little too long to post at WP:ANRFC, so...

There was a debate that seemed to start with this thread over whether pornographic film actresses with a common name should use the identifier (pornographic actress) or simply (actress). As is proven from the aforementioned thread, the result seemed to be the latter, shorter identifier. But...Number 57, an admin who possibly didn't see the result of that discussion (and who does appear to have been acting in good faith, mind you), closed two smaller related discussions ([37] [38]) in favor of the former, longer identifier.

After the Aja (actress) move, editors were directed to this discussion, which has stalled. Although I am clearly in favor of the shorter identifier, I am still requesting an uninvolved admin to re-assess the issue so the article titles can have consistency. The first time I submitted a move request, it was open for nearly a month; and, as you can see from that diff, I then posted it at ANRFC, and that request was then almost open for a month itself. (SN: I'm not sure if Number 57 even has any more interest in this, as s/he made no comments in this discussion that took place on his/her own talk page.)

There are also two more open move discussions that need assessing: [39] [40] Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would be simply solved by removing any article that is not sourced to reliable independent sources (the porn fans have redefined reliable and independent to allow them to include a number of unreliable sources with vested interests in the industry, because the vast majority of porn "stars" are not covered in the mainstream media at all). Guy (Help!) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Chess, is trying to sabotage an article. He nominated for deletion the page Kim Sawchuk after he saw that she argued against him (in another discussion - an article that got deleted). Even without the improvements that have been made since this nomination, the article was in accordance with the specific guidelines for the inclusion of academics. Therefore, this was personal revenge. Moreover, he infringed on the behavioral guideline to not bite the newcomers and is disruptive because he is trying to have the articles I created deleted before I have time to get more familiar with the guidelines and improve the articles. My proposal is ban him from editing this article + the talk page, and maybe other articles I created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Sawchuk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chess