Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 219 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 73 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 64 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 29 October 2024)

I genuinely don't care what the result is, as long as we have an actionable result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 40 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 11 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 10 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 relisted. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 16 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 74 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 65 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 63 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 23 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 27 days ago on 23 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• article protection log
• GeorgeLouis’s article edit history showing 280 edits or 21% of the total edits to the article
• Rhode Island Red’s article edit history showing 456 edits or 35% of the total edits to the article
• RFC about RIR closed with no consensus
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• edit-warring report
• There are more edit-warring reports, but I got tired of listing them all.
• ANI discussion about VanderSloot
• ANI discussion about VanderSloot
• BLPN discussion
• BLPN discussion
• BLPN discussion
• There are more BLPN discussions, but I got tired of listing them all.

I propose a topic ban on Frank L. VanderSloot‎ for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red based on the history above, which may not be complete. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of my 5 edits to the article and a couple of edits to the talk page last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to ban me based on a few old retributive edit warring reports (baseless reports filed by George Louis that led to nothing) and a failed witch-hunt RfC (filed by George Louis that led to nothing) in the absence of a compelling reason or a recent incident? I have to question your motives for filing this. I suspect a pre-emptive measure aimed at derailing my request to go to ArbCom to resolve the POV pushing by editors who appear to have a vested interest in the subject matter. Looks like you're picking up the torch and launching yet another ill-conceived witch-hunt (of course I am in no way defending George Louis and won't obstruct your efforts to ban him). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Wikipedia resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?

1. the article was locked as recently as February 13.
2. your last edit to the article was a revert of GeorgeLouis on February 23 (preceded by edit-warring between the two of you).
3. the last edit-warring report was on January 31 brought by you against GeorgeLouis (with this lovely opening salvo: "We’ve been having a chronic problem with GeorgeLouis over at the Frank Vandersloot page. Over the last couple of days (and over the past 8 months or so), the editor has made repeated attempts to blank reliably-sourced content from the article against consensus.").
4. the last ANI discussion was in the middle of February.
5. the last BLPN discussion was on January 21.

--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the evidence you presented falls on my shoulders nor does it remotely justify calling for a page ban against me. So what if I made an edit on Feb 13. It was a legitimate edit. The page wasn't locked because of me. The ANI was to resolve an editing dispute -- had nothing to do with my conduct. Yes, I filed an edit warring report against George and it was deemed that he was edit warring; how can you possibly try to twist that as evidence of misconduct on my part? That's ridiculous. Your blood lust is baseless. No admin would be foolish enough to not see through your paper thin premise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for RIR, waiting for comments from George before !voting on him. I think RIR's comments here are representative of his inability to recognize the results of his actions. Arkon (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that because I challenged the charge and the evidence presented, that's evidence that the charge is legitimate? What kind of ridiculous circular logic is that? 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support: I have felt on many occasions that this discussion is basically endless, and that any solution cannot be achieve without some kind of legitimate fork in the road we are all forced to follow. Ban everybody involved on all sides unless we can collaborate. I was deeply disappointed by the recent reversal of administrative decisiveness on this page purely because two editors on the losing side decided to make a fuss. This whole situation has made me lose faith in Wikipedia's ability to protect living people and deflect political bias. Makes me want to stick to artist only, and science pages and forget the entire side of Wikipedia dealing with businesses and businessmen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeremy, you have been very much involved at the core of several of the editing disputes. This might seem like convenient opportunity to take out the opposition with an unjustified page ban, but it won't work. It's shameful that you would even try such an underhanded tactic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply responding to the recommendation of another individual. If they felt I was a part of the problem too, I would go along with any request to pause, rewind, or move forward in a different method myself. I know that you have good intentions on Wikipedia and I do not doubt that at all, I in fact very much admire the pages you've chosen to take on, but I also think the intention of this proposal is constructive as well. I have tried to be constructive in all items I have posted regarding these situations. But how many hours of other people's time is this project going to continue to take? I think we can trust that the Wikipedia community at large is capable of handling this page effectively if we all left it alone.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support for RIR. Opinion reserved on GeorgeLouis pending a response. I followed the last several ANI's revolving around article and decided against commenting. This is a ultimately necessary step to stop the endless unconstructive bickering at that article. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly. Bickering is not a basis for calling for a page ban. Nor is the so called "bickering" confined to me and George; you seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that multiple parties have been involved, and yet you are trying to make it seem as though it's all somehow my fault that multiple parties are in disagreement. I've been saying for quite some time that the article and the actions of various POV pushers should go before ArbCom for resolution. My impression is that there are some ardent advocates of Vandersloot and Melaleuca who don't want that to happen, for fear of that the decision would not rule in their favor. This is a silly witch-hunt; nothing more. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.You got the wrong guy, officer, but thanks for posting this link to my edits. It shows clearly that I've made beaucoup recent edits on such controversial subjects as "Copy edit," "More copy edit," "Comma to set off appositive," "Impersonal, not personal pronoun," "Spell out approximate number," "Correct small number per MOS. Hyphens in 9-1/2 and in second-largest. Comma in compound sentence" and "Changing % to percent for concistency." Then there was the landmark "Correct capitalization," which amended the name of Vandersloot to the correct form VanderSloot (thirteen times!), which had been in the article — I don't know — maybe forever? We also have several instances of "Adding In Use Tag" and "Removing In Use Tag," not to mention "Link is now dead," "Adding a link that does not require payment," "Reverting self. Have to do more checking" and "Explaining what the Inc. 500 list is." Thanks again: It was fun going over my past edits in this one article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose RIR, leaning Support for GL; @GL, a couple of your "copyedits" were substantive, and a number of your substantive edits are wrong. A majority of your edits this year were removing material added by RIR or adding material removed by RIR, whether or not you were specifically reverting his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Wikipedia's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the words I'm talking about, obviously. And no one is calling your "edit count ... malfeasance". I'm talking specifically about you discounting the efforts of others, and blowing your own efforts out of proportion. That aside, I'm surprised that you insist that there is no hostility whatsoever to your words, perhaps you should recheck your phrasing before posting. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make light of this WP:ANI because I know how annoying it can be when confronted by what seems to be endless dispute in WP articles. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that I have been active in developing new Talk Page sections when requested, by RIR or by other editors, all with an eye to settling disagreements. Granted, because these are Talk Page changes, they may not have been included in the very comprehensive list of diffs submitted above by User:Bbb23.

• Wife contribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=528829649&oldid=528825896

• Add a subheader for ease of comprehension and editing; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=527573603&oldid=527573383

• Adding a marketing subsection entitled "Inverted pyramid vs. chronological

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=525083077&oldid=525079257

• Adding a new section on the Direct Selling Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=524652084&oldid=524647718

• Making subheaders for ease of editing and of comprehension. Hiding some off-topic comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

• Idaho ballot initiatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161

• New subheaders in Talk section, "Consensus" for ease of comprehension

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537308982&oldid=537307545

• Making additional subheaders so each editor would have his or her own subsection instead of having to share:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=536849148&oldid=536836231

GeorgeLouis (talk)

To get this discussion off dead center, I don't mind taking a four-week break from editing (I did this for some two weeks last December), so that others could improve the article. but I think the project would benefit from whatever I post on the Talk Page, even if it's just advice about correcting a spelling error.GeorgeLouis (talk)

• Oppose topic-banning either RIR or GL. Having watched the VanderSloot shenanigans for some time now, it seems to me that RIR is the most valuable contributor in terms of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article, and GL is prominent among users whose resistance to policy-compliant, reliably sourced content makes it hard not to wonder about agendas and motivations. I note, and agree with, Arthur Rubin's comments on GL's edits. Yet I don't think topic-banning GL would be helpful without also including the others who together form, whether by accident or design, a united front against content they apparently don't like. Might there be a mature, neutral, policy-savvy admin who has the balls to mediate the content disputes on the talk page? Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writegeist has an excellent point! If we can get that kind of administrative support on the page ... can we? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I get the sense that a topic ban per se isn't going to get sufficient support here to be adopted. To plant a seed for future consideration: what might help avoid disruption here is to impose a restriction on use of noticeboards w/rt this article: a prohibition on initiating a discussion at any noticeboard, and a prohibition on contributing more than twice (with each contribution <75 words) at any single discussion initiated by anyone else. Tweak the details, whatever, but the point is to restrict the drama to the article talk page and spare the larger number of people who participate at the noticeboards. Again, for future consideration perhaps -- and since I've been involved at the article myself, feel free to discount the entire suggestion on that basis alone if you like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I never discount anything you say. Although an interesting suggestion, I fear it would be almost impossible to implement. It would be almost like saying anyone can do whatever they please on the article, and no one can seek sanctions or even input about editors' actions. I suppose you could craft something that might be doable, but it would no doubt have to be an extended use of wikilegalese.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I meant it to apply only to the two editors in question here. The point is, there's enough attention on the page that if a genuine problem arises with one or the other someone is likely to raise it at a noticeboard -- but we wouldn't have to worry about frivolous or retaliatory reports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban on all "health products" related pages Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is. GL is not involved in that larger area, but RIR appears to be a strong SPA in that area. Collect (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to discussions of this sort really ought to indicate whether they have been involved at the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My last edit was removal of a blatant copyvio -- which RIR then reverted. [1]. AFAICT, using the exact words of a source without using quotes is a copyvio. And your point is? Ah -- that you also edit the article? I would point out that I noted the first RfC/U in which I made zero edits about articles in which I made zero edits. The fact is that RIR appears to have a strong interest in the topic I mentioned in which I have zero interest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Collect's statement above, RIR has indeed been quite active in other WP articles about companies that sell health-related products.

1. One of them was Juice Plus (in 2009). See these interchanges at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive204#Block_review_on_User:Jackie_JP and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Vicious_Personal_Attacks_by_Dubbawubba_.28moved_from_WQA.29. A check user request was denied in a matter involving this article, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rhode_Island_Red. A WP:Civility accusation was handled at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rhode_Island_Red.
2. RIR was also involved in editing USANA Health Sciences ("a Utah-based multilevel marketing company that produces various nutritional and skin-care products") and was involved in a WP:3RR complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User:Rhode_Island_Red_reported_by_User:Leef5_.28Result:_article_protected.29. Other activity is here and here, where on 8 September 2012 he insisted on adding the phrase multi-level marketing to the article in much the same way he has in the VanderSloot piece. He made a similar change to that article as recently as 8 February 2013, with the Edit Summary "It is an MLM and the primary term is MLM, not 'network marketing.' "
3. Rhode Island Red also submitted a fulsome notice regarding Amway at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Improper_synthesis_and_paraphasring_of_sources_on_Amway) on 14 May 2011.

I agree in advance that RIR may not have been alone in his wrongdoings anent those articles, but am submitting these links to support Collect's statement that RIR has had a history of heavy editing of health-related products. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Collect's 'Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is.' Hm. That RfC/U was way back in 2007: Comprehensive, detailed defence presented by RIR; numerous comments in his support; specious SPA allegation totally discredited; result: 'User agreed to take a break from editing the article' following another user's suggestion that he 'take a break from this article. Not as punishment, and not as an admission or acknowledgement that she has done anything wrong at all, but simply to gain experience in other articles and to take a break from this one.' (Emphasis added.) RIR then took a week's break. A six year-old RfC which ended without any critical result, action, punishment or requirement to acknowledge any wrongdoing at all is no more relevant here than Collect's own four year-old RfC/U alleging 'Collect is a tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and gaming the system/using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith.' (Result: 'User warned and restricted.')

On the face of it, RIR's Nov 2012 RfC/U might have more relevance, for being as recent as three months ago: Allegations: 'Civility [oh please], misuse of edit summaries [e.g. 'please stop removing reliable sources and don't edit war'—dangnabbit, the sonofabitch made a polite request! Off with his summaries!], soapboxing [specious allegation, citing a lone and patently non-soapboxy post [[2]], biting the newcomers [another utterly specious allegation from GeorgeLouis—not least because the "newcomer" in question had already been on WP for over three years]. Result: 'No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration,' And wait a minute, I'm trying to remember who were the certifiers who staged this farce . . . ah yes! None other than GeorgeLouis and Collect (the latter providing copious hot air and absolutely no diffs as 'evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute'). Their efforts to blame, shame and drive off RIR, viewed in the wider context of the concerted, long-running and futile campaign they have conducted against RIR across the VS talk pages and the drama boards, may be taken with a rather large pinch of salt. Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with what I write - now with what you wish. An RfC/U which was orchestrated by a banned user and votestacked with 14 people (including sock masters) from four years ago about an editor who is not being discussed here, is not of much import here. Is there any actual reason why you choose this moment to attack me personally?

[3] shows your exceedingly apparent anti-Mormon bigotry from the start.

Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements.

As does [4]

Adding comments and edit summaries that stir shit-storms in teacups is routine for users whose history shows a marked tendency to misrepresent others' comments. As a strategy to discredit others it is doomed to failure (yet its practitioners endlessly repeat the same strategy in the hope of a different outcome). Rather, it tends to discredit the shit stirrer. For example: suppose user A comments at the talk page of a BLP on Dick Head, a notable member of the polygamous Church of MoreYoni, that Dick, his current wife and his ex-wife all appear to reside at the same address; and suppose user A comments further that "MoreYonis have such cosy domestic arrangements." User B, who cannot see a wikiteacup without trying to stir a storm in it, deletes the comments and harrumphs about "blatant religious bigotry" in the edit summary. It's clearly a fatuous accusation, so why make it? Groundless accusations are often projections. If other users now check B's edit history and see that his contributions routinely convey an "obstinate or intolerant devotion to his own opinions and prejudices"--the very stuff of bigotry--the full extent of the irony will be evident to all.

Is quite sufficient evidence of one editor's animus to a specific religion, denigration of those who are members of that religion (unless one can not userstand what MoreYoni is, of course), and then pops here -- discussing an article ... about a member of that religion. And attacking everyone in his path <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, your taking blind pot shots, that have nothing to do with this thread, at Writegeist is further evidence of the inanity of this ban request thread. It's not going to go anywhere and it's not going to resolve any conflicts. I have on numerous occasions proposed ArbCom as the best and most resolute way to put and end to the animosity once and for all. If the disputants are truly acting in good faith, they should all relish the opportunity to present their case before ArbCom. However, I get the impression that you and George are resisting this option because you are assuming (correctly I would guess) that you wouldn't fare well, and that makes whining on the drama-boards a much more appealing option. I implore you, if you are serious about achieving resolution, accept this invitation to take the matter to ArbCom. If you're not, then piping down would be the appropriate course of action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist he comment Writegeist made was his edit at the VanderSloot article talk page - I fail to see how closer it could be to being relevant to a discussion about the VanderSloot article! Yet you think an edit at VanderSloot which is clearly bigotted has "nothing to do" with VanderSloot? How quaint! My edit here, moreover, was to note that you seem preoccupied with healt foods - which I would think is obvious from simply looking at your small number of articles unrelated thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not content with misrepresentation, 'one editor' has progressed to a rank lie. I challenge 'one editor' to provide a diff of the alleged 'MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" comment at the VanderSloot article talk page. I have made absolutely no comment there containing any, let alone all, of those words. Put up or shut up. Writegeist (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 'One editor' 's comments (lulz!). His reply to me has expelled enough hot air for a balloon ride over the Himalayas. One day 'one editor' might try stirring tea in a teacup for a change. (The choices are practically endless. Relaxing chamomile, for example, is thought to combat overstimulation, spasms and flatulence.) I note 'one editor' apoplectically objects to my mention of his RfC/U (which led to findings of EW, TE, DE, 'answering worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors', legal threats, wikilawyering, abusing sourcing policy and unevenly applying it to his own outlook and PoV, and making accusations without taking steps to find proof; which in turn led to his being warned and restricted), but conveniently misrepresents my comments by omission of their key point—namely the fact that, as I made crystal clear, I raised his RfC only to say that, despite it being more recent and having a much more serious outcome, it's as irrelevant here as his mention of RIR's, which led to neither warnings nor restrictions. 'One editor' objects that his RfC/U was not being discussed here until my comments alluded to it. Yet I cannot find any objection from him (did I miss it?) to his own comments when he resurrects RIR's much more ancient RfC, an episode which, until "one editor" mentioned it, was also not being discussed—for the simple reason that it, too, is irrelevant here.

The sad fact is that 'one editor' and GeorgeLouis et al. repeatedly pile on at the talk pages and drama boards in their vexatious attempts—always unsuccessful—to shut down RIR. It's time they stopped. RIR's resilience to the bullying thus far is highly commendable. A more timid soul would have been run off by now. His suggestion to put up at Arbcom or abandon the campaign altogether seems well-intended and worthy of consideration. Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Self-evident bigotry is hard to excuse. And calling a person a Dick Head, a MoreYon and a polygamist clearly passes the smell test. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MoreYoni. Not MoreYon (which has an altogether different sound and a derogatory implication—as of course 'one editor' knows, and which is why he wrote it.) Oh well, MoreMisrepresentation from 'one editor' is no surprise. It's a widely remarked stock-in-trade of 'one editor's' tendentious style of debate. Smell test? It stinks. Writegeist (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it remains a bigotted remark of the first water. And as I quoted your precise post above, I think you are now on fairly thin ice. (see Moroni]) Collect (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of precision is, shall we say, idiosyncratic. Persisting in a lie does not make it the truth, and it does nothing to serve your cause here. Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave your exact talk page post with the exact diff where you made the exact post: Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements. I take it you find making fun of religions and asserting that the "domestic arrangements" are "cosy" is somehow not as bigotted as others may see it? Collect (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented here that I made an edit using the words "MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" at the VanderSloot talk page. This is one lie. Another lie is that you have given a supporting diff. How many more toi come, Collect? Writegeist (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

|}

• Yes, for both. Clearly the article is not moving forward; there is way too much history and disruption here caused and furthered by these two editors. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly??? That's simply false. The article has in fact moved forward but not without considerable pain. What exactly does "too much history" mean. Seriously, at this point in the game we all need to be specific and not toss out vague straw man arguments. It's true that there has been "disruption" but it's quite inappropriate to pretend that I am somehow the root cause of the disruption; the assertion simply ignores the facts (and that multiple editors have been involved on both sides of the conflicts). I'll point out, once again, that I have repeatedly requested that we take this matter to ArbCom for greater scrutiny and a definitive resolution but the "other side" has cowered from the invitation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, but I don't remember ever seeing someone balk at the prospect myself reviewing the talk pages. Do you have specific links to where editors have specifically said that was a bad idea, other than Lord Roem who warned against its possible outcomes on all sides? Beyond this I can't think of a specific example where anyone has "cowered" (kind of a strong word), I just think most people haven't had enough interest in the idea to discuss it. I could be wrong of course, but do you have examples? Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you are already well aware, given that you have long followed the discussion threads, I have on at least half a dozen occasions strongly advised taking this matter to ArbCom. None of the combatants (i.e. the Vandersloot/Melaleuca advocates) on the article have even acknowledged let alone accepted the offer. Hence, I don't need to present any additional evidence that "your side" has cowered form the opportunity to resolve this through ArbCom. Instead, the preferred tactic has been to make sneaky attempts to work around that and hamstring me, such as filing baseless 3RR complaints, a pointless RfC (which you were involved in), and now this current witch-hunt. I think it's pretty obvious why these Melaleuca/Vandersloot advocates would try to roll the dice on a last ditch ploy like this one instead of opting for a process that would bring scrutiny to all involved parties, themselves included, and a long-lasting reasoned conclusion. So once again, I repeat the challenge. If there are any involved editors that still have a problem with the article's content, or user conduct, then let's go to ArbCom for final resolution. Show good faith and sincerity by accepting the offer. If they they aren't willing to do it, then there is no excuse for a resumption of edit warring and frivolous drama-board complaints. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't have a "side" :) I'm certain that you don't either as Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view, which should be somewhat universal, no? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was so light on substance I don't even know how to respond other than to point out that: (a) it could easily be argued, based on your past contribution with respect to Vandersloot, that you do have a side, and quite a consistent one; (b) the point of my comment was that ArbCom is the logical place to achieve a fair resolution and yet no one on your "side" has shown any interest whatsoever in pursuing this option, favoring instead malicious drama board complaints and ad hominem attacks that get us nowhere. Clear now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I still don't have a side :) As far as I'm concerned, the civility issue is the only thing I feel strongly about. The rest of the issues appear to be falling by the wayside with our continued efforts, although more slowly due to said lack of civility and cooperation--something that threatens all progress. So ending incivility or eliminating those who cannot bring themselves to be civil would be immensely helpful here, thus my initial comment. Again, one should not have a non-objective point of view on Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice that this thread has nothing to do with civility issues? GeorgeLouis tried that tack already, launching a witch-hunt RfC that you participated in. The conclusion was that civility wasn't the issue but rather content disputes and POV pushing; and ArbCom was recommended. So what you're pining for is to take a step backwards -- clearly not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you find civility unimportant? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Arbcom was not recommended by anyone but you at the RFC, and POV pushing was not concluded whatsoever. The conclusion of the RFC was that you had tried to become more civil, but that does not mean future incivility will be ignored. My opinion is that incivility is the root of the problems on the Vandersloot page, including a lack of respect for the opinions of others. I also see it as the root of the recommendation being discussed here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhode Island Red. Do you need support from other parties to file a request for arbitration? I am not very familiar with the arbitration process, but my impression is that people definitely get dragged to the ArbCom against their will. Also, as I get the impression that your primary goal of an ArbCom process, is to get an exposé of some COI issues you suspect are present; have you considered bringing it to the COI noticeboard first? - As for me, I wouldn´t necessarily oppose an ArbCom process, due in large part to the toxic climate between users that I find that the VdS and maybe related articles generate. (As on display in many of the comments above). Regardless of what might be true about the COI issues, I find this super-aggressive and contemptuous atmosphere to be a problem in itself, detrimental to the cause of Wikipedia, which is building an encyclopedia in a constructive cooperation. An important part of an ArbCom case, imo, would thus be to restore some basic civility and a minimum of respect between involved users. (I partly tend to think of Wikipedia as a workplace, and if Wikipedia were a real-life workplace in Norway, I believe the labour inspection authorities would have demanded that something was done to better the workplace environment.) With regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, although I can't speak with any authority for all countries, I venture a guess that if Wikipedia were a "real-life workplace" in almost any country, a good deal of what goes on here wouldn't be tolerated. But that's apparently the price you pay for a virtual anarchistic democratic bureaucracy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of issues to be addressed; e.g. POV pushing, tendentious/disruptive editing, sock puppetry, harassment, COI, collusion/tag-teaming, wasting resources/endless debate, etc. No one should have to be dragged to ArbCom at this point; they should go willingly because it's the fairest way to achieve resolution. Those who have issues of any kind can air them before ArbCom secure in the knowledge that the case will be reviewed by the most experienced and impartial WP admins available, free from the contaminating influence of the rabble. It's the logical place to resolve the issues because the drama-boards have, for the most part, magnified the problems. I greatly resent the shifty efforts of a few POV pushers to hamstring me through these relentless backhanded assaults. These actions do not in any way resemble a good faith effort to achieve resolution and harmony; it's simply a case of trying to take out a productive editor who they don't like because their POV pushing is being met with resistance (and not just by me alone but by numerous editors). So there you have it. The invitation still stands, but I doubt know that any of the involved parties will accept it because they are banking on this ad hominem attack to do the trick; knowing full well that they wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance of prevailing in an ArbCom case and that they would then be out of rope. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an indefinite page ban for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red from the Frank L. VanderSloot article and Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot talkpage. Conduct by both is poor enough on that article and talk, but I don't currently see any need for a broader topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I see. So even though this complaint is devoid of evidence, and despite the fact that my conduct on the Vandersloot article has been carefully and routinely scrutinized (due to GeorgeLouis's near weekly complaints on the drama-boards) and I have never been found to be guilty of misconduct, you're suggesting that the outcomes and lack of evidence should be ignored and that I should be banned just for the hell of it? Since when does vigilante justice trump due process on Wikipedia? I'm suggesting that this case go to ArbCom so that a fair decision can be reached without witch-hunters contaminating the process. There's no reason to demand blood and circumvent that the resolution process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to lecture about civility next. Not exactly a shining role model are you?[5] Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to all editors about Wikihounding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An off topic non sequitur. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has requested a review of their block User_talk:3abos#Blocked that has gone almost a day without a response. Can someone take a look at it? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a long time. I've unblocked, since as far as I can tell this user's problems (aside from a misunderstanding about the username itself) have all been on LGBT-related topics, and the user's essentially pledged a self-imposed topic ban. I'm not particularly convinced by statements from others such as "The suggestion that there is no neutrality, only a dictatorship of the majority, is battleground stuff" — Wikipedia is deeply non-neutral in multiple places, and that's why I am careful to stay in uncontentious areas like historic preservation. Of course, I've warned him to be extremely careful to stay away from the topic, since I don't believe he'll be able to avoid controversy when editing there, but I don't see comparable problems arising as long as he's working elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a sec ... I declined an unblock at 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC), and he filed a new one at 3abos (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC) ... how is that "a long time", and what changed in his request between my decline and his new request? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of remember this guy. Judging by his edit history, he was here principally to promote a homophobic point of view, and rather incompetently too. No way I'd have unblocked somebody with this track record under almost any circumstance. Even if he doesn't touch sex-related stuff, his edits reflect a general lack of competence and ability to understand our principle of neutrality that makes me believe that most of his edits are not likely to improve Wikipedia. (Just compare only his most recent edit to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Forced image size.)  Sandstein  21:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:DDE and WP:BAN (which says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ") leads me to post here. What if I have noticed that over the long term, an unusually large fraction of one users edits appear to be disruptive, tendentious, hostile, and/or edit warring, though blatant 3RR violation is avoided, and I see imposition of 1RR or full block would be a solution, as many users have left the user constructive feedback, but it's clear from the responses that it falls on deaf ears, as it is often removed or hatted? What if he is arguing with many editors in ways that frequently lead to well-founded accusations of policy violations, and the rule, rather than the exception, is that the user refuses to get the point - whether it is a clear explanation of how policy applies or does not apply to a particular edit or series of edits? If I posted the offending user's name and request action, them I'm wondering if it'd be appropriate to notify users that have offered the user constructive feedback, or that I see as recent victims of the editor, or if that counts as a violation of the [[WP:CANVAS|canvassing]] guideline. I would think that sending a neutral notice to the last n posters to the users talk page would be appropriate, and 'improve the quality of the discussion' by but thought I'd ask here first. Of course, I'd notify the editor, provide diffs, etc. Or perhaps it would be best just post here or to AN/I, and hope the user didn't do his own stealth canvassing, and trust that the users edits would likely be enough to bury him. --Elvey (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a tricky issue. I would say that such notifications would count as canvassing, because no matter how neutral your notices are, they would be going to a non-neutral group of recipients. But, certain other rules can trump WP:CANVASS. For instance, if you posted a thread about them here, and mentioned their interactions with other editors, you would be obliged to provide notices. Likewise, anyone watching their talk page, likely including editors they have had past negative interactions with, will likely see and investigate your notification of taking them to what ever venue you end up taking them to. AN and AN/I are also active enough venues that it would be hard to canvass enough people to matter without red flags going up. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey appears to have taken your comment as approval to assemble a lynch mob, in the sense that he has notified five other editors who might be seen as anatagonistic to me in a complaint he has filed (below). (And in two cases forgot to sign his notice.) Only one of those editors matches someone that has "offered the user constructive feedback" (though on a different matter), and only one other is involved in the matters he complains of. The others have had no involvment in the matters complained of (see Talk:Earthquake prediction), and appear to have been included only on the basis of partisanship. In fact Elvey's question is not truly general, and certainly not neutral, but was asked in connection with a specific issue, with an ulterior purpose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unilaterally reversed a block placed by two oversighters relating to the repeated posting of personal information. Kevin failed to obtain agreement for the unblocking from either the oversighters or the Arbitration Committee prior to doing so. Accordingly, Kevin is temporarily desysopped in accordance with Level II procedures for removing administrative tools. The unblock of Cla68 (talk · contribs) is to be reversed until Cla68's appeal is addressed by the Arbitration Committee.

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, Courcelles, Hersfold, David Fuchs, SilkTork, Timotheus Canens
• Oppose: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Kirill Lokshin, NuclearWarfare
• Not voting: AGK, Risker, Roger Davies, Worm That Turned
• Inactive: Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on Oversight-related blocks. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the general discussion section.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 07:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recall from several years ago a particular admin who was very forth coming about his beginning on Wikipedia as a vandal. He had posted a piece about his conversion, that still impacts my decisions today. I can't recall the name, nor do I seem to have made note of the piece. The essay The motivation of a vandal mentions the propensity of conversion but lacks references to specific persons. While it would not be my intent to point fingers, the particular person I am thinking of was not shy about sharing. If they would consent to being used as an example on the essay, and possibly reminding me where they posted the piece so I could reference it in the future that would be great. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're thinking of Rootology, but I don't think he is currently active (although I haven't checked recently); at least under that particular account. — Ched :  ?  18:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

update: Now a redirect to User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing — Ched :  ?  18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure if it was them or someone else, not finding the piece I remember, thanks for responding. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin close my RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have define the wrong scope of the issue and posted it at the wrong page. I would like to withdraw my RFC nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Hijiri88, formerly Elvenscout742, announced he was leaving Wikipedia after being told by his employers he could no longer edit during breaks from work. The timing is distressing, as some time ago, now banned editor JoshuSasori threatened Hijiri about editing Wikipedia at work; Joshu was permanently blocked for this, but continues to disrupt Wikipedia with sockpuppets. I post this here to let other admins know what we're dealing with as we continue to handle JoshuSasori.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens... This doesn't look good at all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please semi-protect Cüneyt Çakır now? I've already filed a request for semi-protection but it's taking some time and things are getting out of hands.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive: Sarek and I practically fell over each other in our hurry to protect. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. It's seldom a hurry at Wikipedia, but with 4-5 IP-insults per minute, and probably more to come when the game finishes, I thought it best to fix it fast. Thanks for the fast action!Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages: Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

Earthquake prediction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk:Earthquake prediction (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),

User being reported: J._Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notices have been sent to J._Johnson, Readin, Ronz, NewsAndEventsGuy, Ego White Tray, J. Johnson.

Attempts to resolve disputes on article talk page: Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2, (and Talk:Earthquake_prediction).

Comments:

Reading WP:DDE and WP:BAN (which says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ") leads me to post here. I have noticed that over the long term, an unusually large fraction of JJ's edits appear to be disruptive, tendentious, hostile, and/or edit warring (though blatant 3RR violation is avoided).

He is aggressively arguing with many editors in ways that frequently lead to well-founded accusations of policy violations, and the rule, rather than the exception, is that he refuses to get the point - whether it is a clear explanation of how policy applies or does not apply to a particular edit or series of edits. Multiple attempts by multiple editors to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed. JJ's apparrent level of comprehension of comments directed toward him is so low I frequently find it indicative of refusal to get the point, that is, WP:IDHT, W:CIR.

An unusually large fraction of JJ's edits are to Talk pages, and an unusually large fraction of those talk page edits are hostile comments toward fellow editors.

Proposed Sanctions

I see imposition of 1RR as a solution; many users have left the user constructive feedback, but it's clear from the responses that it falls on deaf ears, as it is often removed or hatted.

If that's not an option available to admins, then a full block indefinitely, or for a while, may unclog the ears, so to speak. WFM. Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The summaries (and links to edit diffs) at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history and comments on Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2 by JJ are hardly anything but example after example of WP:disruptive editing by JJ!

WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not justify JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits to Earthquake prediction, and similar articles!

The edit summaries alone at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history show that everyone else is wrong, and JJ is right, according to JJ; you don't even need to look at the diffs:

1. "Removed POV nonsense" - JJ to Readin, who asked for civility.
2. "Bah. Waste of time, collapsing" - JJ to Ronz,
3. To NewsAndEventsGuy's"Battleground alert, again": (post-">20" incidents...so eloquent!): <ignored>, after "where in WP:BATTLEGROUND does it say there is an exception for [a] "little" piling on?"
4. <again> "Removing empty section I don't have time to prepare." - JJ to Ego White Tray - More evidence JJ thinks this is 'his' article, in violation of WP:OWN.
5. (This requires viewing at least a snippet of the diff.) The comment summary, What is "adequate proof"?: Why? is the best - in response to Inamos and Dave souza, JJ's reply includes, ""adequate" is whether the person addressed is persuaded. Well, your original arguments did not persuade me, so by that criterion: not adequate.". This goes a long way to explaining the "logic" behind most of JJ's edits.

(If someone wants to be pedantic and insist on actual diffs rather than the format above, let me know here and I'll add links to the above 5 diffs.)

JJ fails to understand simple things - JJ doesn't believe that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Rather, he INSISTs that I MUST prove that "Coren's findings are notable", or allow his removal of them from Earthquake prediction to stand, and even berates me for my belief. He seems to believe that unless he's convinced a change is correct, he should keep it out of Wikipedia, policy be damned. He even goes so far as to insist on keeping out ANY MENTION of this esteemed scientist's published study from being mentioned because its "scientific notability" has not been established (despite multiple news reports about it),and (!) it is not <sic> a reliable source. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ has insisted that it is out of place in an article on the fringe/proto-science of earthquake prediction because of WP:FRINGE - as if the article on the Flat Earth theory should not talk about the main claims in support of that theory either! Please note, I don't see this as a content dispute at all; I happened to find this Coren article interesting, I added it.

Of the last 150 edits to Earthquake_prediction, 68 are by JJ. His edits are in 16 contiguous blocks, 12 of them -that is, all but 4 of his edit blocks contain reverts by him, of half a dozen different editors' attempts to improve 'his' article. (Several are hidden; they are not tagged "Undid revision", but can be found by looking at char deletion counts and edit summaries.)

Even where JJ is mainly right content-wise, he's mainly in the wrong, hostility and policy-wise (e.g. Re. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).

To understand why my editing is productive, see Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Distinguished_from_productive_editing. And, I welcome constructive feedback; I know I'm not perfect. --Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across earthquake prediction one day and started a discussion about mostly cosmetic and style changes. I don't know the topic well, so I won't speak to content issues. My notes about inappropriate tone, off-topic content and excessive quote boxes were first accused of being the act of a sockpuppet (since an IP had recently placed the same tags that JJ removed for no reason), and my arguments were pretty much ignored. I faced a whole lot of strawman arguments, some outright ludicrous ("if you are not interested in statements of scientists..." appears in Archive 2). My suggestion to take quotes out of quote boxes and move them into prose was equated with deleting them altogether, something I never said. JJ then removed the tag for no other reason that I hadn't commented in 10 days. My statement that I understood what he was trying to do was equated with agreement (it wasn't).

I hope that JJ can learn to ignore the small stuff and let it be. JJ, give WP:FUCK a good read. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, is this the right place for an ANI regarding editor behavior? Last, I note that editors who have voiced negative feedback to JJ were notified. Since it is at least possible that there are many editors on the various article talk pages who might feel differently, but were not notified, one might wonder whether I feel inappropriately canvassed? And I might say that I do.... if I gave a WP:FUCK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just noticed Elvey's preliminary inquiry about canvassing, and would just like to thank him/her for thinking about it up front. Like the answer you got said....it is a tricky issue. No worries here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing conflict over articles relating to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar which arose out of this FT/N discussion. The problem, from my perspective, is quite vexing: Sarkar and some of his organizations/theories are influential in India, and there were some political scrapes he and they got into, so the frequent FT/N "delete all of it" response is not called for. What we have, though, is a mass of promotional articles written apparently by followers from primary sources within the movement, and attempts to get some of these articles deleted or merged (e.g. those for each of the books Sarkar wrote) brought on a very strong backlash from a few editors, plus responses from a bunch of new SPAs. This led to the above SPI, which was inconclusive, but which hasn't been closed; instead, it has turned into a clearing house for keeping score on the various articles and people on both sides. This seems to me to have become utterly nonconstructive, and I ask that it be closed ASAP. But I could also use some advice/criticism about taking this forward. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Launchballer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user who was blocked in 2009 requests an unblock. I feel that this request should be accepted, but also feel that it's something that needs to be decided by the community. Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblocking I'm a fan of additional chances, and in light of the scope and nature of the past disruption, I think 3+ years is long enough that another chance would be fair. That they requested an unblock, rather then just resuming to edit under a new account, that would be difficult to link to them after such a long time, also speaks well for them. Assuming there is no evidence to contradict the 3+ years of respecting the block, I support an unblock. Monty₈₄₅ 15:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock. What Monty845 said. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course unblocks are cheap. NE Ent 16:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support unblock. We have rope, so why not use it? If they resume their disruptive behavior, someone can always reblock them. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I am doing a workshop and an edit-a-thon this weekend - Wikipedia:Meetup/University of Oregon - and Friday I'm doing a workshop where I'm attempting to teach about 40 people how to edit Wikipedia. They'll be making accounts and so forth, and most will be using computers provided by the University of Oregon. I've heard about people having horror stories of IP's being blocked for this type of thing, so, I'm just letting ya know ahead of time. People will chose their own usernames (aka no institutional names or whatever), and are making good faith edits (we'll be stopping by the Teahouse, for example and working in sandboxes). So...just a heads up! Please don't block us :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I also might be making a good faith sockpuppet to explain how to create an account. I'll probably call it User:SarahStierch2 or something. So no, I'm not going to be doing it in bad faith . Thanks again. SarahStierch (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum, file a bugzilla request with the specific IPs that need the account creation limit to be lifted. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she was asking for help; I read it as being simply a "don't wonder what's going on" notice. Sarah's an admin, so she can create unlimited accounts; if they hit the creation limit, she'll be able to create them herself. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing the following user Ricky072 be topic banned from all articles relating to Rangers F.C the user only really edits these types of articles, and currently there is a content dispute, which never involved this editor at first, but they decided to join in when the editors who had the dispute had reached a agreement and consensus on how to resolve the issue, they then joined in and opposed the change, and have made it clear they have no intentions to comprise so basically being disruptive i quote the user "'m not willing to compromise - we have 2 editors here who have dedicated themselves to being a disruptive as possible without foundation on the basis they did not get their own way in the "new club" or "phoenix club" deabte." the full discussion can be found here Talk:Rangers_F.C.#So_now_we.27re_reporting_each_other.

As can be seen here from there contritions, Ricky072 (talk · contribs) they are mostly on the article above and any article relating to it, and the odd edit to the club rivals article.

There is two other users who might have to be reported for a topic ban as well, as these 3 editors are preventing a consensus and being disruptive as it does not suit there POV. I accept i did warn the editors i would do this but i did give them the chance to try and resolve it and not to be so obsrutive but the editor/editors are choosing to be. I really did not want to go down this route but believe there is is no other choice given the editor attuide such that a consensus will not be reached

PS i did spell check but it never offered the words i was trying to spell feel free to fix it Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User informed nowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've in no way breached any Wikipedia guidelines - I simply stated in the talk pages i didn't think facts should be 'compromised' to appease disruptive users. This is a case of over-zealousness from Andrew who acts as if he is some kind of Wikipedia authority. Ricky072 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please read wp:truth the same policie that i reminded the editors who where pushing a new club agenda wikipedia is not about truth only what reliable sources say, reliable sources say what the editors who had the dispute in the first place and they reacha comprise but that comprise is not to you POV. you might have breeched WP:3rr ive not checked. Again i am not any authority or admin or anything i am merely makign sure the article sticks to policies and it can come to FA eventally but this sort of dispute can hold that back.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]