Hosta

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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 366 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 119 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 93 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard~~/Archive 439~~. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} ~~19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)~~ 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 69 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 67 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 61 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [3] [4]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 46 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 45 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 43 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 42 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 44 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	6	17	61	84
TfD	0	2	4	6
MfD	0	1	4	5
FfD	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	10	28	38
AfD	0	0	2	2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 74 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 71 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 71 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 70 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 65 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 64 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 63 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 53 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 51 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 51 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 49 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 47 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 61 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 45 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 25 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 20 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024

(Initiated 19 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 14 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 13 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal

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

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

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

If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here:

Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

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

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

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

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

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

Appeal of topic ban

A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.

This is a link to discussion regarding my last ban appeal which was closed as "no consensus" because editors who participated in it did not appear to reach consensus to remove or alter the ban. At my last ban appeal I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime the list is much longer with 69 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closing statement for the last discussion said "I recommend Antidiskriminator try again in a few months and demonstrates an understanding of why the ban is in place beyond "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me"." - Can you demonstrate an understanding of why the ban was placed? This request, again, only states that you were topic banned. Sam Walton (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. I explained that in my last appeal, but little further in the text. Here it is: "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me....The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). " Although most of the votes for the ban come from editors that I have been in conflict with, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas by strictly following wikipedia policies and avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67

I appreciate that Antid is entitled to choose to appeal here as an alternative to AE, but the behaviour he was banned for was done under AE/ARBMAC. As someone who has had many extremely frustrating interactions with Antid over a couple of years, mostly on talk pages, but also in article creation, titling and similar issues, I have little confidence that Antid will have learnt his lesson, as the last time a topic ban was proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted in 2012 by EdJohnston, Antid went straight back to the same behaviour (which is why this ban imposed by Drmies is in place now). His initial approach above avoided even describing the topic ban or why it was imposed. If I was appealing, I would consider it necessary to demonstrate that I completely understood why I had been topic-banned, before asking for the ban to be lifted. He chose not to do that, and it had to be drawn out of him. It would also ensure admins could quickly understand what he thought it was imposed for. He also doesn't appear to accept that those that supported the ban and opposed its lifting last time had a case. He appears to think it is some sort of personal vendetta against him.

Since his last appeal, he may well have been productive in the Ottoman Empire period of Serbian history (pre-1900), but any productivity and acceptable wikibehaviour in that time period does not imply that he can achieve that in later time periods, which are far more contested, and I caution admins that if this ban is lifted, they need to be willing to consider a more stringent or even indefinite topic ban if he returns to his previous behaviour. I also think that Antid should be required to provide "behaviour references" from editors working in the area he is apparently productively editing in, including ones he has had disagreements with.

In the interests of fairness, and to give him some benefit of the doubt (something which I have had in short supply with him for several years due to his behaviour), I would be willing to support a small extension of the time period from 1900 to 1913 so that he can edit in the topic area period including the pre-World War I Balkan Wars. As far as his interest in the Ottoman Empire is concerned, this gives him everything except the period 1914-1918. I may live to regret this, but how about a modification of the topic ban to read "a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1914-current' (broadly construed)". Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A probation period might be useful. I hope you guys are willing to act if he stays true to form, because you don't deal with him on a daily basis when he is free to roam the Balkans at will. Easy to AGF and agree to lift, but sometimes, when it comes to taking action against a recidivist who re-offends, all we can hear is crickets... So I'll ping you all if (when) he does. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a point on the much- loved ROPE essay. Under "When not to use" it says "If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the switch" and *Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom"... So, not so much. I'm out. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is unlikely to be of much use. Most of Antid's most egregious behaviour was on talk pages rather than articles. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Antid addresses the concerns expressed by myself and others, showing he truly understands what he was doing wrong before and how he will avoid doing it in the future, I am moving to Oppose. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion which resulted in Antid being banned from the Pavle Djurisic article is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator, so no-one here can argue they didn't know his history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on lifting the ban

I am comfortable with lifting the restriction on the basis that if the problem recurs, we can always re-impose it. It might be an idea to have a "probation" period during which any recidivism can go straight back to a restriction without the need for further debate. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting of restriction per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two guys in a row...that's suspicious. Hmm. I personally have no real objection and am a firm believer in rope, though that has a somewhat negative figurative value. I'm somewhat biased, of course, since I think "Antidiskriminator" has a pretty cool (if kocky) user name. Dr. "Not A Guy" mies (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote that ROPE essay is a certified genius. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

& a tad Vainglorious to boot. ;) --64.85.217.37 (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This request is pretty unconvincing. When asked to explain what led to the topic ban Antidiskriminator simply quotes themselves, and then blames being banned on "editors that I have been in conflict with": even if this is the case, to have got so many editors who are in good standing so seriously offside demonstrates that this wasn't some kind of vendetta, and implying that this was the case here as part of their request to have the topic ban lifted is a rather bad sign. Their "plan" to avoid the problems which led to the ban is also basically a motherhood statement which provides no details on how they will avoid the problems (for instance, by staying away from certain articles, adopting a voluntary 1RR restriction, making appropriate use of dispute resolution, looking for a mentor, etc). Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think a probation period and the 1RR are necessary to promote good behaviour. These topics have been very stable for the past year, I don't want to be dragged into conflicts yet again. As to whether the ban should be lifted or not, I don't think it is my place to say. IJA (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does Antidiskriminator understand why he/she was banned in the first place? Antidiskriminator hasn't given any examples as to why he/ she was blocked. Instead Antidiskriminator has stated that he/she was blocked because his/her edits were "seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)". Antidiskriminator has basically said that he/she was blocked because other users viewed his/her edits as being "disruptive" and has listed a few examples of disruptive behaviour. Antidiskriminator still hasn't acknowledged any wrongdoing on his/her behalf. Whilst I support his/her right to appeal the ban, I'm not entirely convinced that Antidiskriminator understands why he/she was banned. I get the feeling that Antidiskriminator still believes that he/she was blocked because other editors were prejudice towards him/her (which is obviously not the case). I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator understands his/her wrong doing. I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator has learnt his/her lesson. Saying that other users viewed his/her edits as being disruptive, then listing a few examples of general disruptive behaviour is not sufficient. Perhaps Antidiskriminator could give us some examples of his/her wrong doing and explain why it was wrong? This way we can tell if the lesson has been learnt. IJA (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see little in the way of assertion, let alone evidence, of reform here. AD was banned from the topic area because he was wikilawyering, and he now promises to strictly adhere to policies. I seem to recall that that's sort of exactly what happened the last time - he used every method imaginable that stayed roughly within the realm of a cursory interpretation of the policies, while still pushing his POV and gnawing at our collective patience. Just for example, we need to hear exactly what he would now do at the article about that Serbian general, I forget the name, who got that Nazi decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD), where he was banned from the talk page earlier and where his actions had led to a huge amount of acrimony. Explanation of any other specific example would be good, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to comment other editors (ie their ethnicity) on wikipedia Joy?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy - The name of the General is Pavle Đurišić.
@AD - No one commented on ethnicity, Serb is the name of the ethnic group, Serbian people refers to people associated with Serbia regardless of ethnicity.
@AD - Don't avoid what is being said by intentionally going off top and changing the subject, that is the sort of tactic and behaviour which got you topic banned. IJA (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether Joy is right or wrong to raise Antid's ethnicity, Antid immediately goes into wikilawyering mode, but makes no response on how he would deal with the issues he no doubt still has regarding the Pavle Đurišić article, which is the one Joy is refe rring to. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning ethnicity or rather the nation is perfectly pertinent here, because the topic area of the ban is strictly nationally defined. And I've no idea whatsoever why it would be disallowed to say that this historical person is Serbian or that that there are modern-day Serbian people who think something other than the consensus about that. That was one of the flash points in the disputes that led to earlier bans and this ban. I see no point in anyone second-guessing me trying talk about it, it would be an assumption of bad faith. Maybe AD is concerned that since he's not allowed to edit about the topic area generally, he's also not allowed to talk about it here? I'm pretty sure there's an exemption for that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that very much. He's wikilawyering about you raising his ethnicity in this context. I agree it is relevant, but I don't think it is necessary. He has worked against the lifting of the ban through his reticence to explain the real reasons why he was banned and by failing to address what he would do to avoid a recurrence. No doubt the page on which he lists all the things he doesn't like about various articles still exists, along with the list of articles he has quarantined himself from after being called out for his disruptive behaviour and wikilawyering. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He actually went the extra mile at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors. If it needs to be said at this point, I implore the community not to lift the ban on this egregious abuser. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Joy, they did, and everyone is welcome to see the exchange there. They will also see that I said that I think you have a serious problem if you can't distinguish between POV and heritage. I think that your commenting and speculating on someone's ethnicity is distasteful as well as wrong, if it's used to base a judgment on: you're suggesting "AD is a Serb so they got a Serbian POV". Listen, if you cannot make the point about a POV from the edits, if you have to go by way of ethnic hypothesis, then you should lose the argument. Talk about edits, not about the editor. Consider this a warning: hypothesizing about an editor's ethnicity inasmuch as you think it commandeers their POV is a lack of AGF, and thus blockable. Now zip it, and make an actual argument. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made an argument, but because I used completely trivial terminology that can be misconstrued as an appeal to ethnic bias, you ignored it. The ethnicity, nationality, location and whatever other property of those people advocating the disruption of the Pavle Đurišić article is immaterial. The fact that it happened and may continue to happen in the future unless this is cleared up - is what is important in this discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JFTR I explained further at User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors now. Let's link the old discussion here too: Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy. That is about the "decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD)" from above. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been invited to comment by Antidiskriminator, so here's my 2c. I found myself on the receiving end of inappropriate conduct from the user on numerous occasions, and we've had disagreements more than once to say the least - but even so: support lifting the ban. While he isn't quite grovelling outright, my impression is he's serious. Plain and simple. That, and I can't bring myself to condone Joy's draconic "Purges", the standard vitriol notwithstanding. If he's stupid enough to actually continue in the same vein then I say t-ban him for good. Move that be made clear in any lifting of the sanction. Best regards to all (yes, even you Joy :)). -- Director (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I was actually into draconic purges, perhaps I would have purged some of your meaningless flamewars over the years, but as we can see you're still here to flame me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just zip it with the personal stuff. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ban was introduced at his request, I don't think its "flaming" to point out Joy may be abusing his admin cred and going too far, demanding bans left and right. In fact - mostly "left", usually for those at odds with a Croatian right-wing point of view. Whereas he will defend his own to the point of distaste... As he (imo) made clear even in this thread, he is far from free of local ethno-political bias. -- Director (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Director, we have been on the same and different sides of arguments in the past, but in the recent past you have not been the one who has been dealing with Antid when he returns to type. Joy (and I) do, along with Tomobe03 and 23 editor. And others like IJA. It's nice that you (and others) think Antid should be given even more rope than he's already had from two increasingly-wide topic bans, but you won't be there dealing with it. I have no interest in nationalism on any side in the Balkans, and I am on the same page (if not the same paragraph) as Joy on this one. Far from grovelling, Antid shows no signs of contrition whatsoever, and has outlined no plan to avoid the same behaviour as got him banned in the past (twice). On that basis alone, he should be subjected to a "one strike and you're out" probation period at best, and retention of the t-ban as it is at worst. Please keep your conflicts with Joy out of this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really am. Peacemaker, this guy has been hammered twice: If he's a marginally sentient being, he'll know to shut up and behave. If not, I say lower the boom on him. You absolutely have a point, I haven't been there recently, and I won't be dealing with him if he gets back (you know I appreciate the damage control you do) - but I'm NOT suggesting you be forced to deal with more of his disruption. If he starts again, you ought to be able to put a stop to it by the quick procedure. Hence, like I said: he seems serious, he seems like he cares about not getting further sanctions. Put him on probation, two years, something like that. And take this into consideration: if he really is as dumb as all that, he'll receive harsher, more appropriate sanction.

Then again, you are right in that it would make everyone more comfortable if Antid does actually SAY he understands why he's been sanctioned, and that he WILL ACCEPT the community position when opposed. Antid? It doesn't look good at all, otherwise. -- Director (talk) 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either I am abusing my admin cred and going too far, or I am not. There is no may. May is just being tendentious. And accusing me of such a misdeed without evidence is casting aspersions. Typical Internet flaming, really, but prohibited by Wikipedia policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact, why don't you propose a topic ban? Its not like your accusations of my "flame-warring" are in any way unsubstantiated or inflammatory in and of themselves.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that my using the (grossly provocative) word "may", might have something to do with the fact that that isn't my call to make? As for evidence, I think you may have done a decent job of displaying your bias on your own in this thread.

But now, in the best traditions of flame-warring, I think I'll withdraw from this discussion. At least with yourself. Bye. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

There is a need for administrator attention at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I tried to contact multiple administrators on their talk pages but most of them never respond . I would like somebody to please respond to this message. Thank you. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3C9D:FF61:8557:B43B (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin response) One incident of vandalism will almost never result in admin action. You reverted the vandalism, and warned the editor, that's about all that needs to be done at this point. If more incidents occur, report them to AIV, but one isolated incident is unlikely to get the IP blocked. BMK (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not delete closed vandalism reports at WP:AIV. I know that you thought that you were being helpful because of your comment that they take up space. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, in that deletion doesn't save space, because nothing is ever really deleted. Leave the closed vandalism reports to be archived by a bot. You meant well but were being unintentionally disruptive. If it hadn't been for your edit summary, your own edit would have been reported as vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, your comment was addressed to the IP and not to me, yes? BMK (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, was Beyond My Ken being bad again? Can I plz blck thm? Drmies (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be honored to be blocked by the good doctor whenever they find it needful. BMK (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was addressed to the IP. I don't have a current issue with BMK. The IP deleted closed vandalism reports thinking that they took up space. This was enthusiastic but uninformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The AIV reports are not archived by the helper bot, they're simply removed if the vandal is blocked. The declined reports have to be removed manually. I do this whenever I pop into AIV and it's backed up with declined reports.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Okay. In that case, the IP was doing no harm and a small amount of good in removing the declined reports. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for arbitration enforcement requests to have a more flexible focus

The template for submitting an AE request is currently geared to accept only a single name, with that name becoming the title of the AE request. Though a title can always be changed, there has nonetheless arisen a custom of one-person-per-case at AE. This has several disadvantages:

It may induce a "pillory effect", with the title encouraging onlookers to put in their two cents on the individual in question, regardless of whether the input is relevant to the specifics of the case.
The subject of an AE request may be unfairly singled out from other editors involved, despite a general understanding that WP:BOOMERANG applies.
In a recent case where several editors submitted boomerang evidence, the case was closed with the suggestion that a separate AE request be made for the boomerang. This is a problem because:
- Those who submitted boomerang evidence are expected to be around to resubmit their evidence, assuming they somehow discovered that they need to do so.
- The summary dismissal of evidence may emit a contemptuous vibe; editors may not bother resubmitting even if they are available.
- With the decline in admin participation at AE, cases nowadays can drag on for weeks. Having boomerangs submitted separately only prolongs the process.
- AE requests are sometimes discounted or weighted less if they appear retaliatory. Thus there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation: submit boomerang evidence in the self-same case, and it gets dismissed as needing a separate case; submit it as a separate case, and it gets dismissed as retaliatory.
Having situations be the focus of enforcement requests will help engender the understanding that multiple editors may deserve scrutiny. The title and focus of an AE request may still be a single person, but that should not be a requirement, or the default.
Practically speaking, this proposal only amounts to modifying {{Sanction enforcement request}} and related templates.

Manul ~ talk 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this makes good sense. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed feelings. While this makes sense in many ways, from a practical standpoint I'm concerned that it could lead to more sprawling cases that are harder to evaluate. Cases already linger for weeks before finally being acted upon (or going stale). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The spinning off of multiple boomerang cases, as was recently done, looked disruptive to me, and almost surely resulted in more delay. I understand the point about sprawl, but spawning new yet closely related cases seems to be a worse instance of sprawl. Since admins should be following the related cases in order to understand the relationship between them, and since we don't want new admins to come in without that context, it seems better to have one case instead. A case can be organized with subsections containing diffs for each editor, and a redesigned template can set this up.

The lack admins participating at AE is an issue on its own, though there's little that can be done about it, of course. They recently had their salaries doubled, and still no effect! It's part of the general decline in activity across the board, really. Manul ~ talk 13:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User RHB100 and GPS article/topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Never questioned the credentials and intelligence of other editors". Really. Just a couple examples: [5][6] siafu (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

"Well if you people say [...] then you do not have the level of competence characteristic of a licensed Professional Engineer." [8]

"I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I am a licensed professional engineer. I know that I am right" [9]

"The fact that the equations in the Problem description are equations for spheres is certainly well known and should be obvious. Nevertheless, I have provided a detailed explanation of what should be obvious. Authors may not always point out that these equations are spheres but this is because it is obvious." [10]

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

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

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

and finally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geometric interpretation section is a disaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

^ ^a ^b Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [1], 1991
^ ^a ^b Abel, J.S. and Chaffee, J.W., "Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol:26, no:6, p:748-53, Sept. 1991.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Quote from the reference (my emphasis):

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

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

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

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

References

^ Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [2], 1991

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

Closure of RHB100 - GPS

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

WP:CBAN says: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours... If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator [emphasis added] notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed..." I kindly request JzG (talk · contribs) to close the present discussion, as he/she seems to meet the requirements and has commented here before.[11] Then if he/she is unavailable, it'd seem we could request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Examples from the talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.^[1]^[2]

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

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

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

References

^ section 4 beginning on page 15 GEOFFREY BLEWITT: BASICS OF THE GPS TECHNIQUE
^ "Global Positioning Systems" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved October 15, 2010.
^ Cite error: The named reference Abel1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Dana, Peter H. "Geometric Dilution of Precision (GDOP) and Visibility". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008.
^ Peter H. Dana. "Receiver Position, Velocity, and Time". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

RHB100 time too valuable for Wikipedia GPS article

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

Socking user getting more difficult to manage

We at WP:MED have been dealing with a sock of User:Nuklear for years. They continue to copy and paste material regarding chemical synthesis into Wikipedia and we continue to delete it and block their IPs for 72 hours. They than move onto the next IPs.

The concern is in this group of edits where they have go through 4 IPs in a shorter period of time.[12] Not sure if their is a mechanism to address this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this range 80.42.0.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses) is a very busy one, and there's edits from multiple people unrelated to your problematic user. Page protection of some of their favourite targets might be a better choice. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:AF. DMacks (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of script page

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do I delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iady391/monobook.js Iady391 | Talk to me here 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Deor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is followup to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Delete a script page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard offer for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs) is a blocked user whose talk page and email access were revoked. Technophant has requested restoration of talk and email privileges, so I'm bringing his appeal in front of the community ~~per the offer's usual terms~~. I have a statement from Technophant:

I thought I had a right to ban users (including admins) from my talk page with notice and undo their edits. I am requesting that my talkpage access be restored after being removed on 16 November 2014 by Kww. I was under the mistaken impression had a right to ban users (User:Brangifer, User:GregKaye, and User:PBS} from my talk page and undo their edits.Since I was using the Undo feature by refreshing the revision history I did not see PBS's warning that I was violating WP:REMOVED. I've had a lengthy discussion with User:Adjwilley and he set me straight about this and realize now that I was wrong in my actions.

Also, I apologize for abusing the email system. I have had previous disputes with Brangifer and an informal IBAN negotiated through private emails. My message was inappropriate and I regret sending it.

Please add comments and recommendations below. APerson (talk!) 02:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (updated statement and request 02:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC) and again on 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

That's not the Standard Offer. Not opposed, I am not a huge fan of removing talk page access over removal of stuff. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed to clarify that we're not seeking the standard offer. APerson (talk!) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with restoring TPA to appeal the block, but I don't see a reason to restore e-mail until a block appeal is successful. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying @Bishonen: for any comments she may have, as hers is the most recent entry in the block log. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat open to letting them back under certain conditions:

No personal attacks on other editors. Focus on content. Agree to disagree agreeably. AGF.
Talk page problems should not happen again. User talk pages are for communication, and that includes communication from editors with which one may be in conflict elsewhere. Even if it's unpleasant, don't block communication by banning other editors from the page or removing their comments and warnings. Be open and discuss. Nothing is secret here. Editors do not have a right to privacy or to be left alone. That's the way we roll here. Don't call warnings and criticism "harassment".
"Informal iban"? I got an email on 9/2/2014 which told me: "Ok well if you don't want to help then please just stay away from me. Informal iban. Stay off pages where I'm a lead contributor." There is no basis in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or culture for taking such an order seriously. This is a form of ownership behavior.
Technophant still has an indefinite topic ban which still applies.
We don't want to see anymore socking problems. They must only use their registered account.

This should be a time limited probationary offer. A review of the editor's interactions during that time should happen before full reinstatement. There should be nothing but peaceful interactions during that time. It's possible to do this even when there are differences of opinion.

None of us is perfect. We have all been newbies, and we've all made mistakes and done things we regret. I hope this renewed attempt to get back in the saddle and ride better will succeed. I wish Technophant success. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to ban 70.208.147.201

I would like to make a recommendation to ban User:70.208.147.201 because all of his edits are pornographic. He has also used other ip addresses such as User:2600:1003:B116:8423:8043:7DCE:2983:6383 and User:2600:1003:B116:8423:E484:6A05:A113:636F. He could easily manipulate other IP addresses to do the same thing. Children use this website, so this conduct in my opinion should not be tolerated by any mean. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are not banned. The users behind them may be, but as a general rule the IPs themselves cannot be subject to a ban. In any case, it's blocked for 31h by Shirik (talk · contribs). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed ban is for whoever is using the IP address to post the pornography. 2602:306:3357:BA0:F988:206B:94E7:4AF4 (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is my version of events.

A short account of the sockpuppet matters.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC for binding administrator recall

Hello. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, where a discussion regarding a process for de-sysopping is taking place. ~ Rob^Talk 05:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This type of proposal is not what I would expect from an editor who arrived here two months ago. Thanks for your editing, but Wikipedia is not a students' debating club, i.e. debate should have a constructive purpose here and should not be done just for its own sake. There are at this time more than 10 different discussions going on, all on this and related subjects, including the BARC proposal, and none of them has any chance to get anywhere. I prefer to waste my time somewhere else. I suggest editors focus on content, both writing and cleaning up. Kraxler (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very unwelcoming response. Anyone can make proposals and anyone is free to ignore them, and focus on building content themselves. The fact that there are so many proposals seems to be an indication that there is widely-perceived issue worth addressing. - Mr X 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Too many proposals going on at once, you'll see that people are already making fun of the avalanche of proposals. Admin Mkdw calls it the "shotgun approach". It's becoming disruptive. Kraxler (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, MrX, but I think what Kraxler was suggesting by his/her original response is that it seems a little suspicious that such a new user would even know what an RfC is (I actually have no opinion on the RfC in itself, however). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is a pretty long time, actually. You don't have to be here for years to understand we have policies and guidelines (and we're not exactly a brand new website). I think that is pretty bad faith to assume anything other than they are starting a conversation. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban discussion: Fnagaton

Fnagaton (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Fnagaton is a long term Wikipedia user (8 years, 4000 edits) who I believe for the past 6 years has been using a sockpuppet account, Glider87 (talk · contribs) to game content disputes. I recently indef blocked the sock and gave Fnagaton a 30-day block. It's been suggested to me that I was too lenient, and that given the extent of Fnagaton's disruptive behavior he should be blocked indefinitely. I feel this is a question for the community, so I'm bringing it here. The sockpuppetry case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fnagaton/Archive. Since Fnagaton seems to exclusively edit using proxies, a checkuser match was not possible, but I believe the behavioral evidence has no other explanation.

Details of Fnagaton's activities can be found at the SPI. In short, Fnagaton and his sock have spent years on-and-off tag-team edit warring and participating in the same discussions to distort consensus. Fnagaton and Glider87 have both appealed their blocks, and been denied. So what does everyone think? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a look - looks like you weren't the only one thinking that, Omegatron thought so to and had Fnagaton linked to a different username (see the link to the sockpuppet investigations). If that's true, I'd say we have a potential sock farm, but yes, based on the evidence, the duck is strong with this one :) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for opening this case for further examinations. I believe the sock farm is more extensive than it even appears on the surface. It has been rather clear to me that Fnagaton is not the actual master, but just another sock. It clearly is a single purpose account which does not regularly edit WP on a steady basis, but springs into action when their pet project is effected, after months or year of hiatus. Clearly another account, the master, is regularly involved with WP providing the ongoing process of monitoring. Proving the extent will be arduous likely. The master, that I suspect, has been doing this kind of behavior for a long time and I believe I recently detected another instance in an other subject matter. Accusing someone publicly is of course a serious matter, so I have remained silent, and given the amount of energy required to engage with those accounts is discouraging even trying. Of course this appears to be a rather skillful strategy of those accounts. Let me just say, that everyone (to be fair to all) who ever participated in the subject matter of binary prefixes in the last eight years or so should be subject to investigation, especially since MOSNUM policy has been effected by these socks. However, that subject is not the only one effected. For starters, getting Fnagaton eliminated is a step in the right direction. The amount of editor time and energy that has been wasted by his flagrant, egregious, toxic behavior is staggering, as only the recent talk page battles and article space reverting history exemplifies. I have tried to stay out of the mess as much as possible, refusing to engage with this account's activities, which are a never-ending spiral of circular arguments that never result in meaningful progress, or even sensible dialog. A 30-day ban is utterly too little too late for the amount of damage caused. Kbrose (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over the years I had some dealings with user Fnagaton and his 'friends', but concluded that no meaningful interaction is possible with such a single track mind. He manufactured a consent that in my eyes never existed to ban the IEC binary prefixes outright. How is it possible to ignore such officially recognised unambiguous units in an encyclopedia? It is some kind of mind police, completely unbefitting WP. −Woodstone (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New admin needs advice from admins

Howdy. A while back I was involved in an RfC at Balochistan, Pakistan. I have no personal interest in anything having to do with this region, country, neighboring countries, etc—I was there solely in my capacity as a gnome. Two SPAs sprang up and were stonewalling any additions to the article about poverty, insurgencies and human rights violations. The conversation then traveled to Balochistan where these users started stonewalling again. I noticed these editors also editing at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. An edit war bloomed, and I fully protected the page to cool the edit war down, and I removed the unsourced section on language, which seemed to be the focus of the problem. An attractive nuisance as they say. Since then, one of the editors has started a forum-shopping campaign accusing me of bias. Okay, blah blah blah, it's not my first rodeo with that accusation. During the edit war, a disputed map kept popping up, for instance here on the talk page. That map was uploaded to commons by Maria0333, who (you ready?) was a sockpuppet of this guy. So naturally I'm even more suspicious than I was before of sock/meatpuppetry.

Since I'm a new admin, I'm very sensitive to avoid violating WP:INVOLVED. However, I feel I need some real-world experience understanding what is and what isn't considered "involved". I'd like to know if it is okay for me to continue administrating in this area even if I'm being accused of bias. I'm likely to pursue an SPI case. Also, I'd like to know whether or not the disputed map should be removed from Commons because it was uploaded by a sock operator. Thanks, and if there's any advice that you can give that I didn't specifically ask for, I'm all ears. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just noticed that one of the users, Zmaghndstakun was just slapped with a 3 month topic ban on India, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Ceradon. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyphoidbomb. Absent a request on the talk page which has consensus, it is not usually okay for admins to modify articles that are fully protected. The major exception to that is BLP violations, which does not apply in this case. I'm assuming this is a "new admin" error, and you can revert yourself. That would be my only suggestion at this point, other than directing all of the users to discuss on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the edification, Risker, thank you. Do you have any thoughts about what should be done with the sockpuppet map? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with Commons; they are a separate project that has different rules. When I look at the history of that map there, it seems there's been some dispute about it there too. It's the reality of dealing with maps of regions with disputed territories. In the meantime, you've made a rather serious content decision here, which is outside the scope of the protecting administrator. I disagree with FPAS on this issue. Did someone not tell you about the New Admin Training Wheels Program, also known as "don't mess around in contentious areas for the first few weeks"? ;-) Risker (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an unconventional step, but in this particular case I'd endorse it. We typically grant protecting admins the discretion to not simply protect whatever "wrong version" is uppermost, but, if appropriate, to revert to the most recent pre-dispute clean version. In this particular case, however, given the long history of problematic editing and the truly obscene amount of sockpuppetry rampant in the entire topic domain, there is very likely no "clean" version anywhere near in the history of the article, so a reasonable application of WP:IAR may well be to not select any one prior version as the "cleanest", but to remove the entire disputed (and evidently problematic) passage. That said, bear in mind that the topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions, so if editors act up like these two, probably the best thing to do even before it comes to this level of edit-warring is simply to topic-ban the lot of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Fut.Perf. If I've previously had a disagreement with these users, does that make me involved? The disputes at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan are mostly the extent of it, and it never really even got heated on my side. I did have to warn one of the users, Zmaghndstakun on his talk page to stop adding !votes to the RfC. I sort of need to know the threshold between participating as an editor, and when I need to use my admin tools to solve a problem. I would hate to topic ban these editors, be accused of bias, and have my peers find that I violated WP:INVOLVED and blocked the users in retaliation. As I've researched the matter, I found that the disputed language content at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was originally added by Cojamel, a sockpuppet of LanguageXpert circa 2013, the same editor who uploaded the disputed map I mentioned above. Naturally I suspect these other editors to be likely socks of the same person and I'm pursuing an SPI. Thanks for any more help you can provide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." One time, I believe I blocked an editor for repeatedly removing an unresolved {{Citation needed}} tag that I had originally added. The editor appealed, and the reviewing admin unblocked and stated that I was involved. Definitiely be cautious of INVOLVED, but it's also important that you are honestly trying to do the right thing, which you appear to be. Maybe it comes with experience on when to apply it, but sometimes you just got to be bold and do the right thing, and if need be, ask for forgiveness later.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Langley-1] Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [1], 1991

[Abel1-2] Abel, J.S. and Chaffee, J.W., "Existence and uniqueness of GPS solutions", IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol:26, no:6, p:748-53, Sept. 1991.

[Langley-3] Richard Langley, The Mathematics of GPS, [2], 1991

[GPS_BASICS_Blewitt-4] section 4 beginning on page 15 GEOFFREY BLEWITT: BASICS OF THE GPS TECHNIQUE

[Bancroft-5] "Global Positioning Systems" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved October 15, 2010.

[Abel1-6] Cite error: The named reference Abel1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[7] Dana, Peter H. "Geometric Dilution of Precision (GDOP) and Visibility". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008.

[8] Peter H. Dana. "Receiver Position, Velocity, and Time". University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved July 7, 2008.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 344: / Line 344: @@
 *I'm fine with restoring TPA to appeal the block, but I don't see a reason to restore e-mail until a block appeal is successful. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big>&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 *Notifying {{ping|Bishonen}} for any comments she may have, as hers is the most recent entry in the block log. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
+I'm somewhat open to letting them back under certain conditions:
+* No personal attacks on other editors. Focus on content. Agree to disagree agreeably. AGF.
+* Talk page problems should not happen again. User talk pages are for communication, and that includes communication from editors with which one may be in conflict elsewhere. Even if it's unpleasant, don't block communication by banning other editors from the page or removing their comments and warnings. Be open and discuss. Nothing is secret here. Editors do not have a right to privacy or to be left alone. That's the way we roll here. Don't call warnings and criticism "harassment".
+* "Informal iban"? I got an email on 9/2/2014 which told me: "Ok well if you don't want to help then please just stay away from me. Informal iban.  Stay off pages where I'm a lead contributor." There is no basis in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or culture for taking such an order seriously. This is a form of ownership behavior.
+* Technophant still has an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant&diff=prev&oldid=618269957#Topic_ban_from_Alternative_Medicine indefinite topic ban] which still applies.
+* We don't want to see anymore [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Technophant|socking problems]]. They must only use their registered account.
+This should be a time limited probationary offer. A review of the editor's interactions during that time should happen before full reinstatement. There should be nothing but peaceful interactions during that time. It's possible to do this even when there are differences of opinion.
+None of us is perfect. We have all been newbies, and we've all made mistakes and done things we regret. I hope this renewed attempt to get back in the saddle and ride better will succeed. I wish Technophant success. -- [[User:BullRangifer|BullRangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 == Request to ban 70.208.147.201  ==

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Hosta

Revision as of 02:53, 11 August 2015

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

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

Deletion discussions

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

Other types of closing requests

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

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Appeal of topic ban

Comments by Peacemaker67

Opinions on lifting the ban

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Proposal for arbitration enforcement requests to have a more flexible focus

User RHB100 and GPS article/topic

Geometric interpretation section is a disaster

Discussion

Closure of RHB100 - GPS

Examples from the talk page

RHB100 time too valuable for Wikipedia GPS article

Socking user getting more difficult to manage

Deletion of script page

Standard offer for Technophant

Request to ban 70.208.147.201

RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment

RfC for binding administrator recall

Community ban discussion: Fnagaton

New admin needs advice from admins

Recent Comments