Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 30 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 19 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 99 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 59 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Your health always comes first. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 49 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

(Initiated 32 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 14 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	26	26
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	44	50
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Administrator recall

(Initiated 8 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Pre-1876 life peers

(Initiated 8 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 305 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

and finally:

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

It is also stated in the paper, , 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. The Langley paper talks about the intersection of four or more spheres and does not mention hyperboloids.

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) . .

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

[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)]

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)

References

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Well this is an obscure reference. The better quality references such as the Langley paper explain GPS clearly working with ordinary three dimensional spheres. 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)

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

References

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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. 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. 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. RHB100 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

References

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)"

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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) .

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

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

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

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)

Appeal of topic ban

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

---

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)

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)

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)

I would like to thank to all editors who participated in discussion about my ban appeal. I propose to closing administrator to make decision not on speculations but on demonstrated behavior. I think that editors who banned me and want to keep me banned demonstrated communication which can be "seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)". I think that their behavior is described at Wikipedia:POV railroad essay. Brand, discredit and ban. Nothing I say or do can change that, except to change my opinion to match the POV they consistently support. I don't think that this group of editors should be able to decide about my ban. My behavior in this discussion and during my ban answers all presented concerns about my behavior. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
• Support lifting of restriction per WP:ROPE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

1. @Joy - The name of the General is Pavle Đurišić.
2. @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.
3. @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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@EdJohnston: this just went to archive, and Antid deserves a decision on his appeal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Drmies, JzG, and Guy Macon:

• Antid has apparently now gone on holiday. Some might take that in good faith, but to me it looks like a way to not respond to the concerns of several editors above or provide information about how he will avoid the behaviour that got him t-banned in the first (of second) place. I still think he is entitled to receive a response from the admins. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• You're right, he hasn't responded to any of the questions which were asked of him yet. It is only speculation, but it could be an avoidance technique. From previous encounters with AD, I know he does have a few tricks up his sleeve. I too believe he deserves a response from an Admin. IJA (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67, I have said all I wanted to say. If they are on vacation, I hope they have a great time. If they are going on vacation to avoid something, this will, at some point, be closed as "no consensus to untopicban" or something like that, I think. I must say that the lack of "outside" interest is a bit troubling. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's a tough area. What can I say? People don't want to stick their head over the parapet... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

• {{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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not sure what the best choice is, but you definitely made the right decision to come here following the suggestion to you. If the user hadn't caused any problems following the initial block, it would be a thoroughly bad idea for you to reblock for a longer time just because you and someone else thought perhaps you'd been too lenient; such an extension shouldn't be done without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Personally, if we have an established user who turns out to have been sockpuppetting, a warning block of the master and an indef for the sock is probably the way to go. The user should be warned, though, that next time (s)he's caught, things will be worse. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As history shows, we are seriously past this juncture in this case already. Kbrose (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Woodstone, whether banning the IEC binary prefixes is right or wrong is a policy dispute, and AN/ANI does not get involved in policy disputes -- they enforce whatever policy the community decides upon whether they personally agree with it or not. I advise waiting until the socks are blocked and then bringing the issue up on the appropriate talk page to see if the socks manufactured a false consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A query: I see that on his unblock request Fnagaton states: "I believe ISPs in Singapore are legally mandated to use transparent proxies that users cannot turn off. I don't think it's fair I'm blocked because the check user indicates a proxy is being used." (Something I have never heard of.) Is it possible that he is implicitly claiming that these socks are "proxies" that he is somehow forced to use because of the ISP he uses? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a red herring. Nobody is accusing him of being a sock because of CU results. They are accusing him of being a sock based upon behavioral evidence. As far as legally mandated proxies, it is true that the Great Firewall of Singapore blocks some sites (mostly porn sites according to reports), but if they blocked Wikipedia we would know about it from the hundreds of complaints. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe ISPs in Singapore are "legally mandated" to use certain filters, but that doesn't seem relevant here. So most likely that statement is highly confused at best, and not worth troubling about. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

Administrators are requested to help with the WP:SPI backlog. Several of the requests do not seem like they have CheckUser requests. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously, there's one case that is just awaiting administration that hasn't been edited 17 July. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• ...Any takers??? Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've just done a couple Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for action by steward

• In the page World Trade Center, the most recent 9 edits (21:20, 10 August 2015‎ by A21sauce, to now) are a disambig page, and the rest (from 20:41, 8 August 2015‎ by Charlesaaronthompson, back to the start) are about the well-known buildings. This is an easy history-split, except that page World Trade Center has about 8000 edits and thus needs a m:steward to delete it as part of this history-split. Please history-split those last (most recent) 9 edits (plus any more disambig edits that people may make to that page after this request was posted) into World Trade Center/disambig2, and then undelete the rest of page World Trade Center and leave it where it is. I could then move or history-merge World Trade Center/disambig2 to where it should be. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done —DerHexer (Talk) 12:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• @DerHexer: Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for speedy closure on three grounds

I've posted a request for speedy closure (for forum shopping, canvassing, and wrong venue) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Administrative, but get the impression that isn't a section that's watched very much.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

gotwikipedia.com

Just wanted to know if this was on anyone's radar. It purports to guarantee Wikipedia backlinks for at least 6 months, and this edit, given as an example at this subpage, reveals no disclosure per the requirements in the Terms of Use. http://wikipediaeditorsunited.org/ uses the same content and is probably related. The edits of User:Tzufun are another example, given as one of the case studies on the site. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

They claim to be in "moderator positions" on Wikipedia. User:EBY3221 (blocked for spam, had rb and reviewer rights), made edits that linked to OMGMachines.com in the references of Mike Long [10] (linking in refs appears to be a modus operandi of his). gotwikipedia.com has testimonials from a guy whose website is listed as "ONGMachines.com". Seems pretty interesting. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

wikipediaeditorsunited uses our logo as their favicon, and gotwikipedia uses it as their portrait picture on their Facebook page. Figuring that these might be trademark violations, I've emailed the address given at meta:Legal for reporting trademark violations. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Found the guy who runs wikipediaeditorsunited, it is User:Kingoptimizer. The gotwikipedia.com owner appears to at one point have been User:Duberz. To err on the side of caution of violating the outing policy I will not show my evidence here but administrators/legal should free to contact me for private evidence. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Email that to the Foundation, or to me and I will forward it to Jimmy. On the face of it, this appears to violate the terms of service and if your evidence holds up then these users must be banned. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the legal team do, but it's certainly worked for me in the past! See this COIN thread for background on EBY3221. They accepted many AFCs written by SPAs which in light of this might need looking at in more detail. I don't recall seeing SEO-type edits though so there must be other users we haven't found yet. Pinging @Brianhe: as he first noticed EBY3221. SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Mean as custard whether they've noticed any refspammers like this recently and then noticed on their TP an exchange with WilliamFinnHarrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked) who was adding links such as this ony a few weeks ago. Do we think this is enought to justify CU attention? SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That also led me to ArdenM29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's been adding similar links: [11]. SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Judging by her earliest contributions (example), EBY3221's real name is Elizabeth B. York, a name that I'm not finding on either of these sites, although admittedly they're almost totally anonymous. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes we worked out who EBY3221 was off-wiki but from what I understand there is a lot of outsourcing of PEing, so it's perfecly possible that EBY is linked to these companies even if there is no trace of her on their website. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone who reads these testimonials and still supports this activity, probably does not belong on Wikipedia. "They helped me beat my competitors within a few months!". For pay. And now volunteers will have to pick up the pieces. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, more work for us at COIN, at WP:COIN#EBY3221_revisited. Most of the articles listed aren't corporate PR, though. They're mostly bios of marginally notable individuals. There's a forgotten band from the '70s, and a wood carver. Three marginally notable startups are on the list, and those articles look promotional. But out of 37 entries, maybe five look like possible paid business PR. Are there particular articles that need COIN attention? John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

These types of edits are usually done by single-use accounts which are set up, quickly make a single edit and then disappear. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)