Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 21 November 2014

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages: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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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)

Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 222 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 77 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 76 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 68 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 56 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 44 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 37 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 15 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 7 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 90 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 68 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 66 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 48 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 31 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

I've discussed this with the closer on their talk page. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The only expressed problem with the close that I see is "You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution." I don't believe the closure is required to specify a specific solution to make the article better. The closure expressed the consensus that the section should be included, and then suggested that it might be improved in the future. You can just ignore that second part or try to improve it, but it doesn't invalidate the closure. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The comment, "Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject." Seems to reference the conversation that took place between Myself and the final editor to comment. Yes you are right the closer does not have to provide a solution. When the closer suggested the same thing that was acknowledged. The closer is an uninvolved party their solely to determine the consensus based off the discussion of the involved party. A Good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not a head count. The issue discussed is not that the closer failed to provide a solution. The editor they seem to have referenced failed to provide said solution. More specifically the editor they referenced failed to make the case that Iran and Hezbollah's reaction to the 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is related to the 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Without the closer providing transparency I have no way of knowing how they determined the consensus. The only readily apparent reason is that the vote count is the reason.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

After reading that brief discussion, it seems to me that you didn't really ask for a rationale. Your first comment does indeed seem to say that your reason for requesting a review is that the closer didn't provide a solution. Only in the final comment do you mention vote counting, which is perhaps an indirect request for a rationale, but since Samsara hasn't edited since that time, I think they don't know about it rather than that they are refusing to provide transparency.

Also, you might want to know that I found it pretty hard to interpret your comments, and I'd suggest that's why this request hasn't been getting much attention. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

When I first contacted Samsara I had asked them to review their close. Their close seemed to be based somewhat on comments by PointsofNoReturn. PointsofNoReturn suggested that a section could be written that on how Iran and Hezbollah feel about the 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq relates to the 2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Iran.2C_Hezbollah_Reaction_to_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The material was removed on the basis that it was not related to the Iranian-led intervention. The nominal subject is the Iranian-led intervention. There is a tangential relationship between it and the American-led intervention. They were asked to demonstrate or explain how they could link the two in the article as they suggested they could. They didn't respond.

I do not know that this is the rationale for Samsara close. After they suggested I take it for a close review I did respond once more. I did wait 4 days before bringing it here. It has now been more than 15 days.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible compromised administrator account - User:Antandrus

After being around for 10 years, I now think that this admin account has been compromised. I'm sorry, but since yesterday, an IP wrote on somebody's talk page and reverted what seemed to be perfectly fine edits, it's a talk page anyway. He even replied to me as I posted a biting newcomers notice:

"He's been vandalizing, trolling, and evading a ban for almost nine years. I know perfectly well who I am dealing with, and so do the Chicago police. Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you one link that shows the depth of the problem. There's lots of other ranges too. But he's become an IP-hopper on T-Mobile now. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)"

That link referred to a completely different user. Who must be unrelated to the edits I am talking about. He also said "You're banned - get lost" when blocking an IP. Can a CheckUser come in to see these IP's. In fact, how can IP users be banned under WP:BAN? How did he have any authority to ban someone, as an admin who is not part of ArbCom? Must be a compromised administrator account, check the contribs and you can see some evidence. DSCrowned 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not template the regulars, and please do not make silly accusations at noticeboards, particularly when an explanation has been given. Making a fuss about WP:DENY reversions is a guaranteed way to encourage vandalism and long term abusers. Antandrus is one of Misplaced Pages's most respected admins, although I'm not sure where this report fits in at WP:OWB. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the "defacto ban" component of WP:BAN — perhaps it's a frequently-blocked user who's never been unblocked and who will apparently never be unblocked; such a person would be included as "banned" even without an Arbcom discussion. Bans apply to individual people, so yes, we can ban people who aren't using an account. If you have spare time, look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors — we even had an arbitration case for an IP that just wouldn't stop being disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The longer you are an admin, the more of these kinds of users you get to know. We each have a few banned users we know so well that we can spot them from across the room. And yes, sometimes we are blunt when dealing with them, it gets old, we are human, we aren't obligated to act saccharine sweet to known banned users abusing the system. Antandrus' behavior, as indicated here, isn't out of character or expectations, so I am pretty confident he hasn't had his account pwned. Dennis - 2¢ 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you Dennis. I regularly revert and block this particular pest. For those with long memories, he has been called the 'George Reeves Person', and there's a deleted LTA page about him. He's a serial harasser and particularly vicious off-Wiki. I have, however, learned his real name and where he lives, should we need to take more serious action. It's been a couple years since I've received threats of physical harm from him. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Followup - death threats, etc.

Hi guys -- sorry to wake this thread up again, but I would like some advice. This person, who has been vandalizing, trolling, spamming, and issuing threats to anyone who opposes him, since December 2005, has issued an unambiguous death threat to me. I guess he didn't like the range blocks I laid down to shut down his latest spam-and-rant campaign. One significant problem is that there is no reliable way to get a message to him; he uses one-time-throwaway T-Mobile IPs now (ignore their geolocation: he's in Chicago, or very close, anyway). I am reporting all threats to law enforcement. I want him to know that I know his real name and his address (will not state it here) and I am not shy about giving it to the FBI, the Chicago and River Grove, Illinois police, and any other entity that might assist. If you have admin rights you can read the history of this guy here (note who deleted the page). I want to get the message to him, equally unambiguously. Has anyone had success contacting authorities in such a case? Feel free to contact me privately. Antandrus (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate to contact the FBI, tell them you are an admin on Misplaced Pages and file a formal complaint with the info you have. I'll email you.--MONGO 01:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm, which is allot harder to find than it should be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 FBI, and the sooner the better - while the data is still hot. I hope that this is resolved quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

It might be worth asking for a global block on that /23, for a week or so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

@Antandrus: you should contact WMF legal as well; I noticed that you contacted one of the stewards on Meta somewhere, but really it's the WMF who makes the call as to when the info should be released to authorities and such (and then they can give the info with a good claim to veracity) --Rschen7754 04:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also contacted the emergency team. Legal are not the relevant team as they can take weeks to respond by which time letting them know would've been pointless. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Got a response acknowledging this. Jack Stamps (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User known to WMF and they're "obviously happy to help in anyway necessary" Jack Stamps (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh yes, they know this user. Thank you! I'll contact them. I'm already following a bunch of the above suggestions (and thank you for those who e-mailed me). Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please also consider filing an abuse report with T-Mobile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Followup - newbie

Obivously Antandrus should take every step necessary to protect his physical safety, and I can't add anything helpful to advice above regarding that. But what does that have to do with DSCrowned? They're not threatening anyone, are they? They even edited for almost a month before creating their user page. They seem something weird, they ask the first person they're supposed to ask, get what seems to be a kind of a brush of, ask at the next place, and get told to make not make silly accusations, and the dreaded -- oh the infamy -- "don't template the regulars" -- because that's so important. Gee, maybe they're just confused and are trying to help. There's only like a quarter million "unreferenced tags," who needs to welcome new editors? Did ya'll know this tidbit about hydrogen peroxide ? I didn't. So maybe the next time a newbie shows up we can be a little more chill about it? NE Ent 04:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The first diff in the OP shows a NOTFORUM violation being removed with edit summary "rv banned user". The second is the same. Presumably DSCrowned has no idea what "rv banned user" means, but is sufficiently confident to drop a "November 2014" template, then refuse to engage in discussion despite getting a full explanation within twenty minutes. Antandrus may be too polite to respond as I did, but someone needs to strongly support those who spend years defending the encyclopedia. It's not the vandals that cause people to burn out and leave—it's the lack of support from onlookers who instead provide impractical suggestions that everyone just suck it up. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has imposed 0RR on the article, in response to some edit wars. Regardless of whether there was a problem, 0RR is absurd in potentially pseudoscience articles, as unjustified claims cannot be removed. Hence, I applied full protection to the article. If the 0RR not an arbitration enforcement remedy, I would revert it to 1RR myself, but John hasn't specified, and I don't want to get into that mess.

I propose that the restriction, if a single admin is permitted to add restrictions, be changed to 1RR, and anyone blocked for a 0RR violation be given an apology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, John also imposed the restriction that there should be no major changes without consensus. That is probably a better choice of restriction than any revert restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also propose that the article be reverted to the state it was at when the 0RR restriction was imposed, with any edits made with consensus reinstated. I doubt any edits were yet made with consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There were many edits made after consensus.--- I also think that we are nearer to resolution, it may take a few days, but things are going well. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think things are going at all well. The "anti-Ayurveda" editors except QG are intimidated from commenting on the substance of the article on the talk page. (QG should be intimidated, as I can't figure out what he was blocked for. He apparently can't figure it out, either.) All other comments are on the failures of 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of editors said they were no longer watching the article because 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus for those edits, or at least no more consensus than for adding the bald statement "AV is generally considered pseudoscience." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment 0RR for a fringe medical topic is not a great idea; as anybody who watchlists this type of article knows, pretty much every day some drive-by editor will add some kind of claim to one of them that cumin cures cancer or somesuch. If bogus health information is locked in place on Misplaced Pages by ad hoc rules, then that's a poor show. Alexbrn 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• A "zero-revert" restriction is a monstrosity in principle and pretty much never a good idea at all, as it unilaterally gives an advantage to people who insert tendentious stuff, and makes cleanup of sub-standard edits nearly impossible. I'd strongly support lifting this thing. What could work instead is a set of "slow-down" rules, such as: (a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Probably better than what I suggested. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) 0RR seems unreasonably restrictive, as Fut.Perf. points out it gives the upper hand to the POV warriors. Wouldn't full protection have been better? Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• This will be my only comment here. I would ask anyone commenting here to take the trouble to read the actual restrictions I imposed, which are at Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward. They are written in English, in plain text, so this should be easy to accomplish. If, after reading the actual restrictions and not the very poor summary presented above, anybody has any concerns, they should message me at my talk as stated there. Since the restrictions were placed on 20 October, a grand total of 0 editors have done this. Not even the two editors I have blocked so far have complained. Coming straight here to complain about my (successful) admin actions under a misleading summary is a strange thing to do. I am a little concerned that User:Arthur Rubin's actions (which include an out-of-process full protection) here arise from some more sinister motive than lack of competence but for now I will assume good faith and put it down to that. --John (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Multiple editors assumed that you would respond to the multiple requests for your involvement on the article talk page. This discussion on this noticeboard seems a good way to clear up the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John: I did read your wording of the restrictions before I commented here, and my criticism above does apply to them as worded. A "no reverts" and "no major edits without prior consensus" rule is a recipe either for slow degradation or standstill of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John, your snide and sarcastic "they are written in English, in plain text" is the sort of thing you would (rightly) have taken someone else to task for. Lead by example. 216.3.101.62 (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• fwiw, i had just recently started editing the article when the 0RR was imposed. i objected, as did Bobrayner and as did] Yobol, and when John remained firm, I said I would not participate under a 0RR condition. I stopped watching it (although I did pop in to !vote in an RfC that I saw notice of). Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors raised concerns about the 0RR restriction for precisely the same reasons as noted above, with unfortunately little direct response. I have also largely ignored what has been going on on that page due to said restriction. Hopefully we can find a solution to the problem without driving off experienced editors. Yobol (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be fair I did not read John's restrictions before I commented above, but I have now, and I stand by my comment. Other editors' concerns about what's considered a revert are valid. If I'm working on a page where anons are repeatedly inserting nonsense claims, and any corrective action I take comes with a reasonable risk that some admin is going to interpret it as a revert and block on sight, I'm not going to waste my time with it. Besides, isn't WP:0RR meant to be applied to seriously edit-warring editors, not to pages? Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Arthur Rubin, under the circumstances, imposing 0RR was a mistake. Fully protecting the article was responsible a decision, and modifying the restriction to make it 1RR would remedy the situation. Alternatively, Fut Perf's restrictions could be be implemented instead. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• "No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism. There should be no reason to do this. WP:0RR" is what User:John put in place. That is an unworkable restriction on most articles, and certainly not one about a pseudoscience. A 0RR restriction places the crackpots on an even footing with legitimate editors, and that prevents building an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know about others, but this page has to do nothing with pseudoscience. I was notified about zero revert soon after I had edited. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me.

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I get the picture. I see now that the ArbCom tag was added here on 30 October by User:Roxy the dog, one of the problematic editors at that page, well after I had become involved in keeping the peace there. I later had to block said editor for repeatedly insulting other editors there. Then just now I get an ArbCom notice from User:QuackGuru, (diff above) another problematic contributor who I have also had to block. The problems there, quite apart from any perceived COI involved, is that the question whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience or not is one of several things the two entrenched camps have been arguing about for ages. If the tag is to stick there, I might step back and let Arbcom administer this as that is what they are paid the big bucks to do. I wonder though whether Roxy and QG need further sanctions for this game-playing and battleground behaviour. What do others think? --John (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I just about fell out of my metaphorical chair when I read that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Their 'thinking' cannot be found even among the smallest minority. Sadly if someone is convinced to think that 2 and 3 is 4, and keeps repeating the same miscalculation, we should seek solution. Page was created 10 years ago and there was no discussion about pseudoscience on its talk until last month. Only RTD believes and his intention is to plaster the article with 'this pseudo scientific claptrap', it is possible that he would receive some support from the editors who haven't researched. Bottom line is that they cannot really form any compatibility, nor there is any comparison with any other pseudoscience. No expert would agree. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That the current practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific would appear to be beyond doubt. Surely you aren't claiming that there is any sound scientific basis for it?—Kww(talk) 05:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Then those scientists become pseudoscientists if they have plagiarized Ayurveda or any Iron age and older practices for making a new form. Depends upon research. నిజానికి (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the person who described the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.... We are not here to discuss article content, but thank you for making your position clear on that. I myself am strictly neutral on the article content and will do whatever I can to enforce proper editing and decorum there. If 0RR is felt to be unhelpful by neutral admins such as Fut.Perf. and PhilKnight we can strike that. We can of course still block for edit-warring. The more serious question is should an editor who is involved not just in editing the page but in insulting those he disagrees with, be allowed to add this tag while the article's status is being discussed? Should it be allowed to stay? I haven't seen this situation before and am genuinely curious how other respected and neutral admins think it should best be handled. --John (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• e/c I find it rather sad that for the third time today I have found John to be dishonest in his edits. His actual reasons for my block, per the log, are, "harassment and personal attack" and as he himself stated in the discussion following said block ""when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority"". For the third time this evening, we expect better behaviour from our admins. I might also add that a fellow admin of John's stated that "I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. - It is time to examine your own behaviour, John. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NPA carefully -A1candidate (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• According to Roxy the dog, calling others a fringe editor is not personal attack. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Blades, just so you know this isn't a personal attack, it is very nice to see you here. I would just like to point out that I'm a fringe editor too. Best regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sounded like fringe advocate when you were referring to others. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Blades, what an interesting comment. If I may be allowed to make a polite observation on it, you do indeed appear to be advocating fringe theories both here, and on the Ayurveda Talk page. Would you not agree? Be safe. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes you have a point there. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• John, my position is quite clear: we are here to make an encyclopedia. We certainly have battleground articles, and it's important to make certain that some behavioural norms are adhered to. That does not include making it simpler for people to portray myth and superstition as if it were science, and that's what a 0RR restriction does: it treats the two as being equivalent. Our goal here is to ensure that we maintain civil discourse while ensuring that reality-based edits prevail.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• As you said it yourself, we're here to make an encyclopedia, not to fight pseudoscience. An article in a permanent state of edit-warring deserves 0RR restriction. -A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ensuring that pseudoscience is not described as factual is an essential component of being an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That would be best done on the talk page instead of turning the article into a battleground. -A1candidate (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problems could have been solved in a single day, if we were going to follow the consensus and the long discussions that have been made about hardly 4 issues. But what I have seen is that even if 10 people are in agreement, there is always one, mostly Roxy the Dog, who disrupts the process. John is actually correct if he claims that Roxy the Dog is gaming and battling. I would like to add that this page never had any edit conflict before 18 October, this year. One day, Dominus_Vobisdu had removed long standing content from this article, with the summary "This whole section is unsourced, but comparisons to real medicine are egregious OR and POV)", yet there was no OR and POV and section was actually sourced, all he did was remove the translated terms. After I added more citations to each, he reverted it again without even reading the citation and said "Must be MEDRS sources", same thing was done by Roxy the Dog, "None are WP:MEDRS". Though none of these required MEDRS, and when I brought it to talk page, I only had a one-liner from Roxy the dog, it was "e/c none of those comply," I had to bring it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#MEDRS_verification, where the consensus was established to include these terms, yet, both Dominus and Roxy the dog had started to edit war, they were not discussing about the removal of this longstanding content. That is why the page had to be under 0rr restriction. Today Roxy tells that there was no consensus but he is alone opposing these edits, at least since 18th October. Whenever Roxy the dog was asked about the reasons behind his opposition to this kind of common information that has been cited with reliable sources, he could done nothing about it but refer to comments of Dominus Vobisdu, though they lacked any policy backed rationale, and approached Misplaced Pages:DONTLIKE. Roxy is ignoring that clear consensus on Medicine project, still pushing that irrelevant comment of Dominus Vobisdu and telling others(Jayaguru-Shishya) to "stop being disruptive", right after coming from a block. I have never seen even a single edit from Roxy the dog, that could benefit the page. All he has done is revert others' edits and distort. Of course some kind of sanction is needed for Roxy the dog. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think sourced text should be in the article:

• The talk page discussion is going nowhere. Maybe a group of admins can decide what should go in the article. What do others think? The 0RR restrictions are not helping with improving the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• With the majority of editors disagreeing with those changes, including the last 2 newly proposed paragraphs that have been rejected a few times. It seems like you believe that consensus is based upon how much you have misused the noticeboards or how much you rebelled for your preferred version. That's why John highlighted your battlefield approach. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have a specific disagreement with the proposal based on WP:PAG? I don't think so. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying what I said before. Because you are pretending that you have skipped every single explanations that has been provided to you by number of editors on the talk(page) and you need an explanation here, I wouldn't be copying that whole to this noticeboard. I have rechecked the relevant section and multiple editors were involved in building up a summary. You can help there, after reading and reviewing that discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lifting 0RR restriction

It's pretty apparent that the 0RR restriction has very little support. Since John refuses to lift it (see User talk:John#Ayurveda restrictions), what's the mechanism? Ivanvector, Arthur Rubin, Fut.Perf.?—Kww(talk) 12:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I think Philknight can suggest something good. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Though John really put the hammer down it does seem he had a call for action. How about mandatory BRD? After the revert don't add it back without a consensus. Bold, remove, and discuss to get a consensus, if you can't get a consensus on the talk page take it to one of the multiple venues for dispute resolution. That along with some of the other restriction John set in place: No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations. Any legitimate complaints about editor behaviour can be referred to an uninvolved Admin or to WP:AN/I. All business on this particular article. No trash talk, just content. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've got no objection to a "no trash talk" restriction, but enforcing BRD isn't very different from 0RR. The conclusion from our Arbcom decision on pseudoscience is that we needed to take measures to ensure that our policy of neutrality was not manipulated to favour distortion of reality.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• BRD seems very different to 0RR to me - BRD is effectively 1RR (it has an "R" in it), and that's a mile away from allowing quackery to be added and not reverted without discussion. Given that the onus is on the contributor of content to justify it, 1RR/BRD seems to me like the limit of what is sensible in terms of revert restrictions. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

If there's agreement among neutral admins here that 0RR has no consensus, and John refuses to acknowledge or suggest an alternative, I think another admin is warranted in overriding John's restriction. Though I'm not an admin myself and personally haven't encountered this situation before. But what should it be lifted to? Full protection? PC/2 doesn't have consensus for use, and I don't think would help here anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please lift it. John doesn't appear to be able to look at his decision to impose 0RR in an objective manner, nor look at options: User_talk:John#Ayurveda_-_At_your_request. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well how about 1RR with the additional restrictions?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Kww:The BRD isn't different from 0RR, except that the editors are able to edit the article. Challenged stuff goes out. It can't go in without a consensus. Honestly there will be little effective means to take measures to ensure that pseudoscience isn't used to as you say distort our reality(you made me laugh there.) There's stuff to do but none of it's guranteed to work and I'm not sure it's in our ability here to do them. Such as we could set up a review committee with specific instructions. It just seems to me though that we can trust some of the systems already in place. They ain't perfect. The main thing that comes to mind with that suggestion is that it ends the disruption, it encourages working towards a consensus, and it does give room to work. I lean to the presumption that if you can't get a consensus it might not need to be in the article. There are pitfalls to this presumption but we do have a consensus based system. The system has the potential for abuse but most any system does. The (for lack of better term) partisan fringe editors could go to a world is flat article and challenge the mention that it was once thought that the world was flat. Pretty much though that is Pointy and pretty much just a bad faith negotiation tactic. That would suggest to me that such an editor may not be here to build an encyclopedia to me. There would be enough rope here for one to hang themselves.But honestly I'm just offering an idea to forward this conversation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming John's restriction is under the aegis of arbcom discretionary sanctions, as (as far as I know -- someone please provide a link to policy if I'm wrong) an admin can't unilaterally place restrictions on a page unless it's under General or Discretionary Sanctions. As described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, an overturn discussion requires a clear consensus of admins here (on AN) or AE or ARCA. Rather than wikilawyer over whether "ANI" counts as part of the "AN" clause, I've simply moved the discussion here. I agree with Kww et. al. the 0RR should be overturned for the reasons they give but my non-admin vote doesn't count, of course. NE Ent 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent That arbcom sanctions template was added by Roxy the dog, after 12 days when John had imposed 0rr. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't determined whether an article is in the scope of the sanctions or not. It isn't required in order to issue sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct and article was always under Misplaced Pages:ARBIP because it has WikiProject-India. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to wikilawyer either, but technically all of the comments in this thread prior to NE Ent's at 23:27 14/11/14 were made at AN/I, not at AN. You just moved them here. Sorry, you brought it up. I'm also in favour of overturning as a non-admin, fwiw. I'm in favour of either the 1RR or enforced-BRD proposals, although I think they are functionally the same. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Ayurveda#Reviewing_the_restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing there about 1RR vs. enforced-BRD. Since the discussion about what to do with the article is proceeding on the article talk page, and John is participating, let me leave this with a comment that I am opposed to 0RR in general per the above, and a suggestion that we close this thread. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to close this thread before the 0RR is replaced by a potentially helpful restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To suggest that John is participating at the Talk page is over egging the pudding by a considerable margin. He has posted once since October 19th, has never answered questions or pings, and has stated that he does not watch the page.Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'd hate to see what 'not participating' is -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

He posted today, slightly modifying his restrictions. Still, he's essentially said there can be no edits without consensus, and reverts only under strict conditions, yet the page is not full-protected. It's even more of a mess than 0RR - now nobody can really be sure if their revert is going to be considered in violation, or even if their edit is going to be considered a revert, or if they're going to be considered part of whatever team the admin decides is edit-warring, and now it's all also subject to WP:ARBPS enforcement so editors can be handed a long block after barely a warning if their edit falls afoul of these open-to-interpretation restrictions. If I were an admin, I'd be afraid to sanction anyone for fear of being dragged before Arbcom for misinterpreting John's conditions. There's a consensus that 0RR should be removed, and technically John did that, so I guess he can do what he wants. I'm not going anywhere near that article, personally, but I hadn't been going to anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a diff from John's talk page, following a comment from John on my talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The diff above does not say what I thought it said. It seemed to support all the behavioural evidence presented. I apologise for misinterpreting. I have attempted to strike my comment above, but it looks kludgy. I would welcome anybody editing that to show me how I should have best done it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Close Review Media Viewer RfC

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

I request a review of the close at Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 and Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_2 to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I am the author of the RfC.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Consensus.2Fdisapproval_has_been_established which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. No action had been taken on this outcome. Many people were demanding respect for consensus itself, and demanding this RfC reach resolution.

I attempted discussion with the closer here on his talk page. The closer immediately invited me to take it to Administrator's Notice board. Nonetheless I attempted to pursue positive discussio ns with him because Policy says that's what we're supposed to do. I even defended him when someone jumped in with a hostile comment. The closer simply decided ignore me, without even the courtesy of informing me that no answer was forthcoming. Brief discussion resumed after I accepted his invitation to take things here. I now understand he disengaged because of the intruding hostile comment, but he still should have shown me some common courtesy.

RfC Question 1 ended 64 Support 32 Oppose. This is an exact 2-to-1 outcome, 67%. The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

"Reaffirm June_2014_RfC": This involves evaluation of whether the previous RfC was valid and whether any intervening events had invalidated it, establishing that it was a standing outcome still awaiting resolution. If it is deemed to be a standing result awaiting resolution, then it is merely question of community choice to issue a statement of affirmation. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

"Implement June_2014_RfC": The RfC question and the RfC arguments were specifically requesting that the original RfC be resolved. This is significant. Many people were focused on the principal of respecting and resolving an established consensus, rather than focused on Media Viewer itself. This RfC explicitly contemplated that participants may have cast an Oppose on the issue of disable-by-default, while supporting this RfC because they insist upon respect for carrying out an established consensus. This RfC explicitly considered participants might have Supported on the issue of disable-by-default itself, while believing there was cause not to follow through with that RfC under the current circumstances. The issue of wanting Consensus to be respected and the issue of preferred media viewer setting are not trivially interchangeable. The RfC was explicitly intended to allow people to cross the lines on those two issues when participating. The questions invite different arguments, and those arguments need to be properly evaluated as such.

I want to make a comparison here. An anonymous IP can wander onto the talk page of a protected article, spot a standing consensus-edit-request that has gone unresolved, and simply go over to Administrator Noticeboard to request an admin grab their mop and carry out the routine maintenance task of implementing that still-standing protected-page-edit-request. Carrying out a standing RfC result is a routine maintenance task. Consensus was applied in creating that standing result. A request for implementation of a standing result needs no consensus, it can be a request by one person. This RfC is seeking a routine community-consensus to issue a formal call for an admin to step up and complete that pending routine maintenance task on the previous RfC. I believe a 2-to-1 outcome clearly establishes consensus here.

Any change to the close on RfC Question 1 clearly triggers a reevaluation of RfC Question 2. Question 2 should be consensus support, or consensus support except bullet point 6. Bullet point 6 was poor drafting on my part. 6 was not intended to have any effect itself, it merely intended to reflect the expiration of the 7 day hold on implementation from Question 1.

A final note on the situation. The June_2014_RfC is a standing result, which any admin might step forward to fulfill at any time. Given the percentages in the community there is zero likelyhood of establishing a contrary consensus in the foreseeable future. That result is going to stand indefinitely, until someone does step forward to implement it. An affirmative close on this RfC as a whole imposes a mandatory 7 day prohibition on implementation, and a mandatory attempt to work with the WMF on to resolve this. Alsee (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close This was closed a while ago and the close was within discretion. Moreover, there was no policy rationale that was given for the WP:Vote that was held by Alsee in her/his nominating statement or otherwise (see, WP:CONLIMITED), and it expressly contradicted the plain language of WP:CONEXCEPT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never participated in a close review before, is customary for participants in the RfC itself to be casting Endorse close?? And is it also customary for them to essentially copy-paste their RfC Support/Oppose comments here? I was hoping the process here might involve..... I dunno.... maybe consideration of why I assert the close was incorrect. Alsee (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

endorse close in this sense means endorse the closing rational in this situation. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I understood that. What I was wondering is why we don't simply save time and copy-paste all of the participant Support/Oppose comments here. Alsee (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. To overturn you must show an abuse of discretion, which usually involves a breach of policy but since your proposal had no policy rationale there, you cannot make any such showing. I certainly did not analyse the closer's discretion as a participant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I was applying, but did not quote WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. For example this goes directly to "The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses", "Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold", and "close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated", and probably other points. Alsee (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. There does not appear to be a misunderstanding, nor does any of that cure the defect that the proposed vote had no policy rationale. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "abuse of discretion". No one is suggesting abuse of any sort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

What? "Abuse of discretion" is a common phrase, it means did someone act outside of their discretion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. When there's a 2:1 ratio against the close, the closer has an obligation to explain why the predominant conclusion had such a weak foundation as to be disregarded. There's no problem with closing RFCs against the popular count, but doing so with a vague handwave is unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note Question 2 has been archived here.

Overturn close without prejudice. Speaking for myself I looked at that debate, and because I saw the overwhelming support decided not to vote on Q1 (IIRC). It seems to me that the Q1 would require a closely reasoned close to be "no consensus" especially when "no consensus" has the same effect as "oppose". It also seems (without close examination) that Q2 might reasonably have a no-consensus close, but it should be given a proper close, even if Q1 fails because it speaks to community resolve. In other words, we may wish to say to the Foundation "The community believes that due to changed circumstances it is now acceptable to have MV as the default, but we wish to make it clear that we still believe that we should have the final say on configuration done through wiki-pages." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

the main issue with overturning the close is that there is no possible result from doing so. Yes, we could ask the foundation to do so, but WP:CONEXEPT will come into play (as a policy on this sort of issue, I weighed it accordingly). If the close is changed, it's only to cause more friction with the WMF, and the accompanied dramafest. I've explained the rest of my rational for the close already in various places, if people want to know more, then I'll try and explain. However, if people get hostile, then I'm not going to engage further. This did include the events after last time, showing there is no positive resolutions to come out of this for either side. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann you say you explained your rationale in "various other places". Could you point me where to look, aside from your talk page? I would also appreciate it if you would explicitly address my Review Request reasoning. You have not even indicated that you disagree with it, much less given any reason you think it is incorrect.

The only argument I see you adding here is a desire to avoid drama. I would like to note that your closing statement explicitly contemplates another RfC and multiple Oppose statements explicitly provide justification to start another RfC extremely soon. This RfC had 67% support. Leaving this closed as no-consensus 'with a three percent justification simply imposes the drama of yet another RfC, making supporters even more pissed off at the repeated denial of consensus. Alsee (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes; A future RfC where there is a possible outcome. There is no outcome, nor any means to show one; The WMF responded to the oppose points, which is something else that affects consensus; If someone improves an article at AfD, to the point where the issues no longer exist, would it still be deleted? WP:ROPE seems relevant here - if they improve it, then it's for the better, otherwise we can discuss this after the latest rounds of improvements are finished. There is no way we can (or will be able to) implement the consensus. Also, please stop vote counting; This was an RfC, the clue is in the word "comment", so it is not a vote. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, the problem is that you are giving extreme weight to an argument that is completely bogus: if the software isn't in acceptable condition now, it shouldn't be default now. If the WMF actually comes up with something useful in the future, then they can discuss making it the default at that future time, but what they may do in the future has no bearing on what we should do today. Overriding numerical counts is certainly acceptable, but your reasoning for doing so is without merit.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, no. Mdann52 was required by WP:CONSENSUS policy to take the views of the WMF into account - so the characterization of 67% is incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, a 2-to-1 outcome is a damn solid consensus and a closer needs a damn good reason to deny it. You cannot tell me to "stop vote counting" when your given justification for refusing a consensus close was that 2-to-1 was 3% short of bogus 70% threshold. I explained on your talk page why 70% was invalid, and you stopped responding. After filing my Review Request I indicated on your talk page that I was curious to hear your response to it. You didn't answer. I asked you above to explicitly address the review request reasoning. You have failed to do so. That is three times you have failed to deny it was clear error. If you do not state that you disagree with the cause for review and give a reason, then I am going to change my Overturn Close reason to "Closer does not dispute that he mis-evaluated the question and incorrectly applied a 70% threshold for consensus". Either change your close to reflect consensus, or participate productively here and explain how 70% is valid. Alsee (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

70% is a generally accepted threshold elsewhere (eg. RfA) for showing clear consensus. Here, as it is less than 70%, I looked into the reasoning a bit deeper than I otherwise would (this is standard practice I use elsewhere too). 70% is not a brightline, rather an advisory I use for working out rough consensus. Overall I base my closures on the discussion, not the ratio of !votes or whatever. In this case, including what the WMF said, there is not a consensus to do this. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On your talk page you justified the 70% because "Before a major software change, we really need 70% or more support". Maybe I'm reading waaay too much into your latest comment, but does your more general explanation for 70% here reflect an acceptance that the close statement should be directed to "Reaffirming and Implementing June_2014_RfC" rather than "implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer"? I would consider that a meaningful step up in accuracy. Alsee (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you took CONEXCEPT into account and gave it significant weight, your close is defective. If you look into the rationale for the policy (which, by the way, was added by an employee of the WMF without discussion), it's to prevent the community from demanding something contrary to fundamental principles or demanding something with unreasonable technical costs, neither of which is the case here. CONEXCEPT has NEVER been applied in this manner before. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm presumably the alleged WMF employee being insulted here with implications of underhanded behavior, I will point out that CONEXCEPT was created two months before my first edit, and that it was discussed not only at the time of its original addition but also later, e.g., here, and always reaffirmed (and often improved).

I have never had any reason to edit any policy in my capacity as a non-employee independent contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation. What you are falsely calling my addition is almost word-for-word what Ring Cinema proposed on the talk page, and Ring's words were discussed here in Archive 14, just like my edit summary said they were. There were five editors involved in that two-thousand-word-long discussion (which is more than typical for a discussion at WT:CONSENSUS), and nobody involved in that discussion was working with the WMF at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Overturn close. 70% threshold for consensus was not within reasonable discretion, and other reasons listed in review request. Alsee (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Clarification: Closing policy provides for things such as cause to discard improper votes and policy arguments to trump nonpolicy arguments. I meant simply assigning an arbitrary 70% threshold in a close that fails to provide a dang good rationale is not within reasonable discretion. Alsee (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely overturn close It was closed against consensus and it doesn't appear Conexempt would apply KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn - I almost voted to support yesterday, as I tend to give a lot of leeway to the closer, but when you are closing against the count, you have to explain better. I've made the same mistake at least once, and I voted against this particular close, but my conclusion here isn't based on what his conclusion is, nor do I want a second bit of the apple, I just want a close that takes the time to explain itself, and supports itself in policy. Whether his conclusion is right or wrong, we really don't have enough information to know how he came to it. Closing a contentious debate like this needs a pretty solid explanation, particularly when it goes against very strong numbers. On the technical aspects alone, I think it goes against our expectations and should be revisited by someone else. Considering it spawned an Arb case, it wouldn't bother me if a panel of 3 closed it. Dennis - 2¢ 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Definitely overturn close - I fail to see any proper reason to close it as "No Consensus", besides fear of or faintheartedness towards the WMF. I know, the WMF has acted quite forceful, one could even say very hostile, against the communities in enWP and deWP, without any proper reasoning, without any need for speed, just because they could. As long as they don't behave in a proper way, they should be reminded of their misconduct by the community, they seem to hope for it to settle without any consequence for the perpetrators. This was a clear vote to reaffirm the first one, no doubt about it. The WMF has to say something to it, it should not be made possible to hide behind improper closures. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ask the closer for a detailed explanation or overturn. "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio, however along with the arguments for and against, no clear consensus has emerged." is not an explanation (real explanation should be much more detailed). Somewhat more specific explanations in the closer's talk page include a claim "A major change in software, be it enabling or disabling, needs a clear consensus, which is usually judged as 70%+ approval."(Special:Diff/632836952) that looks suspicious for many reasons that have already been mentioned (66% is rather close to that 70%+; shouldn't enabling the MV count as "A major change in software" as well?). But more importantly, what was that "support after arguments"? Yes, I get it, it is not the vote count. But still - what was it equal to? How was it calculated? Can we recheck it?

By the way, " I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." (Special:Diff/632802362) looks especially wrong. The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community; opinion of WMF (or anyone else) shouldn't count for anything here, not just "have less weight". Other comments by closer (like Special:Diff/633909415) also seem to be rather inappropriate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "represent"? Even ignoring the plain language of WP:CONSENSUS, anyone with an internet connection may comment in the RfC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, did WMF actually comment in the RFC? It would seem to be rather hard, because WMF is not really "anyone with an internet connection". It is not an "anyone", a human being, as it is an organisation. And since organisations are not allowed to have accounts, I don't see how they can participate in an RFC.

Now if it was said that opinion of WMF representatives who did express it in or "near" the RFC was taken into account - as opinion of individual users - that would be different. But it was said that an opinion of WMF - an organisation that did not participate - was counted. And, apparently, it was given more weight than the opinion of many of participants. Of course, it is hard to say how much, since we have no detailed explanation, but I read that "less weight in my decision then the communities votes" as giving opinion of WMF just less weight than 100% of participants. Perhaps 90%, perhaps 80%... Anyway, I'd say that would be far too much weight... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents. The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law. 100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Yes, the WMF made comments on the RfC; like any organization they operate through agents." - well, in that case, what weight would you give to opinion of United Nations? Or of European Union? Sorry, but your position leads to too many conclusions that are questionable at best...

"The WP:CONSENSUS policy (among many other places on the Pedia) make clear that this website is owned by them and they make several decisions with respect to it, they do matter in fact/policy/and law." - yes, they do make some decisions. It does not mean that their opinion counts as, let's say, opinion of 10 or 100 or 1000 users. It is true that in some cases consensus does not achieve much, but it doesn't mean that WMF opinion is the community consensus. And closer of RFC is supposed to find out what that community consensus is, not what will actually happen next. Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

"100% 90% nor 80% of participants did not agree on anything, and the participants certainly did not and do not represent each other." - I am not sure what you are saying here... My comment about "90%, perhaps 80%" concerned the weight that was given to opinion of WMF. The statement I quoted might mean that opinion of WMF was given as much weight as 90% or 80% of participants would have. Although it might be that no weights were actually calculated and the closer just based the decision on his feelings (it would explain why no detailed explanation has been given)... That would be unfortunate... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where. Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts. Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other. By policy, Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic. The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS. Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What? Where is the European Union or the United Nations written in policy? No where." - well, if you meant that organisations mentioned in policy can have their opinion counted in RFCs, then you should have said that. Anyway, I do not remember any policy that actually says so. Nor do I remember some "precedent"...

"Policy specifically and explicitly recognizes that the WMF operates through "designees" and agents. If they make decisions, of course their opinion counts." - once again - policy or precedent, please.

"Your the one who claimed the RFC commentators represent, but they do not even represent each other." - OK, what did I say and where? Can you cite it? The closest thing in this discussion is "The RFC is meant to represent the opinion of community;", but that is not very close to what you are arguing against...

"By policy, Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a democracy, nor a republic." - did I say it is?

"The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS." - which just so happens to be a policy that describes consensus as used in Misplaced Pages...

"Weight is not for a Vote, nor opinion, see WP:ILIKEIT, it's given to policy." - well, I guess we can look at the policy itself, but in this case the important point is that in that case "I also took the statement from the WMF into account in the close, but gave it less weight in my decision then the communities votes when I closed the discussion." is still inappropriate, although for a different reason.

In fact, I do not see how your arguments are supposed to support your claimed opinion "Endorse close". If WP:CONEXCEPT applies in the way you claim it to apply, the close "No consensus" is still wrong - it should have been "Consensus doesn't matter". Giving weight to both "communities votes" and WMF would still be wrong.

So, please, less outrage, more arguments. And more quotations (of policy, precedents, other users). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What outrage? I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Misplaced Pages. The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"What outrage?" - none, if you say so.

"I have quoted and linked to policy, including WP:CONSENSUS, which includes CONLIMITED and CONEXCEPT - those provisions can't be discarded and read out of "consensus" on Misplaced Pages." - you have certainly linked to policy (although not to some precedents or something that would actually support your interpretation of it), but I do not see you actually quoting from it. Or quoting anything else. For, you see, I do quote you in each response for a reason. It does make it easier to avoid misrepresenting your views. And, since you did seem to misrepresent my views a bit too much, I would recommend you to try to quote me as well.

"The task here, in review, is not to replace one close rationale for another (its not to replace it with my close rationale, nor your close rationale) - it is to determine that the close result is within the policy parameter." - I am afraid that is one more case when you misrepresent my position. I am not saying that we have to "reclose" the discussion ourselves. I am saying that, if your interpretation of policy is correct, no close that is not equivalent to "Consensus doesn't matter" is going to be compatible with the policy. Furthermore, the close uses lots of reasoning that is incompatible with your interpretation of policy. Thus I think that if you actually care about the policy (instead of just avoiding the fight with WMF), it is rather inconsistent for you to endorse the close. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Consensus is the policy, so WP:Consensus does matter. I endorse the close because it is within the salient policy and voting is irrelevant, so there is no reason to overturn it because of the number of votes. (also, look for quotation marks) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Such a short comment and yet it includes so much! We have: 1) equivocation between "consensus" and "WP:CONSENSUS" (especially strange after you have accused me of such equivocation - "The closer is not tasked with for some undefined consensus, they are tasked with WP:CONSENSUS."), 2) straw man argument ("there is no reason to overturn it because of the number of votes" - I am not arguing that it should be overturned just because of "vote count" here), 3) "proof by assertion" with failure to address the arguments against that assertion ("I endorse the close because it is within the salient policy" - I have just argued that the close is incompatible with your own interpretation of the policy, not to mention interpretation of others)...

Though, of course, your position is rather hard to defend without fallacies... I guess this discussion could give the closer enough reason to give your "vote" a proper weight... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No. No equivocation - WP:CONSENSUS includes the policy sections I have pointed to (yes - I pointed you to WP:CONSENSUS because that is what is relevant - not your claimed undefined consensus). No straw man - you are arguing for vote count percentage to overturn. The close is not incompatible - the policy states the WMF "acts" and "decisions" and "rulings" are elements in claimed WP:CONSENSUS formation - those WMF decisions, etc. are "preceden" - they are "pre", they go before - they are not 'post' - they do not follow after. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"No. No equivocation - WP:CONSENSUS includes the policy sections I have pointed to" - it has little to do with what "equivocation" means. I meant that you are using "WP:CONSENSUS" (policy) and "consensus" (something described by that policy) as if they were the same thing. They are not. The section you point to is even called "Decisions not subject to consensus of editors". If you argue that it applies here, then consistency would require you to argue that, yes, the close is still against the policy and the right close would say something like "Consensus doesn't matter." (of course, if you point to policy without actually quoting what it says, it becomes less obvious).

"No straw man - you are arguing for vote count percentage to overturn." - right here I am arguing that if the policy is to be interpreted as you wish, the close would still be wrong. It has nothing to do with vote counting.

"The close is not incompatible - the policy states the WMF "acts" and "decisions" and "rulings" are elements in claimed WP:CONSENSUS formation - those WMF decisions, etc. are "preceden" - they are "pre", they go before - they are not 'post' - they do not follow after." - I have to say that I do not understand what you are saying here other than that it has little to do with what the word "precedent" means... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your misuse of equivocation is your fault not mine - the policy is WP:CONSENSUS, which is the definition of consensus that matters on Misplaced Pages. Your the one who argued for an imagined consensus of editors by exalting vote percentages - and I pointed you to CONSENSUS policy - which says what has "precedence" with respect to its formation - WP:CONSENSUS gives the "precedence" to the acts and decisions of the WMF - valid formation is by definition only according to that policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I obviously do not think much about those your arguments, but perhaps now we can leave everything to whoever chooses to close this discussion... There should be enough evidence. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took part in the RfC, so I will refrain from putting in an official !vote on the closure review. But Mdann's comments in this thread cast a serious doubt in my mind as to his/her impartiality in the closure. His/her comments in regard to CONEXCEPT and relations with WMF rather blatantly suggests to me that Mdann's closure was a supervote, instead of an attempt to summarize the consensus of the discussion. VanIsaac_WS 04:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, just about everyone who gave such opinion here participated in the discussion... In fact, I wanted to add "as a 'voter'" to my opinion, but then I noticed that and it seemed to be rather pointless... I'm afraid that there are no more truly "uninvolved" users left (not counting the ones who wouldn't want to have anything to do with such discussions in the first place)... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Just an update, at this time Rich Farmbrough, KoshVorlon, Hobit, Adam Cuerden, and Obsidi did not participate in Q1 which is at challenge here. I think Rich was in Q2, but the fact that he actively declined to participate in Q1 arguably gives him a uniquely proven willingness to respect any valid outcome on that question. Their 5 unanimous Overturns seem to be good evidence that RfC supporters aren't merely here to whine. Alsee (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn I didn't read the entire discussion, but I did read a lot. The close was very poor. If you are going to go against numeric consensus (and there can be darn fine reasons to do so!), you need a better explanation. I didn't get the sense that the closer had internalized and was able to explain the arguments on both sides, let alone that there was some overriding issue that made the numeric consensus worth rejecting. Note: this is not the same as saying the close result was mistaken. If this gets overturned and someone else closes it, the close might have the same outcome. But hopefully for a clear reason. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn The close seems to be an assertion with no connection to reality. When you're claiming there isn't a consensus, then stating immediately thereafter "Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio" - and have literally no argument why there's no consensus, your closure is bullshit and should be overturned. That not everyone agrees is expected - otherwise, why have the RFC? - but doesn't mean that the viewpoint of a supermajority should be ignored with no other reason given. The closer dropped the ball badly here, and doesn't really seem to be able to defend his views. Adam Cuerden 00:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn per Hobit. If the closer is going against numerical consensus, he needs a good reason to. KonveyorBelt 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

closer note I'm going through a few RL issues at the moment, so I'm lacking the time to give this the full attention I would normally do. I hope to be able to come back and leave a full analysis of my closure within the next 24-48 hours or so. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn I am fine with going against the numbers if there is a strong policy requirement or if some of the !votes are invalid, but this isn't that. In this case, the closure went against the votes without any good specific valid reason why, as such it should be reversed. --Obsidi (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn As per others. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, I have prepared my full explanation, so please find it below. In order to do closes, I make notes and a rough tally of the points on both sides. In this case, in the "support" section, there appears to be a number of main categories - "I don't like it/it used to be better before" type comments, "consensus already formed" etc., "there are bugs/issues" and "see usability/approval numbers". In the support section, the main categories were "Not applicable, per WP:CONEXCEPT", "ongoing consultation/improvements/fixes" (also echoed by the WMF), "benefit for readers/easy to turn off if you want", "not really an RfC" (not considered) and "Better than before". The WMF also indicated that they were listening and making changes made on community feedback, including easier opt-out, and they will reconsider this once they have new data. Overall, with the full comments made, and the relevant policies mentioned (CONEXCEPT, m:Limits to configuration changes), and the history of this issue (bugzilla:67826 and previous RfC), that at this time, there is no clear consensus to carry this change out. Please let me know if you wish for me to clarify anything. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1.When the discussion is about software useability, arguments like 'it was better before' 'there are bugs' are perfectly reasonable reasons to disable something by default. 'Consensus already formed' is also a valid argument when the question is about 'should we endorse previous discussion'. 2.Weighting against that with the WMF's 'we are doing stuff that might at some point in the future lead to it being useful' is really really bad judgement on both consensus, and weighting/evaluation of evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, hence I did not ignore it. Additionally, how is looking at the improvements/bug fixes "bad judgement"? If there was an AfD, and a participant was actively editing the article and fixing issues, would the article be deleted? Usually not, they would be given the benefit of the doubt, and allowed to carry on (WP:ROPE). --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You think that can pass for a "full explanation"? Sorry, but anything that can at least be similar to a full explanation must be at least ten times longer. If you do not want to write that much, perhaps you can simply upload your notes that you mention?

Frankly, the impression I get is that you read everything and then closed in the way you did just because you felt like it. Can you give some evidence that would clearly demonstrate that this impression is wrong?

Anyway, some specific questions that must be answered by a full explanation:

1. You have said that ~70% support would have been necessary. What number did you compare with that "~70%" (it had to be some number; it makes no sense to talk about thresholds without numbers)? How exactly did you come up with that number?
   1. What exact weights have been given to each type of argument (or participant)? Why?
   2. What exact weight was given to opinion of WMF? Why?
2. How exactly did you use "CONEXCEPT"? That section is called "Decisions not subject to consensus of editors". Do you think it applies?
   1. If the answer is "Yes", why did you try to determine consensus at all?
   2. If the answer is "No", why do you say it was "relevant"?

Answering those questions should get you started... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

70% was a rough figure, not a brightline rule. I'm not sure where it originated from, but it was a piece of advice I've received in the past from an admin to use while closing discussions, and how deep they need to be examined.

In terms of weight, I gave more weight to the community than the WMF, because of course the community is bigger. I give weight to arguments as opposed to participants primarily, but of course those arguments with more support are given more weight. After looking through this, the rough consensus was about 55:45, which to me is within the realms of a "no consensus" close. Note this does not overturn the decision of the previous RfC, it just says that there is no consensus at this time to reproach the WMF and try and get it disabled at this time.

Personally, I did not consider CONEXCEPT, as I mentioned in the close. As a relevant policy (as it covers RfC's just like this), I did give weight to !votes referring to it. The reason it may be relevant here is that as a decision of the WMF whether this is on or off, it is clearly a possible reply from the WMF, and a valid point to make. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn as per above. And since its been a few days now. Can someone get on and do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. Seems like a supervote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn result. We don't need consensus at this discussion to continue enforcing the removal of MediaViewer, because we previously had consensus to remove it. When a discussion results in consensus to do something, a later discussion must have consensus the other way for things to change: a "no consensus" close for the later discussion results in the continued enforcement of the first decision. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 voluntarily withdrew his close on Question 1, and edited the RfC page to reflect this. This is a single multipart RfC, reopening it reopens the entire RfC. Part 2 is explicitly dependent upon part 1, and any close on part two needs to take into account the close on part 1. I edited the page to reflect a reopening of part 2 as well.

I support the idea of having three a panel of 3 close this, considering how contentious this matter is. For what it's worth I have no objection to dropping the final bullet point from part 2 if the closer(s) feel the current !votes are too close for a sufficient consensus as-is, but I would hope such a close would be clear that the part 1 call-to-implement kicks in at the end of the 7 day hold. Alsee (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reversing of warning, past sanctions and past blocks

With respect to the confession here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#I am... and the corresponding user talk discussion and SPI... I'm starting this thread to request a reversing of my past blocks (I think all except the first one but I am willing to dig in to histories and give diffs), a logged warning by ArbCom and retrospectively reversing of my (now removed) 1RR and IBAN sanctions with respect to Darkness Shines. This is because all these were made in deliberate hounding, baiting and disruption for about a year or more. From the first article Taliban I edited with an editor "The Last Angry Man" (why is TLAM still unblocked?) and this editor who was not much active in my topic area jumped in to support (I should have reported right then but I did not have a lot of evidence; and later all my reports would have been rejected due to history with DS), he eventually was hounding me to every single article I edited (including the brand new ones that I created); obviously from my contributions history. Whatever attempts I made to take this to ANI, DR, ArbCom were disrupted and eventually resulted in an interaction ban and 1RR which I got reverted the hard way by regaining good standing inspite of all this hounding by a sockpuppet who was thought to be a 'genuine' editor. I am starting here as I want to raise the least drama but I am willing to go to ArbCom if the community is not even willing to appreciate an administrative failure for years. I am not even asking for any apologies here, I just want things acknowledged to bring my own editing at a better standing. These are my main concerns that I want reversed where applicable or acknowledged to be wrongful where already reversed:

1. IBan with DS (removed ~2.5 years ago).
2. 1RR restriction due to baiting by DS (removed ~2.5 years ago).
3. Rollback removed due to a block due to this baiting.
4. Final warning logged by Seraphimblade (ArbCom) (standing and needs to be reverted).
5. My block log looks like hell so want it noted there that the blocks were wrongful per policy - all but my first block involve DS; mostly directly reverting / Iban vio (or at the very least for maybe one case, he was influencing consensus / tag-teaming with any other editors opposing me).

All this because admins were wary and were not ready to swiftly block on behavioural evidence of disruption, hounding and mess that resulted in finally creating WP:ARBIPA and later DS got himself topic banned from the area. His sockmaster account's blocklog rivals his current (apart from all the intermediate prolific socking) and by the looks of it he was under 1RR and sanctions similar to his current ones even then. I can safely say that a major part to play in this was by DS. It is unfortunate to see recognition on his talkpage by even administrators given that he had been nothing but trouble.

This is a rare case, but administrators who initially volunteered to work with us as uninvolved including Magog the Ogre‎ and Salvio giuliano‎ and the editors who were working over the main content disputes (Mar4d, TParis) would know how deep rooted this mess was and I can not find enough space to even list the damage that's been done to Misplaced Pages; the man hours wasted (mine and of all the editors / admins at ANI / ArbCom), the new editors hounded off, and major disruption of my own efforts to a content area covering 3-4 countries atleast. Here are some archives remotely pointing to the history:

You might say that I should have acted differently assuming that it was not known that he was a sock, but it was deliberate baiting and hounding by a sock with no fear of indeff (because guess what, he's already indeffed and a sock). This revelation changes everything and all my blocks / sanctions were wrongful because you can not have an iban / sanction / block because of a block evading sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: Please start with no justice. Having an interaction ban with an indeffed blocked sock is effectively having no ban at all, but we are not a bureaucracy and there's no benefit in wading back through all the history changing stuff that doesn't help the encyclopedia and, in the end, that's all that is important. Misplaced Pages editors are never sanctioned due to other folks behavior, they're sanctioned because of their own behavior. The fact that someone else turns out to have not followed the rules doesn't excuse one's own behavior. Finally, claiming "administrative failure" is an inappropriate collective personal attack on the editors who have volunteered their time to do admin scutwork. The simple fact is that Wikimedia Foundation has declared we will have socks. Well, not directly, but the combination of not requiring registration and very, very strong privacy rights for volunteers is effectively that. The WP:SPI folks do the best they can in ferreting out the more obvious cheaters, but that's about the best you can expect. NE Ent 11:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read my original comment, I'm not asking for justice.. and before you go and throw more essays at me, reversing of warnings / sanctions and blocklog is the least that can be done. I am willing to redo the content the hardway and I probably wont be able to fix a year's disruption anyway like that if at all. For the claim of administrative failure, I'm not the only one claiming this. Look at the first ANI thread I linked. So suck it up for this is what you get for letting a disruptive editor roam around. If you think that amounts to no ban at all... the short answer should have been that because there's no need to go wading back through histories to do this; I am the one responsible for diffs. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• What Ent said. The fact that he was guilty of even more issues doesn't erase your guilt, nor justify your previous actions. And I can promise you that there are many thousands, yes thousands of socks we haven't caught here. I know of many, I just can't quite prove it, so I can't do anything. We don't have the tools, the authority or the manpower to catch even half the socking that takes place here. Not by a long shot. Your request to essentially turn back time and pretend he never existed is unrealistic and unworkable. And for the most part, changes nothing. And I would add that while we are permitted (but not required) to revert banned socks, to go in mass and revert everything he did just because "I can", would be disruptive this late in the game, and be seen as WP:POINTy. We aren't going to get Orwellian here and turn DS into an unperson by erasing three years of history. I can explain more, but in the end, it doesn't matter if DS was a sock or the Pope of Chili Town, your actions were your actions, and him being a sock doesn't excuse them. He isn't here anymore, move forward. I am sorry we didn't catch him sooner, but we aren't mind readers and socking is remarkably easy. Dennis - 2¢ 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My guilt? Great... diffs? All baiting and hounding by some one whose all edits are invalid. From 0 common edits to almost every article. So forgive me if my behaviour wasn't exemplary and that administrators are not the only ones to claim WP:NOJUSTICE (an essay ever edited by 7 editors), that goes both ways. There's not one instance where I have asked to plainly revert out everything, though I would not be wrong to revert where I feel like. This is about my disputes with him that administrators knew were on brink and the blocks that were unwarranted. I believe that inspite of being sympathetic on his talkpage, you would have blocked him if you found it, but I don't believe that I am the only one to blame for all the forumshopping that got my blocks and sanctions. If as per NE Ent, it is not a ban at all given that he was a block evading editor wasting genuine editors' time, why is this such a big deal to ask for an acknowledgement in my block log which is a policy Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log unlike the essay thrown at me. Ironically, I'd like to quote an admin's comment from ANI that they give DS a certain amount of leeway because he has been dealing with a lot of socks. So forgive me while I ask for you guys to, for once, accept a wrong and implement policy which is the least that can be done here and the only thing I originally asked for, not for undoing everything. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And asking for a thing or two, directly to that admin, is perfectly fine, but you are asking too much in this report. It is frustrating for us all, and I understand why it is most frustrating for you. I would even support adding a one second block to your log to add a note in the summary, although I'm not sure it makes much difference. But you are asking too much in this report as a whole. Farmer Brown (Dennis) 15:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how it is all being interpreted, but I have already gotten my sanctions removed the hard way by proving from my edits; they were obviously with a de facto banned (indeffed) editor anyway so I do understand what NE Ent said and a one second block noting this about blocks is enough and very much per policy. Coming here than going and finding the blocking admin(s) seemed to be the better thing in my judgment so I did. The only thing that is left otherwise is the ArbCom warning... I don't know its standing (it specifically refers to "inappropriate interaction with DS" which is all void) but I can wait for Seraphimblade and Magog the Ogre's comment about that. I don't know what else do you think I am asking as a whole in this report? I was hounded for a year by this editor... I don't think my reaction by posting this thread is out of ordinary. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. I have respect for both TopGun and Darkness Shines. At the time, I felt both were knowledgable and resourceful editors. Darkness Shines confession, which still leaves me with doubts, is disappointing. Not because he confessed but because I trusted him and I feel let down. If his confession is true, and not an attempt to burn bridges because he is exhausted, then TopGun deserves the benefit of the doubt and a lot of his past actions would've had policy on his side (ie. exemptions referring to blocked socks). I think it's fair to cut TopGun at least a little slack if not a clean slate altogether.--v/r - TP 17:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm with TParis. I can sympathize with TopGun because I've been there, in terms of working extensively to deal with a difficult editor only to find that their account was a sockpuppet. There is something particularly frustrating about having one's time and effort wasted by another editor's dishonesty in this fashion. I note, with irony, that one of Darkness Shines' many blocks was overturned because his adversary in an edit war turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user (see block log, 30 July 2012). While I get the "no justice" concept, and have cited it myself, I do think we owe the same sort of consideration to TopGun here.

  A couple of other points: Darkness Shines' block log is sort of remarkable, in that it makes me wonder how he retained any editing privileges here at all even before his confession. There's a clear history of disruptive editing with the DS account alone, and anyone who's shocked to find that the account was operated by another disruptive editor wasn't paying very close attention. And let's recall that the sockpuppeteer in this case was banned for, among other things, serious violations of WP:BLP, a policy which we all pretend to take seriously, at least when it suits us to do so. This episode should probably prompt a bit more introspection about how we react to disruptive editors. MastCell  18:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Amen to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Irony seems to be the core of this and fits in with Magog's comment below about the punitive nature of just editing with an editor like this. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I recommended TopGun post here after he consulted me privately. I first came upon their dispute while meting out punishments at WP:AN3. Eventually, I went through an ArbCom proceeding with them in which I made it very clear that I thought DS was continually gaming the system and doing his best to harm TopGun. So I am not wholly impartial at this point.

To speak my mind anyway: I thought a lot of the blocks against TG were done in an attempt to be even-handed: to punish both sides equally, when it was quite clear to me that this was DS's exact goal. Cause a lot of disruption, muddy the waters, and when the ax comes down, everyone has a body part lopped off.

Also to note: TopGun has not been perfect. In particular, he's not very good at recognizing what constitutes "neutral." But this is a problem a lot of editors have without the long block log to suit. IMO, the majority of his blocks were due to collateral damage. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious you have a bias here, but you've admitted it, so I respect that. I get along fine with TG and DS both, but I've interacted more with DS due to Nang* socks, so might have my own bias. I never interacted with either when editing, only as admin. Thinking about it a couple of days, I wouldn't be opposed to consider some of what TG is asking about. What I don't want to see is the community go on a tear to "erase" DS. That would be vindictive. At the same time, looking at some modifications to TG's sanctions does seem reasonable as long as the goal isn't "anti-DS", but instead leveling the playing field, which wasn't even for TG before. If MastCell wanted to look and make the call, I'm pretty confident I would be ok with the modifications he felt were balanced and reasonable. Dennis - 2¢ 01:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the sockpuppetry, I might as well admit that I had my suspicions over TLAM being a former account of DS as far back as 2012. The similarities in contributions and POVs between both accounts, and many old talk page archives had sent some bells ringing back then. However, there was not enough conclusive evidence to make a judgement, and given the cesspit of content disputes, sanctions and administrative interventions going on back then, the thing remained on the backhand. However, having sifted through the contributions and similarities between both accounts more recently (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley), I am more than convinced that TLAM was DS, and that both accounts were used abusively in content disputes with TopGun (including instances like this, where both DS and TLAM are voting support on what seems like a talk page RfC, and abusing the vote process; this is probably a tip of the iceberg). What I find ludicrous is that having already admitted to being Marknutley, and despite the plethora of evidence related to TLAM given at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley, DS is not willing to go a step further and own up that he also abused two accounts concurrently. Just owning this may generate some goodwill. I'm not sure why he's denying links to TLAM, but the evidences available quite strongly proves otherwise. I haven't been editing with DS or been in a content dispute with him for more than a year now, so I don't have any hard feelings. I am just perplexed at the truth coming out. I've had my fair share of disputes with this editor in the past, especially back in 2012. Like TG, I was taken to all the dramaboards and amid blocks and SPI accusations due to the editor concerned. Looking at his recent blocks, it is evident he's been engaged in content disputes with many other editors too. I also feel that many administrators have been too lenient with DS at times. It is probably because of that attitude that things have been allowed to get to this point. I think TopGun's request for a reversal of past warnings and sanctions is justified, to give him a level-playing field and also a clean slate that he deserves. For me, his reaction is natural and understandable. No editor would like having irremovable stains on their record and getting their repo damaged, especially when the other editor (who's the reason for much of it) they were engaged with for many years is now a confessed sockmaster and had been taking everyone for a ride. Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

iBan suggested

The other day I closed Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryulong.2C_cannot_be_stopped_breaking_rules, a complaint about Ryulong by RTG, with "no action" since I did not see enough support for an iBan (and certainly not for any action against either one, no matter how disruptive some of their edits are). Looking at it again I see that I missed Mdann52's support, so that makes four, along with Richard Yin, Ivanvector, and Knowledgekid87. In my opinion that's still not enough to seal the deal, but after clicking through the diffs cited in that report, and after Ryulong pointed out a previous thread, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#RTG, I'm beginning to think that maybe an iBan is not a bad idea. I have plenty of problems with Ryulong's editing, but in these threads and in some of the linked conversations RTG is even worse, and I think that for the two of them to be kept separate is a good idea.

So I'd like you to consider this proposal anew, an interaction ban between Ryulong and RTG. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain this could be imposed by an uninvolved administrator, if appropriate, under WP:GS/GG without the need for a discussion here. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright--am I uninvolved enough? (Mind you, I'm not sure it's all GamerGate-related!) Drmies (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You've not edited the subject matter, so I suppose that makes you uninvolved. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - the thread where this was originally proposed went stale when RTG started a new retaliatory one further down the page, but the concerns in the original thread remain. As someone mostly uninvolved in the topic area these disputes seem to come from, it's clear to me that these two editors cannot get along, and they blow up any talk page or noticeboard they cross paths on, dragging multiple editors into personal disputes which have no hope of resolution here. Keeping them apart is best. Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  By 'retaliatory', you mean a bit disillusioned with the fact that Ryulong can get away with 15RR when any other person couldn't of? Maybe we read a different section of it, because the wording of the original seemed a bit to be blunt and maybe misunderstanding WP:TPO (you can remove posts from your own talk page without response) but that's not a reason for an iban. Being a bit disillusioned by asserted double standards isn't much 'retaliatory'. I oppose any interaction ban, one party or reciprocal or otherwise. This needs to be unambiguous 'hounding' and demonstratably with diffs. It seems that to me that the user above took to the noticeboards because that's the only place to report user conduct, and that people didn't necessarily see it that way. I don't see a need for an iban in this capacity. This should be closed in leiu of waiting of another noticeboard discussion, and if necessary, I will be the one to propose an iban if this continues in the future. Otherwise, seems to be just an instance of editors trying to punish other editors for reporting things to a noticeboard--that's what they're supposed to do. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  RTG has no right to be on my ass about anything unless it directly involves him. This goes beyond the WP:AN3 reports considering these have nothing to do with that report and are instead examples of RTG jumping into a dispute without any knowledge of anything. , , , .—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  And now I've just seen this message he left me at Jimbo's talk page. Is this the hounding you wanted to see Tutelary?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Is every comment that he makes on you an example of 'hounding'? Jimbo's talk page is incredibly public in itself and since his 'open door' policy, even Russavia comments on stuff there. (unsure of what the ArbCom case on that amounted to) On the talk page issues, you're allowed to request him to not post on your talk page and I believe he's required to adhere to such per WP:NOBAN. Tutelary (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Did you actually read what he said to me? RTG had never edited Jimbo's page until I left that message early this morning. This is hounding plain and simple. I can't believe the mere fact it's marginally related to the Gamergate shit blinds you from this fact. And regarding the noticeboards, I made a thread requesting that he be banned from me because of all the harassing messages he sent me on my user talk. Four in a row that had nothing to do with him. And then after two days passed and he didn't bother to even defend himself, but he did find the time to edit the AN3 thread, I sent him another message, and that's when he made the larger retaliatory thread that got shut down by Drmies. This is hounding. This is unnecessary behavior. Other than the time I went to the Archive.is RFC after RTG disrupted the Instantnood SPI case I have done nothing in regards to RTG. I can easily abide by any necessary interaction ban with him. It is obvious that he now has this need to get me off of the project at any means necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not every comment on a page is hounding, even if an editor has never been there before. Besides, Jimbo's talk page is usually and correctly regarded as a special kind of place; I see no reason (if it weren't for the general disruption we're dealing with here) why they shouldn't comment there after you did. RTG, this supposed 15RR of Ryulong's is getting tedious: if no action was taken after it had been brought to every one's attention, then maybe there's less to it than you think: dropping such comments too frequently is in fact a kind of harassment. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Supossed!!!??? I will be back for one more post. A link to recent archives. And then please do not address me again in this thread wether you find such a request lacking in respect or not. If you chose such lack of respect to taint your views, so be it. I certainly am not getting any respect. Where is the review of my report you linked above? ~ R.T.G 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This ignorance illicited my concern when compounded with a number of other concurrent incidents, particularly the interference of others comments. Thanks a bunch for checking. ~ R.T.G 00:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how Dreadstar would feel about their close of that obviously stale report being called "ignorant"? Drop the stick, dude. Ivanvector (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I support this explicitly as a community action, but RGloucester is also correct. Ivanvector (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors are very much allowed to criticize other administrators' actions. Or is any dissent not allowed in any capacity? Tutelary (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support I have been watching this for some time, at first I thought Ryulong may just have not liked someone complaining about him, but it seems to have gone well beyond that. Its one thing to bring up your complaints and see if the community agrees, but it seems to me that RTG's behavior went beyond that. --Obsidi (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would note that support for an IBAN was also expressed by User:NinjaRobotPirate in the archived thread here. My own support has already been noted. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me (yes), but since when was "not knowing anything about anything" an anything? Jimbo explicitly requests that questions be answered for him on his behalf, such as when he says a thing, and a load of hopper onners go, "yes it is..." "No it isn't..." "Yes it is..." for days. Anyone ever been to Punch and Judy? It's a farce, and that requires response. I have totally agreeable interaction on Jimbos talk page over the years. It amounts to about half a dozen or more long threads, mainly conversational. Ryulong does behave in an injurious manner without bridle, everywhere in W-space. I do respond to unbridled discontent with the principles of the site. I do not make it my purpose to single anybody. I do not clash content with said offender, bar pointing out a minor grammatical error to the Gamergate dispute article which they apparently will now own if they do not already. My only notification of this review was the fact the User:Dmries linked my userpage. I, unlike some, consider such threads as this as serious in nature, yet I am to be held in contempt of it. Thanks a lot. I cannot support this "iBan" as it would not be content related. Conduct issues must be treated as such, if you please, ~ R.T.G 22:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: In all of the times I have purposely drawn attention to an event in a wild manner, and I have done that believe me, a widespread ban has not been a serious issue. Now when a toxic editor takes it upon themselves for having the gaul to question them or a thing they are involved in (not gamergate or any of that, you ask, they did it), so for drawing my attention, prompting me the ability to post which heretofore I did not have, I should be punished. If that is the case a warning should be on said users userpage not to question them, particularly more than once, regardless the situation, because if I am not mistaken... my report of Ryulong was not reviewed in any shape or form except to question my personal validity. Questioning personal validity is a form of personal attack. I may respond to a wall of diffs or a shield of snow, but in other case, with the reminder of my protest of ignored reports, my input is again all done. ~ R.T.G 22:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an IBan, it doesn't stop you from continuing to edit any article you wish and it applies equally to Ryulong as it does you (I don't think this is a one way IBan that is being suggested). If Ryulong does bad behavior, I am sure other editors will report it. --Obsidi (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. This has nothing to do with content. I have made only one report of said user. I can understand what these other editors must see, but I cannot find it. That means it is coming, weather or witch, a distinct example. See, I don't always make sense, and I believe in nice-to-be-nice, that philosophy is misunderstood... I have a type, and usually that type does not illicit frustration. Usually they are busy and move along in the face of such mistakes in their direction, but sometimes... just sometimes... one of them looks right at you and moves their head without moving their eyes. It makes you want to hit them worse. Ban me all you like. There should be no misunderstanding. Look, please don't address me directly here anybody. I consider my input complete. A similar request led to this, but I will not take fault when I am not at it, when I have so much fault already. Further input from me is not necessary at this point, is it? ~ R.T.G 00:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. As mentioned above, I voted to support an interaction ban in one of the other threads about this drama. My rationale is in that thread, but, basically, I think that RTG is starting too many threads about Ryulong and involving himself in unrelated discussions simply to annoy Ryulong. I don't much care whether it's one way or two way. Just get it in place so that we can stop seeing this all over the place and I stop getting pinged about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That "many" is one. Find me another. Gah! Let me go! I didn't do it. I will not say I did. My report was not reviewed. It is possibly the only report I have made to ANI that was not a straight vandal or spammer or such. ~ R.T.G 00:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You had started one on AN after you had one on ANI. Noteswork (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support There seems to be a lot of high strung nerves and histrionics going on. Blackmane (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Drmies is right about this. While not GG-related, an interaction ban will stop the problem in its tracks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Without assigning blame, this seems like a good way to reduce the amount of drama around here significantly. --Jayron32 12:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Few threads on ANI have been made about these issues recently, Iban would solve this conflict. Noteswork (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a few hours to go for Arbs nominations

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

As a heads up to anyone still thinking about running, the nominations will close in less than four hours. There are 9 seats to fill in this election and only 14 candidates (6 of which are non-admins). If you want to be an Arb, 1) you're crazy; and 2) this is the year to run. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oh! It's past that time now. Well. Maybe next time. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please delete user talk page

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

User talk:Rudics, out of projecct scope, also userpage can be out of projext scope, thanks--Musamies (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MFD is what you want. Blackmane (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No point in adding extra bureaucracy with a MFD listing, Deleted as U5, not a webhost Secret 02:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You may also want to check their other contributions --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Did You Know main page

Can an admin take a look at Template:Did you know/Queue and update the main page. DYK has missed its last two updates and is coming up on a third. There's already a backlog of submissions and this doesn't help. Fuebaey (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The first Prep area, which would normally be moved to the first Queue and then to the main page, has had its first hook (the one with the picture) removed for copyright / close paraphrasing concerns, and then the replacement first hook was removed for being factually incorrect. This doesn't help in getting timely updates (but it can be debated whether a high turnover rate at DYK is really a good thing anyway, considering the too common problems with and sometimes lack of decent scrutiny of the hooks). Fram (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you put into checking nominations but that doesn't explain why mechanisms have to grind to a halt for a full day. Given the number of nominations we have the hook could've easily been replaced and dealt with later. Thanks anyway to Crisco 1492 for updating the queue. Fuebaey (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at DYK a couple of times before but it's all a bit opaque and there are no clear instructions for wat admins are expected to do there. I can see that some bits of it appear to be automated and others less so, and that there's a backlog - but it could do with someone writing down a step by step guide for admins to follow. I'm happy to help but reluctant to do so as I'm not sure what I need to do there. WaggersTALK 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The backlogs are the fault of those who care about rule enforcement for the sake of rule enforcement, rather than for the sake of encyclopedia-building. Some time back, some people started complaining that we had too much backlog, so they imposed a requirement that self-nominations (the large majority of nominations) must be accompanied by a review of another nomination. Guess what, some nominators made too-hasty reviews that didn't catch problems, so the same complainers started objecting about insufficient reviews, so they imposed long, detailed requirements. Guess what, the whole system became absurdly complicated, a great example of failure to follow the WP:NOTBURO standard, and guess what, the backlogs continued to become worse. Following the rules gets in the way of building an encyclopedia, so I'm no longer contributing or wasting my time helping (except on simple requests like this, if I see them), and just waiting to see if we decide to stop listening to the nattering nabobs of negativism or if they end up destroying it entirely. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Arbitration Committee internal procedures

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a change to it's internal rules and procedures regarding arbitrator requests for self-assignment of CheckUser or Oversight permissions. The proposed motion can be viewed on this page, community members are invited to comment on the motion in the appropriate section on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Assistance required in interpreting Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Guys, I need assistance in interpreting two issues in Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I'm listing them below:

• 1.The General Sanctions page mentions, "Pages may be tagged with {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used to indicate that articles are under general sanctions. The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." Does this statement mean that if an article already has a page notice/tag/edit notice informing the editors about the presence of sanctions, there is no need therefore to inform a particular editor about the existence of sanctions and log them before imposing sanctions? For example, the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant already has a page notice that mentions the presence of these sanctions. Does it imply therefore that any editor editing the page is assumed to ergo be automatically informed about the sanctions?
• 2.The General Sanctions page also mentions, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Does without warning mean that one can block an editor without informing him about the existence of sanctions? Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Wifione 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Notifications and warnings are two different things. A notification is simply an informative message that can be issued to anyone. A warning is a sanction that presupposes misconduct. It is unfair to sanction someone without notification, but a breach of the general sanctions can lead to an immediate block without needing a warning. They are very similar, but subtly different. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are mixing up the WP:1RR with the community-authorised discretionary sanctions. To impose a discretionary sanction, editors must have first been notified with the appropriate template, and that notification logged as it says. However, blocking for 1RR violations does not require a notification, as it is not a discretionary sanction. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. RGloucester, while my view is similar to yours, I'm not sure others think so. Also, what do you think of my first query mentioned above? Could other editors chip in with comments with respect to both my specific queries please? Thanks. Wifione 17:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

My position is this: 1RR is unusual and is authorised as a sanction under this general sanction. An administrator would not usually impose a block for a 1RR without first notifying the person that there is a 1RR on a particular page under sanctions, because it would be grossly unfair to block an account of a person who had no idea that a page was under sanctions imposing a 1RR rule. A warning placed at the top of on a article talk page is not sufficient warning of a 1RR as the editor my not have looked at the talk page before reverting for a second time.

The problem is that currently the general sanction states: "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." (my emphasis on must). and the specified template states "An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here."

To rectify this it will be is necessary to alter the wording of the sanctions so a warning on the talk page of a user by an uninvolved administrator, that informs the user of the SCW&ISIL sanctions page through a link, can be taken to be sufficient notification, to allow further action by uninvolved administrators should the user break the sanctions in future. Logging notification/warnings by uninvolved admin should not be a prerequisite to prove that a user has warned/notified (that can be done through the edit history of the users talk page). Also any editor who clearly shows that they are aware of the sanctions (for example by notifying another editor of such sanctions) should not need to be notified or warned of possible administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. Guidelines already exist on this matter, and your proposals fly in the face of them. For discretionary sanctions to be issued, the notification template must be used to alert editors that the discretionary sanctions exist, and that notification must be logged. This applies to these sanctions, because they are community-authorised discretionary sanctions explicitly said to mimic WP:ARBPIA. Notifications need not be issued by administrators. They can be issued by any editor as long as he or she follows the appropriate procedure. WP:1RR is not a discretionary sanction. It is separate from the discretionary sanctions, and hence does not require a discretionary sanctions notification. However, like with all edit-warring blocks, a warning should be issued before blocking. Such a warning is not the same as the discretionary sanctions notification. RGloucester — ☎ 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Let me summon an editor who was involved in the drafting of these sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree while "Notifications need not be issued by administrators" and they can be issued by any editor, for a user to be notified the appropriate procedure has to be followed. If a 1RR is only in place on a page because of the sanctions affecting editing of that page, then if someone is blocked because of a 1RR then the administrator who issues the block has used a discretionary sanction to make the block. -- PBS (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because the WP:1RR and the community-authorised discretionary sanctions are separate general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions require a discretionary sanctions notice, and various other procedures. WP:1RR does not. It has edit notices in place on the pages appropriate, and there is also this template, Template:Uw-1rrSCW, which can be used to warn editors about edit-warring on 1RR-affected pages. This is why, if you'll notice, the 1RR and discretionary sanctions are described in separate boxes at the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL page. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe I agree with RGloucester. To sanction an editor pursuant to discretionary sanctions, a notification or alert must be given. To block someone for a violation of WP:1RR, no notice/alert is needed. That said, I generally don't block someone for violating 1RR if they haven't been officially notified/alerted. I've made exceptions, though, to my general practice when I feel it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

With few exceptions (username issues, legal threats), we don't block a user unless either (s)he knows that (s)he will be boocked if (s)he does a particulaer edit or group of edits and does it anyway, or (s)he is trying to be disruptive. In this case, if the user saw an edit notice, then we can assume that (s)he knows about it; otherwise, we can't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again guys for the comments. So for my understanding, can I assume the following for the articles coming under the sanctions?: (a) In the absence of an edit/page notice detailing the presence of sanctions on any particular article, an editor must be formally informed of the presence of sanctions before any sanction is issued against them (b) While no formal warning is required before blocking an editor violating WP:1RR, good form recommends that the editor may be notified of the existence of WP:1RR and allowed to take corrective action before a block is put in place. Wifione 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If one wants to impose discretionary sanctions, an edit notice on the page is not sufficient. The proper template must be issued to the editor to make them aware of the sanctions, and that notification logged at the sanctions page. Edit notices are only sufficient for informing editors of 1RR, not of the DS. To impose a DS, one must follow the WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts procedure. You are right about the 1RR bit. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@user:RGloucester unlike 3RR, 1RR is not project wide. In this case the authority to sanction a person for breaching 1RR is derived from the wording of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (SCW&ISIL). Whether you choose to call that a general sanction of a discretionary sanction, if 1RR is to be invoked from SCW&ISIL then according to the wording of SCW&ISIL notification "must" be given. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23 if it is not a SCW&ISIL sanction to block an account for 1RR then why have you logged blocks for beaching 1RR at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#2014? About 70% of sanctions recorded for 2014 are for breaches of 1RR if they are not sanctions covered by SCW&ISIL then those entries ought to be removed. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It was this edit on 26 October 2014 by Bbb23 that changed the word "can" to "must" which is what causes the problem with the current wording. According to the edit comment "three changes per discussion at WP:AN" AFAICT this must be the archived AN section Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:1RR is a general sanction, but it is not a discretionary sanction. You're getting the two confused. When one blocks someone for violating WP:1RR, that's not a "sanction". 1RR was established as part of the SCW&ISIL general sanctions, but it is not part of the SCW&ISIL community-authorised discretionary sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me where in Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this distinction you are making is specified. Please point it out to me. -- PBS (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the general sanctions guidelines, and learn what "general sanctions" means. There are multiple different kinds of general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions are only one kind of general sanctions. Others are revert restrictions, article probation, and various other things. If you look at the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL page, you'll notice that there are two separate boxes in the remedies section. The first on refers to the discretionary sanctions, and the second to the revert restriction. Notice that it says "in addition a one revert rule is imposed". I.e. in addition to the discretionary sanctions, a revert restriction also exists. That's why it also says "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence". RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As noted by User:RGloucester, it would be hard to be any more definite that a block for 1RR violation doesn't require a preceding formal notice of the Syrian Civil War sanctions. As it happens, you can read almost identical wording in {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}. "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Note the phrase "without warning". If you read the full text of the Syrian Civil War sanctions they invoke the ARBPIA sanctions as a model. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester I asked "where in Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this distinction you are making is specified" (my emphasis). But in general there are two processes that can be invoked either Arbcom initiated or community sanctions. Your argument that 1RR is not a community sanction because it is a "revert restrictions" is open to another interpretation, because it is imposed via ] "Additional restrictions on reverting are sometimes imposed on ... particular pages, by ... administrator enforcement, or by the community ... General sanctions." These are not "administrator enforcement" because the blocks are being logged as a community sanction. So where is it made clear that 1RR is not a community sanction on the sanctions page (which was set up under the auspices of a community sanction)? -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} is the standard way that these sorts of Arbitration Enforcements have been worded for years. The problem is that this particular set of sanctions does not use such simple language. In it there is a difference between warning and notification and if a sanction is to be imposed (and logged on the sanctions page) then the sanctions page has stated since the 26 October 2014 that "Editors must be notified of these sanctions" (see my edit (above 20 November 2014) for the full quote in green). -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I did not say it was not a community sanction. I said it was not a discretionary sanction. The revert restriction is a community-imposed general sanction. The discretionary sanctions regime is also a community-imposed general sanction. However, each kind of general sanction has a different procedure. The discretionary sanctions require that one follows the discretionary sanctions procedure. The revert restriction does not, because it is not a discretionary sanction. That is to say, it is not at the discretion of the administrator, but simply a lower threshold for what is considered edit-warring in the usual way. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: The word 'sanctions' is being used for a variety of different meanings that we hope were clear to those using the word originally. Maybe in the future people who want to use the phrase 'discretionary sanctions' should never abbreviate it to 'sanctions' due to the risk of confusion. The sentence "Editors must be notified of these sanctions with the {{tl:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template." certainly risks a misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

done a few - connection is a bit slow so a tad tedious for me waiting. Much appreciated if someone else can chip in. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock for Ararat arev IPs

An editor using many IP addresses has been edit-warring lately to push his ideas in articles related to Orion (constellation) and ancient Egypt, moving to new articles when the previous ones get semi-protected. The evidence that it's Ararat arev is at Talk:Orion (constellation)#Ancient Egypt. See User talk:Dougweller#Ararat again as well. In the past couple day, the IPs have fallen within a range, e.g.: Special:Contributions/166.170.14.15, Special:Contributions/166.170.14.125, and Special:Contributions/166.170.14.88. I don't know whether that range is narrow enough for a rangeblock, but considering that the editor seems willing to evade article protection by moving to any article remotely related to the topic, a rangeblock seems worth considering. A. Parrot (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

See for instance Hyksos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

166.170.14.0/24 is definitely rangeblockable, and it doesn't look like there would be much collateral damage. But the range looks to be part of a mobile network, so the block wouldn't be hard to evade... 199.47.73.100 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That sort of depends on how AT&T assigns IP's or proxies. Since he's been editing a lot from the same block, it seems possible and even likely, that it takes some effort to get around it. It's at least worth a try. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis has done the rangeblock. Thank you! A. Parrot (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK is overdue again

Template:Did you know/Queue is currently eight hours overdue. Can some admin please update the queue from some of the five backlogged prep areas? And can we please figure out a way to keep this from happening all the time? After all, we're talking about the Main Page here. —Swpb 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog