Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:08, 16 February 2015

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Riddle me this, Harry

So, I'm apparently permitted to dispute BLP violations, even if under the tban. Why is it then, that I have this feeling that, the second I try to raise any concerns, I know that someone or the other from a certain group will ride up on their white stallion, and then whine enough for me to get banned because I'm violating some obscure alphabet soup "policy"? Yet, if said white knight were to flail around pages under the tban screeching about their noble quest of... Something, they would get merely a warning? I'm asking this, since I would like to raise a concern about a BLP violation, in the hopes it would be removed, so the hate group known as {redacted due to topic ban}, would have less ammo to harass women and minorities, including myself, that support the {redacted due to topic ban} consumer revolt. I mean, I thought that the rules were applied equally, but, I can't be sure, or can I? --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to head off said group. One of the ban exemptions is "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." So, I am preeeetty sure my revised understanding of Ban Exemptions says that this would be alright. (This is partly a question to Mitchell. Am I right?) AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't address me by my surname, AF; you can call me Harry—everyone else does. DSA, if this is the same issue you asked me about by email, it's not an obvious BLP violation to the extent that "no reasonable person could possibly disagree". Also, BANEX doesn't actually allow you to suggest the removal of the BLP-violating material, only to remove it (and, apparently, to explain the removal on the talk page and report the person who made it...). No, it doesn't make sense to me either (see my comment above about a coach and horses), but I didn't write the policy! My suggestion from my email stands, though: contact one of the regular editors on the article by email and see what they think; there's nothing to stop them from removing it or starting a discussion as long as they're satisfied that it's a legitimate issue that merits removal/discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I was also pretty surprised by the outcome of the discussion regarding NBSB. There are four points that I think need clarifying:

• Your closure comment says, "Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban." That's not true of WP:BANEX; it says that removing obvious BLP violations is exempt.
• I'm not convinced the violation was obvious here. The 'violation' seemed to me to be posting a long list of links to sources to see what was usable - exactly the sort of thing encouraged in WP:BLPTALK. Clearly there needs to be a line somewhere, as a blanket permission to post links to talk pages is unlikely to be constructive, but I'm not sure this crossed it. It seems to me that the line should be between beginning a good-faith discussion of sources and a bad-faith attempt to spread dirt. Was this really the latter? I can understand that the history around the subject may well influence that assessment and that editors might get considerably shorter shrift than they might in other areas, but there seems to be this idea going around that posting any link to any source that repeats certain allegations is automatically an obvious violation of BLP. It isn't.
• The decision at WP:ARBGG doesn't mention 'subject to the usual exceptions' as is common in arb decisions. Granted that WP:BANEX says unless stated otherwise, but I'd like to see comment from the drafters of that decision on whether they intentionally left the standard exceptions out.
• Given the history of the topic and the arbcom case, at the absolute minimum I think NBSB deserved a hefty trouting for sticking his oar in here. If the BLP violation was really so obvious as to justify violating his tban, then aren't there enough editors around this subject to have done it? Closing the action with the comment, "Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban," seems to me to be encouragement to continue exactly the sort of behaviour that landed him with the tban in the first place. Remember that a number of diffs in the FOF regarding NBSB are reverting (what he considered) obvious BLP violations (calling someone a SJW). Is encouraging NBSB to revert BLP violations really going to make gamergate a better place to edit?

It's nothing to do with me, of course, but I think just closing this was not the best way of improving the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

PS I do note that you made the same point to him at his user talk; I wouldn't say his response is encouraging as such. GoldenRing (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very late here, so you'll have to excuse my brevity. In order 1 & 2), see my response to Carrite elsewhere on this page—it was obvious that half a dozen admins felt it was obvious; 3) BANEX applies unless stated otherwise, even if the remedy were modified, the modification wouldn't be retro-active, it's not within my gift to go tinkering with arbitration remedies; 4) I agree, but he didn't do anything wrong according to policy. Is encouraging NBSB to revert BLP violations really going to make gamergate a better place to edit? I very much doubt it—at the very least he needs to take a long break from that cesspit—but I'd be promptly overturned on appeal if I blocked him for removing BLP violations or told him he couldn't do so. You see? Whatever I do, one side will interpret it as bias. If I block him, Misplaced Pages hates women; if I don't, Misplaced Pages is biased against gamergate/in favour of "SJWs". You're welcome to start an RfC on BANEX or an amendment request on NBSB, but there's nothing more I can do. I'm an admin, not a superhero. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite what the muckrakers like to hoot and holler about when not in intense sessions of hand-wringing and eggshell walking, I am a gamer. I have played many games, and won them eventually. However, there is that one game that, despite my best efforts, there is no way to win. Even after countless tries, the game is unbeatable. Do you know what I do then? I uninstall the game. Once I know it cannot, cannot be beaten, I simply delete it. Such games are not worth winning. Or rather, the only way to win, is not to play. --DSA510 Pls No Pineapple 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually need to point something out... the GG side is not going to call you biased, at least not so long as I can explain to them that you are just following policy that would effect it even if the user was PRO GG. Some GGers (Myself included, I have been upfront about that so no one can claim I have a hidden agenda) actually do understand the situation with Misplaced Pages and the GamerGate Controversy specifically. Misplaced Pages's hands are tied, since the RS's are almost universally biased against GG, so thus the article is going to be biased. There has been a lot of work to explain this to the less... Misplaced Pages literate people among GG, and this has lead to a lot less animosity towards Misplaced Pages by GamerGate. I just wish I had a way to counteract the animosity by Anti-GG, since the current climate is not productive no matter WHAT you believe. (Also, sorry for using your surname. It is impolite in local culture to refer to one by their first name unless we are well acquainted. So I will switch to using your Username, if you do not mind) AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

the GG side is not going to call you biased, at least not so long as I can explain to them that you are just following policy Oh, that's absolutely hilarious. Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the difficulty, and I'm glad it's not me enforcing this. However, WP:BANEX defines 'obvious' as 'cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree'. There were people at A/E disagreeing that the violation was obvious, though I guess I lack the experience with them to say whether they are reasonable people. The only other admin comment on the request, AFAICT, was Masem, pointing out that it was part of a pattern of tban violations, though obviously the discussion re Retartist is related.

Bah, I don't know where I'm going with this, and I'm really sorry if this message keeps you up even longer (I'm not in that sort of timezone). GoldenRing (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not as common as you might think that half a dozen fell petty much exactly the same way. In fact, I've had lengthy debates at AE in the past when I've disagreed with other admins. Not those admin specifically as far as I can recall, but even among that group we don't always sing in harmony, so if we all agreed something was a BLP violation, it can't have been that ambiguous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I'm new to editing in the GamerGate area but I am almost 100% certain that regular editors on the talk page were familiar with the particular website that was linked to and whose link was removed. It is a website solely devoted to presenting the pro-GamerGate side (and consisting solely of user-generated content) and I imagine that its status as an (un)reliable source had been discussed a lot over the past six months. So, it's not that it's any link at all, it was a link to a website that editors familiar with the article knew to contain BLP errors. So, in that context, it was obvious, even to a newcomer like me. Liz 20:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh how Misplaced Pages loves its policy of argument to authority. It's like you people already forgot the oh so delicious ArbitrationGate. Aren't all things written by humans, in the end? I love it when people crowd around the latest manufactured outrage piece yelling its name guarantees truth. Did The New Dork Thymes write it? Or did a person write it? RS will be Misplaced Pages's downfall. VnT shouldn't be praised, but condemned. Look how well WP:RS worked out with ArbitrationGate. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the responses from 'regular editors' on Jimmy Wales talk page to their intentionally biased use of RS, I find it difficult, if not unbelievable that they are viewed to be here for constructive consensus building which would increase the value of the project. I fear that there will be considerably more administration actions regarding the page in the future. 31.53.246.245 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't include information we know (or strongly suspect, for example because the subject of it has complained) is false, no matter what the reliable sources say. But the option there is binary: it stays or goes; we shouldn't "fix" it based in original research. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to be a tertiary source and a summary of the secondary material, not to present original research. VNT is dogmatically misused in that sense—its purpose is to prevent claims like cunnilingus cures cancer from being presented as fact; they may be "true" (although this one is, erm, unlikely), but they're not supported by any credible evidence (ie verifiable). It's not supposed to be a bludgeon for forcibly retaining factual errors like the ArbitrationGate crap. The reliable sources standard is not perfect, especially without proper editorial controls, but Misplaced Pages is not perfect; the question is what we would replace it with. Replacing it with original research or "I just know it's true" opens the door to all sorts of loonies with agendas that are fundamentally incompatible with writing an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Apologies for the crude example, but it's the best I could think of without staying into controversial topics!

Damn it Harry, I was banking on that one, and the 11 aspirins a day thing. You have shattered one of my props. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha. You're not funny. See, here's the thing. We're not talking medicine, or 9/11, or anything IRL. We're talking about an internet cold war, essentially. Do you not remember "Hacker known as 4chan" from CNN, that exploding van thing on Faux News, etc. Do you _really_ expect me to believe that the muckrakers know the first thing about the internet? There are literally, thousands of archives. I do not trust people. People are finicky, smell bad, and lead by emotion. Software on the other hand, is very trustworthy. If, you can give me sufficient proof that, say, archive.today, for example, is a software that is pro-{redacted due to topic ban}, then I will eat a hat, videotape it, and put it on youtube. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 20:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

PS, while you guys howl about how its a conspiracy that the muckrakers, are... well muckrakers, think of it this way. 300 WHITE MALE SOCKPUPPETEERS HAVE CONDUCTED A MASSIVE HARASSMENT CAMPAIN FOR 7 MONTHS WHILE NOBODY HAS BEEN CAUGHT, WER'E SURE THAT ITS A HARASMENT CAPMAIN. JUST LOOK AT ALL THESE QUALITY(tm) SOURCES. FORGET ABOUT ARBITRATIONGATE THAT NEVER HAPPENED, LOOK AT THESE SOURCES IT MUST BE TRUE. LITERALLY WORSE THAN ISIS+NAZIS+KKK+EBOLA. Please tell me about how its a "conspiracy". Also Brian Williams. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 21:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, not to doubt your word, my friend, but I've only ever seen archive.today used by one side. but more importantly, somebody's Twitter feed or some random website does not make a reliable source, so why would an archived version of the same be reliable? I share your concerns about the media's understand of Teh Interwebs—look at the Grauniad's coverage of GamerGate, for example, not just the arbitration case; it's so staunchly anti-GG that it's blind to the flaws of the side it sympathises with. And that's not me taking a content position—I think both sides are nutters who should find something better to do. But what's the alternative? The best option, in my humble opinion, is to delete the article until there are books published about GamerGate. I very much doubt the gaters will like what the books have to say either, but there's a fair chance of the books being more through and thus more fair. Failing that, we have to rely on journalists, whom we hope do at least a little bit of due diligence but who all too often prefer to be spoon-fed a story that suits their agenda. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:Understood; I'm not saying that it wasn't a BLP violation or that Retartist's tban was wrong; I endorse both. My concern is that NBSB sticking his oar in was unnecessary and only likely to create more drama; that his response to this being pointed out civilly is distinctly unpromising; and that AE telling him it's all okay and he's done nothing wrong is only encouraging another round of drama in a day or two's time with further pushing at the boundaries of the tban. In that context, for the tban violation to be okay, the BLP violation doesn't have to be definitely a violation; it has to be a violation so obvious that no reasonable person could disagree. Anyway, I think I've said everything I need to say on this, and more than once. I trust Harry's judgement in general; I was just trying to promote discussion about how harmony on the project is best encouraged. GoldenRing (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor is it likely to promote harmony on the project when single-purpose accounts organized off-wiki fire off spurious arbitration enforcement requests and engage in an extended harassment campaign. I haven't and won't be intimidated by a band of thugs. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you too. GoldenRing (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, @GoldenRing:, is this conversation violating DSA510's topic ban on discussing GamerGate? In a strictly interpreted way, probably so. But admins and arbitrators are human beings, they consider the cases brought to them and use their best judgment to try and make fair decisions based on the presented evidence. I think that not strictly enforcing that topic ban isn't "encouraging" DSA510 and others. It's allowing for some gray areas, like WP:BANEX.

My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that individuals who are topic banned should stay away from those topics. Skirting the edges of a ban just can provide reasons for more serious blocks. Liz 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block for borderline topic-ban violations on this talk page. I can't promise nobody will seize on such and report them to AE, nor that a more zealous admin wouldn't block, but as long as we're discussing things in general terms (rahter than substantive discussion of content, which belongs on the article talk page anyway) and the discussion is being had in good faith, I personally have no problem with it continuing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On a 'meta-meta' topic and the above re: Abuse of RS, you can see on the French, Norwegian and Spanish Misplaced Pages editions some relatively sane and balanced discussions on the topic. I do not believe that there is a lack of RS, rather an abuse of RS in creating the en.wikipedia version of the article. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can't read more than a very, very basic level of French and Spanish and I can't read any Norwegian at all, but I'm aware of a concerted effort to give the Spanish article a skew that's favourable to gamergate. I won't get into substantive discussions of content issues because to be an effective admin I have to be objective and remain above the fray, but if you think that sources are being omitted or misused, say so on the talk page. If you feel an editor has demonstrated a pattern of deliberately ignoring or misusing sources, you can report them to WP:AE. But general statements like "RS is misused", especially when they're made on an individual editor's talk page instead of the article's talk page, don't get us anywhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been following the drama on the GG article pretty much since its creation back in late August (I wouldn't dare actually contribute), and I can tell you that the Gamergate "dossier" was linked to on multiple occasions on that talk page in the past without any redacting or admin actions. But what has happened here is so ludicrous I feel I actually need to speak up now. The only thing that is "obvious" about this BLP violation is that this is a very clear attempt to shift the goalposts to shut out yet more pro-GG material. The fact that the user was not even warned that this once acceptable-to-link-and-discuss source had now morphed into a redactable BLP violation, but straight up topic banned for this is absurdly heavy-handed and is just another chilling effect on anyone who would dare try to get that article neutral.174.45.178.216 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom & Admins

Your contribution to this case was largely resonsible for, and vital to, its conclusion by the arbitrators. I've already said how much I appreciate you having gone well beyond the bounds of duty to research your material, but I would like to illustrate how this particular case is important in more ways than one.

I particularly liked the admin in question and had absolutely no previous inkling of what came to be exposed at Arbcom. I somehow missed out on voting on their RfA, you supported it but no one can criticise you for that. Even the adherents of the anti-admin brigade were unable to to sway it to a non-promotion although it was a fairly close call.

The message the recent disclosure sends to us all therefore, is that anyone who is thinking of starting yet another perennial motion to lower the bar at RfA had better think again. We can't be careful enough when (s)electing our admins and we have a duty (including me of all people) to do more research before placing our !votes in the upstairs lobby. I already made the mistake of supporting one candidate who later turned into an unpleasant adversary and was finally desysoped for acting in a way totally unbecoming for the role we invest in our admins. See you for a beer as soon as possible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in principle. The trouble is we need more admins. We're short-handed here at the coalface. We have nominally ~1400 admins, but as I just said to Andreas, the number who know the difference between a bored schoolkid and genuine malice—and how to effectively respond to the latter (hint: it's not with "Welcome to Misplaced Pages, perhaps you didn't mean to threaten to blow Harry's head off with a shotgun")—is tiny. I'd wager closer to 14 than 140. So how do we get more good admins while keeping the bad apples out? More to the point, where do we find people who are comfortable doing this sort of thing in the first place? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 14 seems a fairly accurate estimate of those in the trenches - that makes you, me, and 12 others. We are recognisable from the scars we bear from stuff thrown at us at ANI and other places by the peanut gallery for just doing our job, and even I am not around 24/7 but fortunately I'm on another, far-away continent (not Alaska, although there are some brave people there) where I'm active while most other admins are sleeping. I think there are two kinds of admins (or potential candidates of the right calibre): jury admins who do the backroom work closing AfDs, deleting CSDs, doing histmerges, etc., and judge admins who hand out sentences. The first group are like the desk pilots in the armed forces (it takes 9 admin/technical soldiers to maintain one soldier in full battledress with his assault rifle in the front line ). They are symbiotic and their roles are all essential.

Most aspiring admins are too nice. Some of us are very nice sometimes and pretty scathing at others, though with measured responsibility and effect I've turned many a belligerent youth into a good contributor with words such as 'instead of being a toady and turning our work into trash, why don't you pull your socks up, your finger out, and help us combat some of that vandalism. I'll help you learn how to do it - just say the word.' But there's also the 'Thanks awfully for your valued contributions, but would you mind perhaps considering - if you have a moment of course - not using AWB to change all references to John Lennon, David Beckham, and Kudpung to God? Because I use a Mac and therefore can't use AWB I have to revert all those edits by hand, and it takes me away from from beating the children here with a big stick. Thanks in advance for being such a decent fellow.' While I admit some (fortunately few) admins are nauseous - and more often to each other than anyone else - people who complain about them being bitey are usually people who will look for any excuse to complain about something or other. There is of course the anti-admin brigade, but we are usually able, sooner or later, to get Arbcom to place them under special measures. But to your original question, I don't know the answer, except perhaps dragging them kicking and screaming to RfA ... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the work you do here. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, do you kick and scream by any chance? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I second that "thanks" having a basic understanding of the issues our admins are facing. I enjoy expanding articles for GA review with hopes of future promotion to FA. The most troublesome argument I've heard is "not all articles were meant to be GAs or FAs." The latter speaks volumes, and I hope admins who happen to read such a statement during a dispute will up the volume on their investigation. I doubt you will find many articles (if any) that have been promoted to FA that are fundamentally noncompliant with BLP or NPOV. IMO, some of the issues plaguing our admins could be eliminated if more attention was focused on adherence to policy and less on behavioral issues, the latter of which is a circular reference. Based on my observations, several good editors have been blocked while trying to adhere to policy, such as reverting contentious (or overly promotional) material, the latter of which is usually the handy work of advocacy (cabals or tag teams), and likely tied to paid editing or SP, and the like. 5 editors against 1 doesn't always indicate the 1 editor is causing the disruption but I've seen it play out unfairly on more than one occasion, and we're losing good editors as a result. Just look at the stats. The 3RR noticeboard is also lacking in its effectiveness because of admin time constraints. Instead of investigating a dispute, some admins will do a quick scan of the argument and make a judgement call which more often than not ignores the policy violations that created the reverts. In order to correct the imbalance, I think we need more admins who are experienced writers of quality prose like the teams of editors who review FA nominations. Perhaps having at least one FA to an editor's credit should be a requirement for RfA, or it may be necessary to create a subset of policy enforcement admins who review disputes for just that purpose. It will bring more qualified editors into the admin pool who understand what goes into creating and/or expanding articles that are policy compliant and meet the stringent requirements of FA or even the lesser GA, particularly in the area of BLPs. In the interim, our admins will remain bogged down treating the symptoms without ever curing the disease. My perspective is based on a 30+ year career as a publisher/writer which includes substantial experience in copyvio and defamation litigation - but never as a defendant. I hope to keep it that way. Atsme☯ 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films

Hi HJ. Thank you for the protection to the page. If you wouldn't mind, could you add the page to your watchlist and keep an eye on it? I have a feeling this may still be an issue once the protection has expired. Thank you again, as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll stick it on my watchlist and see if I can do anything to help, but no promises. 11:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

An account you have blocked

I was fixing some of OJOM edits and found you had blocked a very similar account OJOM11 and thought you might want to know. I started a sock investigation (P.S. this user has made many edits, cleanup will not be easy :P ). Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks good Sir for you attention to detail. Thank you. (OJOM (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)).

@Mlpearc: I blocked OJOM11 for harassment/impersonation of OJOM. I hope you don't mind, bit I deleted the SPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem but, now OJOM is a problem. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Harry, I would very much for you, and maybe some of your stalkers, to look at that account. As far as I'm concerned, OJOM exhibits the hallmark traits of incompetence and POV that coupled with a pretty blatant disregard for RS all lead to a very unladylike NOTHERE. OJOM, if you're watching this, don't ever refer to me as a "gentleman". I live in the post-19th century. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some radio announcers in my area sometimes refer to convicted violent criminals as "gentlemen" without a hint of sarcasm. That is taking civility way too far. You deserve the title, Drmies, but since I now know you don't like it, I won't use it about you. Harry is a gentleman, though. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Gentleman" is still fairly common this side of the pond (for example, we have ladies' and gents' public conveniences conveniences, come to think of it, is a very British euphemism!) and it's still used quite a lot to refer to a man whose name you don't know, though rarely as a form of address. Even we Brits don't live in a Jane Austen novel! ;) But thank you for the compliment, Jim; perhaps you'll allow me to repay it with an RfA nomination? The list of people who have offered must be getting quite long by now! ;) Drmies, I've blocked Mr OJOM for a week. The Austen-esque vocabulary is certainly interesting, but it does seem that he has some problems with original research and the purpose of an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wifione-paid editing amendment request

I've filed an amendment request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Wifione.

I think everybody has had their say at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Proposed decision, so perhaps this notice is just a formality.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification

Do you think Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film) would come under my topic ban? I'd rather not create a whole clarification request for that simple question. Tutelary (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't blame you. You might be there a long time and none the wiser at the end. I wouldn't consider that to be covered by "gender-related dispute or controversy"; what dispute there is is not so much about gender or sexuality in its own right but about the pros and cons of showing a film about sex. I'd say proceed, but tread lightly—it's possible that content that would be covered by your topic ban could be in the article or could be added in the future (an obvious example that comes to mind would be the response of feminist groups). As long as you stay clear of that, I don't envisage there being a problem with your editing the article in general. Seem reasonable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey and thanks for the advice. Kudpung's advice was good and I learnt my lessons from the RFA. Thanks again! --The one that forgot (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimi Lewis is back as Delgada1975

Jimi Lewis has new account Special:Contributions/Delgada1975, which is possibly same pattern with previous sock Special:Contributions/Cal 505. 183.171.180.164 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

Will you please lift the topic ban? Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ashtul: If you agree to keep a respectful distance from Nishidani, and preferably stick to articles rather than enforcement requests etc, yes I'll lift the topic ban. I'd also suggest you're very careful about sticking to the 1RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Ashtul (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)