Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281

---

I don't know what's happening, but it seems administrating WP is coming to a grinding halt. At ANI, for instance, a large number of even the most obvious reports are ignored and it seems the default option is to just let things get archived. I understand this perfectly well, and none of it is because of any poor admin actions as such; it's just a matter of admins being unpaid volunteers and seriously understaffed. But that, in a nutshell, is the problem. There are far too few active admins on WP to cope with demand. At WP:RFA, there are currently two candidates, and the last three months has seen on average one new admin per month. This is, quite frankly, far too little. If WP is to function smoothly, it needs active administrators. Looking at RfA, the implicit question seems to be "who is worthy of becoming an admin?". That is, I posit, the wrong question and the wrong mindset. The real question should be "how many active admins do we need?", coupled with "how many active admins do we have?" and, if there's a gap (as I believe it to be), then that gap should be filled, not through a slow and cumbersome process, but as fast as possible. Once again, I have no complaint with any existing admin and argument is with the current system, not any admin or any administrative action. Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation re: ANI. It seems to me that quite often the correct response to a thread there is to let it play itself out, the participants come up with their own solution or they tire themselves out and move on to something more constructive. The reports that need to be actioned quickly often are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, that is often a good strategy that can lead to a solution, in which case everything is fine. It can also lead to things completely spiralling out of control, which unfortunately also happens. I do not object to a strategy of supervising without stepping in, but no supervision at all is not a good response. My comment today arose from seeing a number of (in my view) very obvious cases being ignored. I myself commented on a POV-pushing nationalist actively using an IP-sock. The comment after mine is on a clear vandal, and after that an even clearer case of very disruptive IP. In my reading, all of these are clear cases where admins could and should step in quickly to close, as the policy violations are obvious. Instead, I found all of them completely ignored many hours after they were filed. Do note that I don't think my own report to be particularly urgent and I did not start this tread to get a close for that report. It's rather a feeling I've had for some time when looking at ANI, but also at AIV and RFPP at times. Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Half the issues that come to ANI do not need admin attention. Often they need mediation, discussing or as Ivanvector points out, just to play out. Some of the best mediators around aren't admin. The places we do have serious backlogs are places that admin don't like to do, no matter how many we have. Sometimes a thread stays open without admin intervention because it revolves around a topic that no available admin is familiar enough to dive into. More numbers don't guarantee quicker responses because most admin don't patrol ANI anyway, particularly new ones. Finally, more than once I've just gone and addressed a problem I saw on ANI and didn't post about it for various reasons. And we don't "supervise" as much as mop up or use the tools on behalf of the community once a consensus is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Other times, the various users of said threads contrive ways for themselves to get blocked, which is certainly another way to sort out the matter. Blackmane (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

First ten callers get to become admins. And if you're the 12th caller, you'll win two tickets to the monster truck extravaganza being held tonight at the Carson Fairgrounds. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin? I'm just here for the tickets, man.TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah! A-N tailgating! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll just take the Renovator Extra set of hands, please Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• If anyone is wishing to become an administrator, they are welcome to apply at WP:RFA. The community would not reject qualified candidates. If a potential candidate wishes an objective review before submitting an RFA, there are a number of experienced admins willing to review a candidate's activity on the project prior to their application at RFA. Nakon 04:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Whiiiich, the OP having already suggested the RfA MO is lacking fitness for purpose to a certain extent, singularly fails to address his stated concerns :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, largely because RFA is probably only second in nastiness to ANI. One basically has to have a squeaky clean record as well as no grudge bearers, but then the argument swings to the other side by saying that if an editor hasn't experienced or gotten involved in the dirty side of WP, where one would generally collect grudge bearer, then how would they be able to handle being an admin? Catch 22 much? Blackmane (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Catch-22???? That's one helleva catch, that one. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• RFA is still better than it was a few years ago. Mine sucked but I got over it. In some ways, the RFA does the vetting itself. If you can't handle hell week at RFA, you probably can't handle being thrown in the middle of a heated dispute in an Arb restricted area. Sometimes, you don't choose what you thrown in, it simply gets dropped on your lap. Perfection isn't the goal at RFA, we've selected admin with blocks on the books before, and they passed unopposed. It is all about judgement and reaction under pressure. Yes, we could use more admin and you don't have to be a genius or perfect to be one (take me, for example), so if you want to run for it, just run. Or go search out candidates, vet them and nominate them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"we've selected admin with blocks on the books before, and they passed unopposed" - Can you provide two or three examples of such RfAs, please? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Berean Hunter passed unopposed with a block in his history. Secret wasn't unopposed but I'm fairly sure he had blocks from his previous account. There are others, those are just off the top of my head. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well in that case Admins have been promoted despite being sanctioned under their previous accounts ;) It didnt work out well in the end. Personally I favour de-bundling over 'more admins'. Most people willing to do 'admin rights needed' work only want to work in a specific area. RFA basically gurantees they will get oppose votes based on 'has no experience in this area' which can scupper an otherwise worthwhile candidate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hunter had one block from about 8/9 years ago, and the other had to use another account for a "clean start". So unless you're squeaky clean or a sock, you've got pretty much no chance of getting through. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

my limited experience with ANI suggests it is a total zoo over there..I've done some things to try to look into this recently (proposed some things on TALK page there etc)...I do think a big problem is there are simply not enough admins out there to deal with things (ie theoretically competent editors)..if Wikipedia has less admins today than it had in the past than it could be in for a death spiral...with more and more articles to be maintained etc etc....68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

there are 546 total active admins?? you have GOT TO BE kidding me..this is an existential threat to Wikipedia..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A good 10% of them are pure chocolate fireguards who a) don't do any admin tasks or b) wouldn't know what to do if they were called upon. Someone who got made 10 years+ ago, sits on their elbows all day and doesn't get "stuck in" isn't helpful. Plus RFA is a clusterfuck that would put off the vast majority of people who may be interested in stepping up to help. I'm looking forward to when it all goes tits up myself. WP:FORMER is worth a good look. Nearly the first of the month, so queue another half-dozen or so dormant users to get removed from the current list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe something we could consider would be some sort of "draft" process for admins? I myself get the feeling that in at least some cases some newer editors might not run for adminship because they either don't think that they would get much support in the RfA, or don't think that they would necessarily be able to do that good a job at admin functions. Specifically for cases like that, having some existing admins maybe talking somewhere about individuals they think could do the work and indicating which they would think maybe the most qualified might help encourage some newer editors to seek adminship. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I just looked through the history of active admins..there were closer to 1000 in 2010...have been falling off steadily since...not good68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The active admin count is misleading for a couple of reasons, 1.A lot of 'active' admins didnt use the tools that much. 2.A huge amount of work previously done by admins is now done by bots. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

with more than 5 million articles to be maintained and all the other existing spaces involved in this maintenance..this can't possibly be enough admins..and Wikipedia can't be operating anywhere near to optimally because of this, which can lead to a death spiral of editors/admins (which is probably occurring)...I would think at least 5x more admins are needed...I mean wow..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that there may be some questions about what the IP editor thinks admins can and should do, and what activities can be done by others. There are a lot of things that we do need admins to do, like blocking editors, protecting pages, etc., and it might be that there might be more help needed in those fields. But, in a lot of other areas of activity, most of what is needed to be done doesn't necessarily require the individual be an admin, although I note that there have been and still are several editors, including long-term editors, who want to make some of those activities admin-only. Also, I suppose, although I haven't checked, that there are a large number of individuals who have some "extra rights," like maybe being a template editor, which some might think are admin-only functions but aren't. If we added all those individuals to the number of active administrators, I wonder how high the total number might be. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I see the solution as around one-half new admin recruitment and one-half aggressive expansion of the role of non-admins. I'm sure if you asked an admin from 2-3 years ago to look through my contributions, I'd be called a disruptive editor. The non-admin delete closes at TfD would be enough to draw just about any admin's ire from that period (allowed as per an RfC from around a year ago), and the closure of difficult discussions listed at ANRFC wouldn't sit well either. Non-admins can do a lot more than we tend to think we can. ~ Rob^Talk 17:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is just my impression but when I look over ANI, some disputes are very complicated and require a lot of time, going through diffs, page histories, looking at the contribution history of all of the editors and their exchanges on article, noticeboard and user talk pages and I just don't have the hours to parse through the accumulated animosity. What can also happen is that two feuding editors get in a tit-for-tat argument, counter argument on ANI that runs on for days when if they would just restrain themselves, other editors and admins could get involved and offer their assessment. But it is hard to find space when the editors are furious and exasperated with each other and can't help but argue with each other as if there is no one else in the [virtual] room.

Unless an admin who wanders by is feeling particularly energetic and bold, these disputes often get archived because whether there is misconduct or who is responsible for the misconduct is murky, at best (or both editors are responsible). I agree with Dennis that many of the complaints that editors bring to ANI are more situations for dispute resolution than admin action but the filing editor is seeking a block or topic ban, not reconciliation and compromise. It also seems like some editors file ANI complaints regularly for what are minor disputes and the more frequently I see some editors at ANI complaining about other editors, the less serious I take their complaint. But that's me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

bottom line though: more admins paying attention would be a big improvement, right? and this would likely require simply more admins in general..68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

---

I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradedia^talk 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion here with examples provided: . Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: .

Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katie^talk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The block log is longer than my arm" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.

He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 18:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:

• You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
• You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
• You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
• You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
• You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
• Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
• You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradedia^talk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.

It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite all appeals User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradedia^talk 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How busy does one have to be to be too busy to make less than thirteen edits a day I wonder...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}: This is not the point. The point is that "being too busy" is just an excuse used by him to justify his edits that are intentionally and consistently misinterpreting sources, his edits that are against consensus, etc. When editors complain about his edits on talk pages and ping him, he does not respond. You cannot have time to make dishonest edits, but then pretend to be "too busy" to respond to editors who are complaining about it. This is clearly an editor who wants to make POV edits and do not care about what other editors are trying to say to him. You can see this pattern in Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline, Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages. And this is not even mentioning all the messages on his talk page that he keeps deleting dismissively... Tradedia^talk 09:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 continues to disrupt Syria map page. More here: user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah (permalink). Please, block him. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. There is more! Check the talk page with complaints. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the ban being proposed a ban from the site, or a topic ban? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: What is being proposed is a ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• It has been almost a month since anyone has taken any interest in this. I highly doubt that any action will be taken, so it's probably time to let this die off. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

---

• Templestaykorea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeondeungsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have been editing a bit in the "Korean Buddhist temples" area lately, and just noticed the piping hot mess at Jeondeungsa, but of more concern at the moment is the fact that its creator was blocked based on their username and their appeal was rejected even after they said they would change their username. They appealed and said they would change their username, several days later the blocking admin posted a list of further "questions", and then several days later still the unblock request was rejected based on the questions not having been answered. The only part of the original block rationale that was not addressed in the appeal was the (dubious) claim that the account "has been used only for advertising or promotion".

At least one of the questions had nothing to do with the initial block rationale, and appears to have been meant for another user, as the exact same questions were posted simultaneously on the talk pages of four unrelated accounts. If the pages the user had created had not met GNG, I would have thought some of them would have been deleted in the intervening six months. But even if these questions were relevant, it doesn't seem fair that a blocking admin an expand on their block rationale close to a week after the block has been appealed, and then another admin can reject the appeal based on its not having addressed the new, expanded rationale.

Both Diannaa (talk · contribs) and MaxSem (talk · contribs) are good sysops who I am sure have had to deal with a lot of crap on here (including legit advertising-only accounts that try to deceptively claim they are here to build an encyclopedia) and only occasionally make good faith mistakes like this, but it seems like they both dropped the ball on this one. I think another admin should probably review the original block rationale and the unblock request. It's possible the user won't want to come back six months after having been bitten like this, but I really think they should be allowed to.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you discussed this issue with the two admins before starting this thread? It's better to handle matters like this directly with the relevant admins and only seek broader input if needed. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No... I didn't want them to think this was about them. I doubt they remember this, so their continued "involvement" is questionable, and I only notified them as a formality. I don't want this to sound critical of them, and it's difficult to say "are you sure you made the right call here?" (as well as all the stuff about adding to a block rationale after the block has already been appealed) to their faces without sounding critical. I just think an admin should review the block, and I can't post an unblock request for the user. I get that I might have kind of shot myself in the foot on the "not seeming critical" thing because of how often AN is confused for ANI and so this might look like "these two should be desysopped for abusing admin tools" by virtue of my posting it here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the blocking admin remains the primary contact for the block as long as they remain active on Wikipedia. I've been contacted about blocks I implemented years after they came into effect. I'd suggest closing this thread and discussing the matter with Diannaa in the first instance. Given the user name and their edits, this block looks reasonable to me. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Nick-D - good block. The user inserted URLs into these articles with the domain name templestay.com, and I would have blocked them too. The blocking admin is always your first contact if you have a problem, and that goes for protection and deletion as well. Coming here with your concerns first does the exact opposite of what you claim you were trying to avoid, because you brought it here to this big noticeboard with all these eyes instead of quietly posting to the admin's talk page. All you have to say is something like, "I saw this block you made – could you tell me about it? I think it might be excessive." Editors come to me all the time with stuff like that and I promise you we don't get offended or upset with good-faith inquiries. :-) Katie^talk 15:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Those are the standard questions we give to accounts that are promotional in nature. This is a not just valid, but common. HighInBC 16:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The user was blocked for a username violation, because there is an organization called "Templestay" with a matching webpage Templestay.com. The user was reported to WP:UAA as one of the around 60 to 100 reports that are filed there daily, and that's how I came across him. The block notice on Templestaykorea's talk specifies their account will be unblocked if they intend to edit on topics other than the subject where they have a conflict of interest. It also asks that their unblock request should specify what types of edits they propose to undertake if unblocked. The Three Questions is a template, Template:Coiq, which we often use to help the blocked party clarify what their future intentions are if they are unblocked. Looking at the other examples of my use of the Coiq template that day, I can see that two of them were indeed inappropriate, because the block notices specified that the username violation was the only reason for the unblock. I will definitely be more careful about this in the future. I see that Templestaykorea posted their unblock request on December 7, but on December 8, before anyone even responded to the unblock request, the account user:Sungwookchoi was created. This is very likely the same person, as they copied material from Templestay's sandbox into the article Geumseonsa with this edit, and edited the article Temple Stay and various other related articles. — Diannaa (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Earlier this year, the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law banning toponyms of Communist origin. Several days ago, it approved (and in some cases not approved) lists of localities to be renamed. Because of that, we have many Ukrainian users, some of them being established editors, but others just being random lurkers, renaming a large amount of articles. Some of the moves went smoothly, but some met resistance, for example, I had to fully protect Dnipropetrovsk. In most cases (in contrast to Dnipropetrovsk) renaming is uncontroversial, however, the edits are often substandard (an example) and almost always premature (i.e. a new name has been proposed but not yet legally adopted). Since many of us will have to deal with this, I suggest the following strategy:

• All changes should be sourced. If there are doubts as whether a source is reliable, I am willing to provide advise;
• Old names should be kept as historical, not just removed;
• No nationalist cruft should be added and no useful info should be removed (for example, if a Russian name was in an article, it should stay there and not just get removed);
• They should be uncontroversial. If users in good standing object, the discussion should start at the talk page. All moves of Crimean toponyms are likely to be controversial.

I suggest that if a move with subsequent editing does not satisfy the above guideline, the user should be notified at their talk page, and if they are unwilling to correct, their contribution should be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea; further, I'd be willing to watchlist some articles (if a list of articles which might be editid is feasible at all); in additon, pending-changes level 1 protection might be appropriate to stop the worst "onslaught" of anonymous or newly-created users. Lectonar (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the Ukrainian parliament is not English usage, we need to enforce our naming conventions by reverting all moves of this sort unless solid evidence can be shown that English usage has changed. This is why Kyiv is already a protected redirect, for example, because of nationalistic attempts to use the Ukrainian-derived version that's nowhere near as common in English as is the Russian-derived Kiev. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend. All new Ukrainian names should be redirects to the old names until standard English usage can be shown ti have started using the new names. Protection may be used as necessary to enforce this, as we do with all other issues. And yes, when we do move the articles to the new Ukrainian names, we should keep the old names as redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging for safety @TaivoLinguist:. I guess most of the names just have no common English usage, and these moves should pretty much be uncontroversial, since we just adopt WP:UKR romanization. The only move so far which created a serious turmoil was Dnipropetrovsk, and there is a heated discussion at the talk page. However, since the Rada also renamed some localities Ukraine does not control - in Crimea and in the separatist areas of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts - I can imagine some issues there as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I see Nyttend's point, but agree with Ymblanter that most names are outside English usage so I see little point in waiting for English usage to emerge; I'm guessing 99% of locations in Ukraine are not mentioned often enough for there to be an English usage. For the few exceptions (Kiev, Odessa etc.), we should of course continue with the established English usage. For all other localities, I don't see a problem in them being moved. Jeppiz (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of detailed maps of Ukraine have been printed in English-language publications, and those will demonstrate established English usage. Of course, if they disagree with each other, that will demonstrate the absence of establishment. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I see no reason to wait for English maps to be printed for Ukraine. If the locality is neither a major city nor a place that is often mentioned in English media, I'd say there is no problem in moving it. Jeppiz (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. For many years, lots of atlases have been printed that depict localities in Ukraine; you don't have to wait. Just visit your local library if you don't already own such an atlas. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

---

As an ArbCom clerk, I hardblocked Wikicology as part of closing his case. Yamla (talk · contribs) unblocked Oluwa2Chainz (talk · contribs), who had been autoblocked as a result of the Wikicology block (is the IP-address pool that small in Nigeria?), and Oluwa2Chainz is now requesting IPBE. I'm trying to AGF, but O2C began editing the day before Wikicology was blocked and I'm not familiar enough with Wikicology's socking to grant WP:IPBE without input from someone who is. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean: Oluwa2Chainz's first edit was 12 May 2015, not 12 May 2016 (the day before Wikicology's block). BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

And has 11,000 edits... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Given how their talk page history isn't filled with complaints I am thinking it is probably someone different. I know that in Kenya every IP I tried to use was blocked on a lot of websites, I don't think they have a lot of IPs. HighInBC 13:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Trout duly noted, and I'll grant the IPBE. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 14:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

---

OK, this may not be the best place to ask but it's driving me crazy. Another user asked for somebody to create a Commons category titled National Cutting Horse Association Hall of Fame. This user uploads lots of great photos, so I created the page on Commons (which I've done before). However, I forgot to make it a category page.😝 Can somebody please get over there and make the page into a category so some photos can be uploaded to it? I would ask on Commons but they don't have a lot of English speakers in their help page. It won't give me the page move tab there, either. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly:  Done Mdann52 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sorry I messed it up in the first place. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

---

I just created an article, and damned if I didn't forget to capitalize the title; I'd like to think that I typed "A Blade of Grass (Penny Dreadful episode)", but clearly, I fonked it up. I don't know how to fix that after the article is created. Can I get a little help? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. See the "move" tab at the top of every page; that's all you need. Basic instructions at Help:How to move a page with additional details at WP:MOVE. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, both instructions on how to fix the problem and the prac-ap of it being done. Thanks, Nyttend! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Could someone please block this user, who has gone well over WP:3RR at Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal today without listening to any warnings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 for 1 week for 3RR and WP:NPA violations. I've also temporarily protected the article, just in case. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Could someone pop over and close Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Xender Lourdes one way or the other? (It's very easy even if you've never done it before; just go to Special:UserRights/Xender_Lourdes and check the appropriate tick-box, then add a {{done}} or {{not done}} to the request; the bot will do the rest.) The thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Administrator instructions#Note re PC has had the unintended consequence of making every admin who regularly closes RFP/R requests technically WP:INVOLVED, so this is languishing far longer than it should. ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Closed. I don't consider myself involved though I work PERM pretty regularly, and this was clear to me. He can come back in six months. Katie^talk 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Frustrating, as he's obviously someone here to help and not a driveby MMORPG-er, but equally I can't see what he actually wanted the permission for (and if he's talking like this to a bunch of experienced editors, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable handing over access to something with as much ABF potential as STiki). ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I heard that :) It's alright. Katie's declined my request. And I've shot myself in the foot by writing another layer of silliness below her decline. I think I got off on such a wrong foot with you (by the way, I'm a 'she'). The rollback is not important for me. Collaborating with editors here is. And I'm thankful to have learnt something better from the interaction at the rollback noticeboard. Sorry again for starting interacting with you on a wrong footing. And apologies to KrakatoaKatie too for the unneeded reply I've left her on that noticeboard. See you around. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Can an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney? It has been open for three weeks now, has several dozen !votes and twice as many comments, and we're unlikely to see any new arguments that haven't been made. I have !voted myself, so I won't express an opinion here on how it should be closed, just that it should be. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. I don't see how I could have closed it any other way (the topic is obviously considered notable by enough people that it's not a clear-cut deletion, and there's no obvious merge target), but I nonetheless it to be at WP:DRV in a couple of days for the near-inevitable challenge. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

seeing the above, I'm supposing it's okay to request this here...will an experienced, uninvolved admin undertake closing the RfC at "area of a disk"...it's been open about a month but discussion has pretty much died over the past couple of weeks...about 30 people contributed with 26 "voting" (16 to 10 favoring "circle") with lots of policy points/discussion on both sides...it's a very long rfc and will take a not insignificant amount of time to close it properly..so you'd have to be willing to spend some time...(I posted this on the closure noticeboard too a while back but it appears that's backed up for months on end etc)....68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi, Jim1138 keeps on removing what I write in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:500_Questions when I am trying to discuss something that I do not agree with. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

---

a bot just removed the template as 30 days has passed..so requesting again..will an experienced, uninvolved admin please undertake closing the RfC at "area of a disk"...it's been open a month but discussion has pretty much died over the past couple of weeks...about 30 people contributed with 26 "voting" (16 to 10 favoring "circle") with lots of policy points/discussion on both sides...it's a very long rfc and will take a not insignificant amount of time to close properly..so you'd have to be willing to spend some time...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The instructions are clear about using {{AN-notice}}, {{ANI-notice}}, etc. when there is a discussion about an editor. Would a user ping serve the same purpose? The only small technical difference is that it's received as an "alert" rather than a "message". Either way, the user should be able to get the notice. Both methods can indicate the involved thread. Are the noticeboard notices preferred over pings? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Not all pings are successful. Sometimes it's a bug, sometimes the editor has done it incorrectly - they may try to fix it by editing an re-saving it but that doesn't work. Also, I get talk page notices automatically emailed to me, but not pings. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, editors can opt-out of ping notifications, but not talk page notices. The only sure way to generate a notification is to edit a users talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The templates were created long before Pings existed, and (I think) before alerts generated an email. All we had was the Big Orange Bar of Doom. As it stands now, pings can me shut down and Alerts can be disabled for everything except edits to your Talkpage. I personally prefer pinging, especially considering WP:DTTR, but unfortunately the template is the only way to be certain they see the notice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And for transparency. It's easy for a discussion to get bogged down with claims of the user not being notified, someone digging out diffs of an aledged ping, etc, but there's no disputing the notice on the user's talkpage (even if they revert it). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• We've actually had this discussion 2 or 3 times since notifications came out, on the talk page here and ANI I think, and each time it was clear that a consensus believed that regular notifications are still required, for the reasons given above. Lugnuts probably points to the biggest issue, which is that others can clearly see you complied with notification by simply looking at the target's talk page history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive252#What_constitutes_notification.3F. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I'm interested in and have been following blocks and unblock requests on Wikipedia recently...can someone explain this one to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:108.162.157.141 ..it appears this user has had difficulty with the 3 revert rule in past...however, it appears to me A. Jim1138 beat him to 3 reverts on the talkpage of the relevant article...and B. the talk page question itself can't automatically be interpreted as forum discussion...I would interpret it as a question looking for knowledge/sources for potential new info to add to the article...so in this particular case it would seem Jim1138 is more out of line...??68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify people on their talk page when you bring them up, especially when making accusations by name, at AN/ANI. So, you should have placed a talk page message on Jim1138 and MusikAnimal's talk pages. You have to make sure you do this going forward. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have you asked the admin @MusikAnimal: about this yet? The first step for clarifications of admin actions should be to the admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just trying to understand how things are working here...I wasn't trying to actually get involved...ie like using this as an example to understand how things work in practice...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, its still a requirement to notify people you discuss in these public forums. Even conceptually, it makes more sense to consult the person who did it, than to speculate with others who weren't even involved. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Step one is to discuss with the blocking admin. We can't speak for them. HighInBC 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

okay I'll post on their talkpage about this thread...it's likely I'd like others to weigh-in too though, if they'd care to...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

do I have to tell the other two as well? I don't really want them here arguing about it...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you must notify anyone you bring up for discussion here. It is not acceptable to discuss people on a noticeboard without their knowledge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If you just want to ask someone a question, just post to their talk page; it really is that simple. If you reference other people, link their names [[User:username]] if you want them to get notifications. You do not have to contact them personally to have a discussion on someone else's user talk page. If you want to involve the blocked user, you will need to have the discussion on the blocked user's page - as it is the only thing they can edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

When I first reviewed the ANEW report, I sympathized with the anon in that they were questioning actual content and not intending to use the talk page as a forum. However the user is well aware of what constitutes edit warring and what they should do in such a scenario, as evidenced by their history of similar disruption. I would block on the basis of the edit warring on 500 Questions alone, before they started edit warring on the talk page. One could argue Jim1138 was also edit warring but they were clearly acting in good-faith to enforce WP:NOTFORUM policy. I do not think they have any vested interest in the subject nor were trying to WP:BITE. There are a dedicated suite of user warnings for WP:NOTFORUM, as opposed to just a "general notice". Patrollers could easily assume such reverts are exempt from the three-revert rule, particularly when it is policy-related. Jim1138, I know you mean no harm, but next time seek administrative assistance or outside help if you are presented with this problem, as technically those reverts are not exempt. Hope this clears things up and that we can all walk away learning something from this — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal Yes. Will do. Jim1138 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the explanation of the blocking admin and the prior history of the IP I see nothing wrong with this block. HighInBC 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the response and your reasoning...it seems this user has a hard time with the 3 revert rule in general...but the history also suggests to me that he's found himself in a couple other borderline situations where there was perhaps some other not entirely appropriate behavior on the part of others (like in this case)...but maybe this user's history has to play a part in the result...viewed in isolation, however, in regards to solely the issue with the talkpage I would think Jim1138 stepped more out of bounds...it was far too early to revert the post based on forum..so the initial revert was inappropriate imo...he then beat the IP to 3 reverts as far as I can tell...In any event, like I said, I'm kind of just trying to get a sense of how things work in practice...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As a general matter, you have to edit pretty badly to hit any of the hard boundaries that can get you blocked without a lot of prior back-and-forth. So you seem to be asking "just how badly can I edit without hitting one of those boundaries?". Don't ask that. Instead, try to edit as well as you can. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note I have unblocked this user after they demonstrated an understanding of why they were blocked and made a commitment not to continue such behaviour. I also discussed this with the blocking admin and acted with their agreement. HighInBC 15:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Disambiguation_and_inherently_ambiguous_titles needs to be closed. It's already listed at WP:ANRFC, but it's gone unnoticed there since April. Calidum ¤ 02:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

JzG has been admonished three times by ArbCom. Shouldn't he be out?New England Cop (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

His conduct on the GMO case was also subpar as discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Proposed_decision#JzG but he was not a party, so escaped another admonishment there.Dialectric (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Three and a half times, I guess. New England Cop (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't baseball. HighInBC 05:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was discussed and it was not decided to do that. If you want to go down that route see Wikipedia:Arbitration#Requesting arbitration and open a new case. Nobody but ArbCom has the power to desysop someone and this discussion is completely pointless. --Majora (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If the community can elect him then we can unelect him. The time is ripe for that to happen. Maybe JzG will do the community justice and resign? New England Cop (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Desysoping is done(or not done as in this case) by arbcom, not noticeboards. As for them resigning that is something you will have to talk to them about. HighInBC 05:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have notified JzG that you started this thread about them, which is something you should have done first. HighInBC 05:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Finishing the sentence above '... in eight years'. I guess we are by now a couple of innings further. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Was that one of the quickest closes ever? Surely threads should be allowed to run for at least 24 hrs (except for extreme circumstances) so that editors on the other side of the planet to the US have a chance to comment. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to keep the discussion going if there's nothing that can be done. Revocation of the admin bit is an ArbCom job, not an admin job. clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The OP was rather vague in what they were suggesting. "Shouldn't they be out" has been taken to mean desysop, but it could have meant a site ban (or other sanction) which can be settled here - I don't know. However, there would have been little harm in letting the thread run for a while so that if a proposal was taken to ARBCOM with a formal proposal to desysop, there would be a discussion in place for ARBCOM to decide whether they should take on the case. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• It should be noted that this is hardly a new record. In fact, one editor I'm aware of received five admonishments and a 6-month desysop between 2005 and 2009, and is still an active administrator. That being said, I think enough of the community's time has been wasted regarding the events of four days in April. The damage is done, and now in order to heal we need to forgive and move on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Getting kinda crowded in there. HalfShadow 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

As in, forex, Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#RfC: Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from WP:SOCK?. Tks.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We are aware of the backlogs. No need to bring them to our attention. Katie^talk 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 08:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

You are prohibited from (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth, for a period of one year.

Administrator imposing the sanction

The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by sfarney

Prioryman (talk · contribs) filed the May 31 AE request that resulted in the ban. Immediately after filing the AE request, Prioryman selected and canvassed The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) to participate.

The Wordsmith is not uninvolved as is required by WP, but has more or less admitted s/he is an ex-member of the cult and boasted about her/his wealth of primary source materials s/he owns. ("I have seen many "confidential" internal Scientology documents, own the Red Volumes, Green Volumes and (Incomplete) Blue Volumes, and have listened to many tapes, including some extremely rare and confidential ones. I also have much of the content of the unpublished OT IX and X levels (fascinating stuff). It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists. I have listened to the Exteriorization and Rudements tapes, and can confirm that Prioryman's edits accurately reflect their content. I don't have any copies of The Auditor, but I probably know someone who does and could look into it. I recommend no sanction against Prioryman, and at a minimum an admonishment to the filing editor. "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Prioryman) The text of that statement makes clear that The Wordsmith was not judging the situation on WP policies and agendas, but on a scale of Scientology/anti-Scientology.

The Wordsmith accused me of being a Single Purpose Account, but any dispassionate review of my edit history shows that I cover a wide variety of topics with strong edit histories on each, from technology to culture, science to the Bible, and much in between. I have been an editor here since 2012, and I did not touch a Scientology article until 2015.

The May 31 AE request was quite obviously a retaliation for my ArbComm request on May 25 against Prioryman. The Wordsmith participated in that action too, and immediately requested a Boomerang, without citing to any violations of WP policy. Notably, The Wordsmith had no comment on the violations of WP editorial conduct and policy that I was seeking to correct in that request.

Prioryman also canvassed another administrator, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), to his ArbComm request with the same text. That administrator also presided over my May 25 AE request against Prioryman, watched Prioryman WP:PA attack me, acknowledge that I had been attacked, then closed the hearing by telling me to be nicer in discussions and ask questions instead of insisting on WP policy. Eh?? Dennis Brown also showed for the May 30 AE request and spoke against me.

This smacks of improper canvassing of administrators. Nobody can be uninvolved (as required by WP policy) if they are selected by one party and summoned to the bench. And any administrator who comes when summoned to a particular subject is not uninvolved.

The article R2-45 is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Nothing permits an editor to make highly controversial claims with weak and primary sources. As I have argued extensively in the talk page, one highly controversial claim in the article is WP:OR and WP:CHERRYPICKING of (alleged) primary sources with no secondary source support. A second highly controversial claim is supported only by a blog. A third is based on a single book, a Wikileaks page, and a professor's essay that has not been peer-reviewed (I have asked for evidence of peer review, and Prioryman provided none). The source of the fourth highly controversial claim is the same unreviewed essay. Some of that text and fringe theory is now being copied to other articles.

I argued extensively on the talk page against those edits, but I broke no WP rules or policies. Unable to convince the editors to follow policy, I took the matter to DRN. Robert McClenon immediately closed the issue, and suggested the matter was not DRN appropriate and should go to ArbComm.

I believe these facts demonstrate that this issue did not receive a fair and impartial hearing -- and that the admins were strongly predisposed to the decision.

Note that the AE discussion was closed at 15:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC). Damotclese (talk · contribs) added further comment two hours later at 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC).

My request: This ban should be lifted and the appropriate policies should applied to the topic. The editors and administrators who are abusing the policies should be addressed by properly uninvolved administrators who will do what they find appropriate in accordance with the findings of the 2009 Scientology Arbitration.

(I will undertake to update the links in this text when the AE discussions are archived.)

• Though several admins comment that the ban is "appropriate", no one has yet shown that I have done anything on this subject in violation of any WP policies. Surely, WP requires more than "we don't like you", and "you are in the way" to ban someone's editorial opinions. In addition to those problems, no one quibbles with my criticisms of that page. All the comments implicitly agree with me. Where is the rule book, folks? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• I call The Wordsmith involved because with the large collection of which s/he boasts, obviously the subject is a big part of his/her life. I have not objected to him/her editing, but I do object to him/her applying WP administrative functions as though s/he were ruling on the conflicts between pro- and anti- instead of WP policies. I believe that is improper. So would I believe if the Pope were sanctioning apostates. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Some editors seem to be arguing that regardless of what laws I broke or whether I broke ANY, I should still be punished. This is a very odd argument. Do we punish people for being inconvenient? In the real world, if SPA is not appropriate, the sanction should be canceled. No harm, no foul. If the antagonists want to bring another matter, they should start a new AE action. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• @The Wordsmith: Thanks for the advice on my signature. You could have mentioned that on my user page without going through AE. It is quite recent and I have no problem altering it.
• As for the sanction, the usual process is to consider whether the accused has broken any laws or rules. As Alice told the Red Queen, the verdict should come first. But as yet, no one has shown that I broke any of the rules. My biggest crime seems to be that I insist that Wikipedia should treat an unpopular subject in accordance with standard editing policies. Insisting that the topic reveals the WP:TRUTH is not the way we do things -- policy is also clear on that. It doesn't matter how many books the admin has on his/er desk, there must be WP:VERIFIABILITY. So let's have a little discussion, if you please, about whether I have committed any wrongs and what those wrongs might be. There will be time enough for the sentence after considering the verdict. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• I think the question deserves a direct answer here, folks. What exactly am I being sanctioned for? Which policy have I violated? What conduct must others avoid so that they do not share my fate? And what will you do for that article that is so blatantly in violation of WP:FRINGE? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 19:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• (Responding to off-line remarks on my user talk page:) Let us recall that The wordsmith was first to bring up his/er private life background, boasting that s/he knew more about the subject than any of the believers and had a handsome library of primary source books and recordings. The wordsmith's statement was an argument from WP:TRUTH rather than the policies and values of Wikipedia, and I believe it was both prejudicial and improper to the subject at hand, which was the WP:VERIFIABILITY of the article. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Wordsmith has written below the following statement: "There is also private evidence in play, which I have submitted to the Arbitration Committee." If The Wordsmith did not consider it substantive, those words would not have been written. But if The Wordsmith (and others) considered it substantive and based his/er decision on it, I should be allowed to address it. Instead, it is hidden from me and from this forum. Does anyone care that this matter is off the road and into the weeds, far from the principles that Wikipedians believe they are following? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• This just gets odder and odder. An admin uninvolved editor states that those who agree with me have a "clearly deep partisanship" and are not "capable of rendering an unbiased opinion in this matter." Even the witnesses and commenting editors are attacked if they speak the wrong words! And not a word here about the "deep partisanship" demonstrated by Prioryman and his/er earlier cognomen, "ChrisO", when s/he was sanctioned by Arbitration and then pardoned? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• More news in the odder and odder department: Admin Dennis Brown declares (below) that his opinions about the issue have nothing to do with content (which is the only real product of Wikipedia and is being tragically ignored in this proceeding), but only about my conduct in "dealing with others". Admin Dennis Brown was witness to Prioryman's personal attacks against me in the May 25 proceeding (linked above), and acknowledged them at the time. But Dennis Brown says nothing about Prioryman's conduct now. Instead, Dennis Brown makes vague, unsupported statements about my conduct. This allegation by Dennis Brown about me without evidence is itself a personal attack WP:PA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• A Note to BMK: Please do not attempt to give other editors legal advice about what they can consider and not consider in commenting on these proceedings. Your statements are not backed by WP policy. This is not "litigation" (as you call it) and the rules of Appeals Courts do not apply. Other editors may examine as many facts as they hold to be relevant, they may investigate wherever they wish, and they may offer their opinions freely, without the crab-jointed constraints of The Rules of Federal Procedure and American courts. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• It is singularly improper for JBH (moving party below) or anyone else to misrepresent the bases of this appeal, of which the multiple major points are: (1) The ruling admin (The Wordsmith) was canvassed and summoned to the hearing by the filing party. (2) The admin sanctioned me on the accusation that I was WP:SPA. On re-examination, all editors agree that is simply not true. (3) The sanction is not based on applicable policy, rules, or prior arbitration and none has been cited; it stands only on "he's in the way" and "we don't like him". (4) Everything I said about the article in question is proved true and no one can deny the bald fact that the article matches WP:FRINGE to a T (wild accusations supported only by flimsy sources) and violates WP editing policies. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Truly, the article R2-45 sites a number of secondary sources. But as I have reiterated, the most outrageous statements have feeble support: One statement is supported only by a blog. Another is supported by Wikileaks, a single book, and primary sources. A third is supported only by cherrypicking from primary sources. A fourth has only a professor's essay (not peer reviewed) in a field where he is not an expert. This is not in keeping with the requirements of WP:FRINGE, gentlemen, which states that A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. The strongest critics of Scientology do not even mention the subject of this page. WP:VERIFIABILITY states that This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Accusations that an organization is committing or has committed criminal acts is most certainly likely to be challenged. WP:PSTS states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. When an editor repeatedly violates editorial policy, that editor should be disciplined. When an admin supports the editor by sanctioning the reporter of those violations, that admin is clearly out of line. To pretend this is NOT a content issue is disingenuous. To pretend this is ONLY a content issue misses the boat entirely. If this sanction is upheld, it will be a sad day for Wikipedia because that will mark a day when Wikipedia's goals are officially sacrificed to another agenda. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Then, Lankiveil (talk · contribs), as one more editor who is certain the correct decision has been reached, you can tell me what rules I have broken and which policy you would be pleased to see applied. That would edify both me and any outside editors who might be puzzled by this process. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• The Wordsmith (talk · contribs): You have "offered" me nothing. Your imposition of WP:SPA is simply bizarre and wrong. Having done wrong, you now rectify your mistake -- or you do not. There is no "offer" and acceptance of "offer". If you want to do something nice, you should tell this forum why you are punishing me and exactly when I supposedly transgressed. No wait -- justice requires that also of you, and you will not have my agreement to do anything less. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Dennis Brown asserts that "There is no justice at Wikipedia." If s/he truly believes that Wikipedia has none of the qualities among the editors that we call JUSTICE, I suggest it is long past time for Dennis Brown to work in the direction of implementing it -- or resign from his admin position until he is willing to do so. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

I understand the concerns here. Firstly personal experience is not relevant to WP:INVOLVED, but I will state for the record that I am not a Scientologist, have never been a Scientologist, and none of my family or close friends are Scientologists. I merely take an active interest in their history, policies and doctrine to consider myself a subject-matter expert, which is why I made that comment on the first AE. There was a question of whether the primary sources (inaccessible to the general public) were being used correctly; I opined that I owned some of the ones questioned and confirmed their accuracy. I also consider myself an expert on the history and theology of Roman Catholicism (though far less so, since there is so much more to study than I could in a lifetime), and have access to many documents there as well. If one of those sources were questioned, I would speak to their authenticity just as I did.

WP:INVOLVED refers to participation in the content area that would cause bias. Aside from contributing some well-sourced content and a photograph to Project Chanology in 2008, and probably some routine vandalism patrolling, I haven't participated in it. My interaction with Prioryman and Sfarney have been in a purely administrative role, as required by policy. There is also private evidence in play, which I have submitted to the Arbitration Committee.

However, I'm not unreasonable. I recognize that Sfarney has contributed positively in other areas, and that invoking Remedy 5.1 might have been a bit harsh (though it was, in fact, suggested by an Arbitrator I consulted for advice). I would be willing to convert it to strictly a Discretionary Sanctions ban, and strikethrough my SPA note on the Arbitration case page log. I still think the 1 year ban is proper, but the 5.1 issue seems to be the sticking point here. so I'll budge on that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, neither Dennis nor myself needed to be canvassed. We are the two most active admins on AE, and the ping probably just cut a few hours off of when we would have noticed it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I believe you are mistaken about prior encounters. I was surprised by that assertion so I went to his talkpage myself and did a Ctrl + F for "Wordsmith", the only one that popped up was me used the required template to notify him of this very sanction that is being appealed, as is required by policy. To my knowledge outside of Arbitration Enforcement we have had zero prior interaction. I also have not contributed content, much less been in a content dispute, in the Scientology topic area in the last 8 years. Regarding repealing 5.1, yes I can do that and just leave the regular AE ban unilaterally, but before I do I would like input from other involved editors. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: It should be noted that I logged the sanctions at both Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions and at WP:ARBSCI. In effect, for record-keeping purposes, they are two separate sanctions that are identical in length and scope. The offer I've put on the table, in recognition of your positive contributions elsewhere (and that I can sometimes be a bit heavy-handed), is for me to repeal the Remedy 5.1 sanction but leave the AE one intact. In essence, you would still be prohibited from editing around Scientology for a year, but mention of you being an SPA would be struck from the log. Considering how many editors here feel that the sanction itself was appropriate, I think that's a fair offer. On a related note, would you consider altering your signature? The text style in my browser blurs it and hurts the eyes, and I imagine that goes for others as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sfarney: There was evidence that I submitted to the Arbitration Committee regarding somebody with a very similar name to yours who verifiably works for the Office of Special Affairs attacking content on the internet that doesn't conform to their doctrine ("entheta" as they call it). After doing further research yesterday it seems unlikely that you are the same person, and I emailed the Committee last night to inform them of that. Please consider the private evidence out of play now. However, I believe the actions observed still warrant the sanction. You have also not responded to my offer to repeal the 5.1 sanction. Given the comments other uninvolved admins editors have made, I think that is probably the best outcome that will result from this appeal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You are correct. The bulk of my work in Dispute Resolution takes place at AE, so my brain associates "uninvolved" with "administrator". Struckthrough and corrected. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

• That Prioryman contacted me isn't canvassing because I had acted administratively in the previous case; I was not an involved editor. It was also pointless as I patrol AE and would have seen it anyway, so that point is moot. To clear up one thing above, I didn't "speak against you", I acted in an administrative fashion, as I do other cases at AN, ANI, AE and elsewhere. I was not involved in the content. I did give you a firm warning in the first case rather than sanction you formally. In the second case, I was inclined to just continue and see what happens next, but The Wordsmith decided to act, which is within his authority as administrator. At first I thought you needed to have the warning template, but I was mistaken, and had this conversation on his talk page. Once informed of this and from my perspective, he acted reasonably and within the authority granted to him by Arb and the community, even if his actions weren't my first choice of action. WP:AE doesn't require a consensus of admin to agree, it just requires that whomever acts does so within the boundaries of policy. As to his being involved, I don't see how familiarity automatically disqualifies someone with acting in an administrative fashion, and don't see any diff/link to anything that would serve to demonstrate bias regarding the content here. Commenting on the content doesn't disqualify, as admin must have the basic understanding of the content in order to act. Having an opinion doesn't disqualify an admin either. It is only when an admin's opinion is such that it interfere's with their ability to be unbiased that WP:involved comes into play. As I'm involved now only in this particular decision, I can't opine in an administrative capacity, but would still recommend the appeal be declined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  I understand the hesitation, but WP:INVOLVED starts out and focuses on "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." and I haven't seen evidence of any dispute with The Wordsmith with Scientology at Wikipedia. I'm not saying real life experience is meaningless, but the policy doesn't even mention real world experience in any way. Policies like WP:COI mention real world experiences, but I don't see how that applies here. If we consider someone "involved" based on their real world experience, we would be doing so outside of that policy. I understand and accept the concern, but short of some other policy rationale, I'm hesitant to do use the WP:involved tag here. I'm not saying it is optimal, but policy doesn't seem to forbid it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Laval : Don't mistake the support of an admin action as being anything related to content. I can only speak for myself, but the content doesn't interest me at all. The behavior of editors does, and what was looked at was the recent behavior. It isn't about right or wrong on the content, it is about how an editor goes about dealing with others. I saw your name on that talk page, for example, but I didn't see a problem with how you related with those you disagreed with. The same can't be said for sfarney. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sfarney, as for "personal attacks", you are overstating your case. Prioryman was pushing civility a bit at AE, but I asked him to stop and he did. This is common during disputes and isn't going to draw a sanction. It happened, I asked him to pull back, he did, end of problem. Surely your skin is not really so thin. Regardless, it has exactly zero to do with this appeal and didn't even take place during the case you are appealing. Laboring prior problems that have already been dealt with isn't going to change the outcome in this appeal. As for my culpability, I never once suggested a topic ban or other sanction for anyone in either of those cases, so you need to look elsewhere to point your finger and lay blame. I suggest a mirror. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • sfarney - There is no justice at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

There are two questions here: was the sanction valid, and should Wordsmith have been the one to impose it.

The first question is easy to answer: the sanction is amply supported by the evidence.

The second is also easy to answer: probably not.

So, we should not lift the sanction, but another admin should enforce it instead. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by OID

I raised this at the Wordsmith's talkpage due to my concerns with the lack of discussion and the obvious implication the Wordsmith had already made their mind up. I (broadly) agree with JzG above except I dont think there was near enough evidence to ban someone under that remedy as an SPA. The ARBSCI case was clear that SPA's were accounts solely dedicated to editing in the scientology area and had little interest in anything else. While sfarney has recently been editing a lot in that area (such is the nature of editing) it is by no means their sole interest as can be seen by their contribution history. If we are using that standard to label people an SPA, well Prioryman would qualify, Mathsci further up the page would for their dedication to choral articles and so on. A Single Purpose Account is here to edit in a clearly defined area and that area only - there is no evidence sfarney qualifies as that. RE Dennis and familiarity: I have a few books on cars. That wouldnt disqualify me from closing contentious discussions on cars. If I owned a series of extremely hard to get and in-depth documents (primary and secondary) on morris minors, declared I was the most knowledgeable wikipedian about morris minors AND had previously declared another editor was correct in their morris minor edits - I should not be closing any dispute related to said morris minors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Prioryman

For the record, it's not remotely "canvassing" to neutrally notify the two editors who had acted administratively in the previous case to inform them that there was a new related arbitration enforcement request. As WP:APPNOTE says, it's appropriate to notify "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Prioryman (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: I looked at the notability question before I got involved in editing the article - no point putting in the effort if it's potentially going to be deleted - and was satisfied that it was notable after looking at the references listed here, viz. 7 newspaper articles (including Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post), one TV documentary and two mainstream books. My subsequent research found more sources in addition to those listed on that website. Prioryman (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

First, I guess I could agree that from what I can see the article in question might have serious notability problems. I see from the references it is the main subject of one article in the Clearwater Sun, and also the subject of a Hubbard lecture (hardly independent) and one wikileaks audio recording. I have serious trouble believing that those sources are necessarily sufficient to establish notability, so I guess I have some sympathy for Sfarney here. Having said that, however, I have to say that his methods as displayed in the recent AE discussion are probably sufficient for sanctions of some sort. I also find his most recent comment implying The Wordsmith has to be considered biased because of having lots of books on the subject incompetent and itself problematic. I regularly consult Lutheran and Catholic seminary and university libraries for materials on various religion-related topics, but the mere fact of a library being affiliated with one group does not mean that the works found there all support the view of that body. They collect a lot of material critical of their traditions as well. The fact that Sfarney seems to be jumping to at best poorly supported conclusions about the nature of the material available to The Wordsmith, as well as to his motivations in getting those books, can't be seen by me as being anything but a continuing indicator of problematic behavior. I have to say that based on the way Sfarney handled this dispute, as revealed by the content of the AE page, the sanction seems appropriate, and that there is no obvious reason to impugn The Wordsmith, and the rather poor attempts at misdirection impugning otherwise lends even more support to the belief in Sfarney's ongoing problematic behavior in this matter. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Laval

Due to medical issues, my activity on Wikipedia recently has been sporadic and infrequent, so this sudden topic ban on User:Sfarney comes as a total surprise and I've only discovered it by chance after the Memorial Day weekend, during and after which I have been hospitalized. At this exact moment I will not be able to go into any level of detail due to my health issues, but let me state for the time being that I totally and emphatically disagree and oppose this topic ban against Sfarney, who I have found to be, like myself, a very neutral editor. Our goal here at Wikipedia is total and absolute neutrality. If this is true, if Wikipedia is about absolute neutrality, then a topic ban against Sfarney for attempting such regarding Scientology literally makes no sense. The articles regarding Scientology are, in general, so extremely biased against the subject that if we were dealing with Judaism or Islam, Wikipedia would be accused of antisemitism and Islamophobia, respectively. We need more neutrality and emotionless distance, not bias. Based on my experience and interactions, Sfarney is a valued and productive editor, and I strongly recommend against this action. Forgive me any errors or omissions, or any other such mistakes. If more details or information will be needed from me, please allow me a few days to recover from my most recent hospital stay. Many thanks and appreciation, Laval (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is User:Prioryman removing a threat made after threatening me with a similar ban as Sfarney , but only after I made clear I gave into his and his gangs bullying and his false claims of "consensus" -- if "consensus" on Wikipedia means a gang of anti-Scientology editors can do whatever the hell they want, then fine. As I wrote there, my health and sanity are more important than putting up with this crap. Topic ban me and whoever else tries to do some good according to policy here. Wikipedia keeps losing good editors and it's clear to me that the situation is hopeless, and like others before me, I give up. Prioryman and his anti-Scientology want to bully me off of Wikipedia, and they've succeeded. Laval (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that blatantly anti-Scientology editors like Prioryman, User:Feoffer, User:Slashme, User:Damotclese, User:Thimbleweed, are not topic banned and yet one editor who goes against them does, shows the arrogance of this kind of move. As I've written, I expect I'll be next to be topic banned next since Prioryman has become arrogant enough to go ahead and revert whatever edits I make, particularly in regards to legitimate maintenance tags. This is disgusting enough that I can't believe this is even happening. Laval (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And another thing, if Sfarney is to remain topic banned, then I should be topic banned as well. The only thing the two of us are guilty of is trying to uphold Wikipedia policy and guidelines against anti-Scientology bullies like Prioryman, Slashme, Damotclese, Feoffer, etc. You guys can even go ahead and ban me from Wikipedia overall, I wouldn't be surprised at this point. I simply regret investing so much time and effort into this project that I thought could be improved, but in turn has just shown that the nepotism of old still remains. I am just appalled by Prioryman and the level of support in his favor here, while his behavior is ignored in spite of the fact that he and his buddies have gone out of their way to bully the hell out of anyone who doesn't see things the way they do, just look at their constant removal of legitimate maintenance tags. It's absurd. So, topic ban me or accuse me of being a covert Scientologist working for the Office of Special Affairs. That's how it is, right? Laval (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Slashme

I would like to respond to User:Laval's statement that I am "blatantly anti-Scientology". I feel that this is a mischaracterisation. I try to be neutral and balanced, and where I find content that is uncritically negative towards Scientology, I remove it. See this edit and this one for example.

Laval also asserts that I am part of a "gang" of editors that are "bullying" him. I am saddened by this claim: I would hate to be guilty of on-wiki or off-wiki harassment. I cannot find anything in my editing history that supports this statement, but if anyone else feels that this accusation is true, please highlight where I have done so, so that I can modify my behaviour in future.

I would also like to respond to User:Sfarney's statement that certain claims in the article are based on "a professor's essay that has not been peer-reviewed (I have asked for evidence of peer review, and Prioryman provided none)." This is surprising, considering that this issue has already been addressed. The "essay" in question is an English translation of a peer-reviewed article, and both the translation and the original are cited in the article:

• Lane, Jodi M. (January 30, 2008). "Malignant Narcissism, L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology's Policies of Narcisstic Rage" (PDF). University of Alberta.
• Lane, Jodi M.; Kent, Stephen A. (2008). "Politiques de rage et narcissisme malin". Criminologie (in French). 41 (2): 117–155. JSTOR 42745646.

This has been pointed out on the talk page, whereupon Sfarney questioned the qualifications of the reviewers. Here, however, he persists in claiming that the article is a non-peer-reviewed "essay".

The facts mentioned in the article are supported by newspaper articles, magazine articles, peer-reviewed research and books. The lower quality sources (blogs and links to original material) that keep being mentioned, simply serve to give extra context and detail, and certainly aid the reader who has an interest in the topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by sfarney

• WP:INVOLVED says

  In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

  Thus the essential nature of "involvement" by Wikipedia's standards is not about an editor's past personal off-Wikipedia history, but primarily about their on-Wikipedia relationship with the editor being sanctioned. Were sfarney's extremely broad definition of "involvement" to be accepted, admins with expert knowledge of, for instance, physics, would not be able to take any action against an editor whose transgressions were in the subject area of physics. That clearly goes against common sense, to remove from administrative action the very administrators who are best able to judge problematic behavior in a particular subject area. This being the case, sfarney's claim that The Wordsmith is "involved" is not valid, and the sanction should be upheld. BMK (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW I concur with The Wordsmith concerning Sfarney's sig, which I have found problematic for a while now, but which I didn't think was worth the effort ro complain about, since I come across it so inoften. Still, it is hard to read. BMK (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• The user has clearly been well cognizant of the nature of Scientology article sanctions for some time, and was given ample notice in the past. shows an interest in the topic in May 2015. (" The History of man page states there are recorded Hubbard lectures on space opera, too. I think the lead should be rewritten to remove this innuendo completely. It sounds like the Wiki has an axe to grind about scientology, instead of just telling the facts." Slade Farney).

And a host of warnings from Bishonen as well, culminating in an indefinite topic ban on Rick Alan Ross and "all related pages and content" (note that article is directly related to Scientology in itself). Not to mention .

Where a user has been long aware of the nature of the Scientology articles, and has substantially specialized in that general area, and been previously topic banned in a specific related area, they ought not be surprised that sanctions might apply.(Out of 1300 article edits, more than 300 relate to Scientology to a greater or lesser degree, Of 900 article talk page edits, more than 600 are related). The edit histories show no particular interaction with the administrator, The Wordsmith, at issue, so on both hands the appeal is problematic. Collect (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think Wordsmith would classify as involved. If you look at Sfarney's talk page you will see discussions between the two. It's clear that Wordsmith was involved in a content dispute and as such should not have been the one to ban. I think we should listen to Wordsmith though where the offer is to rescind the 5.1 sanction, I believe as the imposing admin Wordsmith can do it without any other input. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:The_Wordsmith, I made a mistake and I struck out my comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• The sanction was within administrator discression and not unreasonable. The Wordsmith has agreed to strike the Arbcom 5.1 sanction and keep the DS in place. No practical difference as far as the imposed editing restriction goes. Just because Rhe Wordsmith has experise in the area does not make him WP:INVOLVED and he has declined any COI which could make him so.

  Those are really the only issues to address. This is an appeal not a do-over of the AE discussion.

  Jbh^Talk 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Sfarney's last couple of comments above seem to be attempting to re-litigate the matter, which is not what an AE appeal is intended for. It is not another bite of the apple. BMK (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I regretfully agree. The AE page demonstrated the specific actions Sfarney took which resulted in the sanction being placed, and there is no reason to repeat them, or to attempt to ignore them. Regarding the comments he made about boasts, well, hell, I've done kinda the same thing myself above. with my comments about the quality of some of the libraries I haunt. In some cases, such statements can be seen as useful. I really don't see any basis for saying that The Wordsmith has to be counted as involved simply because he has read up on a subject IRL. If we took that position, a lot of our articles here would never be edited. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand the comment above by Laval. Is Laval an involved editor in this? Should Laval have been notified for some reason? Is there any reason that Laval's medical condition should hold up a decision about whether Sfarney's appeal should be granted or not? The tone of the comment seems to imply that the answer to all these questions is "yes", but I'm not seeing where Laval is involved in this specific issue in any way, except perhaps as a general supporter of Sfarney. BMK (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Given Laval's last few comments, I understand better now the editor's position, and suggest that because of their clearly deep partisanship, their comments should pay no part in the determination of whether Sfarney's appeal should be granted - I do not believe that Laval is capable of rendering an unbiased opinion in this matter. I assume that Laval has been notified of the Discretionary Sanctions in play for the Scientology subject area? BMK (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Sfarney: You are under the mistaken impression that I am an admin - I am not; never have been, never will be. I am a mere rank-and-file editor. By filing this appeal here, instead of at AE, any uninvolved editor can discuss the question of your appeal - on AE it would have been any univolved admin. I assume you made the choice to come here for a reason - perhaps you thought that admins would be predisposed not to lift another admin's sanction, and that regular editors would be more sympathetic to your plight. That doesn't seem to have happened.
  Further, my assessment of Laval had nothing whatsoever to do with his "agreeing with you" and was based entirely on the words he wrote in his comment.
  I will also say this: you are doing yourself no good at all with your continued comments. In fact, to my eye, you're simply digging yourself into a deeper hole, at the bottom of which won't be a simple topic ban, but likely a block of some sort for disruptive editing. Just my opinion, of course, but that's the way I see it. Were I you, I'd lay off the "odder and odder" bit: you are a supplicant here, requesting relief from a sanction that appears to be approved of by the vast majority of commenters. Snideness isn't going to help you. BMK (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Again, the AE matter is not going to be re-litigated, and you are not going to be able to "turn the tables" and make this about whether Prioryman is partisan or not. That's not the issue in this appeal, it simply does not enter into it. The issue has been plainly laid out and answered: Was the sanction valid? Yes. Was The Wordsmith "involved" by Wikipedia's definition? No. Therefore the appeal should be declined. BMK (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Legal advice"? What the heck are you talking about? BMK (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just a reminder to @The Wordsmith: that because this appeal was filed at AN and not at AE, discussion about the appeal is among uninvolved editors not among uninvolved admins. Of course, an uninvolved admin will need to close the appeal, as usual. BMK (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

• I would like to suggest that consensus among the uninvolved editors is that this appeal should be declined. The only basis for the appeal were claims that The Wordsmith was INVOLVED in some way or that he exceeded his administrative discretion. Consensus is the negative in both cased. I suggest the sanction be removed from where it is recorded in ARBSCI 5.1, as The Wordsmith suggested, since Sfarney is not an SPA and the ARBSCI/DS sanction remain in place. This can then be closed. We have passed into the realm of more heat than light and it is highly unlikely anything further productive will be accomplished here. Jbh^Talk 12:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Since SfFarney seems to want more information on why this closing was seconded. In my estimation, the OP incorrectly overstates their case, as there are secondary sources, etc., and the OP may have developed into systematically overstating the case in general, including against Wordsmith, and it could reasonably be seen to go beyond useful contribution to behaviorally problematic behavior. As for the extensive editing of related topics (which is often shorthanded as SpA) well just move on, as the modification addresses that, and finally, as others have explained in depth, having read books on a topic, does not make one involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I concur. BMK (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• I can see that there might be some reasonable questions regarding whether the article has sufficient discussion as a primary topic in independent literature to raise possible notability questions as per WP:GNG, although the newspaper article probably addresses those concerns, with the other sources provided. Whether it merits being a stand-alone article is still a matter of question. That, however, is a separate matter from this request, which was about whether the AE sanction was appropriate. Given the behavior of Sfarney indicated on that page, and in this one, I have to say that there is sufficient reason to say that such a sanction, based on his behavior, is appropriate. There is a separate matter of whether the behavior of other editors in the same material is also appropriate, and whether the article might reasonably be considered for deletion or merging, but those are separate matters beyond the scope of this appeal discussion. They could have been, and could still be, raised in accord with policies and guidelines on the relevant pages, and that would have been the preferable way to conduct this discussion, but they seemingly were not, in favor of the behavior which led to the AE sanction. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Concur with closing this with no further action. This isn't the place to re-litigate the case, which is what this largely appears to be. The one element which I think does merit further inspection is whether User:The Wordsmith was sufficiently involved as to be ineligible to impose a sanction. On balance, while this editor does participate in articles on Scientology, I don't see that they were in any way compromised in their judgement. Further, given User:Sfarney's conduct in this appeal (as summarised by User:Slashme), as well as a quick look at their editing history, I think the sanction was reasonable under the circumstances. Lets not waste any further time with this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC).

• It is also my opinion that this appeal has continued long enough for an uninvolved admin to simply close, and would ask that one does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• For the love of sanity someone please close this. The OP is failing to observe the first law of holes and I fear that this could turn into a discussion about a community indef topic ban since, based in their comments here, I seriously doubt that their editing behavior will change in a year. Jbh^Talk 16:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• On my knees here, supporting the closing ASAP. The conduct of individuals in this discussion does seem to me to be spiraling out of control, and if it continues open much longer some sort of indef topic ban or i-ban or similar may well be required. Please close this before the self-inflicted damage being caused by one or more individuals here requires further, possibly more drastic, action. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by sfarney

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Note I'm obviously not uninvolved, but since this is related to the Result I would like to note that I have vacated the 5.1 sanction as promised. Feel free to move this if anyone thinks it should be elsewhere. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm closing this - the discussion has been open for a week, the result is pretty clear and continued discussion isn't being productive. Consensus of uninvolved editors is that the sanction is valid and should stand. Hut 8.5 21:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this, but I thought someone should take a look at it.)

Last December, someone anonymously added this sentence to the Radar detector detector article:

"In 1982 the US military funded a project, codenamed R4D (radar detector-detector-detector-detector), in order to develop a device capable of detecting radar detector-detector-detectors." (diff)

This has been widely shared online, including by the popular blog Slate Star Codex (link) and the /r/wikipedia and /r/TIL subreddits (link, link). However, the original Wikipedia article doesn't have a source for "R4D". I looked for one, but all the sources online seemed to trace back to Wikipedia, or were obviously people joking around on forums and stuff. Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News don't appear to have anything on this project - the only reference to "R4D" in a military context is to a particular model of airplane.

Can someone confirm whether or not this is a hoax? Thanks. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:F45A:7D7F:B73F:6717 (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. If there is no reliable source for the information, it can be removed. Doc talk 09:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

R3D seems to actually be a thing (, see "VG-2 alert" and "Spectre alert" in the feature list). R4D sounds farfetched to me but who knows. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hoax or no, it's unsourced and this humble non-admin has removed it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)