Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an no admin backlog }} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to

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

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases,

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

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

There is no fixed length for a formal

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if

Non-admins can close most discussions.

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 23 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 139 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 136 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 119 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 86 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 69 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 56 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ed. ^{put'er there} 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 54 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a

WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the

WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 48 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 40 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 31 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	40	2	42
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	3	1	4
RfD	0	0	52	30	82
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 49 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 15 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 0 days' time on 9 May 2024) |done=yes

Requesting a closure for the following discussion. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ganbare_Goemon_Kirakira_Dōchū:_Boku_ga_Dancer_ni_Natta_Wake_(2nd_nomination) Oz346 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 124 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 124 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 118 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 115 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how

WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 99 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course.

AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 99 days ago on 30 January 2024)

AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 93 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 86 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 73 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 66 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 60 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion

(Initiated 35 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 22 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list

(Initiated 12 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone is proposing a community ban

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Someone is proposing a community ban

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)[reply]

Discussion here with examples provided: [1]. 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: [2].

Note this module is subject to

talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply

]

Wouldn't CB discussions be at

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply ] Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply ] @Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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#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. 21:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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[3] 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.

talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of

talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Please stop with the

good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Unfortunately despite all appeals[4][5][6]

talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is the ban being proposed a ban from the site, or a topic ban? --

HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

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

]

Topic ban requested

At 28 april 2016,

WP:DONTGETIT by ignoring the honouring of his request for citations. Pinging John Carter and User:Ms Sarah Welch, since they supported "to keep this editor just away from this page" (bottom of the list with differences). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support, as nominee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Please, admins, when evaluating this, note that
  1. When I do longer posts I collapse parts of them so readers can skip easily.
  2. Please don't judge the number of posts I do from the talk page edit history. I tend to repeat myself and make mistakes, typing quickly. Also not good at spotting those mistakes when the words first appear on the page. Most of the edits in the history are to do with fixing these issues. Please instead look at the talk page itself.
  3. I am not editing the page itself (except for one edit to add a citation needed tag some time back - when the tag was removed I never tried again). This action would silence my voice in debates on the talk page.
  
  All my posts are to the point, respectful and done with the intention of improving wikipedia.
  
  Please also note the context - this action was brought the day after I got a second Oppose vote in the RfC on use of redeath in the article. See RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths. Also notice that yesterday he collapsed the entire section of supplementary material for my oppose vote, mid conversation. [7] He hasn't explained why he did this.Robert Walker (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was so kind not to mention

WP:TENDENTIOUS, but the post above illustrates that point as well: I was about to close that RfC on "redeath" after I removed this word from the lead, and consolidated the refs & notes, in response to user RD64. Surprisingly, user RD64 concluded he preferred to keep the word, after having read my comments. So, I reinserted the term one time, and kept the RfC open. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm here and my username is AD64 not RD64. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case also - I was the one who opened it, and you were going to close it as a result of the first comment response by a disinterested party in the RfC. I was asleep at the time and could have woken up to find my RfC closed already.

Please don't assume that I'm a "disinterested party". In fact, I'm very interested. The number of comments I've made has nothing to do with my level of interest. AD64 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hear the full spectrum of views on the matter. We haven't yet had any comments by experts in the early Buddhist texts. The RfC is not just to achieve a "yes / no answer"; it is to further understanding and help guide future edits of the article. I don't want to discuss the debate itself here, just user behaviour so won't go into intricacies of our discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't close it, did I, so what's the problem here? And I was about to remove all the uses of the word "redeath" in the lead, as you begged for - and you still find fault with it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aiming for a "win", but for understanding :). It is just luck that you didn't close it. And your behaviour on the article is erratic. First arguing strongly for this term, then you remove this term from the article, then add it back again a short while later, all based on responses of the first disinterested person to enter the debate on the first day of the RfC. I'd think we need to find out more on this topic for the article, hence the RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, conditionally. Freedom to express is a precious thing. It is at the foundation of wikipedia policies and admin-triggered corrective measures. I hesitate on indef, complete topic ban on @Robert Walker. Yet, something ought to be done, given @Robert Walker has repeatedly violated WP:FORUM / WP:TPNO guideline on how to use article's talk page. He has posted hundreds of edits, with walls of post, within a few days on Talk:Four Noble Truths. The posts mostly keep recycling the same non-RS sourced stuff. This is not productive, it is counter-productive. Imagine a hotline for medical services or fire service, which receives 50 calls a day, 7 days a week from the same caller, repeating the same call, in different words, not stopping, despite no fire nor emergency. Such a caller will invite admin/disciplinary action. @Robert Walker has done the same, and continues. We can ignore the walls of post, just like a fire station can ignore all phone rings. But is that proper? The 4NT article has many watchers, is a high traffic article, and has the kind of participation from all sides that will likely keep the article in good shape. Further wikipedia is not a fire station, and there are no emergencies here. So here is what I propose: [1] Limited ban: limit 3 edits per day for @Robert Walker on the talk page; or [2] one month topic ban, or [3] whatever keeps the larger interest of the project, but helps reduce or stop @Robert Walker's behavior, which is to ignore WP:RS and wikipedia's content policies, and keep repeating what is in the non-WP:RS sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:RS sources I list there never use it. Robert Walker (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Updating my vote to Support. After this post by @Robert Walker in "Reliable sources" section on an article talk page, at 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC), where his WP:Forum-y lecture on "Jesus" and "fundamentalist Christians" is irrelevant to the Four Noble Truths article and how to improve the article. I now support a one year restraint on @Robert Walker in all Religions-related wiki articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand it in context. @

WP:RS,partly on the grounds that they are religious, by which I think he means, because they are bikkhus (Buddhist monks). He has in the past said that a famous Buddhist translator Bhikkhu Bodhi, a reknownd American Buddhist scholar monk, frequently cited, is not a suitable source in the article on Anatta, saying "PS: Bikkhu Bodhi is not an academic source; you can use him as an additional source, but academic sources are preferred." (in this section [8]) and reply by @ScientificQuest: doing a Masters in Buddhist studies [9]. In this current conversation, I was replying that these bikkhus he objected to as sources were not fundamentalist Buddhists like fundamentalist Christians, but rather are scientifically minded monk scholars - then summarized their reasons for thinking the Pali Canon could be the original preachings of Buddha and his disciples, memorized after the event, then transmitted word for word accurately after that, similarly to the way the Vedas were memorized and transmitted for thousands of years in a pre-literate society. I don't see why saying this on a wikipedia talk page is a banning offence. Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• If Robert Walker would only be more sparing with words and combine edits...but then still, it's a complete overdose of posts, well past, in my opinion, the point of disruption. So yes, I support this narrow topic ban too. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited those posts above to remove repetition, sorry for being wordy in my replies. I do work very very hard on this, to reduce the word count. Most of my edits in the edit history of the talk pages are to do with this. Robert Walker (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ms Sarah Welch's conditions as a compromise in the right direction, since the status quo is untenable. Miniapolis 22:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since I keep getting pinged about these Buddhist controversies, I will comment. The timing of this request is unfortunate, since the subject editor has now filed a real RFC, which is more constructive than his previous conduct in continuing to go on and one. However, looking over the recent history, he is still going on and on. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The subject editor says that one of the reasons that he makes so many posts is that he has to go back and correct. I see that is true. At the same time, I see that he never marks those corrections as minor edits, but I also see that he never uses edit summaries. I understand that very lengthy posts may not be perfect on first entry, but I would suggest that he could try composing his lengthy posts in a text window, which would permit him to view and correct before committing. However, if I only make one suggestion, it is that he at least occasionally use edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am a somewhat infrequent poster to wikipedia talk pages, and for the few posts I usually do on minor matters, this is not an issue. I will collapse the rest of this comment for those who wish to skip it as for discusions on facebook etc.

Extended content

I'm just the same in my posts on quora, facebook, my Science20 blog comments threads, emails also. The difference in all those places is just that they are set up in ways which mean that this is not an issue. Even if there is a history, it is just tied to an individual comment or post, and doesn't matter to editors of other comments. Many of them also let you save your posts as drafts too before you post for real. I have never had complaints about this habit anywhere else. Also in most of those situations, long posts are not an issue either because of the format, only the first two or three lines of long posts are displayed to the user, and many people do write very long posts in our discussions there, which are easy to skip if you are not interested to read them to the end. Last time I was commenting on this topic, I took to writing my posts in drafts in my user space first before posting here. The thing is, that this just came very suddenly. There were a few posts about walls of text, but nothing about edit history. So I was focusing on fixing the walls of text by collapsing, by removing repetition etc which of course meant even more edits. If other editors in the discussion had complained about the edit history I'd have focused on that issue as well, but nobody mentioned this as an issue until this ANI. And there was no prior warning that I would be taken to ANI, at least as far as I remember. We were in the middle of discussing redeath, then suddenly, soon after I get the Oppose vote from John Carter, Joshua Jonathan takes me to ANI. I can do this in future. It does help to post to drafts in my user space as I found last time.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a long-term topic-ban. Oppose a one-month topic ban. Support a restriction on the number of posts per day, for which 3 has been suggested, which could provide him an incentive to compose his walls of text in a text window. It is unfortunate that he has made this necessary. Restrictions on talk page posting should not become a rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not only the length; at the first place it's about

WP:DONTGETIT. Robertinventor asked for a reference ont he link between the four truths and rebirth (his one edit to the article); thereafter, altogether eleven references and an extensive explanation have been provided, and the "reference needed"-tag has righfully been removed; yet, he still goes on and on about this point. It's endless. The RfC on the use of the word "redeath" was a good move, but Robert has already announced future RfC's, including on the link between the four truths and rebirth, despite the fact that this point has been settled by reliable sources and approved by multiple editors with a good grip on the topic. What more does he want? Waiting 'till one editor pops-up who also wants to bypass those eleven sources? Does he want twenty sources? Thirty? Hundred? "Discussion" 'till we've all died from old age, and can't discuss anymore? Continued discussion in our next lifes? When does this end? And that's the whole point: Robert doesn't know when his questions have been answered and his requests and "discussions" become distracting, so I want us, the rest, to stop him. That's why I requested a topic-ban. A limit of three posts a day won't stop him from dragging on endless "discussions." And get me clear on this one: I don't doubt his good intentions, and we might get along quite well if we got to know each other personally (I love his photograph! It makes me smile with a broad grin). But he's driving me nuts here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the list of future RfCs. The editors that remain in this topic tend to be ones that are in general agreement with Joshua Jonathan as others get all their edits reversed and eventually give up contributing. See for instance @Dharmalion76: who was opposed to the use of the term redeath, who talks about the frequent bullying in the Buddhism project[10], and says it makes him want to walk away from the project, which I've also witnessed of other editors such as @Dorje108:, previous main editor of the Four Noble Truths until Joshua Jonathan took over with a massive rewrite in October 2014 (see how in this history page there is an abrupt transition between edits mainly by Dorje108 and edits mainly by Joshua Jonathan in October 2014 [11]). Joshua ignored Dorje's request to discuss[12] - after that Dorje just left the project (after a long and unsuccessful attempt to deal with the issues by RfCs etc along with me).

Then there's ScientificQuest - a student with an MS in Electrical Engineering and Physics from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, doing a MBS program from UC Berkeley, and an MA in Sanskrit, and a newbie wikipedia editor doing his first ever edits of the encyclopedia, who had every single contribution to the closely related Anatta article reverted by Joshua Jonathan on the basis that they were not based on

WP:RS. He answered politely [13], but eventually just gave up, with none of his contributions to the article accepted. I think this must happen to many more in this topic area. I have tried to attract the attention of experts in early Buddhist texts from elsewhere in Wikipedia for this redeath RfC, but so far with not much luck. Robert Walker (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I want to leave discussion of whether the third truth should be expressed as usually done as a path to cessation of suffering (as in the original wheel turning sutra), or as a path to end rebirth, to the RfC, and this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss details of our long debate on this. I just wanted to make this point, that I do understand that he is using

WP:SYNTHESIS as well as relying on minority academic views. Details are for future discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Also to say that Joshua Jonathan often does 14 posts a day in these debates[14]. So limiting me to 3 a day, even if I do that via drafts in my user space to reduce edits in the edit history would mean he would be able to do more than four posts to any discussion for every one of my posts. Robert Walker (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm a very new editor and still learning the ropes here. I don't know all the history, etc. What I do know is that my own attempts to participate in my first RfC on a topic about which I have some basic knowledge (so I could focus on learning the way things are done at Wikipedia more than worry about if I understand the content) got very sidetracked by all of this. I felt like a participant and was following along, until the moment when Joshua Jonathan proposed closing the RfC early. I stepped back once all this began. My suggestion, for this current RfC, is that we figure out how to make space for other editors to offer comments (this could be via some of the bans mentioned above; there could be other ways that I don't know about). Both Joshua Jonathan and Robert Walker have the best of intentions and I appreciate how much they care about this article, but it may have gone too far. The discussions, and the WAY it's being discussed, have created an atmosphere where this new editor just backed up and went to work on other Buddhist articles on the margins. I now have this feeling that the more mainstream articles, even when they need editing, and even when I have knowledge to contribute, and editing skills, are somehow off limits unless I am willing to get in the middle of something like this. This doesn't feel encouraging to this new editor, nor does it contribute to the culture of Wikipedia in a useful way. And for all this conversation, I think the article is still lower quality than it could be. I hope my comments are useful to the process and to getting a better version of the Four Noble Truths article published. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)AD64[reply]

p.s. Please don't just assume that I am a he without asking first.

p.p.s., as I understand it, it's polite to ping a user when they are being mentioned. I see that I was referenced in this discussion without being pinged. To discover this conversation in another way without being pinged isn't good form. Please be more careful about this going forward. I've been quiet, but I'm reading, watching, learning, and waiting. I'm here. Thank you. AD64 (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AD64: First, sorry to hear about this, I wanted the RfC to be welcoming to anyone who wants to participate! The RfC started on 16:44, 3 May 2016 , and by the same time the following day, it had 18 responses in the discussion threads or other edits by Joshua Jonathan [15] and probably an equal number by me (mine are hard to count because of all the editing) as well as a few by other editors. So that would be probably more than 36 new posts to read in a 24 hour period which is overwhelming for anyone. It does seem a significant issue, I agree.

I wonder, maybe we need an overall limit, not just to me, but to all participants in the debates, to, say, at most than three posts per RfC per day could help here? I'm willing to do that myself for sure. But it would be hard to stay silent if I come back to see a lot of posts by Joshua Jonathan putting forward his arguments and seeing responses in the RfC swayed by his remarks when I think that the opposite case has not been made to them. But if we both had the same limit of three posts, we'd have to choose our words carefully and it would be more equitable. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought - how about each of the original participants in the discussion that lead to the RfC has one section to present their own arguments in the RfC? Then they step back, voluntarily, for the first few days of the RfC, to let the newbies to the article vote and discuss the topic, just don't enter the discussion at all, so they can discuss the ideas from scratch. Not permitted even to edit your own section of the RfC in response to what the RfC newbies say.

Then can enter the discussion, say after day 7 when the newbies have had time to discuss it if they want to? Something like that, could set down the rules in the statement of the RfC. Again just a thought. We could restart the RfC on redeath using these rules perhaps. Just mark the existing one as closed, start a copy, myself, and Joshua Jonathan present our case in separate sections below it as supplementary material, and then just wait and see what anyone says. And neither I nor JJ can comment on their responses for 7 days. There is no hurry about any of this. Robert Walker (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AD64: Also, sorry for mentioning your name without pinging you. And sorry for calling you "disinterested" as that was a bad choice of words. What I meant was someone who hasn't been involved in all the previous debates on the topic, so comes to it new. It was the wrong word for that Robert Walker (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the acknowledgement, @Robertinventor and Robert Walker:. That helps. I like the idea that you are proposing here for a variety of reasons. A fresh start with clear rules. Yet, I don't want to lose track of relevant material that was brought in in the current RfC. Maybe a neutral third party (not me, please), could summarize the major topics that have arisen in the RfC (not arguments, topics), and have those available in a summary form for us to review, etc. In order for us to get to consensus, I would suggest that brevity is helpful (at least for now, it creates space for others to respond), kindness, and civility. Using Edit Summary boxes are important too (as I'm learning as a new editor). I don't mind disagreeing; I do mind the lack of good will as we disagree. Best, AD64 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AD64: I think the idea of a list of topics, rather than arguments for or against, is a great way to do a new beginning, if we close it and start again. I think it will be hard to find a neutral editor to do this, but can make a stab at it myself. I've prepared a draft of a list here: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#List_of_topics_for_the_redeath_RfC List of topics for the redeath RfC. Thanks :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, are you seriously proposing that I should be limited to three responses a day because you can't limit yourself and

WP:DONTGETIT? You requested a citation, you got 10+ of them, and look what an endless list of comments you're posting now here too. If it wasn't for your endless laments and noncomprehension, my number of edits would have been dramatically lower. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm suggesting we both limit ourselves to help newbies to the RfC. Rather than a limit to 3 posts a day, it might be easier to just step back and not comment on the RfC at all for seven days, then we don't need to worry about whether the other person has done a response that we should respond to. So that was the reason for the second suggestion. To encourage new viewpoints on the discussion. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change Wiki-policies, start a proposal at the relevant policy talkpage. But please, stop sharing your endless stream of thoughts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen, Doug Weller, Bbb23, Nyttend, Liz, Floquenbeam, and HighInBC: could you please weight in here (sorry, pinging the admins I'm in touch with most, plus the ones at "Admins disagreeing on unblock")? Take a scroll through Talk:Four Noble Truths, and tell me if you can follow what's going on there. Let someone please stop this nightmare! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from
  WP:REDACT. I understand you do it to try to oblige the users who complain of your long posts, but that's not the way. Please make more of an effort to write concisely and coherently before you click save. PS, I have removed the header "Comment" and formatted it like the other comments. There are many comments here, and making a header for one of them makes it harder for others to know where to post, as it implies that anything below yours is a comment on your comment. I hope you don't mind, AD64. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Thank you, Bishonen, the removal of the header and reformatting is fine; it is accurate, appropriate, and helpful. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put a request on the article talk page asking that there be no new edits on the article until this is all sorted out. Is this an appropriate request? Could this be done as well? Thank you for weighing in here. Best, AD64 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:FILIBUSTER is effectively rewarded, and allowed to paralyze the editorial process. That is not how Wikipedia works." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for responding here too Joshua Jonathan. That's very helpful. It's just almost impossible to keep up with your editing speed, and the talk page, and this admin page. In addition, right now there is no breathing room to consider the edits you are making and then discuss them. My preference is that all edits would be discussed beforehand especially given what is happening. So along with all the long conversations about previous things, now there is a whole new list of things to discuss as the editing goes on and on. I feel that is this not in the spirit of collaboration, nor in in the spirit of working this all out. New edits, without space for collaborative editor discussion, just creates more of a quagmire. I appreciate your intentions and your efforts on all this. Please, would you consider taking an editing break from this article for a bit, so we can sort this all out? With regards and thanks and best wishes, AD64 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am trying another approach to reducing my impact on the talk page.

First I understand the issue of many edits. As I said nobody had complained about it this time around before this ANC, so I was focusing on reducing the lengths of posts. Since this ANC started I am now doing both. I'm reducing numbers of edits. I'm also marking minor edits as such. (I sometimes forget, it's a bit hard to remember to do an edit summary when you come to wikipedia from other places like quora or facebook that don't have this requirement).

And I am also trying something new. I go on wikipedia for just a short time in the morning, type my posts, and then I log out of wikipedia, so I can visit it during research for my work and other conversations without notification. I then log back in in the evening and do a few more posts then log out. This is something I did before and it works, just forgot about it.

Do note that this ANI was brought suddenly, when we were in the middle of an RfC, with no warning immediately before. And no attempt has been made at all to help me, no suggestions about how I could reduce impact on the talk page, no encouragement on all the work I did to reduce the word count of my posts. Just a littany of wikipedia tags such as

WP:FILLIBUSTER, etc etc about my posts on the talk page. @Joshua Jonathan: also keeps saying he thinks I'm a nice chap - I don't care whether other people think I'm nice or not. I just want to be treated with respect and consideration. Please help me to become a better wikipedian, not just fight me every step of the way as I try to learn how to behave better on wikipedia talk pages. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Robert has indicated elsewhere that he is more active on quora than here, and it is possible that his behavior is skewed here as a result of habits of editing developed there. But that is his problem, no one else's. I would agree that, if he is unable to adjust his conduct to meet the standards here, his current style of editing is sufficiently problematic to merit some form of editing limitation. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. It's only here that I have these issues. I can adjust my conduct. But the people here have just been extremely unfriendly, no attempt to help me. Just wham bam, off to ANI. When it was obvious I was working really hard to shorten my posts,to collapse them etc. No warning about the minor edits, until this ANI started. I had been warned about those over a year ago, but who remembers what you were asked to do over a year ago, after many things in between? And when I look at

WP:TALK

now, it doesn't say that you can't edit your comments either. It says

"So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

"But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context. Once others have replied, or best practice even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, you should indicate your changes.

It says you can improve your commment so long as it is not replied to. And that once replied to, you should indicate your changes. Since nearly all my edits after replying were to do with removing repetition, collapsing comments, and providing summaries of collapsed comments, then it did not deprive replies of their original context either.

Why couldn't all this have been discussed in a friendly way, either on the talk page, or if that was thought to be too disruptive, why didn't someone give me some friendly words of advice on my own talk page? Note that nobody posted to my talk page until Joshua Jonathan posted a notice that he had taken me to ANI. Which remains the only comment on my talk page about it. This is just really really unfriendly! Robert Walker (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One reason you might find the editors here unfriendly, maybe, is that your extremely irritating habit of constant revision of statements already made on talk pages, particularly when there are no immediately obvious real benefits from such changes, can, I think reasonably, be found to be extremely irritating, and it is hard to be friendly to one person who seems to perhaps place his own goals, which may not be particularly in line with wikipedia's own, over the friendlier option of trying to get it right the first time.

Also, while in the case of some other editors who work in broad fields, or who have lots of editing, it can be excused if things have to be repeated to them, particularly after time, we tend to assume that, if something has been made clear to a less active editor once, he will actually remember it and try to adjust his questionable conduct accordingly. If editors do not see that indication of friendly cooperation from others, they may, not unreasonably, think that it isn't a priority to that other, and feel more inclined to take external remedial action which the individual him or herself may not be willing, able, or inclined to do otherwise. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that's only because you can see that I act this way on wikipedia. I'm just the same on Quora comments or facebook comments. I've just been writing some replies in a facebook thread just now, doing the same, lots of corrections. It doesn't bother anyone because it doesn't change the sense of what I'm saying, just makes it easier to read. While here it does bother people, mainly I think because they can see the edit histories. After all there is nothing else different. And remember that for you this is all familiar stuff, but for me, it's a case of coming back after a year spent mostly in other situations.

And if it is true you were all irritated by this, before this ANI started, why on Earth didn't you say something! It would just need one person to say "do you realize you are adding lots of edits to the edit history" and I'd have stopped it right away. It only took one comment on the 8th May by [16] by @Ms Sarah Welch: to tell me to stop editing comments after others have replied to them, and I haven't done it since. Now if I need to edit a comment that someone replies to, I'll mark the changes with strike through etc. We aren't talking about repeating something day after day. We are talking here about repeating something that had only been said previously a year earlier. Robert Walker (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, please try to understand this. For our purpose, how you comment elsewhere is irrelevant. If you are editing here, you are supposed to follow the guidelines and policies here. I neither know nor care about how you comment elsewhere, that is irrelevant here. If you are incapable of understanding that the responsibility to behave according to the rules of different sites falls on the person who seeks to comment there, that might be a serious problem.

And, frankly, I find these apparently repeated attempts on your part to try to pass the burden of your problematic conduct onto others, as you did in the last paragraph above, nothing less than appalling. Also, as can be seen from your user page, you are apparently already aware that there are, and have been, serious concerns about your conduct before. Knowing that, why on Earth are you not doing what would be expected of anyone else, and recognizing that different rules apply in different places, and that the responsibility of adhering to those rules lies on the shoulders of the individual themselves, in this case, you.

You are free to comment elsewhere however you like. But if you comment here, you are expected to follow the rules here. If you have difficulty understanding that, or applying it to yourself, or, apparently, remembering when you may have been told that before, that problem is yours and yours alone. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AGF on this. Indeed I wonder what you could imagine would be my motive for intentionally doing lots of minor edits without summaries, why would I want to irritate other editors by doing this? Robert Walker (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Random line break for convenience

• Narrow oppose.
  WP:3RR
  counts a series of edits as one edit for determining the number of reversions, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Couldn't we use the same standard here? There's no reason to object that someone takes four or eight edits to write a statement, rather than one; policy doesn't prohibit editing your own new comments at talk pages (nobody's responded to your new comment, so it won't cause confusion), and unlike extra trivial edits by bots, a few extra edits by a human user won't clog up RecentChanges or cause problems with server performance. And the "wall of text" problem, to a significant extent, is caused by Robert's excessive use of line breaks; if those lines were all together in one or two paragraphs, they'd be a bit less daunting. Look at these two chunks of text, the first copied straight from the talk page, and the second with line breaks removed:

Extended content

I'm going to leave the RfC on "redeath" open until it closes by itself. Maybe it will attract the attention of knowledgeable experts in early Pali sutras or others with a new perspective on the debate. This experience has shown me that even an attempt at a focused discussion on a single word doesn't seem to work. So, I think there's no chance of a discussion that is somewhat larger in scope than that. @AD64:, thanks so much for your suggestions for the RfC and I think they were good ones, but can't see a way forward to implementing them. Unless someone new comes to this page who can help. The main larger question was, whether the third truth should be phrased as a path to cessation of suffering / unsatisfactoriness as Buddha himself expressed it according to the Pali canon, or expressed as a "way to end this cycle" - and I also touched on whether the historical section should mention the views of Gombrich, Harvey, Wynne, Payutto, etc etc according to which most of the Pali Canon expresses the teachings of a single teacher, the Buddha. I think the answers to both those is obvious as is the answer to this one about redeath, that it's a WP:TECHNICAL word that most readers won't know, that it has too many associations with the Vedas which Buddhists don't accept as sacred texts, and that it should just be replaced by an ordinary English phrase such as "repeated birth, old age, sickness and death" or the like, so that there is no ambiguity and the ordinary non technical reader can understand what it means. I understand that the other editors here don't see it that way. And they seem to think that there is no future in debating such questions. I am glad to see one improvement since the start of the discussion. The fourth truth is now expressed much better than it was before. However generally, I think the way the four truths are expressed in the old lede is still far far better than this new version. I am still here, and if anyone else wants to take this up any further, I'll be happy to join in and help as best I can. When I asked @Robert McClenon: what my options were, purely as a matter of wikipedia policy (not asking him to join in the debate) he said I could try very focused RfCs, or I could try mediation. I've tried very focused RfCs and they don't seem to work, or at least I'm not the one to do them. I could try mediation but I don't have the time to set aside for this. It's my experience from the past that if you try to go through wikipedia due process, it can take weeks of work, and may well still fail because you haven't understood something significant about wikipedia policies and procedures. And that approach also tends to generate a fair bit of ill will from people opposed to you doing it. At least when I do it. So I don't want to do that again right now. I have too many other things to do, and I also don't want to generate ill will in others in that way. One parting thought, wikipedia editors' views are impermanent like everything else. Perhaps some day there will be a change of heart? Or perhaps I might change in a way that makes this all much easier?

Extended content

I'm going to leave the RfC on "redeath" open until it closes by itself. Maybe it will attract the attention of knowledgeable experts in early Pali sutras or others with a new perspective on the debate. This experience has shown me that even an attempt at a focused discussion on a single word doesn't seem to work. So, I think there's no chance of a discussion that is somewhat larger in scope than that. @AD64:, thanks so much for your suggestions for the RfC and I think they were good ones, but can't see a way forward to implementing them. Unless someone new comes to this page who can help. The main larger question was, whether the third truth should be phrased as a path to cessation of suffering / unsatisfactoriness as Buddha himself expressed it according to the Pali canon, or expressed as a "way to end this cycle" - and I also touched on whether the historical section should mention the views of Gombrich, Harvey, Wynne, Payutto, etc etc according to which most of the Pali Canon expresses the teachings of a single teacher, the Buddha. I think the answers to both those is obvious as is the answer to this one about redeath, that it's a WP:TECHNICAL word that most readers won't know, that it has too many associations with the Vedas which Buddhists don't accept as sacred texts, and that it should just be replaced by an ordinary English phrase such as "repeated birth, old age, sickness and death" or the like, so that there is no ambiguity and the ordinary non technical reader can understand what it means. I understand that the other editors here don't see it that way. And they seem to think that there is no future in debating such questions. I am glad to see one improvement since the start of the discussion. The fourth truth is now expressed much better than it was before. However generally, I think the way the four truths are expressed in the old lede is still far far better than this new version. I am still here, and if anyone else wants to take this up any further, I'll be happy to join in and help as best I can. When I asked @Robert McClenon : what my options were, purely as a matter of wikipedia policy (not asking him to join in the debate) he said I could try very focused RfCs, or I could try mediation. I've tried very focused RfCs and they don't seem to work, or at least I'm not the one to do them. I could try mediation but I don't have the time to set aside for this. It's my experience from the past that if you try to go through wikipedia due process, it can take weeks of work, and may well still fail because you haven't understood something significant about wikipedia policies and procedures. And that approach also tends to generate a fair bit of ill will from people opposed to you doing it. At least when I do it. So I don't want to do that again right now. I have too many other things to do, and I also don't want to generate ill will in others in that way. One parting thought, wikipedia editors' views are impermanent like everything else. Perhaps some day there will be a change of heart? Or perhaps I might change in a way that makes this all much easier?

• No opinion on other issues; I'm not familiar enough with the situation to offer an informed opinion. If the ban-or-don't-ban hinges on other issues, the closing admin should ignore my opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've rewritten that comment as you suggested, as three paragraphs. Note that I developed these habits in other forums like Quora comments and facebook comments where nobody minds at all how long your comment is physically on the page indeed don't worry about word count either, because they just see the first three or four lines of it plus a "show more" button. Please note that nearly all of the edits of the talk page are minor edits, but until recently I forgot about marking them as such. And note that I never edit war - neither on the article page where all I've ever done is to insert a citations needed tag which was immediately reverted - nor on the talk page. If someone else edits one of my comments, as @Ms Sarah Welch: did recently without first asking me if it is okay to do this [17], I don't try to revert it back (she had a reason for doing so, that it was a comment that I had edited to collapse and then summarize after she replied to it, but still, I think it would have been common courtesy to ask me). Robert Walker (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Either topic ban or some sort of gagging. Wall'o'text where nothing is actually useful is a form of disruptive editing as it prevents meaningful discussion and collaboration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional Comment: @Robert Walker has been inserting sentences and changing his old posts after someone has responded. See this version I responded to, and compare it to the current version. He did this back editing after May 7, after being requested to review WP:Talk on May 2. Such back editing conduct by @Robert Walker has deprived the replies their original context, and made the article's talk page even more difficult to understand. If such misconduct continues, there is no sense in replying to anything. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped doing this immediately when you requested. Please note that these edits were mainly to reduce the word count in response to the complaints about writing posts that were too long. Sometimes I collapsed an entire post and then put a summary in front of it. If you look at my comment which @Ms Sarah Welch: edited, she just did a partial revert to remove some of my summary of the longer collapsed comment when I say that no misrepresentation was intended [18]. In the collapsed comment which she originally responded to, I write "And it doesn't help to use the word "misrepresentation"which implies that it is willful. I am trying to understand as best as I can. Please help also from your side. " which in the summary I rewrote to "Also please note, that I am trying to understand what you are saying but it doesn't yet make sense to me. There is no intentional misrepresentation - what I wrote was my best understanding of what has been said." in a sequence of edits. Yes it is differently phrased but it does not change the essential meaning of the comment she replied to originally and I don't see why it had to be removed. 08:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: I was using wiki's mobile editor app over the last few days, and it appears to overwrite edit conflicts. This was inadvertent, not intentional. I requested two editors to fix my mobile edit overwrites (and thank them for fixing what they found, my apologies for any inconvenience). As far as misrepresentation go, you are misrepresenting the sources and @Joshua Jonathan. For example, your allegation of May 9 2016 about "a citations needed tag which was removed without discussion" is a misrepresentation, because [1] you did not provide a diff when you made that allegation, [2] your allegation can imply that 'a citations needed tag was removed without cite being added', when in fact @Joshua Jonathan did provide numerous cites. We don't need a forum-y discussion to replace a "cn" tag with scholarly citations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay first, thanks for explaining that your edit that removed part of my comment was not intentional but an app bug. On your point [1], I've now added a link to the diff, also to "edits by user" which shows that this is the only edit I've ever made to the article. I have indicated this as an addition to the comment using underlines, as recommended in the wikipedia guidelines. On your [2] then I can understand now, that if he felt he had answered the need for the cn tag it would indeed be okay to remove it. Though I don't think he did do this, as his cites don't express the truths themselves as he does, only present those views in later commentary. The difference is that the lede presents it as a path to an effect, while Buddha presented it as a path to realize a truth of cessation, what's more, a truth you can realize in this very life, not just at death. I've responded in a little more detail in a comment above, also in my talk page Walpola Rahula quote. Robert Walker (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose although I acknowledge I generally feel very bad in disagreeing with Joshua, who tends to know these things better than I do. I also note that I have generally agreed with those who disagree with Robert. But, so far as I can tell, there seems to be a bit of a tendency on the part of others to examine only some of the most recent reference sources regarding this topic to determine usage of a term, and I see some possible problems with
  WP:TECHNICAL in this regard. "Rebirth" is a term fairly widely used and understandable to most, "redeath" is less so. The fact that there seems to at least my eyes to be little if any interest in discussion beyond "will we use the term or not," and no apparent effort to possibly even consider other options, makes this proposal, at least to my eyes, maybe a bit premature.John Carter (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - this request is about the endless posts of Robert in general, not the use of the word "redeath." But the fact that this side-issue has become a main-issue, while I'd already removed that word from the lead, is symptomatic. The Real issue is that Robert Never stops, as is show by his opposition against explaining that the four truths are about the cor of Buddhism, namely ending rebirth. What term we use is a side-issue. Basic fact is that 11 reliable sources have been provider, and that he still intends to open a RfC on this. That's not about gaining concessies, that's about bypassing concencus. And that's what I'm fed-up with: the lack of basic knowledge, the lack of use of relevant sources, the lack of understanding proper arguments, and yet the totale conviction that his personal understanding of Buddhism is the standard in this regard. That's why I asked for a topic-ban, not for a side-issue on the use of the word "redeath." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my opposition based on the response immediately above. I do agree that Robert has rather regularly displayed what might charitably be called a weak grasp of conduct guidelines.

WP:1RR or a topic ban or similar, might have a reasonable chance of success, I guess I would offer weak to moderate support of the proposed sanction. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@John Carter:The only edit I've done of this article is to insert a citations needed tag [19] to the statement ""the truths of the Noble Ones," which express the basic orientation of Buddhism: this worldly existence is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to liberation from repeated worldly existence." @Joshua Jonathan: removed it 21 minutes later. I have not tried to reinsert it. I don't do edit warring. Robert Walker (talk)

I didn't say you did. You do, however, have a very obvious history of making extremely long, and sometimes dubiously useful, comments on the talk pages, and have done so again here as well. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your suggestion of

WP:1RR which is used aa a remedy for edit warring, wanted to make clear that I don't edit war. I didn't even try to reinsert a citations needed tag which was removed without discussion. Here is the diff [20], and this is my only ever edit of the article, see search for edits by user here: [21] Robert Walker (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

As I note above, @Joshua Jonathan did provide numerous cites to address the tags. We don't need a forum-y discussion to replace a "cn" tag with scholarly citations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

Sabbasava-Sutta. I think there are numerous reasons for supposing Buddha chose his words with care, and presented it as a path to cessation of dukkha and realizing the truth of Cessation / Nirvana. Robert Walker (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support topic ban or any other restriction that might help to prevent
  WP:TALK . He continues to post his walls of text, changes his posts endlessly, uses the talk page as a forum and misrepresents the words of fellow editors. All attempts to convince him to stop this were futile. I am sorry Robert Walker, but I see no alternative to some kind of restriction. JimRenge (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Very weak support Per my comments below, I actually have serious doubts about the enforcibility of a TBAN on a specialized topic area that very few members of the admin corps can accurately distinguish from other areas of "Buddhism", especially in this case where anyone who wants to report or block Robertinventor for a violation would have to wade through his massive walls of text to see if he has violated it. Obviously this TBAN proposal was named because the recent disruption has all taken place on Talk:Four Noble Truths and any edit to that one page could automatically be taken as a TBAN-violation, but if what we are trying to do is ban him from a particular page, that is called a PAGEBAN. That said, of course I think any restriction that can potentially halt this disruption is better than nothing, and my more tailor-made proposal doesn't seem to be getting much traction, so the present (obviously problematic) proposal might just have to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Hijiri88: a pageban? Of course, you're right! That's what I meant! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus a final warning; if the same happens again at other pages, Buddhist or otherwise, exit. It has happened before at the Four Noble Truths page, at Talk:Karma, at Talk:Karma in Buddhism, and at Mars-related articles. See this post at his talkpage:

"This will be my only reply to your pseudo-scientific trolling behavior. Physics, and radiation in particular, have NOT changed in THIS universe since your trolling shenanigans last year. Unlike you, I do not express my hopes and desires in Wikipedia pages, and here, to finalize this matter, I now quote data collected in situ by the Curiosity rover and the conclusion of the 400+ Team Members of the MSL mission."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another break #2 - discussion on the four truths

This material below, collapsed just now by @Joshua Jonathan: has my reply to his allegation above that my RfCs are about bypassing consensus. I explain why they are genuine RfCs. I don't edit war so will leave it collapsed. But please take a look at it if you want my perspective on it, and not just to read his. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Also would like to briefly comment on the reasons for the RfCs. The reason for doing a focused RfC on "redeath" was precisely to avoid getting drawn into wider issues, which is why I have resisted all attempts to tie it to discussion of the third truth. It was quite simply just an RfC on whether this word can be used in the article, and on what it means for a Buddhist, if it is a Buddhist term. During this RfC, they refused to answer simple questions such as to explain which pal word or phrase it corresponds to. I've attempted dialog with @ WP:RS translation that she says uses this word, claiming this is a WP:FORUM-Y question [22] . As for the more general question, then I'd like to explain why it is a reasonable question to ask about the article. Buddha taught the four noble truths as a path to cessation of Dukkha = Suffering and unsatisfactoriness, and this is how it is normally presented. Even in Harvey, which @ WP:RS. Assuming that Buddha chose his words carefully in the wheel turning sermon, I think there is a good case for presenting the four truths in the same way in the lede here. I think it is good enough to need an RfC on whether it is right to express it as a path aimed at ending rebirth as the main aim. I won't however be attempting this RfC since it has proved so controversial to just attempt an RfC on a single word. Robert Walker (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] The "citations needed" tag was not simply removed without discussion, it was replaced with eleven citations.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] The "historicity" of that specific "sermon" is disputed, on good ground, yet you seem to ignore this. And both Harvey and the BBC-website mention very clear that the four truths are about ending rebirth. Why do we have to repeated this over and over again? This illustrates again why I ask for a topic-ban: because Robert simply WP:COMPETENCE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] The historicity is only disputed by some scholars, Anderson being an example. And she also makes it clear that she does not mean her argument to be used to revise the way the four truths are presented. In her book "Basic Buddhism" she presents the four truths as ""The Four Noble Truths deal specifically with the existence of suffering and they are the root from which all teachings arise. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths in the very first teaching he gave after he attained enlightenment and he further clarified their meaning in many subsequent teachings throughout his life. These four truths are: A. Dukkha / Dukha: All life is marked by suffering. B. Samudaya: Suffering is caused by attachment and desire. C. Nirodha: Suffering can be stopped. D: Magga: The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path" - exactly as is normal for WP:RS. There is a difference from the point of view of the practitioner whether they are presented as a path to end suffering or a path to end rebirth. Whether they end rebirth as well is a separate question. In Therevadhan teachings I think you are right that they always do. In the Tibetan Buddhist teachings, at the other extreme, it is clear that they don't as they talk about fully enlightened Tulkus that take rebirth over and over again, often multiple rebirths at the same time. They refer to these as incarnations. Among these Tulkus there may be many who are truly qualified Incarnate Emanation Bodies of the Buddhas, but this does not necessarily apply to all of them' - article on reincarnation on the Dalai Lama's website . And there are thousands of books and articles on the Four Noble Truths. It would not be hard to find a few cites supporting some recent some controversial view, and what's more your cites don't back it up anyway - your Harvey cite is to a discussion of one of the twelve niddhanas, and he presents the four noble truths as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness like everyone else. I'm not trying to argue the RfC here, just to point out that it does not mark me as quixotic or a trouble maker to suggest this RfC. All the way through the opposing argument has been largely of the type "we read the scholarly literature so we know what to write in the article and you have to accept what we say". When I point out that there is only 1 use of "redeath" in Harvey 's 512 page book, 1 use of "re-death" and 923 uses of "rebirth", and that most WP:RS on Buddhism don't use the word, or when I ask which word or phrase in the Pali canon corresponds to "redeath", all this is just brushed off by saying, basically, that I can't understand their reasoning, that I should read the whole of Harvey first before commenting on word frequency in it, should get hold of scholarly works on the Pali canon before I can ask questions about the translation of it, and if not able to do that, I should stop talking about it, even when they don't answer simple direct questions. Robert Walker (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] "Some scholars"? Bareau, Ui, Hirakawa,Norman,Schmithausen,Vetter,Gombrich, and,indeed, Anderson. That's not "some," that's the crème de la crème making the same point,which is missing from popular sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Hope you don't mind, I've moved your reply up here as it got misplaced somehow. On the historicity I totally agree that there are quite a few scholars who say that most of the Pali Canon is a later development. But there are also many scholars who say that it is largely the work of the Buddha. Including Gombrich, Winne, Payutto, I've collected some of the cites here with quotes: WP:NPOV to present only one end of this spectrum in the article. Robert Walker (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] Off-topic. You're drawing your own conclusions on a specific issue from the POV of some scholars on another topic. If there are sources which respond on Ui, Vetter, Bronkhorst, Anderson etc regarding the historical development of the four truths, fine. But not a general discussion on positions regarding the SuttaPitaka, to draw your own conclusies regarding Anderson etc, when thoe 'faithfull' authors are not responding to that specific point. That's OR.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another break - Robert's "new method"

Are admins doing this collapsing? If not, please note that my comments and replies in this action taken against me are being collapsed, and that they answer points that are raised by the others in this discussion. Am I permitted to summarize what I say in the collapsed material?

In this section I say that I am using a new method to reduce numbers of posts. I post for a short period at a time, usually once in the morning and once in the evening (in between I usually log out). I also point out that of all the issues mentioned in this ANI, only the length of my posts was mentioned in the discussion before the ANI started. And I also say in response to @

WP:DONTGETIT that the feeling is mutual, that I often don't feel he understands what I said. And that I've been asking @Ms Sarah Welch: for an answer that she could have answered with a single post, asking for a quote from a source I couldn't access, which became a long conversation of numerous posts during which she repeatedly refused to answer. And saying it would greatly help mutual understanding if they would answer simple questions. Robert Walker (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Extended content

Comment I'd just like to say again - that I am using a new method. I now only comment here for a short time in the morning, and in the evening. I think this could by itself deal with most of the issues. And please note that this came very suddenly, in the middle of an RfC while talking about other things. Nearly all the things mentioned in this discussion were not raised until after this ANI action started. Only the length of my posts was mentioned in the discussion. And there was no attempt at all to help me. No encouragement or comment on all my work to reduce word count. They didn't even warn me that I was doing it wrong, as they now say in this ANI. They now say that I should not make so many minor edits and should not edit comments already replied to, but no mention of this during the discussion. And please note that @ WP:DONTGETIT but that is a mutual feeling as I have oftentimes felt that he doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying. And when I don't understand him and @Ms Sarah Welch:, it's not due to lack of trying! It would greatly help mutual understanding if they would give straightforward answers to simple questions such as which Pali word or phrase can be translated as "redeath" and the translation in context. After a long and frustrating conversation trying to get that information (this is just the last part of it [23]), I still have no idea what the answer is. Robert Walker (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] (This is not like a fixed rule. Today I've done a couple of other short sessions of commenting during the day because Joshua Jonathan has just collapsed many of my responses in a comment thread above, and because I feel that there's a chance that admins may be reviewing this soon, but apart from that I've been doing just two sessions a day). Robert Walker (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose closing

This thread has been open for over a week now. So far as I can tell, the votes are basically 5-3 which some additional qualifications and indications of opinions. When should the closing take place, or, alternately, would it be a good idea to, maybe, request all those who have expressed opinions to more concretely indicate specific terms they would or would not support? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: Even a partial read of the wall of posts by @Robert Walker suggests that this is not a 'content dispute', but a conduct issue per your own post. I urge that this WP:AN thread should focus on @Robert Walker's conduct, whether measures are needed to address the WP:FORUM-y, WP:SOAP-y, changing one's past edit after someone has already responded, and such misuse of an article's talk page (Talk:Four Noble Truths). If measures are appropriate, what those measures ought to be. @Robert Walker states he lives on an island and lacks access to scholarly sources. Yet, he is unwilling to accept the 10+ scholarly sources, published by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press, Routledge, etc by well respected scholars on Buddhism, in the last 40 years. @Robert Walker's walls of text and zillion RfC proposals are puzzling, given this situation, as is his proposal that the article should be rewritten to match the "traditional" (non-RS websites such as Buddhanet) presentation, because "surely the traditional presentation is what the reader expects". Let us keep the AN focus on conduct, not the content discussion. The 'specific terms' discussion, within wiki's content guidelines, are best discussed on that article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly am not entirely sure what comment is supposed to address regarding matters of closing the thread here, which is what my first comment was about.

Also, I suppose, it might be worth mentioning that Robert says on his user page that his username, Robertinventor, is also the name of his business. That being the case, it might be by some considered a possible violation of our policy

WP:USERNAME

, particularly if one were to think that perhaps some of Robert's editing is to, basically, promote to others the idea that he would be a good business to work with. I'm not sure if that has ever been mentioned before, or whether it might be a misread of the policy on my part, but it might be worth considering if it hasn't already been considered.

Lastly, I suppose, his comments on his user page in which he tries to defend his excessive posting to talk pages indicates that he does recognize that the behavior is problematic, and also, possibly, that it is something that he has insufficient ability or inclination to change. Being unwilling or unable to change one's behavior despite having been warned so often that one discusses the problematic behavior extensively on one's own user page is far from being a good sign. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was written a year ago during the other ANI, and I'd forgotten about that also until you mentioned it just now. Nobody has ever complained about me using the same user name as for my business. I'd be happy changing it if that was necessary and possible though hopefully in a way that doesn't lose my user history here - as you may notice I did change my signature to Robert Walker, which is my real name (I have no reason to hide my real name here). It was the other way around, this is my usual internet handle, so when I wondered what to call my business, it was natural to use it. My business is a music software business. I did a declaration of interest as recommended for such things. It is also the name I use for my blog on Science20. For the same reason - that it's my usual internet handle. I chose it because RobertWalker is usually already taken, being a rather common name, so rather than e.g. RobertWalker55 or whatever, it's easier to register as RobertInventor which is almost never already taken (usually when it is, it's because I accidentally registered twice). That's all there is to it.And with that previous ANI it was just like this time @Joshua Jonathan: suddenly took me to ANI with little warning and produced a whole litany of complaints about my editing patterns, which he hadn't mentioned to me personally before the ANI. I can't remember what he said exactly in the ANI, just remember it was similar to this one in that respect.

Also perhaps it can help if I say a bit about why I spend so much time editing my posts normally? I do that when it's a topic where I want to be especially clear and precise. And to spend a few minutes on a post editing it for clarity is not much for me. Do you ever encounter copy editors? It's like that. I can spend a week refining an article, mainly working on the phrasing and ways of expressing things, how it's organized etc. Indeed, I've been working on a 2.2 pages document on and off for several weeks now, one that is very important to me. It's here in case you are interested just to see the sort of thing, I think it would be publicly viewable: Case for Moon - Short Executive Summary. I've been working on it since early April. And it's not finished. I'll probably spend another week or two on it. In the case of this debate, then I am trying to present some very precise things that are hard to explain clearly. And there's a lot of hostility from the other editors, so clarity is very important otherwise there is no chance of them understanding what I'm saying. Even so, most of the time I can't seem to communicate what I'm trying to say, though I try really hard. So that's why I work really hard on the comments here. I hope that's understandable. Robert Walker (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can an admin close this, the collapsed content discussions illustrate the problem people have with this editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, your claim of hostility is rather unfortunate. It is, in general, assumed that if your conduct is such that it results in you being taken to ANI, you would remember that, and remember not to engage in the sort of behavior which got you taken to ANI in the first place. If you can't, that raises the possibility that there would be no lasting purpose to this dicussion either, which would make the request for stronger sanctions even better supported. Also, you do seem to have a rather dubious grasp of the web in general. Quora is not wikipedia - they have different guidelines, policiies, and purposes. Facebook most certianly is not wikipedia, as it is primarily a social networking site. Being good at something different somewhere else does not automatically mean that you should be allowed to, basically, act however you want in regards to policies or guidelines here. The primary hostility, as I see it, is your hostile response to being asked to abide by the rules of conduct that others are similarly obliged to follow here, seemingly based on your being, as you so proudly and repeatedly state, highly regarded at quora. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "redeath"

Again someone else collapsed this conversation. I understand that it is a long one, but can I just summarize? I explain that I do have access to scholarly sources over the internet. I just didn't have access to the source that @Ms Sarah Welch: claimed used the word "redeath" to translate a Pali stura. Later in this conversation I found her source online, and it doesn't use this word in its translation, just in a commentary and what's more in brackets, with a ? after it. I asked her to apologize for not being honest and straightforward with me in this conversation. She didn't apologise. She later gives a link to a Pali dictionary page which does give a couple of cites for "Agati gati" as "re-birth and re-death in the course of samsara". Sorry I missed that this morning. But why why why couldn't she have just given me a link to this dictionary page at the start of the conversation! That would have saved so much conversation. And why not give me a quote from the source when I said I couldn't access it, and why misrepresent it as a translation when it was a commentary on a translation in that cite? Robert Walker (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Content discussion Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ WP:RS sources, see Four Noble Truths as a path to cessation of dukkha - cites. In most circumstances that would be considered sufficient reason to do an RfC I think. Robert Walker (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] @Robert Walker: See the cites in the article and read the talk page. @Joshua Jonathan and I already provided the page number, source details and embedded quotes in the 4NT article, for "birth", "rebirth", "repeated birth", "death", "re-death", "repeated death" and "redeath" related references, published by well known scholars in 4NT context. You keep misrepresenting the progress so far, by alleging we have not provided the cites/quotes, when here is a diff, and here is another, and here is yet another, that proves we have repeatedly done so. This is just another evidence of your Forum-y and disruptive conduct. You keep asking @Joshua Jonathan and others to explain Suttas to you, rather than accept what 10+ reliable scholars are explaining the Suttas on 4NT to be stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm referring to this conversation [24]. I asked you to give the English translation and the Pali word corresponding to "redeath" since you say it occurs in the Pali canon. I agree that it is occasionally used in secondary sources, but my word counting showed that it was a very rare word in commentaries by modern Buddhist scholars, such as Harvey with one use of "redeath", one of "re-death" and 923 uses of "rebirth" in his book on Buddhism, while most WP:AGF! Robert Walker (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] I think an apology would be an idea here. Robert Walker (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] See my response. Robert misunderstood, though I understand why. Ms Sarah Welch is referring to the concept of repeated birth & death, while Robert asks about the specific term "punarmrityu." Calling this "deceiving" is understandable, but nevertheless misplaced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] NB: Ms Sarah Welch was already clear on this above: ""birth", "rebirth", "repeated birth", "death", "re-death", "repeated death" and "redeath" related references". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] This is not true. I wasn't asking about the term punarmrityu. I asked if there is any term in the Pali Canon that is translated as "redeath" and she said "Sutta 12.40 repeats the mention of re-death" [26]. And then for many questions back and forth I asked her "what is the translation and what is the original Pali". She just said that was a FORUM-Y question and said to WP:AGF". I've striked out "intentionally deceived" perhaps that's going too far but certainly "intentionally confused". It can't be just a mistake or misunderstanding. Robert Walker (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] WP:AGF. Ms Sarah Welch has made very clear that she's referring to the concept, and a range of related words. This whole situation cpould hav ebeen avoided, if you just simply understood that dying again and again is an intrinsic part of samsara. We can use another word if you like; but look at the ENORMOUS amount of words on the use of just one word. We could have settled this days ago already, if it wasn't for your incredible inability to gain concensus. Please continue on your own talkpage, or start a blog, but stop driving everyone else nuts. We're trying to write a serious encyclopedia here, not a Robert-pedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] @Robert Walker: There you go again, recycling allegations and OR. Even after you confirmed that future death and redeath is used by Moong in interpreting the Sutta, and even after 10+ different WP:RS that do the same. Agatigati or Agati gati (plus a few other terms) is generally translated as 'rebirth, redeath'; see any Pali-English dictionary; e.g. pages 94-95 of Rhys Davids & William Stede, where they list five Sutta examples with rebirth and re-death sense. You allege "most WP:RS don't use it", when in reality they indeed do, as @Joshua Jonathan and others have already shown you. Your frequency counts have been wrong, as a review of that article's talk page, wherein as @Joshua Jonathan notes above, I explained the terms "repeated birth/death, re-birth/re-death, rebirth/redeath, cycles of birth and death, etc" are equivalent, and that 'context matters' in frequency counts and the context here is 4NT. Yes, redeath is less frequent than rebirth, but is significant to be mentioned for NPOV, and the wiki article as updated by @Joshua Jonathan too uses redeath less frequently than rebirth. It is the non-RS websites, that you appear to champion as source for wikipedia article on 4NT, such as Buddhanet's introduction of 4NT, which avoid any mention of birth, rebirth, death, redeath. Such non-RS pushing by you, while ignoring WP:RS that @Joshua Jonathan and others have provided, are part of your behavioral conduct difficulty. Please don't use OR, or demand OR, or recycle allegations, to feed Forum-y use of article's talk page, because such conduct is not constructive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] Okay, so no apology. I asked which Pali word or phrase was translated as redeath, and redeath did not occur in the translation, only in the commentary. I was not asking for another commentary that uses the word. I said "If the word "redeath" occurs in a WP:RS translation of the early Pali sutras, please provide the original Pali sentence, the English translation of that sentence, and an explanation of how the one is connected to the other, particularly which word or phrase in the Pali corresponds to "redeath" in the translation." How could that be read any other way than as requesting an actual translation that uses the word, not a commentary. You culd have just said "actually it's not in the translation, it's in a commentary". That would have been the straightforward and honest thing to say at that point. But you didn't. You just said WP:AGF and asked me to stop asking FORUM-Y questions. Conversation here . You keep mentioning my cite of buddhanet, the only non WP:RS that uses the word redeath in the statement of the Four noble truths, or that prefixes the truths with "But there is a way to end this cycle, namely following the eightfold path" or anything resembling that. Even Harvey does not use the word "redeath" to present the four noble truths, nor does he present it is a "way to end this cycle" in his statement of the truths. It may seem an insignificant difference, but Buddha said he chose his words with care, and this is how he presented it. The big difference is that it doesn't require the practitioner to affirm any creed or belief in rebirth or the possibility of ending rebirth to follow the path. All you need is to recognize dukkha and have faith that there is a path to cessation, making it strongly grounded in our immediate experience. So it is a serious change of the text to present it as a path to end the cycle. It turns it into a path requiring a creed, which Buddha spoke against so strongly, so many times. Robert Walker (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply ] This discussion should focus on the proposal of a topic ban for Robert Walker/Robert inventor. The repeated introduction of content disputes might be perceived as a red herring. JimRenge (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] @JimRenge: Agreed. The above posts are a repeat of @Robert Walker's conduct on the talk page. He just wrote, Quote 1: "I have yet to see a WP:RS that uses the word redeath in the statement of the Four noble truths" and Quote 2: "Even Harvey does not use the word "redeath" to present the four noble truths, nor does he present it is a "way to end this cycle" in his statement of the truths". This is prima facie evidence of @Robert Walker misrepresenting @Joshua Jonathan and others, and of @RW's disruptive behavior. Harvey does use the word "re-death" in the four noble truths chapter of his book An Introduction to Buddhism published by Cambridge University Press. See page 53, third last line, of Harvey's book. This page number and source was provided to @Robert Walker on Talk:Four Noble Truths on May 7 2016 here. But @RW continues recycling his false allegations, in a disruptive manner and a wall of text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Here we've got the whole point: "The big difference is that it doesn't require the practitioner to affirm any creed or belief in rebirth or the possibility of ending rebirth to follow the path." Robert has a specific understanding of Buddhism, and Wikipedia has got to be in line with this understanding. Didn't we call that POV-pushing here at Wikipedia? Please block him on this topic!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note , this particular content dispute of course is not especially relevant to this ANI, but it is relevant to these accusations of

WP:DONTGETIT

as part of their reason to topic ban me - I would "get it" easily if they could just be straightforward and truthful in the conversations! This action was taken right in the middle of an attempt at a very focused RfC on the talk page and right after the first Oppose vote by someone other than us two. That RfC is now completely derailed and I have given up on future RfCs on that page for now, when it is so impossible to do even a very focused RfC on a single word.

Note that last time that Joshua Jonathan took me to ANI it was a similar situation, it derailed an attempt at a DRN in that case. Details below (collapsed by me in this case):

Extended content

He took me to ANI a long time after I was posting most frequently to talk pages, when I was in the middle of attempting to prepare a DRN notice about his conduct on these articles along with another editor, and most of my activity was work on that notice. The ANI effectively derailed that. I was taken to ANI twice for talk page conduct. In both cases no action was taken against me, just warnings to be careful in how I post to talk pages - but each ANI postponed the DRN for a week as you can't do a DRN during an ANI - and the cummmulative effect was too much, and eventually the other editor @Dorje108: pulled out of the DRN notice, and so I stopped also as I needed his collaboration to present it. Previously he was the most frequent editor of Four Noble Truths and Karma in Buddhism, had worked on them for over a year, until @Joshua Jonathan: took it into his head to completely rewrite them without prior discussion, and he now no longer contributes to the Buddhism project here.

I do agree that I have issues writing on wikipedia talk pages and I am working on those issues and I do appreciate having my attention drawn to them. I don't appreciate being hauled to ANI over them without any attempt to settle it in other ways first, and especially so, that he did it in a way that derailed an attempt to try to make progress in our discussion by very focused RfCs starting with an RfC on a single word. Robert Walker (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: Ban Robertinventor from making talk page comments more than 250 words and from editing his own posts more than three times each

The "Four Noble Truths" topic ban proposal seems to be misconceived; I have been looking over the talk page following my comment in the (also ill-coceived) RFC and can see the problem pretty clearly. Robertinventor should be told that the next time he makes a talk page post of more than 250 words, or edits one of his own previous talk page posts so that it comes to more than 250 words, he will be blocked for 24 hours, and the next infraction will lead to a 72-hour block, followed by a one-week block, and so on. The same will happen for each talk page post he makes that he later edits four or more times. These restrictions should remain in place until such time as Robertinventor has proven he can engage in constructive and concise discussion -- six months seems reasonable. Traditional topic bans are messy, and it's clear the problem isn't Robertinventor's involvement in this particular topic area per se. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as walls of text are disruptive, intentionally or otherwise. An exercise in precision is definitely required.
  Imperatrix Mundi 09:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - a topic ban is clear; this proposal is not. "A" talk post is unclear; what counts as "a" talk post? Does it mean he can respond to every response with a new 250 words, repeating the same "arguments" and original research? The problem is not only the length of the posts, it's also Robert's "involvement in this particular topic area per se": the distraction into side-issues, the non-comprehension of arguments, the unfamiliarity with reliable sources, the original research, and the misinterpretation of sources. A limit to 250 words per post is not going to solve these issues. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a much more difficult judgement call to be made as to whether this or that edit is a violation of a topic ban from "Four Noble Truths", two problems of which being that very few members of English Wikipedia's admin corps know what the Four Noble Truths are and that anyone who wanted to either report or block for such a violation would have to actually wade through one of Rob's walls of text. It's very easy to catch someone wikilawyering their way around the edges of a ban, and if he responds with the same 250-word OR and non-sequiturs, you can report him for that and it will be a lot easier to get further sanctions. Believe me, my proposal is not meant to allow disruption to go unsanctioned -- my proposal is stricter than the TBAN proposal. I've dealt with users like this in the past, and TBANs don't work unless they are ridiculously broad to the point of effectively forcing them off the project; restricting their ability to abuse talk page functions is the way to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as unnecessarily bureaucratic. Apart for Joshua Jonathan's example, this would not prevent Robertinventor from writing a spectacularly long response then editing it just once to fall within the restriction. The original wall of text would still be in the history. Alternatively, Robertinventor could collapse their response within a box, how does that count? Does this refer to 250 visible words? What about hiding text within the edit so that it is visible in the edit window but not visible in the talk space? Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, but your oppose rationale is far more bureaucratic. Posting a comment more than 250 words would be a violation, and would lead to a block -- attempting to game the system by immediately cutting the comment would clearly be unacceptable, and is actually a violation of the letter of my proposal anyway. Both ofmyour examples ar clear-cut violations of not just the spirit but also the wording of the proposal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose laid out examples of what would not necessarily be covered by your ban proposal. Blackmane (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...except that they obviously would be covered by the proposal, as I specifically explained to you above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They would, however, not be covered if Robert were to say something along the lines of "oops" when removing it. However, it would certainly be possible, even if he were to remove it on his own as a mistake, maybe even before anyone else comments on it, to say in response to some comment by someone else later something like "lookee, I maybe answered that already in the edit I removed here". I'm not saying he would do that, but it is possible, and if he were to do that it would require more discussion. The purpose of such restrictions is, ultimately, to lessen the amount of work required by others, not increase it, and I am not myself sure that this proposal would necessarily really lessen the amount of effort from others. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same logic could be used to oppose any kind of restriction, as a TBAN would still be open to him saying "Oops, I forgot" after whatever violation he made, and then we would have to discuss the merits and demerits of his edits themselves before reverting. Of course, no decent admin would accept an "Oops" excuse more than once, for a TBAN or a more nuanced restriction like the one I'm proposing. And again, if Robertinventor is allowed continue to make massive walls of text, the burden of proof that such a wall violated whatever TBAN would be on his accusers, and since (especially with Shii apparently gone) very few admins have any grasp of what is meant by the "Four Noble Truths", theTBAN area is itself problematic. I would be more amenable to something like "Buddhism". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Joshua Jonathan, with additional reservations. "A" post is, at best, ill-defined in this context, and the specific word-count is itself possibly likely to lead to arguments about what is and is not a "word," as well as, basically, force people to spend the extra time doing a word count, as it seems to me likely that Robert will try to press the limit rather regularly. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: I see a pink blob] spreading over Wikipedia, discussing the discussions of the diccussions of the semantics of the word "word"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions of semantics does seem to be a rather frequent issue here, doesn't it? Let's kill that discussion, at least in this instance, right now, and avoid any sort of proposal which includes it. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing poorly defined about it. If Robertinventor makes one talk page edit of the kind that one might normally sign with four tildes and that edit is more than 250 words (as counted by wordcounttools) he will be blocked. The "three edits" clause was not designed to give him leeway to edit his own posts down to below 250 words; it was meant to cover the (otherwise unrelated) problem of Robertinventor endlessly altering his own posts in a LittleBenW fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I concur with @Hijiri88, @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and others that @Robert Walker's behavior is untenable. @RW's conduct has been a form of filibustering and disruptive. I remain uncomfortable with a blanket ban on @RW, but feel some form of restraint is necessary without the enforcement becoming another form of time sink for editors and admins. Suggestion: [1] Allow @RW to edit any religions-related article, per AGF. [2] if @RW's edit is reverted or challenged, in religions-related articles, he be restrained to 0RR and to using his own talk page and sandboxes to present arguments/comments on that article, which he can edit and revise as many times as he wants, and he can just leave a link on the article talk page to his sandbox/talk page. If [2] is violated, he be topic banned. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The weakness of such a proposal is that I think it is expected that Robert's discussions in his sandbox or talk page will likely be overlooked more or less as a rule by most of those involved. Particularly given the sheer length they so regularly take.

  The fundamental issue here, at least to my eyes, includes what seems to me to be the difficulty Robert may have with both his own ego and the fact that he, as more or less a scientist, thinks that articles should be "scientific", even when the topics with which they deal are not even remotely scientific, and, unfortunately, a lot of religion articles are not even remotely scientific, or, at least, on including "exact" terminology and utmost clarity, two things a lot of religion topics don't have in the first place. I have no clear concept of how to deal with that problem in this instance. If anything, I would advise Robert to look at the various relevant sections of Bibliography of encyclopedias and related articles and add any he sees missing, or sources regarding those works, and then consult those works when dealing with religion topics. As most of them are written by what might be broadly called experts in the fields, they would probably have a better grasp of any issues of semantics relative to those topics than Robert or any of the rest of us would. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While I'm not generally opposed to creative remedies, this seems like one which would be prone to generating a lot of annoying problems. Like, when we ban someone from a topic area, broadly construed, we all generally know what that means and doesn't mean. Same for a 1RR restriction: Reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations generally won't count. I think this is well-intentioned, but would probably wind up mostly uninforceable or rapidly turn into a siteban. I'm for cutting out the middle man, or doing something else. Even a final warning for disruptive filibustering. If this editor keeps it up—and there's no indication he's incapable of understanding a clear warning like that—we can come back here for a siteban discussion. Because if he can't get it through his head that his conduct has been disruptive, then he does lack the requisite competence to participate on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to respond to the criticism above that "what if?" scenarios where Robertinventor might violate the ban in some minor way would be interpreted as gaming the system, I don't think that's the right way to go about it. I argue this because a sanction that restricts in the way claimed, that the effect would be tantamount to a discussion ban, and would create perverse incentives for other discussants to talk circles around Robertinventor. All that'd need to happen is a flurry of discussion while Robertinventor is asleep: He comes back and can only say 250 words? Then suppose he does that. It's entirely possible for such a response to fail to address the points brought up adequately, or by necessity ignores points. We can imagine the likely response: "But what about x? I mentioned that above. Why are you ignoring it? This is clearly a
    WP:IDHT situation!" I think that's a likely outcome. Particularly given 250 words is not a lot. The two paragraphs I've written in this thread total to over 330 words. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@Mendaliv: What you say is reasonable, but when we ban someone from a topic area, broadly construed, we all generally know what that means and doesn't mean really doesn't apply to the TBAN that was proposed in the main section -- I'd bet money that the reason this problem wasn't solved weeks ago is because very few members of the admin corps have a deep enough understanding of what is meant by the "Four Noble Truths" to do something about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to investigate the matter concerning the said editor/admin who "privatized" the page with his outright slanderous resentment full of discriminatory attitude and all sorts of unabashed bigotry towards anything that is Soviet or Russian by maliciously labeling anything that depicts remembering and commemorating the millions of fallen Soviet liberators of World Word II via the display of the ribbon in question with heavily biased and nothing short of libelous terms that purposefully denigrates and obliterates its significance - all in a sheer attempt to sway the unsuspecting reader into receiving deliberate misinformation on the matter by obliterating the real purpose of the ribbon. His sole intent is to tarnish and mar the facts by substituting them with quotes from bogus articles, invented qualifiers (aka Kremlin Regime), as well as openly pro-Nazi sympathies that he clearly personally harbors and promotes. People in 39 countries marched in May of 2016 and wore the ribbon to commemorate the fallen Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe. These millions of people worldwide could care less about "Kremlin Regime" or any other nonsense of the like. It's a shame that such activity gets carte blanche in a totally blindsided fashion on Wikipedia. (I'm the 99.135... editor who's done 2 edits on the page: at the end of 7th and at the beginning of the 8th of May.) Your assistance in the matter is much appreciated. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence in the form of diffs for these accusations. Ymblanter has been notified by me as required. HighInBC 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at his edits on the page, most notably in early May. This is in regards to Ymblanter's malicious editing on Ribbon_of_Saint_George page, his persistent violation of NPOV by replacing the content with pro-Nazi sentiments, his flagrant abuse of administrative privileges. I'm sorry but I'm not familiar how to post on here "diffs". 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The IP seems to be talking about the Ribbon of Saint George page. HighInBC 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The opening statement clearly shows that the user is

  WP:NOTTHERE to build encyclopedia but rather to push theor POV. I protected an article after it was vandalized yesterday by an IP, and before it was vandalized, another IP was involved in POV pushing distorting sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The only edit I am seeing by Ym is this which is entirely correct for our project. It was reversing the removal of sourced content with... non-neutral unsourced something. HighInBC 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's some serious POV pushing, no subtlety to it. Yowza. Katie^talk 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not his only edit. He keeps the overall thrust of the article in a deliberately negative tone by being keen to inject bogus terms or otherwise inherently repelling terms (aka, Kremlin Regime, Russian Government) in lieu of the actual ones, such as to commemorate the legacy of the fallen liberators. His continued clinging onto "sources" (aka, non-reputable, self-proclaiming articles) is very evident, for that's what his actions hinge on. And please, no need to cite his least pronounced edit, while ignoring all others. I don't mean to put any special importance to them, but just have a look at his two reverts of my edits, rather than get fixated on lack of relevance. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Kremlin regime" is literally what the source says, but despite your POV pushing and attempts to change it to the opposite meaning citing the same source I am fine with the "Government of Russia".--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The display of the ribbon has nothing to do with the said government. When the Pope wore the ribbon early this month, he was not supporting "Russian government", he was commemorating the fallen. Please stop that nonsense. The source in question is very biased and clearly unprofessional. If you nevertheless choose to use it, balance it out, so as not to make your personal grudge as obvious. 99.135.170.109 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your personal opinion, but this is not what sources say.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting on a poor act here, but try incorporating the "sources" that are not as pro-Nazi biased as the one to tend to swear by. In fact, since you are "the keeper" of the article, as far as the references go, find something more credible to have the article fall back on. 99.135.173.30 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, HighInBC and I are saying that Ymblanter is in the right here. Not the IPs. There's a long and distinguished history of POV pushing and arguing about Russian nationalism and this ribbon. Ymblanter has acted in an administrative capacity by protecting an article that repeatedly has had sourced content removed from it. I have no problem with his actions here. Katie^talk 18:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing his call to protect it. It is the form of it which he protected. 99.135.173.30 (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the wrong version? HighInBC 19:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the protection happened just after this revert [27]. From what I can tell even 99 agrees that content was inappropriate. (If they don't then I guess there's no point continuing this discussion.) And the article was only semiprotected anyway. This means plenty of people can still edit if they edit in a resonable fashion. So to calling Ymblanter the keeper of the article is misleading. If you can't you're free to provide these better sources on the talk page which remains unprotected. Or better yet, propose a good edit and make an edit request. If you feel the disputes mean this isn't suitable, you're free to use normal means of WP:Dispute resolution. However you may find if you get other parties involved, they'll have little time for you if you go around saying people express pro-Nazi sentiment without evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP asks us to "take a moment to consider Ymblanter's actions". So that's what I've just done, and the clear conclusion is that Ymblanter is doing a great job. I also conclude there are POV-pushing IPs trying to distort articles, and that it would be beneficial if we all gave Ymblanter more help and support. I thank the IP for bringing this to our attention. Jeppiz (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. This IP should be thanked. Had he not brought this up, User:Ymblanter would probably not be recognized for the good job he his doing. Being an admin is a thankless job, so I thank Ymblanter for having the patience and nerve to continue being a fine admin.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks Ymblanter. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah pro-Nazi sentiment? This is quite a strong accusation which IMO definitely needs diffs. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

99.135.170.109, you have repeatedly made strong accusations while providing no evidence, and per

block will be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I've just gone and delete 60 pages - but somehow the backlog is higher than when I started.--v/r - TP 08:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a lot of cleanup going on it seems. Good. Legacypac (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a page is in

CAT:CSD for more than a day, it usually means that several admins looked at it and did not make a decision. Most of the time this indicates the issue is too complicated for the page to be speedily deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 15:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Um, no? If a page can't be speedied, I remove the tag and explain why in the edit summary like I did 4-5 times last night. And admin should have the confidence to determine whether CSD applies, and remove it if it doesn't.--v/r - TP 16:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally yes, but if you look at the lists of speedy candidates by tagging time, the oldest ones are never clear-cut cases, and I also often end up untagging them or sending them to AFD when I go through them. —Kusma (t·c) 05:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't get it. If it's not clear cut, then it's not meant for CSD. So, if random admin/editor hits a CSD tagged page and says "we'll, I'm just not sure" then that's enough reason itself to remove the tag.--v/r - TP 20:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by an editor with known strong opinions on keeping things in userspace. [28] An admin may find a different result when weighing the strength of the agruments rather then nose counting. Legacypac (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose overturn, although this is a subtle case. I would have !voted Delete if I had looked at it, but the grounds for overturn should be that the closer didn't use proper judgment. The conclusion, based either on nose count or on strength of argument, could have gone either way. The filing party is known to have even stronger opinions about getting crud out of userspace, and appears to be using this, first, to advance a cause about getting crud out of userspace, and, second, to advance a crusade against the closer. Both parties are causing trouble, and that isn't reason for overturn. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose overturn. Also BOOMERANG. Filer is a known problem user with a grudge against the user who performed the NAC. 172.56.20.9 (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Legacypac enough already. You've been here at least twice before, and you have a | hit page about Godsy hidden in your sandbox. Come on , drop the stick! KoshVorlon 16:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Last time I suggested that they be blocked, and I stand by that opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ymblanter if you mean LegacyPac, yes, I agree! KoshVorlon 17:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I mean them. They do not know how to stop and need to be helped.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is wrong. I suggest you let an Admin without a personal ventetta against me reclose this one. Only in Death is quite correct below. Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter is an admin.KoshVorlon 17:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it is worth, I would have closed it as delete as the policy backed arguments for delete were stronger. Except I cant close it as delete as I am not an admin. Generally NAC's should not be done in close calls like this because non-admins lack the tools necessary for a delete. NAC's are fine for anything not requiring tools, or those discussions where it is *clear* that it is not going to be deleted. That wasnt the case here. There is also that Godsy (rightly or wrongly) has repeatedly stated a preference on this issue. Likewise Legacypac. If Legacypac had closed a discussion in this area that he had not personally opined in, you can bet someone would bring up his POV pretty fast. Its basically a bad close even if the outcome was not clear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NACD states, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." This would appear to fit the definition of a close call. An admin should close the discussion in question. --Izno (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closer's comment: I don't have time to respond right now, just wanted to point out that I was not notified of this discussion. My response to an inquiry by Legacypac on this matter can be found at User talk:Godsy#Close of User:SE19991/Move Management MfD.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close (Oppose overturn) - The recent disagreement I've had with the filer of this request is about
    NACD). If an administrator believes the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, or that it would have a substantially different result if closed by another user, I encourage them to do so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn and relist - the filer and the closer are known to be in a prolonged dispute with each other. It will not hurt anything if this is relisted, but there is a cloud over the close if it is left as is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Ivanvector has it exactly right. NACs are often fine, but not in very close calls, and especially not when there is so much baggage. It may end up the same, but it will be cleaner if relisted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per Ivanvector. As a side note, I understand this is supposed to be at
  WP:DRV, but given the absolute sh*tstorm that's become recently, I understand why LP would want to avoid that. ansh666 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  process. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well, yes, but per
  WP:DRV anyways. ansh666 03:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I thought DRV is to review Deletions - which this is not. I don't go there very often. I'm just asking for a neutral admin to close, not my current stalker. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, DRV is to review the outcome of all deletion discussions, which may or may not end in a delete outcome. ansh666 00:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at it when this thread started and I felt that Godsy closed it correctly. However, if it'll set the issue aside, I've gone ahead and reclosed it.--v/r - TP 00:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am from article

The article has been repeatedly protected because of your editing. Stop trying to reintroduce that content and use

dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 21:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Fences. No editor is allowed to modify or delete other editors comments on talk page, this is what I understand:[31] ,this is also what Malcolmxl5 concurs: [32]. From your comment may I assume that you agree with this actions from the editor and their related actions in the article. Reading the issue from both sides might provide you with additional data for judgement, to clarify them some comments might require diff checks within the article and that of the involved editors pages. Thank you for your interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.248.60.34 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"this is what I understand" except that your understanding is not correct. (Actually from the sound of it probably about a lot of things.) Removing sufficiently inappropriate comments is acceptable. Sufficiently inappropriate isn't always easy to define, but for example clear cut BLP vios, highly offtopic commentary in an active talk page (even if the activity is these comments), comments from banned (defacto or established) sockpuppets are some examples. Signed comments generally shouldn't be edited (as opposed to deleted wholesale), but there are also exceptions. E.g. it's common to remove phone numbers or email addresses both because it's common that posters haven't considered the implications and these details are often not useful since we're not going to be emailing or phoning people. And while this should be done with great care, sometimes redacting a personal attack or whatever is better than deleting the comment wholesale or waiting for an editor to respond to a request. Note that these are general comments not directed at any edit in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Nil Einne: for being kind with words, do you agree if I say the nutshell of your comment is that deletions and redaction's are appropriate methods and the same wouldn't be considered as vandalism, within the range of accusal policies or as a deceptive tact to mislead or hide evidence against the implicated editor (one of the main point raised in this ANI). If possible also provide specific citations about this from the resources, to avoid any future confusion while explaining it to others.117.215.193.76 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what you mean by the later part of your first sentence. However evidence can't be hidden. You apparently already know what a diff is, you used one right here to make a complaint so you already know evidence can easily be provided where necessary. The exception would be revdeletion which is used very rarely and only for significant problems and can be reviewed by any admin anyway. Suppression (oversight) is harder to review but requires an even more serious problem. Note that I'm not sure what ANI you're referring to but in any case as I made clear my comments were general and not directed at a specific issue raised in this AN let alone any unlinked to now ANI. I'm on a mobile device so not going to link anything but you should reread whatever misinformed you that comments can't be deleted or edited like the talk page guidelines, remember you were the one who first raised the issue I was simply correcting your misinterpretation. It sounds like you need to read other policies and guidelines more carefully too probably starting with the dispute resolution one which has already been linked 2 times and moving on to

WP:RS and other such cornerstone policies. They key point is that as long as you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of policy such as a suggestion deletion of comments is forbidden, there's a fair chance many of your conclusions deriving from it will be flawed. And in any case, people may not pay much attention to any complaint since there's a reasonable chance it's without merit, if not because of this misunderstanding if for another. Note that I wrote most of my earlier comment without checking any of your diff's it was only fairly late I did so and only needed minor clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

If you check the article and the rev content you may see evident reliable sources. Evident reliable sources isnt the problem. As said dispute resolution is a problem with the article, when other rv warriors don't collaborate with it and are only interested in disruptions it brews dispute, this why the non-intrested editors should be banned from editing the topic is mentioned.(This is not a claim evidence is scattered across talk pages) The current problem we are discussing is the trail of disruptive history from the mentioned editors: You say deletions of other comments is a good practice and it doesn't call for vandalism. Because that is the one of the case raised in this ANI. If so providing specific policy that says it under which heading would help to identify with your statement more clearly.(A simple direct quote and the policy will enable to check the specific clause) Even if diffs are possible to check that is not the case when issues are notified and frowned by other editors (even you said you only checked the diffs later). With the exception of some, overseeing editors mostly look what the registered editors have to say and how the case is formulated and this is an unfortunate trend. Using this loophole the above mentioned editors have abused the article and its talk page using suppression of evidence in the past, when it come to diffs not many ip editors may be familiar when asked to show evidence and the whole matter could be derailed with burden. Note that one thing i know is wikipedia operates in a democratic manner every issues raised are of importance other wise ANI existence will come into question, and the ANI activities show every raised problems are discussed and not sidelined. You can help an invalid to cross a road but considering him as invalid (or an ip editor-someone new with the process) and shoving moldy bread into his mouth is a big no-no, so passive aggressive assumptions of "flawed" should be kept away from these discussions. Once again provide the specific policy or essay with the sub-heading that cites what you said and state whether you support the mentioned editor's action in relation to the policy.-this simply solves the issue and its direct. Thank you.61.1.200.191 (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys I recently encountered

Since only the community can authorize the 30/500 protection level, I propose reducing the article

TO CLARIFY: This is a discussion, as required per policy, to protect this single page with 30/500, not if we should make 30/500 a routine protection level.

Another Clarification: This page is already fully protected indefinitely. No one but admins can edit this page. This is a proposal to reduce it to 30/500 protection indefinitely, so more established users can edit it.

Yet Another Clarification: People seem to be opposing on the belief that only ArbCom can authorize this protection level. This is false. A community discussion like this one is also a valid way to authorize this protection level. From

This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community.

• Support per initial statement.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd rather if we ran an RFC on the idea of starting to use 30/500 protection outside of the current arbitration-imposed cases in general, before we started looking at requests case-by-case. –xeno^talk 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The community can also authorize the use of 30/500, but this isn't a discussion to change the policy but to keep in line with current policy and to have the community authorize this protection, especially since this would be indefinite protection.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The community has not yet decided to authorize this new form of protection, and I oppose it being used anywhere that isn't absolutely necessary. I believe it to be counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Semi- and full-protection are necessary to protect certain articles, but 30/500 unnecessarily creates a new hierarchy as to who is allowed to edit what. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it has. The community and the arbitration committee authorizes certain articles for this level of protection. And arguing "that anyone can edit" goes against your argument as this article is indefinitely fully protected. The disruption is caused by users who usually don't yet possess the extendedconfirmed right.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 500/30 should only be used when it is known to be a topic area that has external agencies working in some type of coordination to affect the article, where full protection is not sufficient to prevent long-term disruption. It should never be used as a mid-point between semi- and full- since, as the Wordsmith points out, the very notion of it is counter to the open wiki nature of Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  So exactly how is indefinite full protection helping the open nature of Wikipedia? I can't even edit the article as it stands to make a minor correction if I needed to. With 30/500 protection, bots, and experienced editors can at least edit the article. 30/500 is an ideal protection level in this case.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading the logs of why that page is fully protected, 500/30 wouldn't help. It attracts random users wanting to add unrecognized social media sites too frequently, which includes users that have passed the 500/30 level. As one of the admins that FP'ed it put [33] it also helps to account for all requests to add sites to the list so that there's little to argue if someone wants to argue for removal or the like. So in this case, this is a use of FP simply to better audit an article that is otherwise a highly attractive one for unsourced/inappropriate additions from across WP but without any constant external influence, so I agree FP is the best call, and 500/30 would not help. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a reason pending changes cant be used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Pending could be used to achieve the stability, but I see the value discussed in the diff above that since all additions have to have an edit request and subsequent discussion, and we are talking a topic area that would seem ripe for favoritism and self-promotion, that having a record of all requests and accepted additions is of high value. But this is a situation unique to that topic area. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please identify the specific phrasing of the policy which enables administrators to use this protection level outside of ARBCOM/AE areas. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  From

  WP:30/500: "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community." This is a community discussion which is competent to authorise the protection on the page. BethNaught (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Does that wording give us the leeway to authorize its use on a page by page basis outside ARBPIA3 or the Gamergate pages? I read it as we have to authorize it for topic areas. I mean, I'm all for giving us the ability to use the protection (not necessarily in this case as I'm not convinced it would work) but I'm not sure we can do it. Or am I reading it too literally? Katie^talk 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The wording of the original close was "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". Besides, even if that were not the case, I think that is too literal a reading. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The arbitration committee has made it clear that the community is not prohibited from creating policy in relation to the imposition of 30/500 protection. Whether this is the appropriate forum for that is another question. Speaking generally, 30/500 appears to be a protection level that is a step between semi-protection and full-protection, though much nearer to semi-protection. Like other protection level, it should only be used to protect the encyclopedia and used for a minimal time. No comment on whether this particular case is ripe for this.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Indefinite full protection is well, not useless, but it is aggravating. Plus, most people who have passed the 30/500 protection are trustworthy. Peter Sam Fan 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The slippery slope has begun. I opposed creating the 30/500 usergroup back when it was proposed at the Village Pump because I feared that this protection level would go from an ArbCom mandated sanction of last resort to just another sanction level. Even the creator of the RfC, Cenarium, recommended that "Pages may be protected by admins with the new level only when a decision of the arbitration committee mandates it". Well, here we are in April, facing a decision whether 30/500 protection should be a routine substitution for full protection or only used under ArbCom authorization. Although I don't like either option, I strongly recommend against the former. Altamel (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not what this discussion is about at all. This protection can only be used by authority of ArbCom or by a community discussion. This is a discussion about to protect this ONE page with 30/500, not to make it routine.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Allowing this protection once sets a precedent regarding the circumstances that would justify its use. The community should exercise this protection very sparingly, but I don't believe we should start with this particular case. Altamel (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm trying to understand your rational, and it makes sense to an extent, but can you tell me how 30/500, which allows more users, who are likely productive and

  WP:CLUEful contributors, to edit an article, over the current status quo, which is restricting a page to admin edits only, indefinitely? I'm not proposing this to set a precedent, I'm proposing this because this option upholds the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" more closely, and see it as the idea solution to the specific problem this article faces. I would otherwise not have proposed this, and requested semi-protection instead, which I initially did, until I learned about the article's history. From my point of view 30/500 isn't meant to be another hierarchical protection level, but rather an in the middle solution when semi isn't enough, leaving the only alternative indefinite full protection, which IMO is unacceptable. If it was only a temporary protection, I wouldn't have bothered starting this discussion. I hope this helps.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose, both procedurally, as this isn't the largest community forum for such a discussion, and on general principles, as my understanding was that 30/500 is for serious problem areas. Fighting over social networks on a list is relatively small-time. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  So as it's a less serious problem area it should have less protection, not more? Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand this oppose either. If this isn't a big problem area, then why leave it fully protected. If it's not a problem area, then semi should be sufficient right? But it isn't. That means to keep disruption at bay, it's either PC2, template, or 30/500, which is a middle-ground solution I am proposing to keeping most disruption at bay, while still allowing all the established editors to edit, not just admins.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this is already being used, and most opposition is either a request for process or "slippery slope" argument that is unlikely to be a consequence (most BLPs are still unprotected, for example). Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks like the 30/500 protection seems perfect to me.
  talk) 21:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, assuming that arbcom is not reserving this userright for their own purposes. What is more I think it should be used liberally throughout Wikipedia when there is a semi-protection is not enough but protection is too much. That being said I am not sure this is what arbcom intended for the userright or what the status of use of it outside arbcom is. HighInBC 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose 30/500 is intended to be for Intractable areas of dispute, not as a step down from full protection. Second, if we disclude the 30/500 we're only left with semi-protection as the only place to reduce the threshold to which has been shown to be easily gamed and thereby crash the page back into edit warring about inclusion on the list and going right back up to full protection. Third, as much as we don't want it to be, being listed in Wikipedia is a great way to increase the prominance of your venture (whether business, website, art endeavour, etc). See also COI/Paid editing. Fourth, if something needs to be changed/added to the page there is the "Edit Request" way of proposing the change and potentially securing consensus for the change. In short: 30/500 should not be authorized barring a Village Pump discussion authorizing it and Full Protection is not set in concrete. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thread bump, to keep the bot off of this.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of order - 30/500 is not a community protection level. It must be authorized by ArbCom, and it has not been for this topic AFAIK. This proposal is out of order. If you want to propose 30/500 protection for this topic, file a case with ArbCom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Please re-read the policy. It says this protection level can be authorized by ArbCom or the community. This is a community discussion to authorize this protection, and so this proposal is in line, with policy.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Altamel. I agree with Ivanvector that "30/500 is not a community protection level". Furthermove, this noticeboard is for "information and issues that affect administrators"; this discussion affects the community as a whole, and as such, this is the improper forum (along similar lines to what Torchiest stated).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a community protection level. Policy dictates that this protection level can be applied by the community, as such this is a community discussion. As for picking the location of this discussion, I chose AN as we are dealing with potentially protecting a page with 30/500, but this discussion seems to be going south, because people keep misunderstanding the use of 30/500, and why I proposed this protection level on this page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Any oppose arguments because there's no consensus for use of the protection level are circular and nonsensical, as this is an attempt to get consensus for use of the protection level. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best place for community discussion

Top o' the page clearly says: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators," therefore it is not a proper place for discussing policy changes. If someone wants to make a proposal it goes somewhere like Wikipedia Talk:Protection policy, gets slapped with an RFC template and listed on the centralized discussion list. This notion that it's appropriate for the admin corps to make policy decisions a) gives admins, collectively, a bad name, and b) pretty much ensures you're going have non-admin stalkers here. NE Ent 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems to be a little confused. Per the RfC on this matter the community can impose 30/500 restrictions on any article they deem it to be necessary on. That is what this discussion is about. At least that is what I think this discussion is about. This seems like the perfect place for that kind of discussion since this is a highly watched page and things of this level should have a lot of eyes on it. --Majora (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This page is for admins. For a true community discussion, this discussion should be held exactly at the place you just cited for a previous community consensus on this subject: the village pump. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent, this isn't a policy change I'm proposing. I don't understand why people seem to be thinking that when I clearly noted above what this discussion is about. To protect a single page 30/500, which requires community approval. I chose AN because we are dealing with a fully protected page, to have it's protection discussed. That kind of requires an admin for that, hence I thought it would be appropriate to discuss here.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you didn't fill out Form 86-20924Z/3OY in triplicate and file it with the proper affidavits. You'll never work in this town again. BMK (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw damn. I knew I forgot something. PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No forgiveness - your TPS sheet came in without a cover page. SQL^{Query me!} 05:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I needed a cover page for that? I thought you only needed that when filing for authorization to change your signature. :-(—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned the original proposal only intended this as arbitration enforcement, and didn't allow use outside such context. In the discussion, also allowing use by "community consensus" was suggested, and the closer stated it was restricted "to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". But the "or the community" mention isn't explained, and I believe not supported by the discussion. It should require a formal proposal at village pump and actual consensus before being suggested for use on a particular page outside AE, and the proposal should specify where and how it should be requested for an article (e.g. on article talk page with mandatory

ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions, which are similar to this; village pump is for decisions that don't require administrator action. If a decision made here is invalid, so are community sanctions (including bans) and these would have to be regarded as lifted. WP:CENT is for discussions with "potentially wide-ranging impacts" - use of this protection on one page wouldn't change anything as a similar discussion would have to take place when it is proposed for another page. It would have less impact than full protection of the same page which doesn't require any discussion. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions" That is an incorrect statement of practice. In fact, this board (AN) is the preferred board for community sanction discussions. Frequently a discussion about sanctions will arise from an already ongoing discussion on ANI, and the consensus has been to allow them to continue there rather than breaking the flow of the discussion by moving it here, but otherwise sanction discussions are preferred to happen here. It's a bit less like the Wild Wild West here as compared to ANI, so presumably a more reasonable discussion can be held. BMK (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page says "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices". I would say that a discussion on the acceptable use of a new admin tool falls into discussion of administration methods. It is the discussion about if admins should use a tool on a specific page when there is no clear guidance about the tool. If it was a proposal for a policy then I would agree that another place would be better, but this is no different than discussing the use of admin tools in any other specific area. HighInBC 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the alternative, I hope that people here take the result from this discussion (I'm more of a meh on it) and incorporate it into the protection policy. If 30/500 is a new protection standard, it would be easily just to put it into policy, whatever it is, and then to use
  WP:RFPP for it in the future. ANI can always be the backstop if no one at RFPP agrees to it. I mean, we have the technical ability to PP2 but that's been wholly rejected for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A proposal with 72.9% support is "wholly rejected"? 82.132.184.165 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean PC2, the second level of pending changes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a banner add about traslating Ibero-America. I think the banner should be about translating.--

I cannot figure out where this banner is; I'd assumed Mediawiki:Sitenotice, but no. "Message names" doesn't help, either, nor does "what links here" when you go to the project page. Is this banner on en.wiki, or is it done somewhere else? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

meta:CentralNotice - meta:Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/Iberocoop Translating Ibero America - NQ (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Czar took care of it. meta:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Iberocoop Translating Ibero America. - NQ (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Floquenbeam: It says " Banners: 10min server" cache. So I'm assuming it'll be purged automatically soon. - NQ (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it took a while but the first typo is fixed. Thanks for the pointer to the right place. Of course, there's still a second typo, which I've reported here: [34]. But why is meta deciding what banners are displayed on en.wiki? -Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: meta:CentralNotice is designed to display these kinds of banners across all wmf wikis simultaneously. There is a very handy "Suppress display of CentralNotices" gadget in preferences which I use. - NQ (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A better, copy-edited version is proposed at

the project talk page. Is there a review process for these things? That was embarrassing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is one of those AN/ANI conversations where, when I see other people doing it, I say "they should just let it go". But... last night, it looks like en.wiki was the only wiki this was on. Seems like if they're only going to advertise on en.wiki, they should get agreement here. But maybe only having it on en.wiki was another mix-up... --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is only on enwiki, so why was this pushed from meta? Can someone with the necessary rights there please just remove it, and let them know that if they want to push an enwiki-only banner, they can propose and add it on enwiki and not elsewhere.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 13:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Doncram amendment motion

Could someone lose this edit and apply semi-protection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've rev-deleted that edit but the article is already protected with pending changes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many BLP violations lingering about to make pending changes feasible. I've upped in to semi-protection.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem probably needs to be nuked too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Nuked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This and this probably need to go too. While not particulary bad they contain the name of a non-notable person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Large backlog

Cleaned out what feels like thirty, but it looks like I've barely made a dent. ☺ · 

✉ 23:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

open channel) 23:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Somebody owes me a beer. That DQBot owes me a couple of beers. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• More beer. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This new editor, who registered on April 12 and has made solely two promotional edits in mainspace, is using his user page as a faux Wikipedia article and violating the prohibition against using Wikipedia to host your personal web page: User pages "should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia."

He was politely alerted to this [35], yet made revisions to his user page afterward that ignored the notice. In the month he has been here, aside from those two promotional edits, his only "contributions" to Wikipedia have been to promote himself with a user page designed to look like a

I've seen more than a few new users try to game the system by using their own page to get around the "no self-promotion" rule. It never works, but it doesn't stop them from trying. Only thing one can really do is keep an eye on him: if he continues, tag an' bag 'im. HalfShadow 00:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, he added a link on his official website to his (now deleted) user page, misleadingly describing it as "Visit my Wikipedia page at: www.wiki/seanerenstoft.com" [36]. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a dispute last year I agreed to a voluntary ban. The dispute was about medical advice, but it was also more of a "who is the boss here" issue. I decided to leave because I saw that I got carried away too much by the power play. I have contributed a lot to StackExchange, and I think that I can come back here without causing problems. I'll just stick to 0RR, so if someone sees a problem with anything I do there, they can revert and if that revert is seen to be a problem then that's an issue for the others to sort out, I will stay out of any disputes. I don't see the need to "protect my contribution". The lesson I've learned is that as soon as I would get such feelings, then it's time to leave for a while to prevent wasting time on futile issues. Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would one need permission to end a voluntary ban? That's asymmetrical. But, if necessary, Support. Sounds sincere and rational. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Proposal to Topic-Ban User:Count Iblis from Reference Desk for the original discussion. There was no formal ruling on consensus at the time. Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Count Iblis - I would support your request if (and this is a big if) you were to give a clear, unambiguous undertaking to abide by the Reference Desk guidelines concerning medical advice (

WP:RD/G/M). I do not see such an undertaking in your comments from October or in your current request. Tevildo (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also thick to 0RR. Let me explain. The way the medical issue is dealt with on the ref desk is in practice quite ambiguous. If there were any truth about what was said on AN/I about me, then anything remotely close to medical advice would not be approached with a ten feet long pole. That's far from the truth, and when I took a look yesterday I saw a question about diet and exercise, the question about exercise was posted by a ref desk regular. Because I'm not allowed to post there I replied on the talk page of the OP, and the answer was appreciated. So, clearly that answer I gave yesterday would not have been judged as falling foul of that medical advice guideline. But there is no way to tell this in general a priori. The way to avoid disputes is thus for me to disengage from any arguments about medical advice issues. So, I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also stick to 0RR. Anyone can modify anything I write there without me going to revert them. There is then no need to run to AN/I in case of problems, there won't be recurring problems where I continue to post something else later that also needs to be refactored which would then necessitate intervention. I'm not going to play any such games, if anything is edited in an answer that I write, I'll stay out of that particular topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually how it's supposed to work - our guidelines say "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions... When answering a question that appears to be soliciting medical advice, outright removal of the question is discouraged. It is preferable to add a link to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and answer by giving information, such as links to articles. The first answer in particular should advise the person to seek a qualified professional. Subsequent answers must never bring this advice into question, and should reiterate it if there is any doubt." Emphasis mine. If you do get allowed back, I invite you to run potential replies by me first if you are concerned about understanding where to draw the line. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose based on the above reply. I would hold that a firm commitment to abiding by the guidelines is essential for Count Iblis' rehabilitation. Tevildo (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on Count Iblis' very apparent continuing lack of understanding of what "no medical advice" means. His action in answering a question about diet and exercise is a blatant example of violating that rule, so I have absolutely no faith that he would be able to control himself if allowed to return to the Ref Desks. Since it was a voluntary self-ban, if CI returns despite any consensus here that he shouldn't, the previous discussion should be unarchived and continued until there is a community consensus on whether he should be banned or not, since the original discussion was short-circuited by the voluntary ban and never concluded. BMK (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was my question and my talk page, and I dispute the assertion that it was medical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Struck my support for now. I haven't been around the desks much for some time, but I don't recall much (if any) editing of others' responses because they were improper. It's a bad example to set for the less initiated, and the questioner very easily might see the improper answer anyway. Striking it or removing it from the page does not erase it from their memory. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to stay out of anything remotely resembling a medical/physiological/health question, just to be safe. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- CI wants to help.
  WP:AGF applies here too. I think CI is making this request in good faith, and we always need more good faith help at the ref desk. Keep in mind he sort of self-topic-banned in the past, and he doesn't need our support to come back. I think he'd prefer our support, as few people like to post if they feel unwanted. He's admitted fault, and wants to reform. I think our ref desks get better with more eyes on the questions. CI knows he will be on very thin ice, and if he's allowed back I assume will be on his best behavior as part of an unofficial probationary period. If that goes sour, we have nothing much to lose by offering some attempt at rehabilitation in lieu of punishment. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I don't doubt Count Iblis' good faith and his potential for useful contributions, and I accept that his disagreement with the guidelines isn't unreasonable in itself. I'm concerned that he's not apparently prepared to make the simple statement "Yes, I will follow the guidelines." If he does so, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I feel the risk of last year's disruption being repeated is still too high. Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for starters he doesn't need anyone's permission to come back, and also he's a lot less hypocritical and dishonest than most of the more zealous self-appointed enforcers of the refdesk guidelines. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from "OP": I am the refdesk regular who posed the question (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Exercise: Repetition vs. weight lifted.) and who Count Iblis answered on my talk page. (User talk:Guy Macon#Frank Medrano knows the answer) The notion that my question or any of the answers I received are "medical advice" goes against Wikipedia policy and against longstanding refdesk policy. Exercise isn't a medical issue. It is a normal part of life. I am leaning toward supporting Count Iblis returning to the refdesks. A simple declarative statement along the lines of "I will abide by the existing refdesk rules even if I disagree with them" from Count Iblis will turn my position to full support. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - In view of his history not only of giving improper advice but of maintaining his right to do so, I see no reason to be assured that he will follow the Ref Desk guidelines strictly. He may want to help, and I am willing to believe that he wants to help. He just has shown that he doesn't know when help is not help. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yes, he should need permission to come back, because he "voluntarily" departed under a cloud. Allowing people to come back without permission after departing under a cloud would set a bad precedent. (Admins who depart under a cloud have to come back via RFA.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong agreement. The basic concept of "under a cloud" (no matter where used) allows us to halt proceedings when the accused voluntarily withdraws. This is a Good Thing; it saves us effort and allows the accused to save face. But if he is later allowed to undo that decision without permission, we will have to continue the proceedings and decide upon sanctions just to avoid gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this appears to be directed only to me and one other user, I'll state that I now understand, and I withdraw that part of my already-stricken comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Count Iblis, please read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice (see section #2). Because it explains that while editors are welcome to go to the questioner's talk page to explain why medical advice can't be given, editors should not then provide medical advice on the user's talk page. You're not abiding by a guideline against providing medical advice by providing it on a user talk page instead of at the reference desks. Don't provide medical advice, anywhere, period. Can you make that promise? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It was my question and my talk page (see above) and I dispute the assertion that it was medical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like a medical question or like medical advice to me. It's an exercise question with an exercise answer. He replied correctly on Guy Macon's talk page rather than on the Reference Desk because he is banned from the Reference Desk. That doesn't mean that I support reinstating him to the Reference Desk, only that he didn't violate any rule in that matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is advice that should not be coming from the Ref Desk, whether directly on the Ref Desk or on a user talk page. CI told Guy Macon how he should exercise, without knowing anything whatsoever about GM's physical condition, or having the professional qualifications to evaluate them if he did. We may have gotten used to infomercials telling all and sundry what people need to do to "get in shape", but we don't do that, whether you call it "medical advice" or not. CI's inability to differentiate between information that can be given and advice that cannot be is a prime example of why he should not return to the Ref Desk. BMK (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my comment on CI's explaining that his user talk page comments were medical advice not suitable for the reference desk "Because I'm not allowed to post there I replied on the talk page of the OP, and the answer was appreciated. So, clearly that answer I gave yesterday would not have been judged as falling foul of that medical advice guideline.". That is how he identified his remarks in his comment, that his remarks would have been inappropriate at the Ref Desks because it would be considered medical advice but they didn't violate the guidelines because they were posted on a user talk page.

My concern was not whether or not the comments were medical advice and more that CI didn't seem to realize that the medical guidelines apply to any talk space, not just the reference desks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - CI's tendentious argument which led to last year's proposed topic ban is archived here. CI's current "I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also stick to 0RR." indicates that they plan to steer clear from such arguments in the future. -- ToE 19:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To repeat what I've said above, that statement is not a clear commitment to abide by the guidelines. Count Iblis needs to refrain from posting anything which comes under our definition of medical advice, not his definition. I'll also add that Guy Macon's question and Count Iblis' talkpage answer do not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines. What took us to ANI last year was Count Iblis' recommendation of medication in response to a question. We need to be sure that he doesn't intend to do that sort of thing again. Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody investigate an ongoing dispute involving Boaxy (talk)? This user is once again engaging in

• They were blocked for edit warring and then for personal attacks. They claim to be done with Wikipedia. Either way, I'll just go with support topic ban on Pizzicato Five since they've been disrupting that for long enough, even though this discussion never made much progress. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:

1. Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from making any edit in any non-talk namespace related to biomedical or public health content, or any other topic within the scope of
   WP:MEDRS
   , broadly construed.
2. Wikicology is indefinitely topic-banned from uploading any images or other non-text media to the English Wikipedia. In addition, he is indefinitely topic-banned from using on the English Wikipedia any image or other media he has uploaded to any other project, including Commons.
3. Wikicology is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
4. The community is encouraged to make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions.
5. The Committee will, on a best-effort basis, inform representatives of WMF-affiliated projects with which Wikicology has been involved of the outcome of this case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology closed

Got 49.148.94.128 and 49.148.19.197 for you, both now blocked--they seem persistent. Please see what you can do; I appreciate your time. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

49.144.0.0 - 49.151.255.255 is 'Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company' - a pretty large reseller, hopefully it will be more narrow if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The range required (/17) is too large and too busy, I think, but if they pop up with more addresses, we can have another look at it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...unless User:Drmies is wearing his CU hat while asking this, in which case he would already know if it's too busy and/or collateral-damage-inducing:) DMacks (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, Drmies was indeed wearing a CU hat, but still doesn't know much about ranges. Drmies has never made a rangeblock, and is unlikely to ever make one--which, I suspect, is why they're here asking for advice from the experts... Pity, by the way, but thanks for looking into it, Xaosflux. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about something. I noticed that when an admin protects a page, he/she has to manually add a lock template to it. Should the addition of the lock be automatically added when a page is protected? It seems tedious for the admin to do that. Etimena (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Most admins use Twinkle, which automated the adding of said lock template when applying protection settings to a page. Plus there are bots that clean up after us if we forget. Thanks for worrying about us though! ☺ · 
  ✉ 03:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I often forget to do it (I have to remember to use TW or other tools instead of standard interfaces, especially if I'm using several different Wikipedia sites simultaneously). At least there are some bot(-like editor)s who seem to clean up behind me pretty promptly. DMacks (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I am logged in to Wikipedia, the very top of the page has a line of text showing:

1. A very small image :: is this a user avatar? If so, how to change it?
2. My username
3. A link to "Your alerts"
4. A link to "Your messages"

In the last few days, #4 always shows "99+", in the English Wikipedia, and in the German Wikipedia (where I have only edited a few times ever), and in Wikidata, and not the correct number of my messages which I have not yet read at the time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is just a generic icon to let you know this is your name, just a picture of a person - not personally editable.

(4) This is due to cross-wiki alerts being made available, during the launch this number may be off. In Special:Preferences notifications section you can opt-out of cross-wiki notifications.

Does this answer everything you were looking for? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The avatar has been there a while. You can probably hide it using CSS if you don't like it. Your messages is because of the global rollout of cross-wiki alerts, as Xaos mentions. See

WP:VPT#Cross-wiki notifications - how to clear?. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1. On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.

Users

• No action is required on the part of any current user. User accounts that meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group on their next edit. User accounts that do not yet meet the criteria will be automatically updated with the new user group when they do qualify.
• The extendedconfirmed user group can be added by administrators to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria. A process for requesting this has been set up
  legitimate alternative accounts
  of users whose primary accounts do meet the criteria.

Current uses

• As of this announcement, this protection level is authorized for use in the following areas:
  • The
    Gamergate controversy article and its talk page.^[1]
  • The Brianna Wu article.^[2]
  • The Anita Sarkeesian article.^[3]
  • Selected articles pertaining to
    Indian castes and their talk pages.^[4]
  • Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the
    Arab-Israeli conflict.^[5]
• Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed prior to this motion passing shall remain in force unaffected.