Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253

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

---

The motion on Syrian civil war articles (see [1]) concludes that a number of Syrian conflict-related articles, which had been 1RR sanctioned under ARBPIA from March until July 2013 (including 3 blockings and 1 warning), in general do not fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes. However, since there is a general agreement that 1RR sanctions are required on relevant Syrian civil war articles due to edit-warring and sock-puppeting, those articles shall continue to fall under ARBPIA restriction for 30 days and in the meanwhile a discussion would be opened at WP:AN (this discussion) in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form; also any notifications and sanctions are meanwhile to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. I herewith propose the community to apply on alternative sanction tool (perhaps "Syrian civil war 1RR tool") on relevant Syrian civil war articles, in order to properly resolve the existing edit-warring problem, prevent confusion of editors and administrators regarding if and when the sanctions are relevant, and in a way to reduce automatic association of Syrian conflict with the generally unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Case summary

This request comes as a result of motion (see [2]), passed regarding Syrian civil war articles on 21 July, following an Arbcom request for amendment and clarification (see [3]). The issue was also previously discussed at Talk:Syrian civil war and recommended for Arbcom solution by an involved administrator (see [here]).

As an initiator of the original request for amendment and clarification, i would like to bring to community's attention the dilemma of problematic application of ARBPIA restriction on Syrian civil war articles, though acknowledging that 1RR restriction for some (or possibly all) Syrian civil war related articles is most probably required. As concluded by the Arbcom motion on July 21, there is no general relation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the expanded conflict between Israel and Arab League (ARBPIA sanctions) to the ongoing Syrian conflict, except perhaps some separate incidents. In addition:

• the several limited incidents (without fatalities) on Israeli-Syrian border during Quneitra Governorate fighting between rebels and government are a WP:UNDUE reason to extend 1RR over entire Syrian civil war topic area; moreover Syrian Ba'athist government is no longer a part of the Arab League, while its seat is supposed to be given to Syrian opposition, which is so far neutral to Israel.
• the use 1RR tool at Syrian civil war articles prior to the above described motion had not even distantly related in any way to the Israel-Palestine topic (see sanctioned cases [4], [5]). Some editors also pointed out that application of ARBPIA tool, while referring only to certain aspects of Syrian conflict, creates a great deal of confusion for both editors and administrators when and where 1RR application is relevant.
• the incidents of air or missile attacks, allegedly performed by Israel against Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian Ba'athist targets in Syria, may fall under the Iran-Israel proxy conflict and most probably not the generally preceding and different conflict between Israel and the Arab League.

It is hence required that ARBPIA sanctions would be replaced by other relevant sanctions tool on Syrian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put further comments and opinions here.

• Proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Syrian civil war is far from an Arab-Israeli conflict. Not even close. Currently, only the Syria article, the Syrian civil war article and its military infobox template are under ARBPIA restrictions. Most of the edit-warring in the Syria conflict topic has been fought over the military infobox and also the what the legitimate flag of Syria should be. Other articles related to the Syrian civil war are not under any sanctions, and it should stay that way. These other articles do not frequently experience edit wars. I support replacing ARBPIA with something more relevant, but oppose placing any more articles than the 3 I mentioned under 1RR restrictions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Given the on-wiki conflict over the real-life conflict, I see no reason to get rid of the sanctions. Yes, it shouldn't be under ARBPIA restrictions, but maintaining the 1RR etc probation is helpful. Let's change nothing except for the reason behind the restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Nyttend: this is an area of considerable controversy among Wikipedia editors, and the 1RR restrictions are necessary in this subject area in their own right. As such, they should be maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an editor that works in military history space in an (at the very least) equally contentious area (the Balkans in WWII), I thoroughly agree with Nyttend on this. Where 1RR has been applied under ARBMAC (for example), it has tended to reduce the amount of edit-warring and other nonsense. It encourages real contributors onto the talk page where these matters should be discussed, and deters trolls and other ne'er-do-well's. My point is that ARBMAC was originally only for Macedonia, but has now been applied to all Balkans-related articles, broadly defined. That, in my opinion, is a good thing, as it focuses editors on contributing, instead of edit-warring over minutiae. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not only do I completely agree with Nyttend, but I actually think the Syrian civil war should be placed under discretionary sanctions on its own merits. Do you know what will happen if there's nothing in place to prevent POV-pushing? There will be two distinctive groups trying to reshape the main article and all other related pages based on their perception of the confict:

1. Pro-Assad editors of every sort, whether they be patriotic Shiite Muslims or far-left conspiracy theorists. They will try to paint the dictator in an unduly positive light by mitigating the negative coverage of his regime, all the while emphasizing any and all incidents attributed to either the Free Syrian Army or the al-Nusra Front to make it seem as if the entire rebellion is an Islamist insurgency backed by Western governments.
2. Anti-Assad editors who reject the very notion that significant atrocities have also been committed by the rebels (particularly the al-Nusra Front), and will work to sweep any mention of terrorism against the regime under the rug.

There is general consensus among independent observers that both sides have committed war crimes, but that the Assad regime's offences far eclipse those of the rebels. Nevertheless, we must avoid giving undue weight to either side. It needs to be made clear that Assad loyalists are behind most of the abuses, but their opponents have also staged attacks against security and civilian targets. The last time I visited the article, this was already achieved. Allowing either of the aforementioned groups free reign over pages related to the civil war will jeopardize our efforts to cover the topic in an impartial manner. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fist, I'm opposed to shoehorning conduct into a policy that doesn't fit. Outside the Isreal related articles, its clearly outside ARBPIA, and the sanctions do not apply. As a practical matter, by the time we reach consensus on that, we could have already reached consensus on sanctions generally. The ARBPIA sanction regime is particularly aggressive, in that, in addition to the imposition of discretionary sanctions, it applies a blanket 1rr rule to the entire topic area, . I think standard community imposed discretionary sanctions would be more appropriate, which could of course involve revert restrictions on certain articles if required. Monty₈₄₅ 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support ongoing 1RR and discretionary sanctions as a community sanction in Syria-related articles, for the forseeable future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I would like to ask a closure for this amendment request, since involved parties have already expressed opinions and the 30 day-period of temporal sanctions (resulted by motion on July 21 [6]) is about to finish.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Temporary sanctions are due to be in tact until 20 August, an administrator is requested to close this case.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Future timestamp: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In the meanwhile the article 2013 Ghouta attacks was completely blocked for non-admin editors due to edit-warring [7]. I would like to repeat my request to finalize this amendment request and determine a constructive policy for Syrian civil war topic articles.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2

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

For the information of the administrators, pursuant to the unanimous determination of the three-administrator panel convened to close the Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning move request, the initial move of the article to "Chelsea Manning" has been reverted, returning the article to the original title, "Bradley Manning". This move is without prejudice to a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days from the date of this determination, and without prejudice to immediate proposals to move the page to a compromise title such as "Private Manning" or "Bradley (Chelsea) Manning". This closure is likely to lead to further controversy, and the situation should be carefully monitored. bd2412 T 04:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits to remove "Chelsea" have already begun, as has an edit war over including the name "Chelsea" in the lede sentence. This was the utterly predictable result of a close that amounted to !vote counting and which failed (IMO) to actually deal with the policy questions that were involved in the discussion. BD2412 is correct that more controversy is ahead. EdChem (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

While the outcome is not what I would have preferred, ultimately whatever happened a lot of people were not going to be happy and it was going to continue to lead to disputes so thanks to the 3 admins involved for their time and willingness to deal with such a contentious and long discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say that this is something that PC2 was made for, except for the fact that administrators have been warring in there as well, at times. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• BD2412, I'm curious about your order, in the finding, that a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" may not be initiated less than thirty days from the date of this determination. Is it usual for closers of move discussions to make such orders? Sorry, I've only followed a couple of these (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Santorum (neologism) and I don't recall such an order being attached to those - though I may have forgotten. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It has been done before and is generally accepted amongst the community as a drama-preventative measure. But it's not based in policy or authority.--v/r - TP 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It's the advice of three admins, and fair warning they (and others) might well look at something earlier as disruptive. Although part of the closing rationale is incomprehensible (namely "Competing examples were provided of some reliable sources changing their usage, while some retained their previous usage. The change that did occur was not sufficient to persuade the majority of editors, including some who indicated that their minds could be changed by sufficient evidence of changed usage." How did they reach that conclusion since the Associated Press and New York Times did not announce until the 27th?) But regardless, it was reasoned if not flawless work. If anyone wants them to clarify, under ADMINACT, those admins will, no doubt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I have just answered this on my talk page, where I have suggested that the specific moratorium imposed is common sense, and done for good reasons. Revisiting this issue after a relatively short period was contemplated by a number of editors who supported reverting the title. In this case, a thirty day moratorium is as much for the benefit of those who would like to see the page moved back to "Chelsea Manning" as it is for anyone else. Undoubtedly, many would like to immediately turn around and propose the move again, but such an attempt may prove to be disastrous for the proposer, as emotions from the previous discussion are still running raw. In thirty days, there is more likely to be substantial evidence with which the proposers can build a WP:COMMONNAME case sufficient to achieve a clear consensus in favor of the proposed move. There is also an opportunity in that time to seek adjustments to the relevant policies in order to clarify the appropriateness of a title change under these circumstances. Note also that if the panel had not included that thirty day provision, it is entirely possible that a move request made after that period of time would have been dismissed by detractors as being too soon. With the thirty day provision, it is clear that a new proposal brought at that point is permissible. bd2412 T 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Who were the three closing admins? NE Ent 12:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • User:BOZ and User:Kww.--v/r - TP 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Admin Edit request Per the "admin accountability" thing the names of the panel should be on Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request. NE Ent 13:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I have asked the other involved admins to sign the decision. User:Kww has done so, on the subpage. I'm sure User:BOZ will, when he next logs on. bd2412 T 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Obviously I agree with the outcome, the consensus of the RM participants was measured correctly, and emotive arguments were rightly rejected. One thing that may be a concern going forward though are the attempts to undercut and subvert that decision as much as possible. The article is now titled "Bradley Manning", but we can't have the lead reflect that, can't have the infobox reflect that (currently it sits at a compromise of "Chelsea (Bradley) Manning", though even that is under fire by Josh Gorand at the moment. Ther eis also the issue of my move request at Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage. I really don't see the sense in having disparate article titles, but so far the RM is seeing several appeal to emotion types of arguments, the type that were explicitly rejected by point 6 of the big RM close. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Josh isn't a concern, really. If he was really the policy enforcer that he claims, he'd have attempted to move it back to Chelsea citing WP:BLP at this point and would've earned himself a block. So we can just ignore him. The rest of the article can reflect Chelsea. The discussion was about the article's title.--v/r - TP 14:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any announcements or documentation related to the sudden appearance of article feedback settings on the protection form? It appears to add an extra log action (something like "Changed visibility of the article feedback tool on "Some article" ([Visibility=Disable for all users] (indefinite))" or "Changed visibility of the article feedback tool on "Some article" ‎[articlefeedbackv5=aft-noone] (indefinite)") when protecting a page. From what I can tell, it looks like "disabled" is already the status quo, so it seems a little confusing to have a log entry for that when nothing has actually been changed. (I've never had much use for article feedback, so it's possible that my understanding of the situation is incorrect.) --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5#Imposing article protection causes an unnecessary log event regarding AFT. The problem is (a) there is an unnecessary log event each time an admin protects an article, (b) there is an unwanted random change of the visibility of AFT. If the visibility of AFT is already on, the admin might unknowingly turn it off. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There's an "enable feedback" link in the toolbox links and on the article feedback subpage. This appears to be removed on most occasions when a page has been protected (or unprotected), usually (but not always) with an additional log entry. Peter James (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This message is to inform the readers of this noticeboard that there is an on-going RfC on WP:VPP#Advertising userboxes on categories which the userbox adds the user to. that I think you all may be interested in. Technical 13 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

According to CampusReform, FemTechNet is coordinating an online course with 15 participating universities, part of which is called "Storming Wikipedia" and involves writing "feminist perspective" into Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure how accurate it is, nor do I have a course syllabus that can prove what the blog post says, but it may be wise to keep an eye on gender-related articles to watch out for meat puppets. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 09:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'd hop on over to WT:WikiProject Feminism, you'd see that several veteran editors in the wikiproject are helping coordinate this project. By most accounts, it seems to be a good-faith effort at getting broader coverage of feminism-related events, and to bring well-sourced feminist scholarship to Wikipedia. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's all it is then I have no problems with it. We just need to be careful to maintain NPOV and wary of off-wiki collaboration. From the linked article it smelled a lot like a meat puppet campaign; I'm relieved that it is not and that experienced editors are supervising. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 09:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have previously brought my administrative actions on this article for review in this forum. My reaction is that there was no consensus that my actions were incorrect. Since that time, I've been trying very hard to move the involved editors to discuss the policy issues. At the same time I've been removing BLP violations from the talk page itself. Those removals have met the most resistance because many editors - wrongly in my view - believe that the issues can't be discussed without repeating the BLP-violating allegations. I have tried to keep my actions as consistent as possible, including most recently removing User:Jimbo Wales's addition to the talk page.

If there is a clear consensus, particularly from other administrators, that some or all of my administrative actions have been unjustifiable, I will abide by that consensus. If anyone thinks I'm enjoying this, they're dead wrong. It's a royal pain in the ass. However, unless and until that happens, I will continue to act administratively as I see fit.

I'm bringing it up again mainly because of the spill-over into so many other places on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The allegations are all over every Indian newspaper and (300) police are actively looking to question the person being charged. For a parallel case I suggest you look at the history of the Rolf Harris article, where mentions of the allegations were there long before he was formally charged. It is completely not a WP:BLP violation [15] and that you stealthy removed my edits without even informing me is rather annoying. There is absolutely nothing in the BLP policy against mentioning these accusations and proposing text around them.

What's even worse is that you haven't tried to justify anywhere why it's a BLP violation, but are rather repeating a mantra that it is. A quick google search should show any reasonable person that covering this is not a BLP violation: [16]. This is an incident, it should be at ANI. Jimbo Wales addition to the talk page was to list some reliable sources: [17] yet this was also removed as a BLP violation by Bbb23. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than move the discussion to ANI, I've left a small comment there to attract people over so this can be resolved quickly (considering the time sensitive nature of the coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also like to note as far as I can tell, Bbb23 has been making changes to the article over about 7 days, and then looked the article in place and reverted to his preferred version. I think its preferable if an admin who locks an article is not one who has been editing said article ... IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie on this one (but obviously I would). I have attempted to further the conversation there by posting exact quotes without editorialization from a variety of reliable sources, along with information to explain the nature of the sources - these are simple factual quotes from the largest non-tabloid newspapers and television networks in India about allegations that are clearly of encyclopedic interest. There is zero policy rationale for censoring discussion of what the article should say about these allegations, and furthermore Bbb23 has not even remotely attempted to justify his actions. I hope others will revert because I'd rather not do it myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have never seen such a bunch of ill-founded accusations by experienced editors since I've become an admin. Twice I've taken this issue here for review. And twice there's been no consensus that my administrative actions have been inappropriate. As for the allegation that I haven't justified my actions, that's pathetic. I've done so over and over again. Editors may not agree, but I certainly haven't just stated conclusions without support for them. To accuse me of stealth is absurd. I have many faults, but sneakiness is not one of them. I've been as up front as I know how to be and as consistent as I know how to be. And now I have Jimbo telling me I know nothing about BLP and User:Crisco 1492 accusing me of edit warring. Ridiculous and offensive. If that's the way it's going to be - with virtually no attention to proper procedure - then I'm not going to continue trying to protect the article or the talk page, even if some think that's what should be done. As I said before, I'm not enjoying this one little bit. So, I intend to unlock the article and cease any involvement in the article or talk page. Knock yourselves out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you call your (at least) five reverts then, if not edit warring, particularly if consensus (a policy) is against you? That discussion is going to ANI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I, too, would like an explanation for exactly how you thought that removing my exact quotes from reliable sources was in any way consistent with policy. It is incumbent on you as an administrator that you be able to justify and explain your actions with reference to policy. This will be difficult, since this was merely aggressive and completely and totally unsupported by policy in every respect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is the policy which is creating confusion, not Bbb23: In addition to what I have told in Jimbo Wales' talk page, WP:BLPCRIME has a set of instructions on BLP crime, and right after that at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply it is told, that BLP are applicable in talk page too. It is misleading. Since it means, one needs to follow the same guidelines in the talk page too which were instructed for article space. It should be clearly written that: editors may post reliable sources in talk page to discuss on the issue. But, the aim of posting such references should be attempt to improve the article and not to make fun of the subject or to defame him. Any irrelevant and unnecessary comment or references will be removed (so and so). --Tito☸Dutta 00:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no confusion in policy. WP:BLPCRIME does not say, or even suggest, that discussion of exact quotes from reliable sources can be removed from talk pages. Bbb23 has indicated that he lost his cool and asks to be left alone for a while to calm down. That's what I recommend. If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I will respect your judgment to allow a "cool down" period; however, I independently already started a subthread below, "#Involved admin should resign at Asaram" after investigating the actions of Bbb23 wp:INVOLVED with deleting 3 sections (w/o prior consensus) and later full-protecting the article, then double-deleting talk-page sources, as evidenced in subthread. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I do agree that there is no such indication or suggestion, and I am one of the editors who were debating with Bbb23 over this. But, please note, when we were saying the same thing last week (BBb23 came here to have his admin acts reviewed by others), we did not get a single support, actually editors endorsed Bbb23's acts. This is surprising. --Tito☸Dutta 00:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources that are here now where not the sources there last week. An admin should recognise when something has moved on. That no consensus you cite is just exactly the same people as are commenting here now. I'm not sure what you think that is meant to show, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Jimbo Wales: Well, disagreeing with Jimbo isn't cause for desysopping. Threatening to have an admin's bit removed because he removed some of your comments from a talk page comes off poorly, to be honest. I'm not defending Bbb23's actions in this case, but it's clearly a good-faith dispute in which he's trying to err on the side of BLP compliance--that's not at all cause for de-adminning. Every admin makes mistakes, so calling for desysopping over one dispute is inappropriate. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Jimbo Wales: Do you really believe that removing the sysop bit from Bbb23 will change anything? This is one of the attitudes that make people believe that being a sysop is some kind of trophy or high position rather than a responsibility. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• While there does seem to be consensus now that posting those quotes is fine, it seems that Bbb23was trying to uphold BLP policy. That is one of our most serious policies, and it is a major exception to the 3RR; possible error in upholding BLP in one case should not be grounds for desysopping, particularly since Bbb has now disengaged from the article. We do not want to institute a chilling effect on admins enforcing BLP. LadyofShalott 01:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anything can have chilling effect on majority of admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's perfectly possible to read our BLP policy in a way that makes the removal of Jimbo's comments from the talk page acceptable, even proper. If anyone thinks that Bbb was too heavy-handed, you may say so, but calling for an apology and his head on a platter is too much. Protecting BLPs and upholding the spirit and the letter of the relevant policy is one of the most important duties an admin can take up, and many of us are not prepared to go as far as necessary, or as far as they think is right. In the meantime, he has pulled away from the article, so a block would be just punitive. And we don't, of course, do punitive blocks. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Drmies. Andreas JN466 06:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm not looking for an apology. I'm looking for a recognition that what he did was incorrect and is not in BLP, so that this silent deleting of BLP conforming talk page comments doesn't repeat itself. As an aside, what BLPCRIME says is that 1. Innocent until proven guilty 2. If the person is unknown consider not mentioning it. Nowhere does it justify removing links to high quality sources about a famous person who is the subject of lots of media attention, nor neutrally written text on the talk page which are based on said reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not be looking for an apology, but Jimbo is, and presumably that's what Drmies was referring to:"If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed".[18] Calling for an apology for a good faith disagreement between admins about how to read an (on this point) not very clear policy is pathetic. Please cool down, Jimbo. Well, calling for "apologies-or-else" is pathetic at all times IMO (see WP:CGTW point 16), but particularly in such a case. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC).

Agreed. Disagreeing with Jimbo is not grounds for sanctions, not is Exploding Wales a recognized method of desysopping. I don't personally think the material removed violates BLP, but I can see how BLP could be interpreted that way. If we err, it should be on the side of caution. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 10:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's put the apologies stuff to one side and focus on the specific issue, which is to stop this repeating itself at some future juncture with a different article due to this misinterpretation of BLP. To move forward, that requires a recognition that this was in fact an overzealous action, and that it shouldn't be repeated. Also, good faith contributions from editors should never be silently deleted, no matter the circumstances. If there is an inadvertent BLP violation it should be deleted and then the person should be informed with precise reasons for why (and by this I mean beyond per WP:BLP or something). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have followed the article since August 23, and it did contain a lot of egregious nonsense with pile-on BLP-violating links to accusations posted on the article and its talk page. The subject of the article is now facing legal processes so it is possible to work on BLP-compliant additions to the article. It is most unfortunate that those arriving late have not understood its background. The best way to guarantee future BLP violations in a wide range of articles is to abuse an admin who has been doing the thankless work of cleaning out the stable. Bbb23 deserves thanks, not this pointless drama. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it did contain egregious stuff back in the 23rd when bbb23 first started editing the article, but that doesn't excuse deleting BLP conforming material a week later from the talk pages. If the cleanup strays into silently removing good faith edits which are not BLP issues then there is a serious problem. He stopped the coverage of a major controversy in an article during a period where approximately 80k people where looking for factual concise information on the topic and disrupted any attempt at talking about the issue. He edited the article multiple times, and then locked in his favourite version so that the very widely covered allegations etc had no coverage at all. Then Bbb23 censored every attempt to discuss the issue and refused and continues to refuse to justify his actions. This overzealousness should never be commended. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie, surely you know that a BLP violation is a BLP violation no matter where it is placed--article space, talk page, it doesn't matter. If an admin thinks something is a BLP violation they have the moral duty to remove it; User:Jimbo Wales could not disagree with this, I think. Now, it seems clear to me that you have a bone to pick with Bbb; I don't know why, I don't know what you two have been doing recently, but I do know that talk such as "'he' locked in his favourite version" is just tendentious language, pure rhetoric, and while I understand why you're doing it--you want Bbb censured--you know as well as I do, and I think everyone with a calm mind knows it too, that it's just hatespeak for "he protected a version he believed to be BLP-compliant". BTW, I don't see where Bbb refuses anything, though I do see that maybe you are the one who is here to right some wrong.

User:Johnuniq, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I'm baffled that Jimbo Wales would take position here, and that he would take the position he did. Admins have a shitty job already; we don't often enough have the pleasure of simply blocking someone for the hell of it (this one's for you, User:Eric Corbett, because I love you and I'd make you admin in a heartbeat), and when we do act and take a position, a controversial one, you get shat on by the dramah regulars (and by the boss!) or are otherwise prevented from taking real action. Crisco, my friend, you know how that feels--see User_talk:Drmies#Images.

Now, I have a few words of my well-known fatherly advice to share with Bbb, in the privacy of his talk page, but fo shizzle, get off his back. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have no bone to pick with Bbb23 and I think his actions are generally good as far as I am aware of them (I dislike this tactic that people that make a specific complaint about a specific incident are maligned as having some unspecified grudge, why does WP:AGF not extend to me, but do for the actions of an admin?). I can't think of any negative interaction we have had. " BTW, I don't see where Bbb refuses anything", Bbb23 was asked in several places to provide a policy based reason but did not do so (saying per WP:BLP is not a policy based reason) [19][20]. Nowhere was it clarified why edits were viewed as BLP violations. The onus is on admins to explain and justify their actions when asked. This doesn't make Bbb23 a bad contributor, this is merely things from the incident for Bbb23 to bear in mind and to improve from as a result, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh lord, another Jimbo eruption. Either way, Jimbo's statement that he was going to "recommend" that Bbb23 be desysoped was ill-advised. I am aware that policies do not have teeth when applied to Jimbo, but what he wrote is really cringeworthy, a "Do you know who I am?" moment. I am not quite sure what avenue or channel Jimbo contemplated using, but if it exists, I'm sure it is not there for the purpose of settling petty personal grievances.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of rational discussion can we put aside demands that some have made for desysopping and focus on the issue, which can be resolved here. I would have suggested that the idea of desysopping is a straw man, but then from the subtopic "Involved admin should resign at Asaram", it seems there are people under all the straw. I think 99% of us can agree that we aren't talking about desysopping or anything of the sort, but some recognition that silently deleting good faith contributions in the face of massive coverage of an issue without discussion or subsequent justification is not desirable and that per WP:BLP isn't a get out of jail free card. i.e it should be explicitly shown why BLP is applicable when asked, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Admin here. After a brief look at the history of this issue, I think your actions may have been an error. However, I'm something of a BLP hardliner (I had a part in the summary deletions of unsourced BLPs a few years back) so I'm a strong believer in the idea that if we err, we should err on the side of protecting the BLP subjects. So I think you may have done the wrong thing for the right reasons. Also, re:above, I second the notion that disagreeing with the Godking is not grounds for desysopping. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 09:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Bbb23 was quite wrong in gauging the whole situation. From the fact that numerous IPs, new users took efforts to come to talk pages and put edit requests to get the news bit inside the article, one should have reconsidered their stance and given a second thought about it all. Something that was found so important by so many new editors could very well be a big issue off-wiki. Majority, if not all, editors were requesting to write that the subject was accused of a crime and not that he was a criminal and these numbers spoke of how the situation fell under WP:WELLKNOWN. I understand that Bbb23's stance for being away from the radiations of Indian media was fair enough at the start but that should have changed. Now apologizing or desysoping is hardly a curative measure but learning to listen from fellow editors would be good enough for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• You know, Wikipedia's rules and the administrators who enforce them should be so tight and organized by now that there shouldn't even be debate over what just happened here. The fact that they aren't shows that not only is Jimbo's legacy with WP is as an incompetent leader, but that WP's administration has never been able to get its act together to make its decisions and actions in cases like this so consistent that arguments are over before they even begin. WP is broken, and there is no fixing it. If WP's rules were enforced consistently, then Jimbo would have known what he can and can't do. If WP's administration was consistent and competent in its actions, then the rules and consequences for breaking them would be clear. You all lose. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, enforcing BLP is important. But it's a very big hammer, and it's incumbent upon the wielder of it to get it right. BLP does not override consensus, it just allows for preliminary enforcement while consensus is still being gauged. It doesn't allow continued enforcement if consensus does form and it's against that. Rather, BLP, like all our other policies, is determined and enforced by consensus. I don't care that it's Jimbo. When any long-term, good-faith editor disagrees with the summary actions you're taking under BLP, or especially when many do, it's time to step back and take a close look at whether you have consensus to do that. Bbb is finally doing that, but that should've been done without this blowup. I'm not saying that Bbb did it here, but BLP is far too often used as a "trump card" in legitimate content disputes where well-sourced material is available. We ought to sanction misuse of BLP as harshly as violations of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thus, the period of admins not being willing to enforce BLP begins because they will be too afraid of whether or not them being wrong will make them lose their bit. One by one, we will lose admins who care about BLP, and be left with those who are too worried about their adminship. Makes total sense. Not. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Charmlet, I'm afraid that makes no sense. Admins, like all of us, make errors sometimes. If we desysopped every admin who made an error, we'd have very few admins, if any at all. What we do desysop and otherwise sanction for is not editors/admins making decisions that turn out not to gain consensus. That happens. When sanctions are called for is when a lot of editors in good faith are disagreeing with you, and you keep plowing ahead anyway, attempting to steamroll them. That's not acceptable in any case, be it a question of NPOV, BLP, OR, civility, attacks, inappropriate use of reverts/protection/blocking.... It doesn't matter. When a lot of people start in good faith to disagree with you, it's time to stop, engage with them, and determine if your actions have consensus. If you don't do that, you're guilty of far more than an error—you're behaving dismissively and disrespectfully toward your colleagues. That is when sanctions are generally required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A majority of people saying one thing does not make it right. That's an argumentum ad populum. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And hence, it's not always a flat majority. But with BLP issues, I've sometimes seen a small minority using it to overrule a large majority making policy-based arguments, when the underlying dispute is a regular old content dispute, and "BLP" gets played as a trump card. That's really not acceptable either, is it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reviewing the article and talk history, there was a valid argument by several that the critcism section was over weighted. I don't know what led Bbb23 to start participating in the article, but early on he was removing unreferenced accusations made by a few registered and nonregistered editors...this is in keeping with BLP[21]. Reliable sources were later added by editors including Jimbo which Bbb23 continued to remove. At some point, the BLP enforcement actions became too severe and not based in policy. I noticed in two cases where Jimbo added reliable sources to the talkpage, Bbb23 removed them within minutes, which indicates to me that Bbb23 didn't even bother to click the links to determine the veracity of the sources. Bbb23 may have simply gotten into a pattern of BLP enforcement where he continued to believe that the specific details of the accusations were BLP violations. A somewhat similar situation happened on an article on my watchlist...several editors were adding information to an article that wasn't referenced due to recentism and I removed it based on a lack of references. But within 24 hours I was able to independently confirm the information so I added it back myself and cited it. Jimbo isn't perfect, but I trust that if he's adding referenced material to a talkpage it deserves some scrutiny before it is immediately removed repeatedly.--MONGO 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• I've seen similar "BLP fundamentalist" interpretations of policy - for example, see Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 2 and Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3. We need to rule out the abuse of BLP to remove well sourced information, per WP:WELLKNOWN - since it's already a policy, admins acting this way may need to be chafed, but we could also make it clearer. We have a situation where sometimes the well-connected editors decide to rag on somebody (Qworty, an author still identified in the lede as mostly known for Wikipedia edits) and sometimes they shield them from all harm (even when it isn't harm). That arbitrariness needs to be reduced, somehow. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment from uninvolved non-admin: It's worth noting for the record that the aforementioned incident at Talk:Johnny Weir will not be completely visible on the archived pages because, as I recall, some of it was removed or even suppressed (improperly, imo) as part of the most egregious misapplication of WP:BLP I've ever seen. This case, and this admin, aren't comparable: here, Bbb23 was acting to protect a BLP subject from clear and demonstrable harm, made no chilling threats, and backed off (eventually) when challenged. It also might be noted that some of the publications used as sources in the Bapu article, while nominally reliable, do not have a stellar reputation for impartiality in their news reporting. While I have lately thought that Bbb23 may have been a trifle overzealous in enforcing WP:BLP elsewhere, I think the problem is with the policy and the community, not with this admin, and calls for blocking or desysopping are quite simply overreactions (and unseemly ones at that, especially on the part of Jimbo). In the short term, Bbb23—and others—should review WP:BLP vis-à-vis what it does and doesn't prohibit (and also WP:RS for what it says about certain blogs). Over the long haul, the community will have to deal with overhauling WP:BLP, a policy that often fails to protect innocent article subjects from damaging falsehoods while whitewashing the reputation of scoundrels more thoroughly than any PR agent could hope for. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have subdivided this discussion into 2 subthreads, to separate the areas of focus: "#Recommendations on BLP policy from Asaram" & "#Involved admin should resign at Asaram". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Several users have commented above with suggestions to improve wp:BLP policies. Discuss below, for referal to wp:VPP policy pump or related. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strengthen WP:WELLKNOWN. As currently written, the first "example" appears to invite questions of whether something is "important for the article", which is a very subjective decision for some people. It uses the criterion of "public figure", which is also very hard to define. I think that any fact reported in two independent newspapers (as a double check, perhaps specify from widely separated geographic locations) should pass WELLKNOWN and the policy should no longer be an issue for it. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let the subject have his say. This is a personal preference of mine that I think might actually be worth saying this in the policy. If a subject has gone to the news media and given them a quote or statement presenting his side of the story, we should never use BLP as a justification to leave it out. We're not here to put a muzzle on a subject "for his own good". (I think this usually comes up in the case of racial extremists, but probably elsewhere as well) We should also go out of our way to encourage responses to criminal charges and other allegations as a way of ensuring article balance. I cringe when I read someone saying that "of course he's going to deny it" in regard to some charge. It's not just pro forma - we should seriously consider the subject's statement as one of the valid perspectives the article should summarize. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not like the idea of making WP:WELLKNOWN completely mechanical. One publication on the front page of NYT obviously means much much more than twenty publications in supermarket newspapers and zynes.
  • I like the idea of giving subjects of media controversy their say. Just I am not sure what to do if their defense consists of attacks on the other party. Suppose an alleged perpetrator of a rape claims that his victim was a prostitute giving a juicy examples of her alleged sexual behavior. Should we put those allegations verbatim? Tone them down but provide reference? Would it be fair to the victim of an alleged rape?
  • I think we need two more changes to BLP:
  • Blogs, opinion pages, personal sites - any self published sources that does not go through an independent fact-checking nor peer review should not be used as a source for negative information about living people. Period. No exemptions for "news columns presented as blogs". Blogs can be used only as sources of attributed opinions of notable bloggers.
  • Talk pages have much more relaxed BLP rules for discussion over article contents than the articles themselves. Any web-sources that are higher in search engine results than our talk pages should be allowed during discussions. Otherwise we are bound to go in circles: editor A in good faith believes that info about a BLP is well enough sourced and discusses it on talk page, editor B believes that the sources are not reliable enough and instead of discussion removes A's entry from the talk page. Editor A believes that his sources are well enough consider actions of B as vanadalism and restores them, editor B protects BLP and removes them again, etc... The only way to prevent this is to allow borderline cases to be kept on the talk pages during discussion of their reliability. Talk pages are way more obscure than the articles, all entries in them are attributed opinions of particular editors unlike the article presented as objective truth. In most cases discussion on talk pages does not harm the subjects of the articles. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, why do you suggest WP:RFCU when you closed this thread? No one is accusing anyone of sock-puppeting in this. Did you intent to say WP:RFC/U? Edison (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, just a typo. Fixed. Black Kite (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I just wish to point out that Bbb23 never took the "break" that he promised and is widely cited by many, which is evident from his contribution history.[22]--Crème3.14159 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The only "break" I see mentioned is the Bbb says they would unlock the page - an action that (s)he undertook four minutes after posting that comment - and disengage from the article and its talk page - which (s)he has followed precisely since making that comment. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 13:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I still think BLP policy should be enforced at the Asaram Bapu, and currently some editors are trying to include wild claims into said article. Can someone please fully protect it to prevent the rather serious BLP violations that are going on? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you find that rather serious BLP violations are going on. It is my impression that the article is looking pretty good, and the talk page is courteous and shows cooperation. I can believe that things could get worse, considering that both political and religious issues are involved in the article, but for now it seems just fine to me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• The article is a much better condition than what it was a couple of days ago. We may need full protection if the previous editors return (for these editors Bbb23 had to re-protect the article within few hours). --Tito☸Dutta 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering I removed, yesterday, an accusation that he murdered someone I don't agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the section was added by an editor that has been barred from further edits for a few days and deleted by you on Sept. 2 without further difficulties, I don't agree with your suggestion that we are having article problems. Gandydancer (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No admin tools or privileges needed, but probably more admins than nonadmins know how to help me. The proposal about the article incubator has been closed, so it should be removed from {{cent}} — I can do that, but I don't have time to figure out the archiving. Could someone do both removal and archiving? Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done 64.40.54.117 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have initiated an RFC at WP:VPP#Proposal to change the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted that may be of interest to regulars here, widespread community input would be appreciated. Monty₈₄₅ 22:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've come across a contributor - Sankarveeraiyan (talk · contribs) that I believe may have an intractable English/Wikipedia competence issue. I noticed the page மேலப்பெருமழை, and tagged it with the {{notenglish}} tag, which the user changed to {{Tamil}}. This is the second time they have done this today. I've posted on their talk page, but since they have contributed solely in Tamil, I am afraid that the language barrier may prevent talk page messages from getting through. If anyone can write in Tamil, I would appreciate some help in communicating with them. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

To find a translator, you can try Wikipedia:Translators available#Tamil-to-English or Category:User_ta-N or Category:User_ta. Or you can try posting in English on the http://ta.wikipedia.org village pump.

I'm not an admin. But my hunch is that you don't need to bother finding a translator. The same user has created an identically-named page on the Tamil Wikipedia: see their contributions there. Just tell the Tamil user (in English) to stop posting non-English articles, and if they keep on doing so, block them. Once they are blocked, they will go back to the Tamil Wikipedia and resume contributing there instead of here.

[Edit: If it were me, I might start with {{uw-english}} plus {{uw-notenglish}} plus {{uw-create1}}. If that didn't help, I'd next jump straight to {{uw-create4}}. If that still didn't help, I'd request a block here or at WP:AIV. It might be possible to get the article deleted using CSD A2. Note that Twinkle provides a nice GUI which makes deletion tagging, plus user warning and reporting, easier: it's well worth using.]

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, since it does indeed exist on the Tamil Wikipedia, and left a note for the editor; they may well have created it here in error, that happens surprisingly often. However, nobody made a section at WP:Pages needing translation into English, so potential translators were not alerted. Please remember that next time when applying the not English template. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the template put it where it needs to go. I'll take a look at the template wording and see if it can be a bit more explicit. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There was someone who translated the uw-english notes to multiple languages and placed them as templates somewhere, I translated one of the notes to Tamil for them, I can't seem to find it, but those translations might be helpful in the future. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Found it. {{Contrib-ta1}}, the category has a list of templates in many languages. User:Jarkeld created these if I'm not mistaken. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone rm * [[:Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television]] to [[:Category:Television series by Disney-ABC Domestic Television]] from WP:CFDW. At the time of nominating this for speedy renaming I didn't notice, that this rename was already discussed at a full CFD, and therefore it shouldn't be renamed speedily. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that a new self-declared single-purpose account, WF watcher (talk · contribs), has appeared with the declared purpose of "Keeping a watch on Wealthfront". Its sole contribution so far appears to be a series of allegations posted to Jimbo's user talk page [24]. It looks highly likely that this is a sockpuppet of an established user (whether in good standing or previously blocked). This doesn't really pass the smell test for me. What do others think? Prioryman (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Prioryman, this is not a brand new user by any stretch  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's almost certainly exactly who you might guess it to be, as his latest hobby seems to be looking for anyone who I may have ever met or known and then researching their business and personal interests and then searching for COI editing in order to confront me about it. I suppose the angle he's pushing is that I allegedly take a dim view of COI editing, but in fact allow my friends to do it at will. That's completely false, of course. (I also don't immediately lecture everyone I meet about COI editing!)

Having said all of that, I think all the edits should be examined carefully and most of them reverted as obviously promotional. But for obvious reasons I'm going to personally stay out of it, since in fact, it has nothing to do with me at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This user page bothers me somewhat. I feel that there is too much personal information on it, and things being the way they are I'm not 100% confident that it is autobiographical. However, I am loathe to just jump in and delete things from other people's user pages. Shortly after it was created I had noindexed it with the userpage template so that it would at least stay off the search engines, but now the user has deleted that template. Should I just leave it alone and walk away? Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I put the NOINDEX magic-underscore-thingy, which is perhaps less intrusive, on the user's page. That being said, Google already got to it. Assuming that everything stated there is true, the person would be in their early twenties, which means that a 'for your own good' deletion isn't neatly as likely as if the user were broadcasting that they were in their early teens. I'm not sure if this is a cry for help, or if it's someone confusing Wikipedia with a social networking site, but it is, if not irregular, certainly not common. That being said, people are free to say what they want about themselves, and I can think of plenty of users that have put more information about themselves on their user pages with little or no controversy. More clarity will come in time, as we will see if the user ever makes an edit outside of the user namespace or not. If it's the latter, I'd have no issue deleting the user page, or any other less controversial user page, per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it's the third-person voice of it that worries me the most, as most of that text rightly wouldn't survive 5 seconds unreferenced in a BLP. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Give it a few hours, and if nothing changes, I would say that deletion is in order. The user's last edit was less than an hour ago, so there's a chance that they could come back. Normally I would say wait a few days before making a NOTSOCIALNETWORK deletion, but this is a special circumstance. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how this is a special circumstance. NOINDEXing it handles the privacy concerns, so a hasty deletion would be simply BITEy. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. However, apparently someone disagreed with you, because they've oversighted the page and the deletion log entry. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No someone, someguy (left note on user talk page) NE Ent 02:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone had posted this as an article, it would be deleted immediately as a BLP violation. The fact that it is on a userpage makes no difference. The fact that the user who created the page claims to be its subject means only that we should be nice about it, not that we should allow the page to stand. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel compelled to voice an objection to all this. I don't know why the Oversight team feels they need to prevent people from identifying themselves as victims. You saidsome of the information on yours would be considered problematic if you turn out not to be the Jamie described there. I disagree. Saying that you were a victim of certain things, and that it had a negative effect on your mental health, is nothing to be ashamed of, and I struggle to see why it should ever be "considered problematic." Now, if you want to take a NOTSOCIALNETWORK stand, that's one thing, but I really don't think this merited OS. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at it from a different perspective: Was it actually Jamie who created the user and posted the info, or was this a well-disguised attack page? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a valid-enough argument, though I'm not sure I agree. But since when do we oversight attack pages? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have (much) of a problem with the deletion since the editor had no edits elsewhere. I don't recall seeing a name other than "Jamie," which isn't specific enough to make it a BLP. NE Ent 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it did contain a full name. But, once again, I don't see why OS was necessary. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221. I now have a better idea of how to properly handle these as I come across them. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on editing history and patterns, it is clear that User:Jamie926 and User:Morales91 are the same person. Although I would like to assume good faith, it's likely that User:Morales91 created this alternate account in order to avoid the scrutiny, for lack of a better word, brought about as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Morales91. The user has been wholly unresponsive to attempts to engage him/her in a meaningful discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• The BLP violations still exist in the history here. FYI. Rgrds. --64.85.217.102 (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Never mind, they were nuked just as I posted here. --64.85.217.102 (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking here in case I'm totally off-base - is it possible for one user to repeatedly remove another user's statement of withdrawal from a discussion? I'd previously opened a thread at ANI (WP:ANI#Topic ban for Esoglou), but after some discussion, have come to the conclusion that RFC/U would be a better venue, and closed the thread with a withdrawal of my request (as a close upon withdrawal seems entirely usual), explaining that RFC/U seemed like a better venue and that the thread was devolving into personal attacks (unsupported complaints, "bitchy," users who had been following me coming in to stand on a soapbox about unrelated issues, the user the topic ban was proposed for repeatedly ascribing my edits to my sexual orientation). User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reverted this close (and reverted it again when I closed again). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he can actually compel me to pursue the request for a topic ban (which he seems to want to do because most of the users who have commented are supporters of the misbehaving user, although some others did support a block/topic ban after the user repeatedly brought up my orientation). I think that if he has his own problems with Esoglou, he's obviously welcome to copy my diffs but should start a new thread, rather than trying to force me to see a request through that I've repeatedly stated I do not wish to pursue in that venue. Is this correct? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What, precisely, is your query? It looks from here that you ascribed the edits of an editor to their religious beliefs - which is quite likely equally culpable on your part as their improper comments about your sexual orientation were. When two are equally culpable, I wonder what the proper result ought be. Collect (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to promote a company or organization is not permitted whether or not one is personally affiliated with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the precedent is that if you have been involved with the discussion, which has seen substantial discussion from other editors, it is rather poor form to just close it saying that you are choosing to pursue an alternative route. Particularly as sanctions have started to be discussed. Preferably, you probably should have opened a subsequent section laying out that you are intending to pursue an RFC/U and would be incorporating diffs from the open ANI into it then asked an uninvolved admin to consider closing it up and redirecting it to RFC/U. I believe that you should let the topic ban discussion run its course and from that decide whether an RFC/U is worth the effort. It would probably be looked upon as a bit of a pile on though. Blackmane (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with Blackmane. While we do allow people to withdraw requests and sometimes this may allowing simply closing the request like if you're the only participant or if you're directed to somewhere else, it's important to differentiate between your request and a community discussion. For example, if a nominator withdraws an AFD when no one has commented yet, people with be happy if they do the needful and close the request. If a nominators tries to close an AFD they initiated because they changed their mind when most people are supporting delete, then this generally won't be acceptable. They can withdraw their comment, but the AFD should be closed as it normally would. Similarly here, while you are entitled to say you are withdrawing your request, if there has been a substanial amount of community discussion, that's now seperate from you request and you can't just shut it down. It may be someone will feel that nothing is likely to happen and nothing productive will come from it and close the discussion, but leave that for a neutral closer. Even if you believe it's resonable to close your request, once someone has reverted you should take that as a sign the other person disagrees and leave it at that. You are free to ignore the discussion from now although bear in mind this won't stop any possible sactions on you being discussed although a request for you to be notified if that starts to happen seems resonable (and of course it could be something will happen which will make your RFC/U moot). To put it in the terms you did, no one can compel you to pursue a topic ban, but you also can't compel others to stop discussing that or any other possibility having been made aware of problems by you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. What do you propose for allowing other users to continue discussing Esoglou's edits without disrupting any other administrative processes? (and preferably without serving as an open invitation for more personal attacks of the sort we've already seen) What I'm concerned about is that my decision not to engage further in the thread will be taken as evidence that the diffs did not show wrongdoing, when in fact the purpose of the RFC/U will be to explain them for people like those who have commented, who aren't familiar with the sources or subject matter. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Like Blackmane intimated above, withdrawing your proposal and closing the discussion are two distinct acts. Especially if the conversation ever discussed your own actions, it was probably improper for you to unilaterally close the discussion - essentially you were closing down a complaint lodged by other editors about your behaviour. So feel free to put a strike through your original complaint and add a note that you are pursuing the matter in an RFC/U, but closing down the entire discussion is bad form. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as I alluded to above, something that's an issue in the current discussion is that people are flinging accusations left and right but, because it's a thread about someone else's misbehavior, they evidently don't feel compelled to present any evidence to back up what they're saying (even when asked). A new thread might give them the opportunity to do things the right way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why Roscelese has not reverted their closure yet given the advice given above? NE Ent 01:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can come up with a solution here to the problems I mentioned above, so that when the discussion is re-opened, neither I nor other users will again be subjected to the personal attacks and other off-topic discussion that went on before the thread was closed. Hopefully we can find something that allows people to air their concerns without making ANI a forum for unspecified and vague grudges, slurs, or homophobic commentary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please block this user TheRedPenOfDoom, because this user added vandalism tags & edits, and this user deleted/deletes infobox, television box and references on every articles. i think this user TheRedPenOfDoom is crazy. Please check their Contributes Or their edits diff in New & Old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.224.180 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with those edits by TheRedPenOfDoom. Monty₈₄₅ 16:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is apparently a pretty wide range of articles about Indian television shows that have had little input and oversight from experienced editors and so the pages have long functioned as free fansite blogs. The conversion towards more encylcopedic articles and coverage of the topics will likely be painful for those who have long simply used Wikipedia to post whatever they want. As the editors are mostly very dynamic IPs, getting communications to them is difficult. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Was reading a few pages today and noticed that at Mafia state there is a 4 day old edit war going on. Think an admin should take a look. -- Moxy (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is already an open discussion regarding the article at ANI.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Continues to use talk page for spam after being blocked. Ginsuloft (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Re blocked without talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox. Ginsuloft (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding the Tea Party movement has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Resolved

 – for the moment, page is protected and both user warned for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As this users history shows, they keep editing a single article by removing content that is well sourced. They seem to object to the negative implication of the addition & so continuously remove it. They seek to legitimize their removal by mentioning IMO arguments that have no relevance to the Wikipedia policy that they claim to seek to uphold. I don't trust that they are objective editors regarding the article in any sense.Fotoriety (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've removed your edit from that article. That is extremely weak sourcing, the source only mentions her in passing and all it says is "A Korean official claimed she had used her title for personal gain." (emphasis mine). We don't write negative information about living people because a single source has a minor mention about a claim. You yourself should be afraid of a block. Please do not restore it, I'll be watchlisting the article and you'll be the one reported here if you do.--v/r - TP 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And read our policy on biographies of living people.--v/r - TP 18:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There is high backlog at WP:RFPP. Mops are needed there. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Will look and try to help. Thanks for the HU. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi'd one. Everything else looks taken care of already. Cheers. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• There's still a massive backlog, and it was far from sorted when this was marked as resolved... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing "resolved" tag - we've been doing them a bit randomly so there are a few still to do. I need to hop off now so anyone else is welcome. There are some which require some thought too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The page is caught up again as of now. Everyone please continue to monitor though, as the situation can change rapidly -- Diannaa (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Issue cleared -- Alexf^(talk) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A few days ago (about when some clearing bots went on strike), my Mark Blocked Users script stopped working. I've checked my monobook and see the script is there (from ru.wikipedia.org), but it is not working for me. The blocked users mark is very useful and a pain to work without. Anybody else sees this problem? I do not know who to contact for a resolution or fix. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm using NW's script (User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js), which also just imports the ru.wiki script, and I'm not having any problems. Try that instead? Or compare the way NW's page imports it to the way your page imports it (they seem to have slightly different syntax). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It is the same as I had already except mine had http;//ru.wikipedia.org... I replaced with yours and saved. It works now. Thanks! -- Alexf^(talk) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I had the Russian script to. All I did was remove the "http:" from the beginning so it was protocol independent.--v/r - TP 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The archive page is not displaying well. I notified the operator of User:VeblenBot, but he won't return until November. --George Ho (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am busy most of the time and have little time to respond. The problem is that the page is too large, so the software cuts it off. There is a "partial transclusion trick" that the GA people used to use to handle this, by editing the longest reviews so they do not transclude. But the bot is not set up to handle the problem, it merely lists all the pages in the appropriate category. If any enterprising person would like to replace the VeblenBot system for GA and Peer Review, I would be happy to turn this task over to them. I will not have time to add any significant functionality in the forseeable future. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We could use some nominations at WP:ITN/C. Have you recently updated an article about a current news event? If so, please nominate it for appearance on the home page. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to notify that you may want to indef softblock 185.15.59.201 and while you're at it, extend the block for 185.15.59.211 to an indef one. It's not me who's being bureaucratic, it's that the toolserver rules are rather strict and we don't want the helperbots to lose their account there. Thanks! Ginsuloft (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this.