Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{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 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

RFC on including DC Comics

(Initiated 153 days ago on 21 December 2023) Long past 'best before' date. - wolf 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 68 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 46 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 45 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 45 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]

Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 42 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 36 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 32 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	12	29	41
TfD	0	2	2
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	8	20	28
AfD	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 114 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 100 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:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 37 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]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 22 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 13 May 2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 May 2024)

Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted by editor BilledMammal on 21 May 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed indefinite topic ban for User:Memills from issues related to men's rights, broadly construed

@Memills: has been sanctioned no fewer than seven separate times under the existing community probation covering topics related to the men's rights movement. I think that some of his recent behavior demonstrates that he is either unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia's policies well enough to productively contribute in this topic area - ever. One rather telling diff can be found in a recent section of his talk page where he asserts that a reception section for a prominent, generally well-regarded author is balanced/NPOV because it contains one positive sourced statement and one negative sourced statement. People have been trying to explain what Wikipedia's conception of a neutral point of view is to Memills for years, and it's incredibly telling that after seven separate sanctions and dozens of good faith attempts to explain it (and other policies) to him, he still either cannot understand them or acts in willful ignorance.

Since Memills has previously repeatedly skirted his previous topic bans, I believe it is reasonable to automatically convert an indefinite topic ban in to a permanent site ban upon one violation. Memills has enough experience with sanctions to know what is meant by a topic ban; if he chooses to disregard his topic ban he does so not because he doesn't understand it but because he doesn't think anyone will enforce it.

A full log of the seven sanctions previously imposed by no fewer than four separate admins for violating the MRM probation can be found here.

Here is a collection of diffs of Memill's edits that I believe display his inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field:

With seven previous sanctions under the existing article probation and continued failure to follow or understand our content policies I don't see a reason why Memills should be allowed to continue to edit in this topic area, especially when he makes essentially no beneficial edits in the area. Describing an accepted academic field as "inbred" is a pretty solid sign that he is unable or unwilling to edit neutrally (especially when he does so on the talk page of a professor of that field,) and combined with the rest of his behavior demonstrates that there's really no point in letting him continue to edit in the broad field - all it does is waste the time of good faith editors. Keep in mind that these diffs are not a comprehensive evaluation of the issues in his recent edits, and don't touch at all on his seven previous sanctions, which included stuff like comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin has gotten a little too involved in an intellectual disagreement with me. He apparently thinks that disagreements, including the expression of statements of opinion on Talk pages, are a violation of WP policies. In contrast, expression of his own opinions on Talk pages, or the expression of opinions by others with whom he is in agreement, apparently pose no such problems for him...

The best Kevin can come up with in the list above pretty much amounts to a rant about my opinions. He whines that Memills "declares," "describes," "seemingly suggests," "appears to think," "demonstrates." Where are the violations? Er... there are no violations of WP policy to which he can refer.

This is really a case of WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY apparently in an effort to silence an editor with whom Kevin strongly disagrees (in violation of WP:CENSOR).

Uninvolved editors have previously noted Kevin's behavior toward me:

"...I do not agree with Kevin's treatment directed towards Memills. In this case I think Kevin is reaching, and looking for a reason to have Memills sanctioned, and to be honest it appears to be Battlegroundish behavior." --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Kyohyi at my talk page)

"...(note the) taunting [of memills] by Kevin Gorman... above in this section. --Pudeo' 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Pudeo at my talk page)

Kevin previously initiated an ANI against me here which was declined.

For the background of what is really behind this ANI -- a personal disagreement between two editors -- see the recent discussions between Kevin and myself at my Talk page. Kevin also inappropriately continued these discussions on article Talk pages here (see, in particular, the collapsed section) and here. In these discussions at article Talk pages, I asked Kevin repeatedly to take his off-topic comments and disagreements with me to my Talk page. Instead of doing so, he continued the off-topic personal attacks on me at these article Talk pages. An uninvolved editor eventually closed a discussion because it was off-topic. And, I finally had to tell Kevin that if he continued, I would no longer respond on on the article Talk page (but that I would be happy to do so either here or at my own Talk page).

I suggest that it is Kevin's WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY that, per WP:BOOMERANG, should be examined. Specifically, see previous ANIs against him by others with similar concerns here and here Memills (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Memills has gotten himself blocked a number of times, and certainly needs to tone it down, but the diffs you post above are evidence of thought-crimes against your own ideology, little else. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view here, as long as we all edit neutrally - you taught me that. As for his assertion that deleting Category:Violence against men is radical feminist propaganda, that was perhaps in response to the nominator who call the category MRA propaganda. so language has become pretty heated on all sides. Indeed, I've been called a misogynist and a shill for the MRA just for daring to populate that category and defend its existence, but no admins have stepped forward to sanction those who made those claims. I think Memills provides an important counter balance. Civility could be improved and he can be stubborn, like me, but ultimately I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is a critical policy; either refusing to follow it or failing to understand it isn't some abstract thoughtcrime, it's directly disruptive. If you take a look at this diff and couple it with his edits to Kimmel's page, it is clear that for whatever reason he is unable to edit neutrally. There's nothing wrong with having a different point of view than another editor; there is something wrong with being unable to edit neutrally after the amount of time people have spent trying to explain policy to him. Seven sanctions and continued disruptive editing is a problem - there has to be a point where enough is enough. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of them are actually, and POV pushing on talk pages is problematic in itself. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Following on from a six month topic ban with POV-driven BLP violations (the addition of critical material referenced to an obscure journal) in the Michael Kimmel article is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of academic journals are "obscure." The New Male Studies journal is an academic, international, peer-reviewed journal, and it meets the criteria for a WP:RS. Memills (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A purported academic journal published by an Australian organisation which isn't even in the collections of the National Library of Australia [1] hardly seems reliable, especially given that the NLA is meant to have copies of everything published in Australia regardless of its usefulness. The British Library and Library of Congress also do not list a journal of this name in their catalogues. Similarly, the libraries of the Universities of Melbourne and Sydney and the Australian National University (Australia's main research universities) do not list "New Male Studies" as being part of their collections. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a requirement for a WP:RS. The journal has been in existence for less than three years (it may take awhile for new journals to get catalogued). The editorial board consists of almost 30 scholars, most of whom are university professors or are associated with research institutes. Memills (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memills just accused another editor of libel and pressured them to remove their support of a topic ban, as seen in this diff. Even if the libel comment isn't actioned on, whoever eventually ends up assessing consensus here should probably take in to account the fact that one editor apparently wanted to !support but felt pressured not to do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you have just linked to a libelous statement made against me. I asked the author of the statement to remove it. He/she did. Now you re-posted a link to the deleted comment? What does that say about you? I ask you to remove your comment and link above (and with it my comment here) -- it is in violation of WP:LIBEL. Memills (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement wasn't libelous, and posting a diff to it it certainly isn't libelous. The chilling effect that resulted in the removal of the original support !vote is something that may play some role in the assessment of consensus by the closing admin, who would be unlikely to notice it without a comment pointing it out, so I do not intend to remove my comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you state unequivocally that "The original statement wasn't libelous"? That is truly stunning. You do not know. And, the irony is that you wish to suppress legitimate academic criticism of a book by Michael Kimmel that was published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal because it would hurt Kimmel's reputation, yet you endorse without evidence a malicious and libelous statement (that has already been retracted by the author) about me here? Do you not see the self-serving hypocrisy? Memills (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that's pretty unequivocal WP:NLT. This looks like an automatic indef until Memills formally forswears all legal threats. Van Isaac_WS^cont 01:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something is libel is no more a legal threat than saying something is a copyright infringment. It takes a threat of action to be a legal threat. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement from Memill's talk page about this situation is a pretty explicit threat of action "Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.)". Even ignoring that, NLT doesn't only apply to actual legal threats, it also applies to perceived legal threats. Memills falsely accused someone of libel and used the threat of legal action to coerce them in to removing their comment from a discussion. That's a prettty classic example of the type of chilling effect that NLT is designed to prevent, and another demonstration that Memills is either unwilling or incapable of abiding by Wikipedia's policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I was accused of "paid meatpuppetry (with grades)." That is false, malicious and libelous. The author of that statement has retracted it. You have re-asserted it twice now. We can avoid further escalation of what should have been intellectual debate between the two of us. Now, it is has become quite personal.

Let me suggest a way out to de-escalate: Remove the link to the diff, and your comments in this section. If you do, we can both allow this incident stop here.

If you refuse, I really have no other choice but to file a complaint per WP:LIBEL ("It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please... E-mail us with details of the article and error."), and, file an ANI here with a request to sanction you for violation of this WP policy. Memills (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: linking to a statement is not libelous, even if the original statement was libelous. Secondly: the original statement, which you have misquoted, was not libelous. He stated his opinion of your actions, and luckily, I do not live (nor is the WMF or its servers located) in a jurisdiction where opinion can constitute libel. You can disagree with his opinion, but you can't change the fact that it's a statement of opinion. I don't agree that classes using Wikipedia based assignments constitute paid editing or meatpuppetry, but it's an opinion shared by plenty of other Wikipedians. You could try to argue that calling you 'constantly disruptive' was a statement of fact, but in California at least you probably wouldn't succeed, and even if you did, truth is a complete defense to libel in all applicable jurisdictions. Moreover, if you tried to litigate over it you would almost certainly be considered a limited purpose public figure (both for your activities on Wikipedia, and for reasons I can't state publicly without breaking policies,) and would have to prove actual malice.

TLDR version? The statement wasn't libelous when @Hipocrite: made it, isn't libelous now, and me linking it certainly isn't libelous. You've made at least one explicit legal threat quoted in my previous post with the express intention of forcing someone to remove his vote in support of topic banning you, and now you're trying to do the same thing to me. You are in violation of our policy forbidding legal threats - WP:NLT - even after you were made aware of its existence, and you should expect to be indefinitely blocked for trying to use legal threats to prevent people from voicing their opinion about whether or not you should be tbanned imminently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of convenience for any passing admins, here is a diff to an unambiguous violation of NLT, besides what is found in this thread. Stating that you have no plans to take legal action unless an editor restores a non-libelous comment that you intimidated them in to removing is an egregious violation of WP:NLT and inconsistent with being able to edit Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Where is the legal threat? There wasn't one. I stated that there was a violation of WP:LIBEL. However, by linking to the comment that the author him/herself had already retracted, it seems that Kevin is now in violation of WP:LIBEL. The author has retracted the libelous statement. Kevin has now re-asserted it by both linking to the comment (deleted by its author) and re-asserting it by stating that "The original statement wasn't libelous." Memills (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be very clear and precise about this.

That statement is libelous. Please remove it.

is not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and asks for voluntary relief.

That statement in libelous, but I will not take any legal action. However, I ask you to remove it.

is also not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement, but makes it explicit that no legal action will be taken over it, and asks for voluntary relief. However,

That statement is libelous, but I will not take legal action as long as it is removed.

is a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and then makes legal action dependent on the actions of the other editor, making it coercive in nature. Suppose, for instance, that the other editor does not believe that the statement is libelous, and therefore there is no reason to remove it, so having not removed it, the other editor will possibly be the subject of legal action. The only way that the other editor can avoid the possibility of legal action is by doing exactly what Memills says he must do. The other editor's freedom of action is restricted by the coercion that's been applied -- and that's clearly a chilling effect.

Unfortnately, the third choice is what Memills has said, in the edit that Kevin Gorman provided a link for:

Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.

The wording is different, but the meaning is precisely the same: "Unless you have not done what I said to do, I will not take legal action" is the functional and logical equivalent of "Do as I say or I will take legal action".

Given this, I think an admin should serve up an indef block for a violation of WP:NLT, until Memills says, explictly, "I will not take legal action", with no conditions or caveats connected to it. BMK (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17 (talk · contribs) has blocked them. I agree with BMK's analysis: there was a clear intention for those posts to have a chilling effect. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'd have preferred to see more article diffs than discussion diffs as evidence here, but on the other hand, since Memills came off his second topic ban and almost immediately began pushing the same POV, I don't think we need to apply the same standards we do for a first offense. Memills needs to be encouraged to find topics that are completely unrelated to the MRM, feminism, and gender. His work does not appear to be a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. Some of the edits he's making now are ones that failed to find consensus almost a year ago and for which he was reprimanded at the time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, whatever. Arkon (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban I can understand people writing this off as yet another content dispute, but taking all the links together shows that the topic would be better off without the persistent pushing of a point of view. The libel issue above shows the passion involved—this is the Internet, and if an editor cannot tolerate a poke from an opponent without testing the borders of NLT, they are not a good fit. Rather than reaching for a lawyer, an appropriate response would be to either confirm that the editor's students have edited or commented in the topic, or deny it with a brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose- while I do agree that Memills needs to be better behaved, it also appears to me that this is at least partially motivated by a desire to punish Memills for having unpopular opinions. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This point was going to be reached sooner or later, and I say right now is the right time. Memills is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he is here to push his POV. I have jousted with him on talk pages and articles, and I can say from experience that this editor is detrimental to the project. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need more neutral editors to edit these areas, not to bus in more editors with a strong POV to balance out the other editors with a strong POV. It's fine to disagree with people or to even have a strong viewpoint, but there's a line that gets crossed when you edit to right great wrongs. I probably wouldn't even have bothered to vote in this discussion except for the legal threat, which seems to indicate that this user is drawn to drama. Without that, maybe I'd be able to assume good faith that the drama would eventually die down. This is too much drama and POV for one user. Maybe a break from such controversial areas will help. If he can edit in other areas without drama or accusations of a feminist conspiracy, then I'd support a lift. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would've opposed the proposal if Memills had contributed on different pages, subjects. But surprisingly the editor hasn't. He may appeal, but after 1 - 6 months. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban for Memills' consistent disruptive editing and POV pushing (e.g., pushing for inclusion of men's rights authors [2][3] and obscure men's rights journals like the "Journal of Male Studies" in the article about Michael Kimmel). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Evidence for why this is appropriate can be seen from the user's responses in this very thread. jps (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite topic ban based on material presented. I don't know that we actually have permanent bans. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moot because Memills is blocked per NLT with talk page access revoked. Accordingly, this thread can probably be closed. 69.174.58.36 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Actually, that is incorrect. Memills can be unblocked at any time by unambiguously retracting the legal threat. If the community has imposed a topic ban, it would be in effect then, if they do not, Memills would be free to edit in the subject area - so the question of a topic ban is still quite relevant. BMK (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of talk page access looks harsh, and it's not necessarily permanent and does not constitute an effective ban - Memills could request its reinstatement by email, and another admin could restore it any time they feel like it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, any admin who "felt like" restoring talk page access should consult with the administrator who revoked it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The procedural details aren't really relevant - the point is that the block/talk page access denial is not necessarily final and doesn't invalidate this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've reverted the close of this section, because an NLT block does not invalidate a ban discussion. The block could be ended very quickly on retraction of the threat (even if talk page access has been revoked - an email appeal could easily see it restored). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport indefinite topic ban. I was a bit on the fence when this started. Much as I respect Kevin's zeal and antipathy for agenda-driven editors, he has a history of being a bit overly aggressive in this area. That said, the discussion with Memills about the legal threat cemented my support. Memills's discussions in the MRM area are similar. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint, but Memills keeps harping and harping on the same theme until they try the patience of all other editors. Additionally, Memills tends to use fringe sources and oblique attacks (always superficially civil) when having these discussions. This isn't just a different perspective. The style is WP:POINTy and self-absorbed. And it never seems to stop, which, in many ways, belies Memills's assertion that they are non-neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unremitting advocacy for the most marginal POV content imaginable.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much like Bbb23, I was pretty ambivalent at first about this. Memills' conduct through the posting of the legal threat was a bit of a red flag, but it has been his/her reaction to the NLT problem that has cemented that Memills isn't here to build encyclopedic conduct, (s)he is here to get his/her way. Van Isaac_WS^cont 22:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Bbb23's points above. BMK (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban. A review of Memills edits shows a history of disruptive and tendentious editing around men's rights issues. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The majority of "supports" are based on the contents of his view. Howunusual (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you got inside the minds of those people to know why they voted ... how? (Strange that you did not make the same claim for the "oppose" votes, that they did so because they agree with Memills. Wonder why that would be?) BMK (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By reading what they wrote. For example, this "reason" to ban is based purely on the view he advocates: "Unremitting advocacy for the most marginal POV content imaginable" Howunusual (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing is against wiki policy no matter the view being pushed. You have critically mistaken or misrepresented others' views here. Van Isaac_WS^cont 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If promoting a point-of-view is against policy, then the majority of editors of political articles should be banned. The fact is, most of those voting "Support" for the ban have complained about the beliefs of the person they want to ban. Another example: "Support topic ban for Memills' ... POV pushing (e.g., pushing for inclusion of men's rights authors"Howunusual (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between having a point of view and pushing a point of view. Our system is set up so that if editors of opposite points of view both edit an article, both doing their level best to edit neutrally, then the result is going to be an unbiased article, or as close as we can get to one. If, however, an editor consistently edits in such a way as to promote their own POV, they are intrinsically biasing the article, and doing so intentionally. Most Wikipedia editors try very hard to be neutral, but POV-pushers don't try, their purpose is to proselytize, and that is the category into which Memills falls. That is why a topic ban is necessary. BMK (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support a topic ban. Would consider a site ban based on the legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Memill's edits on talkpages have not been all exemplary in some of the disputes, but he is an important editor because of his specialization in evolutionary psychology. Simply put, we need editors that think differently - we can combine different viewpoints in an article via concensus and that way the articles will be improved. How is it that only he is "POV-pushing" – only one side of the dispute has a POV? Sadly, I can recognize a lot of people who have been holding the opposite view in disputes with him voting for a topic ban. Topic bans shouldn't be used for ideological sniping. "Pushing a POV" is not a reason for a ban in topics where there are several POVs per se. --Pudeo' 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He would be able to continue editing articles about evolutionary psychology although, judging by what other editors have to say about his contributions in that topic area: [4][5][6][7]...), his edits seem to be just as problematic in terms of WP:POVPUSH and WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently Memills has been already blocked indefnitely on June 28, despite this discussion still going on. I wonder why was this raised as a seperate issue in the first place if there was a problem with legal threats which are not topic-related? Please close. --Pudeo' 23:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion started at 21:13, 27 June 2014, and the NLT block occurred at 03:14, 28 June 2014. Such a block can easily be lifted at any time—the editor just has to withdraw certain statements, and then they can continue as before. Therefore it is necessary that the issue be properly considered and this discussion continued until consensus is established. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - He had his talk page access removed as well. --Pudeo' 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - One email is all it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed. NLT blocks are essentially procedural as their purpose is to stop people from using Wikipedia to potentially progress a legal matter which can't be dealt with here, and are lifted as soon as an admin receives a convincing confirmation that the editor has no intention of pursing legal-type remedies and will not issue further legal threats upon being unblocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The diffs shown at the top don't support the sysop's statements. Number 1 isn't even close, diff #2, the language is intemperate, but still doesn't support what the sysop is saying, pretty much the same as the rest. The sysop is involved (note - not the same as WP:INVOVLVED) - I mean that he's commenting as an editor and has had a few back-and-forths with Memills as evidenced by the diffs. I'd suggest closing out with no consensus. Kosh Vorlon 10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The AN initiation, block, and Talk page access removal, all smell foul. (But this is how things are done on the ever-so-pleasant Wikipedia. How fucking nasty!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The editor who made the comment just above, Ihardlythinkso, generally has a knee-jerk anti-admin POV, so their comment should be weighed accordingly. BMK (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More fucking shit on the abusive irresponsible AN board. I considered my opinion carefully and can back it up. You wanna make this personal with your patronizing ad hominem insult as if I were a vandal or a sock. Go stuff it BMK and consider your contribution to the nastiness of these boards. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The diff's presented don't demonstrate the need for a topic ban. Arkon (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Weak support. Not here to build an encyclopedia. Advocacy editing. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox. If they return from blocking, I say they should find other topics to edit. I have changed from strong to weak support after re-reading the diffs. While I still firmly believe the editor is problematic and that the diffs do show enough of a POV being pushed and a walking over other opinion that topic ban may be appropriate, I can also see what oppose opinions are speaking to.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think that Gorman pushes a POV!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A ridiculously tendentious set of diffs which do not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least. I hear the horn of a political steamroller... Carrite (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Evidence does not support the concern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re consensus. Without any comment as to the weight that should be given any particular vote by a closer, I believe the count at the moment is 16 supports, 10 opposes (if I counted wrong while I scrolled, someone please let me know).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are exactly uninvolved and I would oppose a close by you. You're the primary adder and mostly the admin who topic bans people using MRM discretionary sanctions. There have been multiple contentions even by Jimmy himself told you to resign. I do not want you to be the closing administrator. Tutelary (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My better judgment tells me not to respond to posts like yours, but sometimes I (unfortuately) can't resist. If by "primary adder" you mean to this topic, that's not true. Other than my support vote, I've barely made any comments, not including this one. As for your other reasons, they are irrelevant. You missed the most obvious reason. I can't close a discussion in which I voted. So, you get your wish. Aren't you pleased? (This is a good example of why I don't come to these boards as often as I used to. The silly stuff people spout here is hard to read. Kids say the darndest things.) Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. (When closing is subject to evaluative argument, you point out the "vote count". (It seems you don't really agree with fundamental WP precept that consensus is evaluative, versus vote-counting. [Else why w/ you point out the difference? Huh?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's your anti-admin knee jerking again - but please do make an effort not to be silly about it. It's hardly unusual in a long and drawn out discussion of any type for someone to post a bald summary of the !votes without attempting to usurp the role of the closer and weigh the comments as a closer must do. It helps to give everyone on all sides of the discussion a sense of where the discussion is without having to slog through the entire thing. Your seeing something sinister in it is simply ludicrous. BMK (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have asked the same Q whether admin or not, so who's "seeing something sinister", might it be you? I think closers can count okay. And I doubt very much that a vote-count contributes to a "sense where the discussion is" without reading anything. And your "slog through the entire thing" code-phrase to mean reading or scanning to get that sense you refer to, seems to convey that you think reading or scanning is such a terrible burden -- oh my gosh! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a thankfully past American politician used to say "There you go again," seeing "code-phrases" in what is actually straightforward writing meaning precisely what it says. Not everyone has the time, energy or interest to read a whole typically-Wikipedian excessively long and verbose discussion, so the count serves as a signpost that lets them know what the current status is. That you see something wrong about it is a reflection on you and your increasingly warped and sour attitude towards this project, not on the editor who posted the count. More than that I will not say, except (and I've said this to other editors who are now banned): If you hate it so much here, why do you stick around? Your bitching and moaning and continuing crabbiness isn't going to change a damn thing, so just go away and find something else to do instead that makes you happy, since volunteering here no longer does. BMK (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your waging war and attempting to shame and intimidate me personally on this board is a misuse of the AN board let alone counter WP principles and policies. So why don't you give it a rest and stop harping on me. If Bb23's vote count report was a service to "everybody", then I suppose it is just a coincidence said reporter is on the side with the most votes counted. Yes I hate the underhanded and abusive crap that characterizes the WP environment, I think you're a prime contributor to that by your harassing messages to me, and attempt to invite me off the site. (I suggest this place would be a lot kinder and more objective if you took the hike outta here with your crappy attitudes and misuse of venue and policies meant to generate collegiate discussion. [Are you done now, or do AN readers get to slog through more of your personal attacking and unprofessional behaviors here?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose I see no aggressive edit warring, I do see editor bias and removal of maintenance templates, but nothing that I think would support a topic ban in that regard. Editors do not need to see feminism as the all purposeful truth and the light, nor would a person who is a supposed MRA be barred from editing articles. The first few diffs seem to indicate that due to them being critical of some idealogy being fundamental of the topic ban. There needs to be absolute, irrevocable and inexorable disruptive editing, and the diffs do not demonstrate that. Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you take a look at his behavior at Michael Kimmel, as well as his longer term pattern of editing. I think the Kimmel related diffs pretty conclusively demonstrate that he either doesn't understand or is unwilling to accept WP:NPOV, a cornerstore of our project - and I could understand that in a new editor, but not in a long term editor with seven sanctions in the exact same area for failing to follow policy. I think the diff collection I put together was pretty impressive given how short a period of time it covered, but there's plenty of other older edits in his history confirming that he refuses to understand or abide by our fundamental content policies. I don't try to block editors who are critical of feminism; I actually oppose most topic bans suggested in this area, including the most recently suggested tban other than this one, and from memory, the one suggested before that too. Trying to frame this as me trying to get rid of an ideological opponent suggests that you haven't really examined Memill's editing behavior - it's true I disagree with him about plenty of stuff, but I disagree with lots of people about plenty of stuff, and often oppose proposed tbans for them over the issue at the same time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to take a glance at Michael Kimmel. Memills added this reception section and taking a gander at it, I'm not exactly sure what the problem was with it. I do see that in the first bit, he added the bit about being 'pro-feminist' (which was not in the original source), but that might've been added via the other two sources which they cited. Also, I see that they're using a 'male studies' source to cite some stuff. Being a biased source doesn't necessarily negate nor delegitimate what it's attempting to portray; though there may be other factors that disqualify it. I read the resulting talk page discussion and it seems rather heated at points; but overall seems to stem from other factors, such as Jimbo and ANI and to the fact that NEWSBLOG may apply and other things. Additionally, on that page, he didn't seem to edit war with anyone. Maybe that's a side effect of being sanctioned 7 times. I see that he only reverted three times on that page and in a period of 6 days. 1, 2, and 3

All in all, I think he was pretty bearable on the talk page discussion, and certainly isn't severely disruptive, not meeting my 'irrevocably, unambiguously disruptive' standard. I stand by my !vote. Tutelary (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tutelary: - of course men's studies sources are citable in an article about an academic whose work overwhelmingly focuses on men's studies - that wasn't the issue. Nick-D went in to some details earlier in this section about why the particular source in question was probably not appropriate, although I think it could have been appropriate as part of a much larger section. The problem with Memills' behavior on Kimmel's article is that Kimmel is a fairly well known academic whose work has received a lot of coverage, most of it positive, and thus any balanced reception section talking about his work would not involve one brief positive quote followed by a more substantive negative quote from a questionable source. This wouldn't be a problem if Memills recognized the problem after it was pointed out to him, but he didn't - in one of the diffs above from his talk page he states that he thinks that one positive quote + one negative quote = a NPOV section. This indicates that Memills has a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is, or at least refuses to follow it. With new editors I would assume good faith, but when someone with seven prior sanctions in a topic area (and many more attempted explanations of policy) fails that significantly to misunderstand the basics of NPOV, it's not accidental or innocuous, it's disruptive. It's also rather concerning that in an editsum he stated he didn't understand why the section had been removed, even though it had been removed more than two years ago following a discussion on the talk page of the article that Memills had commented on and thus was necessarily aware of. If Memills was a brand new editor none of this would be a tban worthy issue, but when he constantly behaves like this in the same topic area after seven different sanctions, it's disruptive, and way past the point of IDHT/WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I see is the accuser being deeply involved in this topic area (#1 editing topic) and being an opponent of the ideas of the accused here. That's a fact, yes? I also see lots of text but no diffs that actually demonstrate bannable behavior. The block log of the accused has blemishes, but is not chronic. No doubt the accused holds minority views on this topic, but we achieve article balance by working through these differences in a constructive manner, not by annihilating our opponents. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my #1 editing topic (which is pretty obvious from my userpage,) although it is an area where I am sometimes (though certainly not always) a highly active editor in. I also generally oppose topic bans in the area, including with people I disagree with (including, for that matter, the last topic ban requested in the area.) I've probably spent more time attempting to, in good faith, explain how to contribute productively to the encyclopedia to SPA's in the area than most other editors in the topic area. By most standards, I would consider an editor who has been sanctioned seven times in the same topic area to have more than "blemishes" on their editing record. If you examined my editing patterns in the topic area, I don't think you could reasonably accuse me of trying to obliterate my opponents - and if you examined the editing patterns of Memills in the topic area, I think you'd have a pretty hard time showing that he's made any significantly productive contributions in the topic area in question - ever - and has mostly just engaged in WP:NOTHERE behavior over.. and over.. and over.. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this section is more or less ripe for closure. I agree with Bbb23 that !vote counts are a good first order proxy for assessing consensus in a discussion, but think that whoever does end up closing this section would benefit from looking significantly beyond that. A couple noteworthy things I've found in the !voting patterns: many !support voters are people who have seemingly examined the area in question in some depth, including a number of people I've never interacted with before, as well as a number of administrators who are used to patrolling the area. Few of the !oppose votes seem to present the same level of analysis of the situation, and many come from corners that I suspect should be given less weight - e.g., the !oppose voters with only several hundred votes, those who are only active in the particular topic area in question, those who although active elsewhere have either previously been in significant conflict with me, are generally anti-sanctions, or both (e.g., Ihardlythinkso.) Although I'm obviously not going to be closing this section myself, I do feel pretty strongly that whoever does end up closing it should spend more time in doing so than in evaluating simpler sections, since figuring out what really reflects Wikipedia-style consensus here may be a bit of a doozy. Really, I probably should have just quoted WP:CONSENSUS as a good general reminder of best practices and summary of how I feel - "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gorman, your characterization as my having "significant conflict" with you is misleading. My actual history with you consists of two incidents where I queried you for your accountability re two assertions you made re Eric Corbett (the first one false, the second one misleading): 1) that he was celebratory toward a suicide (your "danced on a grave"), and 2) that he favored no block of user Kaldari for socking (misleading; what he said was that he recogized the ANI did not support consensus for a block). In both cases you responded to my queries for your accountability about your assertions with snobbish dismissal and run-around. The two responses taught me about your attitude and behaviors. (I've had no other conflicts with you, unless you want to add your dropping by an ANI on me where [I did not respond after] you registered a !vote to block me. (The other two block !votes being from my admirers users BMK and Happy Attack Dog.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see little benefit in engaging with IHTS directly further and will not responding to his further comments in this section, but would point out to the eventual closer of this section and other passersby that IHTS's previous comments here combined with the fact that Floquenbeam previously found IHTS's behavior inappropriate enough to state that he would be blocked if he didn't stop trolling my talk page suggest pretty strongly that the strength of IHTS's !vote here should be considered pretty explicitly in the context of the excerpt I quoted from WP:CONSENSUS earlier. !Votes that are cast based on personal feelings and without consideration to established policy or the facts of the matter at issue should not receive the same weight as !votes that are. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typical shrillness from you, Kevin. Oh yes, Floq never overreacts and is always right. (And BTW, s/he didn't call it "trolling". Just you. My crime was persisting when you were obviously snobbish and dismissive rather than accounting for your misleading statement re Eric. It was clear to me you were being intentionally misleading just to be prickish. When I persisted, Floq, I presume, thought you had enough since you had been earlier strongly admonished by Arbcom.) You criticize "!votes based on personal feelings", but your block !vote mentioned was clear to me a grudge/revenge !vote, based on your discomfort when confronted with good-faith straight-forward questions you prefer to dodge. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I really don't get it. You're obviously really unhappy here, it shows through in everything your write. BMK (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind, I guess you have your reasons or compulsions or whatever. I just wish you weren't so ~~goddamned~~ goshdarned negative about everything all the time, it's a total bummer. BMK (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three extremist words from your pen in one sentence ("everything", "all the time", "total"). Are things so black & white Ken? Just relax. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing notes This discussion has run its course & people are now just bickering at each other, rather than discussing the topic. (FWIW, most said they want a topic ban.) It's moot anyway: Memills is currently banned indefinitely for legal threats & can't edit any area of Wikipedia. Yes, he can email an Admin & ask to be restated, however I'm going to suggest to whoever considers unblocking him to post first about it here or at WP:AN/I -- for no other reason than to minimize the surprise & conflicts his return would cause. -- llywrch (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I had a very civil & respectful conversation on my Talk page with a couple of the people involved with this, who pointed out some additional details. I've thought them & felt my closure needs to be modified. Hence I'm adding two more points: (1) This discussion stays archived only as long as Memills is no longer editing; should he return to edit under any username, then anyone may re-open this discussion. And because no formal decision has been made on the proposed topic ban, another Admin may -- & is free to -- decide that consensus exists based on what has been posted. (Not that I would suggest anyone do that. And I'll add a note on his Talk page to explain this thread to him & any Admin. (2) This discussion is now closed until Memills returns. Any further comments added to this thread after the time stamp on my edit until he returns will be reverted. -- llywrch (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thread reopened Since I have now unblocked Memills (per UTRS ticket #11297), I am also reopening this discussion to allow a decision to be reached. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think Llywrch has handled this in a laudable way, since Memills has now been unblocked I believe that someone does need to take on the rather unenviable task of fully evaluating consensus w/r/t the topic ban. It is likely to take more effort than it looks like at first, and I've made some comments about it here that point towards some of the issues involved. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Call to close withcomment~~. There has been some discussion about diffs provided. They do not justify administrative action but they do seem to show a point of view being pushed, and a little too aggressively. They also show some disregard to almost all opposition to even the idea of MRM and that seems to be a core issue with behavior. Through sanction on article probation, Memills has clearly been warned, banned and blocked from editing the article several times over the recent past. The subject is one that the editor has a very well known history of conflict and disputes ranging over several notice boards. I closed a DRN request as having gone on too long with no end in site and a lot of that could well be attributed to Memills continued discussion of the point without a clear objective towards anything but exclusion of the content that was well verified and still in the article. I have no opinion of the movement, the article or the editor other than, Memills + Men's rights movement = Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opportunity to respond I have just been unblocked, and, I have just returned home from travel out of state. I would appreciate it if admins would postpone closing for 24 hours to give me an opportunity to respond. Thank you. Memills (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has yet closed the thread so you are welcome to respond. You have been unable to respond here since the 28 of June the day after the thread was begun. So, I'll amend to retract the call to close.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that. Memills (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response by Memills

I am frankly surprised that this has continued for so long. And, with such an intense level of personal malice. I believe this ANI was well summed up by the succinct comment above:

"A ridiculously tendentious set of diffs which do not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least. I hear the horn of a political steamroller. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)"

Let me address both of these issues, "tendentious diffs" and "political steamroller," because I believe they are the core issues.

1. "Tentidious Diffs"

First, others have already noted the "tendentious diffs," that do not support the accusations. Let me highlight just just one here. Kevin accuses me (and, apparently he is serious!) of "...comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence."

He might be accusing me of hyperbole. But, apparently he is serious. If I actually said that, it would be pretty radical. Of course, I didn't, and, the diff does doesn't come close to supporting the claim. My actual comment was not even hyperbolic -- it was about irony: The irony of closing (censoring) a Talk page discussion about whether there was censorship on the Talk page! Here is what I actually wrote:

"That the [Talk page] "discussion" [about WP:CENSOR ] was closed only adds more layers of self-parody on top of irony... Reminds me of photos of radical Islamists carrying posters advocating violence toward anyone who suggests that Islam is not a religion of peace. Is the irony really lost on them (facepalm)?"

It takes quite loose imagination to accept Kevin's interpretation that I am comparing editors who disagree with me with radical Islamists advocating violence. But that is what he wants casual reviewers who don't have the time to actually check the diff to believe. In fact, he repeated it three times!

Kevin accused me of POV-pushing. Others, however, suggest that I bring an important perspective to the table:

"This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)"

"I think Memills provides an important counter balance. ...I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

"Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"

"Editors do not need to see feminism as the all purposeful truth and the light, nor would a person who is a supposed MRA be barred from editing articles. The first few diffs seem to indicate that due to them being critical of some idealogy being fundamental of the topic ban." Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not here to proselytize or POV-push. I am not anti-feminist, nor am I a men's right activist. I have stated that I believe that: "A more helpful perspective is that both sexes have their own unique set of problems that deserve attention, analysis and redress. Coming from that perspective, rather than being at each others' throats, editors could collaborate on WP articles related to both topics more effectively and harmoniously. Memills (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)" (italics added)

And, without WP:OUTING myself more than someone has already (noting that I give out grades), the reason that I am here is to insure that the content areas within my areas of expertise are present fairly and accurately. However, as this ANI exemplifies, that is not always easy -- and others have noted that too: "Occasionally, real-world experts contribute to Wikipedia out of a sense of social responsibility: they see content that is substandard, and given Wikipedia’s reach would like to improve the content so that the public is not misinformed. But most genuine experts find editing Wikipedia a less than agreeable experience.... (many) tried and gave up, resigning themselves to the fact that bringing Wikipedia content in their subject area up to scratch was more than they could do in their spare time."

2. "political steamroller"

Kevin likes to mention my history of sanctions. Here a couple of relevant comments from my Talk page:

" ...I have contributed to WP since 2006. Despite many edits on what used to be (but has since calmed down) an extremely contentious article, evolutionary psychology, I received just one 24 hour block in 2011. One sanction in 5 years of editing, not bad. However, note what happened when I first started editing the MRM article in 2012. Sanctions started to be handed out like candy. Five sanctions in 2012 - 2013 for my edits *only* on one topic: the MRM article. Weird, huh? That is a red flag. Something is going on with the policing on the MRM page. And, as the log of sanctions shows, for the experienced editors, the sanctions were handed out virtually always to those on just one side of a contentious issue. Mostly likely those experienced editors haven't changed, something else has. Memills (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"

(Note the block log to see a clear bias re who gets blocked. Also, there is a mysterious recent block of me there that never appeared on my Talk page, nor, on the History page of the blocking admin. Strange.)

"...I think it can be empirically documented... (that) experienced editors with no or few sanctions start getting them by editing MRM related pages from a non-feminist perspective. Then, a positive feedback loop begins. For those editors who have been sanctioned, when they return, even legitimate discussions (by myself, CSDarrow, and others) on the Talk page can be deemed "disruptive" and sanctioned. Then "this editor has X number of previous sanctions" which sets a precedent for further sanctions, and so it goes in a positive feedback loop. Also, those editors are seen as "trouble makers" and closely monitored... And, here we are -- spending time on this rather than actual writing / editing. Memills (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"

An uninvolved admin (who has not voted or commented above) wrote to me in a private message: "I wanted to suggest that you take this to BASC instead and ask for an Arbcom case here. I think WP:FRINGE is being abused (here) by activists. This shouldn't be misunderstood to mean that I support everything you're doing, but I don't think you should be blocked for thought-crime either."

I could respond in detail to more, but I believe enough virtual ink has already been spilled over what should have remained an intellectual disagreement between two editors. Memills (talk)

It would be a bit weird if you had taken this to BASC at any stage, given that you have never met the criteria to actually take something to BASC.. and also a bit weird to comment that WP:FRINGE is being abused, since the only two references to it in this entire section are your last post and my reply here, and I've rarely seen it mentioned elsewhere related to the MRM. I'll let the rest of your response stand without comment with the hopes that whatever admin ends up closing this does a thorough job of evaluating where consensus may lay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admin referred me to BASC because I had been indefinitely blocked (see above), and, that would have been the next appeal step if the block had not been reversed. Memills (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite's post was a good faith argument that the diffs did not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least, but the diffs were posted by the OP only to demonstrate "an inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field". The diffs were the center of a good deal of discussion but the post made in its entirety hasn't been addressed all that much...you have been sanctioned so often over this issue, isn't it fair to ask the community if the article would be improved without you for...say a year or more depending?. This isn't blocking you, this is just topic banning you, but you (and other editors) still do have the option of taking this to Arb Com and that certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that's where this is heading.

I read the above and I notice you make a few comments about your sanctions and they do not seem to take much responsibility and there is even an accusation of something odd about your block log? OK, but I really think the issue, with all due respect to the opposing !votes, is this long term pattern of sanctions that include topic bans and blocks all related to the same subject. I am not seeing a conspiracy theory here that the other side of this is getting admin help and I think you simply do not understand what presenting something fairly and accurately means. I think you are here to right great wrongs. I think you need to demonstrate that you can collaborate on an encyclopedia. An indeff topic ban on all article on Men's rights, broadly construed is perfectly acceptable in my mind in this instance, but it is a consensus of editors that is what is needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, exactly who is it that has "an inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field"? What about Kevin stating 3 times in an ANI (not just on a Talk page), with a straight face, that I compared editors with whom I disagreed to "radical Islamists advocating violence" when the diff clearly shows that is a gross misrepresentation?

I am not suggesting a "conspiracy theory." I am suggesting that the issue of biased admin policing on the MRM is an issue that can, and should, be investigated. And, there is a sanctions log that could be reviewed for bias. Memills (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Kevin Gorman, nor do I know anything about Kevin Gorman. If you want a boomerang I suggest you begin a thread to demonstrate it is deserved, but I still hold you accountable for your own behavior and lack of neutrality that brings huge amounts of disruption. Suggest a ban on Gorman if you feel one is justified, but biased admin and Kevin Gorman are no excuse for your behavior on Wikipedia and using it as a soapbox and political arena to right great wrongs caused to men or their agenda anymore than any single purpose activist on the encyclopedia, and frankly you are quaking just like that duck right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be Australian for a moment

Today Kevin Gorman has been a part of one page being protected in this area, due to his admitted carelessness. A look at here will show you another result of this, and the fashion in which he would continue had Isla Vista not been protected as well. Arkon (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arkon, cut the crap. I made one edit to an article whose talkpage and edit history I had not thoroughly examined before committing it while I was looking over an entire category tree. The article was pre-emptively protected by an admin seeing four edits over the course of a day by four different editors and thinking an editwar was likely to ensue. If I had not been paying attention and had just carelessly been mass-editing, it would've been just as easy for me to edit through the protection Crisco put in place as it was for me to edit before it was put in place - I'm perfectly capable of editing a fully protected page. You'll note I didn't do that, and instead took it to talk. The androcide page you link was me further cleaning up the categories and removing one cat from an article that had been placed in both the subcat and parent cat, following the guidance put forth by WP:SUBCAT. You reverted said edit and asked me to go to talk and discuss it (which I did,) whereupon you proceeded to suggest that consensus needs to be established on every article page to follow a guideline, which would completely destroy Wikipedia's ability to move productively forward if true (since even WP:RS is 'nothing' but a guideline.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of RfC close requested (Progressive tax)

I'm inviting review of an RfC close I made recently here and which has been challenged here.

I'd appreciate review comments only from uninvolved editors. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This is a pretty textbook close: it was a good faith, neutral, well executed summary of the discussion that touched on salient arguments. The statement in the summary that they took umbrage to is, at most, inaccurate only in degree, not in substance, and falls well outside the bounds of any question as to the applicability of the close to the discussion. Van Isaac_WS^cont 09:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal for Gibson Flying V

User:Gibson Flying V is indefinitely topic banned from anything height-related on any article related to association football. He is also reminded that harsher sanctions were suggested in this discussion and it is very likely that the community will impose them if he is the cause of any further disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you were not aware, {{Height}} now displays in 'cm' as well as 'm', following a The close of the RFC states that "The addition of this RFC. parameter is in no way an endorsement of the use of cm rather than m in any particular field of endeavor." I begun a discussion at WikiProject Football to seek agreement on how that particular WikiProject, of which I am a member, was going to display heights on articles under their jurisdiction. The overwhelming consensus was that 'm' was the preferred standard - however Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs) is choosing to ignore that consensus and edit against it by exclusively using 'cm' on footballer articles, e.g. this just a few minutes ago, as well as a recent edit war at Marcelo Vieira. He simply doesn't get it because he doesn't like it, and he appears to cherry-pick sources to 'support' his pro-cm agenda. His edits in this area, and accompanying attitude, are becoming increasingly disruptive. The issue/user was previously raised here. Giant Snowman 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I propose an indefinite topic ban from anything height-related on any article related to association football, broadly construed. Giant Snowman 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I was a participant in the original {{Height}} allowing cm discussion, and was a supporter of the template supporting the measurement because there are some edge cases where it is appropriate to use cm over m. That said, I remember the concern that this editor was going to pull this sort of stunt and I vaguely remember him agreeing that any user that attempted such a thing should likely be blocked from editing for being disruptive. Please verify that is actually what he agreed to and act appropriately on that aspect. If, I am mis-remembering and that is not what he said, or he has decided to redact that statement, I do not think topic banning him from exclusively association football related articles is appropriate and I would expand the ban to anything height-related on any article, broadly construed. I have an inclination that anything less than that and he'll just jump to tennis or baseball or ... related articles instead. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "...some edge cases where it is appropriate to use cm over m"? Interesting take. "...this sort of stunt"? You're not taking User:GiantSnowman's hysterical claims at face value before checking for yourself are you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the sticks, guys. This isn't closed because of censorship, it's to make you guys stay on topic. Gender bias or not, this is completely unrelated to the case at hand. Make another topic if you want to discuss it. Ansh666 05:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Careful - only women can be "hysterical" because only women have a huster (Greek for "womb"). So, careful with those personal attacks the panda ₯’ 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused (again) of bad-faith editing. My edit history and WP:SOURCES speak for themselves. The accuser is the one who needs to be more careful, and I suspect this thread will conclude with something to that effect. (hysterical (hɪˈstɛrɪkəl) — adj 1. of or suggesting hysteria: hysterical cries 2. suffering from hysteria 3. informal wildly funny. Not that 'hysterical' is an adjective reserved for women, but even if it were, that could only be construed as a personal attack if there were something inherently wrong with being woman-like, no? Perhaps we should all be a little more careful?) --Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I know I will probably regret this but did DangerousPanda seriously just say only women can be "hysterical" because they have a womb? I gotta tell ya, I found that a tad offensive and not exactly to Wikipedia standards because from what I am reading here, it is almost as if they were suggesting that it would not be a personal attack to say a female editor was being "hysterical". While I know that is not what the editor meant, being careful doesn't appear to be what was done with that post.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He was simply making a little joke based on the etymology of "hysteria", which is indeed derived from the Greek for "womb". "Hysteria" may be used for anyone these days, but it originated as a word that described only the behavior of women. Like I said, a joke, and not offensive. BMK (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but yeah...it was offensive. BMK....you don't get to decide what is offensive for others. Please understand that. This was an uncalled for collapse of criticism of a post that should not have been made and is very relevant to gender bias, joke or not. I noticed it was not explained by the joker themselves. Perhaps if they said so it would be better and not someone else that then decides to collapse the relevant problems caused by not being careful when telling others to be so.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I get to decide what I think is offensive, and I also get to decide what I think an average person would or should find offensive, and I also get to decide when I think another person is being overly sensitive. And in my opinion it was a joke, it wasn't sexist, and you're seriously overreacting to a bit of etymological sarcasm. So unless you're holding to yourself the power to determine, in absolute terms, what is and isn't offensive on some absolute scale, let's just mark this down as two people having differing opinions, and I'll make a mental note that you seem to be lacking in a sense of humor, at least on certain subjects. BMK (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget, the "little joke" (whether humerous or otherwise) about my use of the term 'hysterical' to describe another user's claims (not the user himself) was used as the basis for an accusation of making a personal attack.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I and ONLY I get to decide what I think is offensive to me, and no one else. I see that we have found that joking around about women in such a manner and about what is a personal attack is just another one of those stupid things editors bring up here that needs to be hidden away from discussion. Gender bias is not a fucking joke. I didn't think it was funny. I didn't think it was appropriate and I think collapsing the criticism smacks of censorship and one editor deciding what should and should not be seen. I also get to decide what I think is funny and if you want to tell jokes about race, or sexual orientation, you will get the same reaction from me.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...gender bias is a stick...that is used to bash people over the head with. I am not holding it so I have nothing to drop.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I amend my mental note to say that you have no sense of humor about a number of subjects. And to be clear, I don't believe there are many subjects about which it is not possible to be humorous, and the comedians I like and the programs and movies I watch would probably be considered by you to be incredibly offensive -- about which I care not a whit, since they're funny, sometimes godamned funny, regardless of your dour disapproval.

You, on the other hand, get to make a mental note that I am an insensitive unevolved ass in need of some hardcore lessons in empathy. I can live with that. BMK (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO...actually I still get to decide that for myself. You may think yourself as an ass or that I might think that, but I still temper my opinion of you with what I know about your editing. You may be able to act like that, but I don't believe it is a defining characteristic of you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a great sense of humor. I don't think gender issues are a joke, especially in this type of situation, and I see you and others do. This illustrates a great example and I am happy to leave it at that....an example of the gender bias on AN. While it is not everyone, it is surely enough to see how desperate people are to cover it up and look past it. A little cocksure I suppose, but than I guess women don't have cocks so they can't be sure? This is some really stupid crap to see how this page works for some editors and then those that do not adhere to the humor are collapsed and hidden away. What a fine decision to make a joke about women being hysterical and think everyone has to shut the fuck up about it when this is the very board to complain about admin behavior. Cool. Anyone got any vagina jokes?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm too cocksure to have a vagina joke.

(And, actually, you don't get decide whether you have a sense of humor or not -- other people decide that.) BMK (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm no. Others get to have their own opinion, they do not get to decide if I do or do not have a since of humor. Since this was a joke of an offensive nature, telling me I have no sense of humor is only upsetting in that you find it humorous. See...I get to have that opinion, but I do not get to decide that it is a fact that you find it humorous. It is still just an opinion until you state it as fact. Frankly, this is shocking to me to see from you, but I don't know you that well.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can fight it all you want, but the judgment of others about you will inevitably outweigh your own judgments about yourself. It's just the way things work. BMK (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I don't judge myself. I only note the senses I am aware of. I can do that...you cannot. And yeah....that is the point I was making. The judgment of others will inevitably outweigh the couple of differing opinions here. The only thing is, you are only another, not all others. But then I have a better opinion of you than you seem to have of me. But then I am the one complaining that the joke was not appropriate and you are arguing it was.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "bad" opinion of you, per se. From this conversation, I'd just say that you're rather humorless, you're a bit too politically correct for your own good, your view of the world is somewhat solipsistic, and you value your own judgments more than you value those of others, which you probably shouldn't. Plus, you're going to meet a tall dark stranger who will take you on a journey to a far-away place. Toodles. BMK (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not about political correctness (I don't even know what that really means these days). I am for an understanding that some jokes are simply not appropriate for a professional site and that when one tells another person to be careful, it shouldn't be followed by or be preceded by a lack of care. I am also aware that Wikipedia has a gender issue. I real gender issue and this is the very sort of thing that is just insensitive. Besides, that wasn't really a funny joke as in "Haha", but the kind of joke that makes fun of a specific gender trait. I really did find it offensive and don't generally laugh at that sort of thing. It is too serious an issue on Wikipedia. However, I do understand what you are saying, I just feel this issue has been in the forefront too often to just take a blind eye to it. I had to say something or I would feel like I was letting down the community for not speaking up when I saw the comment. Not looking for intervention. Not asking for sanctions. Just not letting it go without commenting on it. I will say this much more and then I am disengaging. What I see is a bad joke that had true gender discrimination and bias. Not that the editor feels that way, but that the joke was indeed aimed that way. I do not feel any editor should be called "... humorless...too politically correct for your own good, [with a] view of the world [that] is somewhat solipsistic, and you value your own judgments more than you value those of others, which you probably shouldn't." All from just standing up for the lack of sensitivity to the gender issue here. To me and many others, this was simply dragging this out to defend someone that need not be defended. if it was a joke, then just leaving it at that would be enough, but I didn't actually see it that way and I think the criticism was justified and warranted here. As I said, if "careful" is what you are asking for, then "careful" is what should have been attempted. I am off now (some might say I have always been a bit off to begin with). Have a good night everyone. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose topic ban - This doesn't seem to rise to a topic ban yet. Perhaps in the future with more history. See comments below.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support If this had only related to the very recent discussion, then I think it might have been a bit harsh, but as this edit from January shows (replacing one source with another to justify using cm), this has been a problem for some time. Number 5 7 07:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do check the above diff, but be sure not to miss its related discussion. Very telling.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence - this, where he changes height to 178cm to 180cm, even after I had previously provided two reliable sources which showed height to be 1.80m and he had previously insisted that 178cm was the 'correct' height. Ignore the units for a moment there - and concentrate on the fact that he is cherry picking sources to support his bias/disruption. Or to put it another way - he dismissed my three sources as 'incorrect/unreliable', realized they were actually 100% correct, but then went and found a whole new source just so he could 'justify' keeping the format in 'cm' as opposed to the agreed standard of 'm'. Giant Snowman 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this: Jiang Ning (a WP:BLP of a Chinese soccer player) did not contain his height initially. I came along and introduced it as 178 cm (5 ft 10 in) (to display "the player's height in the units most common within the country he or she plays with a conversion."), complete with a reference to goal.com, which appears to be a reliable source. User:GiantSnowman then came along and removed the source I introduced from the article altogether, replacing it with a reference to national-football-teams.com, saying in the edit summary that it "is a better source than Goal.com" (obviously untrue), and changing the height to 1.78m. One small problem though: his "better" national-football-teams.com source shows Jiang's height as 1.80m, not 1.78m. Strong evidence that User:GiantSnowman's interest is actually restricted to the units (not the heights) of articles that I edit (not anyone else). Naturally I undid this blatant knee-jerk reversion, and he subsequently showed me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height some cherry-picked sources that displayed Jiang's height as 1.80m. As an editor who is actually concerned with the quality of Wikipedia's articles, I investigated further and found that the Chinese Olympic Committee's official website had a profile for Jiang (the best possible source for this case, I'm sure all can agree). It showed his height as 180cm, so I did the right thing and updated the height to reflect this, of course introducing the COC source as well. The article now has had two reliable sources (goal.com and the COC official website) added, along with the subject's height, none of which would be there if I had never come along.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reply, User:GiantSnowman? Wanna search my edit history for another diff and try again?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I've already been forced to type out too much about this ridiculous witch hunt. So for now I'm just going to point to User_talk:Gibson_Flying_V/Archive_7#Changing_height_from_m_to_cm.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would fall under WP:ENGVAR. Brits tend to use m, where as here in the colonies my driver's permit lists my height in cm. It therefore doesn't matter what sport the individual plays, it's the ENGVAR that matters. A Canadian footballer who plays in the Premier League should have their height in cm, while an American who plays in the Premier League would have it ft/in the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR is not an issue here insomuch as non-British editors have also supported use of 'm' across all association football related articles. Why therefore can Gibson continue to get away with editing against that consensus? Giant Snowman 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the Footy project had no right to enforce such a rule across all Footy articles, because WP:ENGVAR certainly DOES apply in this case. Measurement is a part of specific dialect/language - check your Windows settings and you'll see the effect of changing. Now, that doesn't mean that Gibson isn't being disruptive, because they sure as hell are the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of the better posts here that clears up a number of issues. I understand editors feel that Gibson is being disruptive but to what extent and exactly how, seems to be the sticking point. Just not following the Project guide is clearly not an issue and the Project has no authority to enforce their consensus across all articles within their scope. But that doesn't mean the editor can get away with edit warring etc. has there been edit warring? Has a 3RR violation been reported? Are there civility issues? Just not collaborating with a project is not a violation and doesn't rise to a topic ban, but the others things mentioned, if also an issue might constitute a very good reasoning for a ban. At the moment it looks more like the project members trying to force their will on the rest of the community. Not as if the footy subject has not been a disruptive issue already. Are there Arb Com sanctions?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate on what exactly is disruptive about my edits? Taking untold amounts of editors' time discussing a complete non-issue is far more disruptive than adding accurate information and reliable sources to biographies of living persons in my opinion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: - have they been edit warring? Yes, see the history of Marcelo Vieira. Have they been uncivil? Yes, see numerous uncivil comments at both the RFC and the WT:FOOTY discussion, both of which I linked to in my opening post. Giant Snowman 07:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Gibson made a bold edit three days after the last edit on that page here where he added a RS to the birthdate and changed the height. That was reverted by Kante4 here. The revert removed more than just the height edit but removed the reliable source to the birthdate with no explanation or concern mentioned. That was an inappropriate revert to me and I think I would have reverted back based on what was done myself. Gibson did revert that. And I don't see that as an edit war as RS was removed. It also didn't violate 3RR. Gibson began a discussion and does not appear to be disruptive there in my opinion. I understand this is frustrating, and that sometimes disputes arise over project related guidelines and the main MOS. But to me this seems to be something needing more discussion on the talk pages and more patience with each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears at the top of this page:

If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.

Was this thread started here by mistake? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um no - "Issues appropriate for this page could include [...] ban proposals", and yes that includes topic bans. I am not seeking admin input per se, I am seeking community input and community consensus - just like we had at WT:FOOTBALL, which you consequently ignored. Giant Snowman 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry that I've come late to the party. My perception of Gibson Flying V is that the editor wants to be true to the references. If the reference states player information in cm, the editor will intentionally select that source and change a subject's height to use that reference and then falls back on that subject and refuses to accept the consensus to use m. I suggested the topic ban and fully endorse it more because the editor refuses to work cooperatively and recognize consensus. I am not following this discussion so if you need me, ping me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to have gone to WP:DRN, the project guide would not have been allowed to be argued. Only the main MOS would be. Project style guides are a local consensus and the main MOS is the broader community consensus. I am unwilling to support a topic ban over a project style guide, which is a local consensus and see this as an attempt to override the wider community consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters reflects the Football Wikiproject's long-standing consensus for both units (m and cm) being acceptable, which also matches the Wikipedia-wide consensus as evinced at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_143#Human_height and later confirmed at Template_talk:Height/Archive_2#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres. User:GiantSnowman's recent attempt to change that to only metres being acceptable at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height has been far from successful as anyone who reads the discussion and understands that consensus is not a vote will see. This is a waste of everyone's time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is wasting time. This is certainly not a cut and dry situation and discussion is where and how we discover the facts. Disengaging from the topics for a period might actually go a long way towards editors assuming good faith here.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant only insofar as the appeal for an administrator to enforce a topic ban. I also worry that the more that is typed out (and therefore must be read) here, the less real evidence like edit histories, sources and prior discussions will be looked at.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an administrator topic ban proposal. This is a community ban proposal. If you did something really blatant, you would have been blocked, if even temporarily or an admin would have warned you. I think Admin topic bans are possible and I think I have seen at least one (not sure) but this is a poll to establish a consensus to topic ban you by, or from the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick aside, I don't particularly like the accusations that we at WP:FOOTY are trying to enforce a certain style - we're not really. But as a WikiProject we have MOS and it is important that relevant articles use the MOS; if the MOS is deemed incompatible with wider Wikipedia-wide MOS/guidelines then that's another discussion for another day. We are here to discuss Gibson's disruption. Giant Snowman 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was very careful with my wording. I never said it was clear they were doing it, although this discussion does show the suggestion that Footy editor have a consensus that Gibson is being accused of violating. I said: "at the moment it looks like..." You actually said: "ENGVAR is not an issue here insomuch as non-British editors have also supported use of 'm' across all association football related articles. Why therefore can Gibson continue to get away with editing against that consensus?" The answer to that is, a local consensus cannot override the wider community consensus. Is it possible, any of those Project style guides were incorporated into subpages of the main MOS. That occurred a few years ago with regional style guides but am not clear if that was a straight across the board raising of all project style guides or just the pages that dealt with regional topics. Sorry if that came across as an accusation.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I just wanted to (try and) clear something up! If it is possible for the Project MOS to be incorporated into the wider MOS then even better, in a similar manner to the "no infoboxes on composer articles" we seem to have? Anyway this is off topic and getting away from the matter at hand! Giant Snowman 17:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on continued pattern of disruptive editing since (at least) January to use centimeters as opposed to metres in biographies of football players. Editor has not listened to consensus against their arguments, and had continued to rehash the same points. Since the aforementioned RFC in January, the editor has taken it upon them self to right their perceived great wrong of listing a footballer's height in metres over centimeters, often citing their selection of "quality sources" to justify the change of units. (See 16 Jan discussion 20 Jan edit summary 2 July discussion 17 June edit summary) Even as the RfC to add a cm display option to Template:Height was ongoing, the editor circumvented the discussion by replacing instances of {{height}} with {{convert}} to achieve their preferred display of cms.[8][9] Moreover, the edits used a disingenuous edit summary of "adding reference" when the height units were also changed to cm to reflect the cherry-picked reference. The RfC's close stated "It is clear from this discussion that there is much concern and opposition to any sort of blanket change, so all proposed mass changes for a particular field of endeavor need to have a new discussion that demonstrates clear consensus." Still, the editor started a recent discussion in June asking why Template:Height's "metric unit output is 'm' instead of the more commonly used 'cm'. Is there any reason why this should be the case?" Also, this 18 June edit is a continuation of past rejected edits to use cm, using edit summary "Matching source." This is consistent with their continued pattern of proof by assertion, continually repeating a failed argument to tire the opposition into submission. AGF should not be a blind pact to allow disruption of Wikipedia through exhaustive POV pushing.—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I begin??? I'm amazed at how many people seem to think that reflecting reliable sources in biographies of living persons constitutes "disruptive editing". For the supporters of this absurd ban suggestion an awful lot seems to depend on this assertion that consensus existed to only use metres in footballers' infoboxes. Now, you don't appear to have read anything I've said above, so here we go again: As per Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters: the player's height is to be displayed in the units most common within the country he or she plays (with a conversion). Accordingly, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height, GiantSnowman said, "Infobox football biography does not say "use m instead of cm" ... and the useage guide mentions m, cm and inches!". This is in line with the community's wider consensus that metres or centimetres are acceptable, depending on sources (this is also just common sense). Please show us this mysterious "consensus" you speak of which states that only metres are acceptable. The usage of metres is clearly supported by some (not all) editors at Wikiproject Football but not in reliable, English-language sources. Some of the metre supporters are from continental Europe and have no idea that centimetres are in fact the norm for metrically expressing human height in the anglosphere. Let's not forget, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons's introduction states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Therefore, I am of course perfectly happy with every diff you provided above (as well as my entire edit history). Not once have I removed a reliable source from an article (as my accusers have). Not once have I replaced a source with one of lesser quality (as my accusers have). Not once have I failed to use the same unit used in the source (as my accusers have). Since you've looked at my edit history, you must know that the footballers' articles I've improved are merely a drop in the ocean of the wide variety of biographies for which I've added, corrected and sourced heights over the years. Do you have any idea how many thanks I've received for these edits? Do you have any idea how many heights were incorrect before I came along? Do you have any idea how many more reliable sources have now been introduced to these articles as a result of my "disruptive" edits? Above you refer to my "continually repeating a failed argument". What failed argument exactly? You seem to have forgotten that you and the rest of the anti-centimetre gang came out on the wrong side of that RfC, which was always going to reflect policy & guidelines, wider consensus, sources and common sense by (albeit belatedly) allowing the use of centimetres. The anti-centimetre gang are an extremely small but incredibly loud minority, and appear to be the ones with something to answer for when it comes to the questions of disruption and incivility. Nobody enjoys being wrong. But it's better to do so with dignity rather than trying to abuse the power to take a parting shot at the ones who proved you wrong.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson Flying V I wonder if that last post might be better collapsed with the title "Gipson's reply" so as to not over power the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it left the way it is myself, but don't feel that strongly about it. You're welcome to collapse it if that's what's best. Admittedly I'm by no means a regular at these kinds of discussion boards.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't change it. But since you are now repeating yourself it might look better for you. I won't force my opinion on ya though. Off to dinner. Just stopped by the house to feed the dogs and now back to the 4th of J, BBQ at the neighbors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Giant Snowman 07:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, User:GiantSnowman. It's all stuff that I know you're already fully aware of.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, because it's just a re-hashing of same argument you've used for the past 6+ months, which obviously isn't working given the support for topic ban and the agreement you are being disruptive. Giant Snowman 08:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not quite. But there are some links to that (Here's another favourite). There certainly is agreement amongst the same band of editors that are arguing persistently against allowing centimetre usage. But what we're actually here for is wider community agreement.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is the concept of "reliable sources" in a discussion about Style simply a re-herring? If you find an reliable source that lists *my* height in ft/in then that's all well-and-good, because in any article about me, it should be listed in cm because I'm Canadian. The reliable source merely confirms my height - how we display it is based on style guidelines. The TLDR argument above seems to suggest that if I find a height for me measured in cubits, then we're required to list it in cubits because that's what the source says! the panda ₯’ 09:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WP:ENGVAR question, which has popped up quite a few times. But a wide-ranging survey of reliable (in terms of editorial control and appropriateness for an encyclopedia to take cues from with regards to style) sources reveals that every single variety of English appears to prefer using centimetres over metres anyway.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, quite obviously no. It's this ridiculous belief that you're right (when you obviously are not...and CONSENSUS says you're not) that makes me now say SUPPORT TOPIC BAN AS PROPOSED and recommend additional restrictions. If you're not willing to abide by the most basic rules that you agreed to, and work within the community structure that you agreed to, then I believe it's perhaps time to restrict your access due to you being wholly WP:DISRUPTIVE the panda ₯’ 12:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Um, quite obviously no". Again, I'm going to have to invite you to be more specific. "No" what? What is my "ridiculous belief"? What am I "obviously wrong" about? Where is the WP:CONSENSUS that I edited against? You can type out all the personal opinions based on what other editors have said here that you want, but what's needed is real evidence of actual disruption (clue: there is none). Thank goodness it's written down in policy that quality of arguments is more important than quantity, and that things aren't decided by mere vote-count, or I'd really have something to worry about.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously - the conversation above also counts as consensus against what you've been doing - the only consensus yet to be determined is whether or not to outright ban you from touching anything related to measurements. I'm giving you perhaps inappropriate credit here, but seriously, this entire THREAD says you're wrong - which means, you're wrong. Stop trying to argue otherwise - the longer you stick your fingers in your ears, the more people (like me) who will decide to !vote in favour of your topic ban ... that's not a brilliant thing to do whatsoever the panda ₯’ 12:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP - precisely. The consensus for footballers is that metric height should be displayed in 'm' not 'cm'; Gibson has been cherry picking sources to display height in his preferred format. They have even edited against what sources say (see this!) in order to display height in his preferred format. Giant Snowman 12:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to believe that you actually read the conversation above (or any of the conversations linked to), User:DangerousPanda, as you didn't answer a single one of my questions. I think it's becoming clear who has their fingers in their ears, hmm? You also opened your contribution to this discussion very early on with a groundless accusation of me making a personal attack, so you did your own credibility no favours there. It's not too late to have a quick read and change your vote, though. User:GiantSnowman: you, like the rest, have remained perfectly silent on where exactly the ever-elusive "MOS" and "consensus" that state that centimetres must never be used for soccer players are. You understand how crucial this is when claiming that someone has intentionally edited against them, don't you? I've already provided the links for the consensus that centimetres are acceptable, which you have edited against and are now attempting to thwart further by having me topic banned. It's one thing to say consensus exists. It's quite another to show that it exists.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Changed from oppose above) a topic ban on any and all article related to association football, broadly construed for disruptive editing with a lack of collaboration and a strict adherence to MOS when its guidance might be appropriately ignored per WP:IAR to improve the project. The past behavior seems to show a clear pattern and it is clear the editor will argue their case continually against the project's and their own good. Frankly I am a little embarrassed it took me this long to see. I think that there has been patience by those involved and that this may be the best solution. The editor can always ask for a review or lifting of the ban in the future. I don't support the ban on measurements as seeing that as a bit excessive. I apologize for the gender issue distraction, it was off topic and needed to be hatted.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing against the wishes of a small band of disruptive editors is not the same as editing against consensus. The MOS and consensus that User:GiantSnowman says I'm editing against are fictitious. Why are editors taking his word for it and ignoring the evidence I'm providing that the real consensus is that both units are acceptable?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Acceptable" does not mean across the board compliance. Perhaps you believe the RFC on the Template:height talk page has some influence on the proper display of human height straight across the board on all articles on Wikipedia. That is incorrect. That is a local consensus for use of that template and how it should function and be used when consensus agrees it should be used at all. Each article has either major contributors or most interested parties. The footy project held a proper, project level discussion to decide how to proceed with that information and chose a different route than the discussion on the RFC. It is just a template and they come and go as they become obsolete after time. They are not policy, guidelines or official procedure. The project can decide to use or not use the template, select a specific preferred method, spelling or orthography and can choose to ignore what guidelines are must appropriate for the regional or specified use to those articles under the scope of that project.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Acceptable" does not mean across the board compliance. So very true. Yet a small band of editors are still trying to enforce metres only across all soccer players' biographies. The influence that the RFC at {{Height}} had was removing a shortcoming in its parameters that amounted to a ban on centimetres in any article (of any Wikiproject) the template was used regardless of whether they appeared in the sources. Correcting this paved the way for a situation in which the relative prevalence of the two formats as seen in real-world sources could finally be reflected accurately on Wikipedia. An improvement, I'm sure everyone (except my accusers, who argued pointlessly against it till the end) could agree. However, as you've already seen, these people will still undo any edit that introduces the cm format to a soccer players' biography (whether with {{height}} or {{convert}}, it doesn't matter to them), without regard for whether cm is what's used in the source, or the subject's country. The footy project held a proper, project level discussion to decide how to proceed with that information and chose a different route than the discussion on the RFC. Where? The current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height? If this is the long-awaited evidence of consensus to only use metres on soccer players' articles (and it isn't), then I can only be accused of editing against it since it was begun, right? Yet, as you say, diffs from over the past 7 months have been provided. The fact is consensus remains, at Wikiproject football as it is on the rest of the encyclopedia, for either format to be used (with recourse to reliable sources). If this were not the case, why did User:GiantSnowman recently start that attempt to build consensus for banning centimetres? If Wikiproject Football's consensus has always been for metres only, why has Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters always said with regards to the 'Height' parameter: "The player's height in the units most common within the country he or she plays with a conversion (e.g. by using {{convert}})." It goes on to say in the Style guide section: "As per the manual of style the player's height should be in the units most common in the country in which he or she plays. ... Ideally, measurements should be presented using the {{convert}} template, which automatically converts units between formats and handles the presentation of units. ... {{height}} is a similar template designed for infoboxes, which presents units in short form by default." Therefore User:GiantSnowman, in a further acknowledgement that the long-standing consensus is for both units to be used, has asserted repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height that {{Infobox_football_biography}} does not favour metres over centimetres. Consensus at WT:MOSNUM, as it was at the RfC, and as it remains at Wikiproject Football, is for source-based flexibility when it comes to units.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per reason stated above. Also the behaviour that he shows is just headscratching. Kante4 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Mark Miller's post above at 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my July 4 posts, I don't see edit warring per se, but reverting can be seen by others as an aggressive move. I also ask in one of those posts what eventually changed my mind...exactly how are you being disruptive and to what extent? How...by creating unnecessary disputes on a broad range of project related football association articles over the same issue, changing content on measurements. To what extent....over a broad range of project related articles for nearly 7 months where the project has formed consensus against the content or changes. Sorry, that is what I ended up seeing. You should have disengaged some time ago on your own.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed "reverting can be seen by others as an aggressive move." (See this, hours ago). Let's be clear, if this small but loud minority of editors simply complied with the wider community's (and their own Wikiproject's) consensus that units should be determined by either WP:SOURCES or WP:TIES there would be no dispute. The discussions about this issue are more often than not started by me following destructive and poorly-reasoned edit-warring like the above. I can't find a single one in which the anti-cm gang have come out on top in terms of quality of arguments. See for yourself. It's bad faith and WP:IDONTLIKEITs all round. User:Kante4, who appears to be German and therefore used to seeing metres discounts their contribution to consensus-determining discussion on questions of style at the English Wikipedia as irrelevant for being based on personal opinion only, and showing no understanding of the matter. What I'm seeing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height is an attempt by User:GiantSnowman for the Wikiproject to move away from the current consensus of unit flexibility which has been rejected with good reasons by three editors, and accepted by four (and that's including Kante4!).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

I think the consensus above is pretty clear, please can an uninvolved admin review and close? Giant Snowman 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin, I trust, will not fail to notice your days-old attempt at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height to go against existing consensus and ban centimetre usage was rejected. They will also notice that three of your 'support' voters here were also supporters of that failed attempt, and another of them had argued fruitlessly alongside you at the {{Height}} RfC to continue banning centimetres there. Therefore, since the consensus you claim that I've been editing against is based on either a lie or a failure to understand how WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia works, this entire proposal falls down. This should result in a WP:BOOMERANG that hits you for trying to prevent an editor from improving the encyclopedia in line with sources, policy and consensus. All this of course is only possible if every bit of this discussion (and those linked to) is checked and read through carefully. For what is in fact such a small issue that's a lot of reading and I don't envy them the task.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the closing admin will recognize that there was clear consensus at WT:FOOTBALL about the (non-)use of 'cm', and they will recognize the even clearer (in fact unanimous!) consensus here that your behavior has been nothing but disruptive. Giant Snowman 21:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin can read for him/herself User:GiantSnowman, and (unlike yourself) knows that mere repetition of claims and head-counting are almost meaningless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - oh the irony of you talking about "repetition of claims" and trying to tell anyone else about WP:CONSENSUS... Giant Snowman 21:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Yeah.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant in the RFC referred to in this discussion, I would like to recommend that the closing administrator's comments on that discussion be reviewed. The rough consensus there was for adding the capability for the Height template to express heights in cm. The closure forbade mass replacements in existing articles in order to change expressions from m to cm. But there was no consensus regarding when cm was permissible and when it was not. Neither was there any overriding consensus as to m being more "correct" generally. Either unit may be shown by separate consensus within a specific domain to be the prevalent form, whereby it may be enforced consistently, but that RFC does not specify for any particular domain. Enforcement of one unit or another must derive from separate consensus. The RFC notes that perfect consistency is not required, and the argument in the RFC is that neither unit is "correct" to the exclusion of the other; rather, it is a matter of unofficial general acceptance if one is used rather than another, not anything mandated by the SI system of units.

All this being said, I have not watched the specifics of recent editing by Gibson Flying V. But if he has simply made new entries and expressed heights in cm in those edits, then he has not violated the RFC. I will say that during the RFC he seemed unable to grasp that cm was not an absolutely correct unit to use. However, the chief complainant here, GiantSnowman, was at least equally unable to grasp that m was not an absolutely correct unit to use. Given the irreconcilable nature of the discussions at the RFC, it is my guess that what you have here is simply a continuation of a campaign of opposition between the two that (as the RFC closer put it) is based solely on fear rather than upon reason. If you find it necessary to topic ban Gibson Flying V, I suggest you look equally closely at the behavior of GiantSnowman to determine whether or not the same should apply. Banning an editor on one side of a disruption does not necessarily remove the disruptive influence. A disruption derives from an inability to reason, and there can be multiple sources such occurrences in any disagreement. What is clear is that unreasoned arguments are being allowed to disrupt editing across a wide swath of articles, to cost a great deal of community energy and time, and that it is the unreason on both sides that should not be allowed to dominate the editing community. Evensteven (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Evensteven: - where have I shown any disruptive editing? No-one is accusing Gibson of violating the RFC outcome, we are saying that he is violating the consensus at WP:FOOTY (that we use metres for association football-related articles), and in the process of doing so his actions are disruptive. That is why the topic ban is for association football-related articles only; he is fine to implement 'cm' to articles on actors and hairdressers and tennis players if that change is supported by the relevant WikiProjects, who again might have their own MOS. Giant Snowman 11:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you "have not watched the specifics of recent editing by Gibson Flying V" - so how can you comment? Have you read the above discussion or are you simply here because you were asked to? Giant Snowman 12:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) to the closing administrator, please also be aware of the additional disruption on Template talk:Height of Gibson creating multiple sections to facilitate his personal agenda of eliminating all heights on wiki that aren't in cm. This is exactly what I was saying in my post way up top about the scope of this topic ban needing to be all height related things, and not just those associated with football. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you not address the concerns raised at Template talk:Height there instead of simply mentioning that they've been raised here? I do not have a "personal agenda of eliminating all heights on wiki that aren't in cm". I want the relative prominence of cm and m as seen in WP:SOURCES to be reflected organically on Wikipedia. How could anyone possibly have a problem with that? This will only be achieved if there is no inherent bias amongst Wikipedia's tools and editors for or against m or cm. Isn't the whole Wikipedia philosophy to simply reflect what's in sources without bias (i.e. with as little editor intervention as possible)?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to understand Gibson, is that since I'm a dumb American, I don't particularly care about if m or cm is used in articles. You can change them all to Km for all I care. Since all of these measures are base ten, even a dumb American like me can easily recalculate in my head fairly quickly the conversion from m to cm and cm to m. The problem I have isn't with the template or what it offers (I'm still not entirely clear why it isn't just deleted in favor of {{Convert}} with a redirect). My problem is with you cherry picking sources to support your all cm agenda and ignoring the ENGVAR element and ignoring the proportion and scale of the sources used. If there are 8 sources that give a height in m, then it is entirely inappropriate to change that height to cm because you found a single source that says cm. If you want to go and write entirely new articles about people who don't have articles and set the basis as cm, you go ahead and do that and set the ENGVAR "original format" to cm for those articles, but to change the format of existing articles is not acceptable. At this point, I'll be quite amazed if this is closed in anyway other than to ban you from anything height related or even ban you from all BLPs period, and if I was in your shoes, I would simply accept and acknowledge the fact that what you were doing was not acceptable (despite whether or not you feel it was wrong, as that is entirely irrelevant if it was right or wrong, all that matters is that it was/is unacceptable to the community), agree to stop changing existing measurements, and focus on new player article creation where you can set your preference. Who knows, maybe if you create enough new articles with your preference then consensus will change, but I'm sure that is a long ways off at this point (at least a year and more likely 2-3 years). Anyways, I wish you well and I wish you good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 11:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template Editor User:Technical 13

Consensus seems to endorse the removal of the userright at this time. However, several editors do mention that this removal is not eternal, rather until T13 demonstrates a commitment to using the tool appropriately. While it is not my role to proffer specific times, I would encourage T13 to keep editing unprotected templates, and seek to embody a collegial spirit in that endeavor, as well as in general editing, and strictly adhere to our policy on edit warring, which we should all know can happen before three reverts. Go Phightins! 12:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

At the suggestion of Salvidrim! (talk · contribs), I'm here to start a discussion of a wider community involvement regarding the de-TEing of myself. To quote myself from WP:RTE#User:Technical 13: As one of the top User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable responders, being a member of this user group is required to continue my work. There was no justifiable reason for this user group to be removed per Wikipedia:Template editor#REVOKE, which does not have a "various concerns over template-editing" criteria, and the administrator who performed the action refuses to discuss his action and detail what those "concerns" are. So, I'm here to request reinstatement into this group. There was a no comment from Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) on the grounds that he was involved in the discussion that in part led up to this action by MSGJ (talk · contribs). Xeno (talk · contribs) has yet to reply to my request for expansion of what they have seen, as I do not see it the same way. Thank you all for your consideration in this matter. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T13 asked me to expand, the two examples that come to mind are the T/M:Documentation that led to the removal and T:Archive basics (where a user had to come along later and program functionality to work-around T13's unilateral change), similar concerns at WT:AN#MediaWiki Error on AN and AN/I archive pages, edit warring over a "big" tag, etc. While not all related to the template editor right, examples of T13 edit warring or pushing his preferred version where there is no consensus or external desire for such changes. –xeno^talk 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the T/M:Documentation horse has been beat to death, and I've already apologized for any inconveniences and agreed to not edit that package any more. There is nothing else I can do there. I'm still not happy that template and module do not offer a class to allow people to hide it if they so choose, and I've already said how I intend to cope with the situation. I do find Redrose64 (talk · contribs)'s comment to be pushing the WP:THREATEN threshold, but I digress there.

WT:AN#MediaWiki Error on AN and AN/I archive pages is still an issue and there have been reports on Bugzilla: that others are having issues as well.

Wikipedia:VPR#RfC: Should deprecated.2Finvalid.2Funsupported HTML tags be discouraged.3F shows there is indeed an issue and there was no edit warring over a "big" tag. There was just a request for clarification of why it was a problem, I explained and the issue was dropped.

The T:Archive basics is a good example. I made a change to a non-protected template to offer users a notification if the archive page size was greater than the recommendation for the size of a talk page. Hasteur (talk · contribs) did not understand why the limit was set "so low" to 75K because he thought that talk page archives should be around 125k bytes in length. I then modified the template to adjust the threshold to 150K (above what he requested) pending further discussion. At this point, there were two editors that were satisfied with the way the template was working, so I don't see how you can claim it was unilateral. Xeno did not like it, but never requested it removed, and never reverted the edits that added it. Another user came by later (unaware there was a discussion with an attempt to find a consensus on my talk page, and which I've just moved to the template's talk page were it should have been to begin with) and added some code that allowed to circumvent the change, and that code still stands. I do believe this is how the WP:EDITCONSENSUS process works, no? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate user right - I am surprised that preventing T13 from using the TE user right is even considered an option, in the absence of unambiguous abuse. I understand that some editors might have "concerns" about T13's apparent insistence to push the changes he thinks need to happen, but I don't see anything even close to a level of dispute that I would consider appropriate justification for removing the user right. I find T13's "defense" to be credible and serious. He himself admits that nobody's perfect and shows willingness to take the time to work through any issue. Relentlessness when faced with resistance to change isn't always a bad thing when there are improvements to be made, and I have faith that T13 only intends to improve things, not push a particular POV or cause disruption; however it is understandable that frictions ensue and it's part of working with people. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also: If a template works for 100% of users, but with some minor annoyance for a few, then an edit is made to the template which doesn't affect functionality and still makes it work for 100% of users but removes the annoyance, is that not a net improvement? Lack of a so-called "good reason" for an edit should never be a reason to object to the edit; objections should stand on their own right. If the edit breaks nothing, and yet fixes something minor and that only affects a few users... then it's a good thing. If someone contests the edit, and the initial user then makes another edit while taking in consideration the opposer's concerns, that I'd say that's a pretty standard process for making improvements. Technical 13's intentions are unambiguously to improve Wikipedia, either for all, some, or few users. You can "accuse" him of being very pro-active and persistent instead of careful and timid but the intentions and competence should be more than enough to ensure the community doesn't prevent his work, but instead encourages it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – reinstatement of the user right. Edit warring against other holders of the template permission is analogous to wheel warring among admins; it simply isn't done. Wikipedia:Template editor contains this language: "Do not change the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute. And never wheel war with other admins or template editors." Until I saw that User:MSGJ had already removed T13's template permission I was thinking of proposing that it be suspended for at least a month. So far there is no place to find a complete list of the problems with T13's edits but User talk:Technical 13#Edit warring on template-protected pages contains some of the issues. Anyone who has no previous awareness of the dispute and wants to see an example might notice that Template:Documentation is normally template-protected and it was the subject of an edit war beginning with Technical13's edit at 23:46 on 2 July. That page has now been fully protected to stop the war. Since these pages are down in the basement of Wikipedia they are included about ten zillion times and an edit war is hardly benign. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: "oppose" can be ambiguous as the only bolded part for anyone skimming through the discussion. I recommend "Reinstate user right" or "Endorse removal" (or something else like "Suspend TE for X days" or whatever better sums up your opinion) as explicit and precise options to bold in your !vote. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation T13 came to WIkipedia and made some immediate mistakes in the way he handled a couple of issues. He annoyed me and others. These self inflicted difficulties caused him to come to notice of folk pretty much every time he has made any sort of error.. It seems to me that he comes under the microscope even when he does things right, and does so in a way that no other editor with his heart in the right place does. He seems to have picked up a 'bad guy' label, something that is odd since I have not seen his edits deviate from being for the good of the project as a whole. I believe that he is a huge net benefit to the project. I'm not an admin. If I am entitled to express an opinion here I wish him to Retain TE rights or have them reinstated. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate user right in 24 hours - I've never seen him be anything but a hard worker. That being said, with regards to templates, there should never be anything close to an edit war between TEs, just by definition of their role. TEs should stick with a 1-revert limit per day, and temporary rights removal for defined short periods at first, and up to full removal if it continues to happen. --Netoholic @ 19:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to say that Template Editors should actually adhere to WP:WHEEL, since this is fundamentally an administrative prerogative that they are exercising. Van Isaac_WS^cont 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resinstate user right (as non-administrator observation) under WP:ADMINACCT. An administrator should be required to detail the reasoning behind their actions as well as the supposed 'concerns' that they undergo them, as they are ultimately responsible for their administrator actions. This administrator has not done such. @MSGJ: should explain what exactly the concerns were to detail that the right be removed from the individual. The right should be given back by default until the appropriate and removing admin has voiced their concerns, in which I will reassess my !vote. Tutelary (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removal The Template-editor user right does not confer the right to make controversial edits without prior discussion.
Before all this began, Template:Documentation was template-protected (it had been full prot until October 2013, see log); it was raised to full prot again as a direct consequence of these events. Following that increase in prot, and once the discussion at User talk:Technical 13#Edit warring on template-protected pages was in full swing, Technical 13 then switched their attention to Module:Documentation, which is also template-protected. Adjusting code used by everyone in order to make a personal script work is unacceptable: it should be the other way around. Earlier, I was mentioned in the context of "comment to be pushing the WP:THREATEN threshold". The primary topic of WP:THREATEN is "Arguments to avoid in edit wars": it is clear to me that in the incident in question, that of altering the documentation template/module four times and being reverted in each case one two three four (twice each by two different users, neither being myself), Technical 13 is the primary edit-warrior, not me.
Technical 13's remark "comment to be pushing the WP:THREATEN threshold" is, I believe, related to this edit of mine, which was a direct response to this edit, which contains the words "I'll just remove the {{Doc}} or {{Documentation}} from templates when I work on them" which sounded to me like a threat to disrupt Wikipedia. Earlier on in the thread we find Mr. Stradivarius suggesting ANI; later; Technical 13 tries to call my bluff but decides to raise me instead by starting this thread (which I observe is at AN, not ANI). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is at AN because I specifically pointed the user here after closing their WP:RFP/T request. I agree it could've gone to ANI instead, but that'd a pretty minor detail overall, and one I am fully responsible for. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict × 3) one is entirely unrelated. three was an attempt to use the class that was specified to be used after two was reverted. four was the result of the consensus of Mr. S. agreeing with Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs) that templates that invokes a module should only have the supporting module edited. If you are going to quote me Redrose64, I would appreciate you use the whole quote, not just the part the supports your claim. The full comment was Like I said, I'll just remove the {{Doc}} or {{Documentation}} from templates when I work on them. Simple. (underlining key words for clarity) which followed I will simply delete the documentation template from templates when I'm editing them and restore it when I'm done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. So, I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I think it was a bad move for MSGJ to remove the TE tools without discussion. Several of the issues, while they were related to TE and would've factored into a decision to grant or not grant TE were a fresh request made, did not involve a use of the tool. Removing it would've more been a matter of a "vote of no confidence", one might say, rather than a direct response to sustained abuse of the tools, and such things should really be done by community consensus (or whatever the nearest analog is), rather than a single person. Our rules against wheel warring can tend to create a first-mover advantage in these scenarios, which also makes a consensus-backed decision preferable, though I doubt that MSGJ had that in mind when they removed the rights, and despite the fact that the letter of the law technically gives the advantage to the second mover. Moreover, T13 is by and large a productive editor, certainly a net positive overall.
However, I can't say that the removal was totally unjustified or outside the realm of reasonability, either. Persistence in the face of opposition is not always a bad thing, no, but if it involves substantive, non-discussion changes, it usually is (hence our rules against edit-warring), and if advanced permissions are used to make said changes, it almost certainly is (hence our rules against wheel warring). T13's problem, it seems to me, has always been a simple dogged stubbornness, and this isn't the first time it's gotten him in trouble by any means. There's a fine line between persistence and pigheadedness, and I think T13 strays over the line too much. This thread is an example of that. Compounding the issue is that T13 has made enemies from this (most notably Hasteur), and it seems that these feuds affect his judgement (see also this). (To be honest, if interaction bans weren't seen as such a horrifying badge of shame, I'd propose one between Hasteur and T13; I think that would solve quite a bit of the drama surrounding them.) Finally, when called on this, T13 tends to double-down on his position; this leads to excuses like "nobody's perfect". I don't think these are "nobody's perfect, let's laugh it off" kinds of mistakes; these are "I'm sorry, this won't happen again" kinds of mistakes, and T13's response so far seems to be more of the former than the latter.
I suppose what I really want here is for T13 to retain (or regain, I suppose) TE rights by making assurances that, from now on, and with the understanding that it has been a problem for them in the past, they will scrupulously follow the rules about involved use of advanced permissions, edit warring, and wheel warring, and that, if there could be any doubt about those policies at all, they will opt for discussion or abstention, rather than action. I don't really think that losing T13's edits in this area is a good thing in and of itself. But, given the drama that has continued to generate, I don't think a simple restoration without any assurances is wise; allowing MSGJ's removal to stand for now might be the lesser of two "evils", so to speak. So, reluctant support of tool removal for now, with hopes for a restoration soon is what I'd go for, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to the editor interaction between Hasteur and I, there are a lot of places where our interest and contributions overlap, and not all interactions between us are negative. I've suggested an interaction ban between the two of us on at least one occasion in relation to a specific topic, but I didn't feel like anyone heard me.
As to your concern of follow the rules about involved use of advanced permissions, edit warring, and wheel warring, I'm stubbornly going to maintain that there was no edit/wheel warring. I didn't revert any changes by anyone here. What I did do was carefully read the edit summaries of the reversion of my various edits and then modify the improvement of the template to address those concerns. Isn't that what we are suppose to do? In hind sight, I admitted that my first edit of the template fell under WP:TPE#SD where some discussion may rarely be needed, but my subsequent edits clearly fell under one of the specific bullet points of WP:TPE#ND where no discussion is needed. There was no dispute about adding a class that had no visual effect on the template by anyone. The only dispute was using the {{#if:{{REVISIONID}}|{{#ifeq:{{REVISIONID}}|0|show stuff|hide stuff}} method of hiding the template in page edit mode. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reinstatement of permission I'd be willing to accept this if it were the first, second, or third time where T13's usage of the right was not in line with the reasons that the permission are gratned, but Technical 13 has consistently shown a lack of clue and fulfilling requests. There have been multiple cases where T13's "improvements" have either introduced new functionality that is not called for in a template, being stubborn in fufilling requests clearly backed by community consensus, breaking templates followed by rapid fire "fixes" causing a significant amount of Update Server passes, and using the privilege to win out over opposition to their change. There have been multiple suggestions to Technical 13 to exercise more caution when dealing with Templates, with responses to Template-Edit-Protected requests, with responding to complaints about their editing, and in general with their Customer Support (See their talk page and archives for the numerous gravestones where complaints go to be ignored or flippantly rejected by Technical 13). Until there is maturity/clue/tact, we should not be granting T13 such right. And by the way Technical 13 The difference between your usage of topicons and the list of editors you pointed at (Richwales—Ritchie333—I JethroBT—BrownHairedGirl) is that theirs are primarily for article improvements (DYK, GA, FA, Rescue) are all things to be celebrated, not the plethora of user rights you've amassed in what I can only assume to as a WP:HATSHOP in preperation for collecting the supreme golden key of the Janitor's closet (Adminship). Hasteur (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The big hiccup in that hypothesis, of course, is that I've repeatedly turned down suggestion on my talk page that I should run a RfA. I also hope that you properly notify all those editors you mentioned on their talk pages. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) Besides the discussion mentioned above that was moved to Template talk:Archive basics, there was also a side discussion about maximum Size of Archives and I just added an update in the Three archive maximums section.
Cheers. —Telpardec (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I came here after Hasteur's linking of my username above sent me a notification. I have had a few minor interactions with Technical 13, and encountered them at a few other discussions. The impression I have formed has been of technical skill combined with a lack of maturity, and of a focus on technical matters with inadequate regard to the importance of the community of editors.
The evidence of edit-warring on protected templates is alarming, because changes to high-visibility templates create server load issues and affect many articles. That appears at first sight to be very good grounds for endorsing removal of the privilege.
My hesitation, and the reason why I am not so far making an explicit endorsement, is that this seems to me to be an example of a type of social problem which the community repeatedly struggles to resolve: an editor with a valuable skillset whose value is undermined by drama. I think of a very fine content-contributor who made an art-form of incivility, and polarised the community between those who placed greatest weight on the fine articles and those who prioritised the maintenance of a collegial editing environment. I was deeply involved in at least one round of the Betacommand saga, where a genius at coding bots had the social skills of an anti-personnel mine.
This case is nowhere near those extremes, but we are faced with a similar set of issues. My instinct is to follow en.wp's default Pavlovian approach, removing privileges when abused and reinstating them when the editor has demonstrated a renewed ability to work collegially. Maybe this is the best we can do, but I wish we could find a better way :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have been involved in a couple of incidents in which an editor asked for a change to a protected template, and Technical 13 posted a refusal to make the change, even though there was a consensus among other editors that the change should be made. I hope that these times when he did not edit a template will not be presented as a reason to withhold the Template Editor right. No editor should or can be forced to make a change that he feels is wrong, just because he happens to have the technical skill and permissions to make it. The template editor right is a technical right, given to those who are trusted to have the technical skill not to mess up the templates. If T13 or any another template editor doesn't want to make a certain change, and speaks up against it, this should be perfectly okay. This makes that editor is “involved”, and another template editor or an admin with the appropriate tech skills should come along and look for a consensus to make the requested change, taking all comments into account. This happens with other types of discussions all the time – at AfD for example. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a simple refusal to make an edit is the issue at question here: of course nobody is forced to act if they don't want to. But there's a difference between simply deciding not to personally implement a request that one doesn't agree with on the one hand and actually marking a request (with which they are intimately involved) as closed-rejected on the other (see here). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Anne Delong There's a difference between declining to implement the request yourself (and explaining why you don't see a reason to) and actively rejecting a edit request. Further, in the case identified by Writ Keeper the base request is an attempt to force the Revert over a BOLD action that Technical 13 did themselves using the Template Editor right. While T13 may have had the technical ability, their ability to interpert consensus when against them clearly indicates that we run the risk of having actions similar to the ones that T13 is already on notice for occurring again which is the exact reason we should keep the permission revoked until such time that protecting Wikipedia from a reckless privilege holder is no longer in question. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add some perspective, this is the equivalent of an admin blocking a user, then the editor uses the unblock template and the same admin reviews his/her own block and declines. While template editors aren't admin, they still hold an advanced permission bit, so the behavioral expectation is similar: If you use the bits, you don't prevent or shut down independent review. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather clumsy analogy (no offense intended). What I see is that T13 made a bold edit, as he is known to do. A request for it to be reverted entirely is made by Hasteur. Instead of proceeding with that request, further discussion ensues to pinpoint exactly what the objection is (the arrows pointing to the Save Page button or whatever). The content that was the cause of the "dispute" is removed (and thus the objection resolved), and the request for full reversion of the edit is closed as having been resolved another way. I would be more inclined to encourage and applaud this process as efficient and constructive than to condemn it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime anyone's actions are under review, they shouldn't be the one to close the review. That is a universal truth here, no matter how you assign the responsibility of advanced bits. While "efficiency" is always good, it isn't the end goal, equity and transparency are. Note that I've not voiced an opinion on the removal of tools, and limited my observations to framing this singular example of less than perfect judgement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would have been better for the sake of transparency for someone uninvolved to close the actual edit request, as is standard when one's actions are under review, but I honestly think that it would have made no difference on the end result and that this eschewing of bureaucratic procedures was neither in bad faith, nor conferred an "undue advantage" to anyone. I do not believe T13 acted this way in order to actively avoid review, but merely because he considered leaving it open for someone else to do what he could himself do was very inefficent. Due process is important, but most people who accomplished bold changes in the world's history did not adhere to the "due process" and still produced constructive results. I'm not excusing the entirety of T13's uncommonly bold actions, but I think it is important to keep in sight that the end result remains, for the most part, desirable for the project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at this carefully. Hasteur requested ONLY this change undone, this is one template out of six using the exact same format (seems like a POINTy request to me). This is because that wasn't what he wanted, what he wanted was this edit he made. As the result of discussion and other changes made, what he wanted was Done. So, what he wanted was done. At that point, the request to do what was already done was moot, and as such it was closed. I'll also point out Hasteur's I can't hear you response was very inappropriate and personally attacking essentially calling me a flat out lair despite linking to all the diffs showing the consensus to keep going. The only objection was this editor's comment that said they thought the chain of arrows was unnecessary, but there should be a step-by-step guide like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/How to edit with a video and screenshots illustrating the editing steps would be good to help complete newcomers. I interpreted this as "something is needed", and since I'm not adept at making such videos, the arrows was "something". Regardless, this was not an instance where the userright was an issue. The complaint was at brand new, still unprotected preload templates that anyone could edit. I created the templates, Hasteur made a bold change to what I created, I reverted it and said let's discuss it and started the discussion (which all editors that revert are suppose to do, if you revert, it is your responsibility to start a discussion). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by the description of events, since as can be seen from the discussion, Technical 13's next comment in the discussion thread was six hours later, where he said he removed the arrows, so I don't see any period when my comment was used to support their inclusion (and it would be odd to do so, given that I explicitly said they were unnecessary, and more confusing than helpful). Also note that immediately after my comment, another editor raised an objection, and Technical 13 replied to it and later included it in a timeline of events, indicating their awareness of it. isaacl (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I acknowledged that "something" was needed. Based on your comment and the other discussion, I realized the the little arrows that direct a new user that may have never edited on Wikipedia before weren't what the WPAFC community wanted, so I spent a little time thinking about it and came up with something else (the addition of a demonstration Save page button to show them what to look for). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removal. Right now, Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests is empty. I rarely see a backlog here. We have 83 template editors, and my general impression is that T13 has been disproportionately responding to these requests, and often in a less than user-friendly manner, particularly with "not done" rejections. By taking requests out of the queue, he removes the opportunity for another more editor-friendly template editor to perhaps understand and implement a request. In particular, I'm thinking of the "please specify precisely the edit you want to make" kind of rejections. A more helpful template editor might understand what the requester wants to do, and suggest the technical change that would do it. This is just my general impression, sorry for not taking the time to dig up specific examples. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify whether you endorse removal of the user right because it was abused or misused? Your post seems more to imply that you would prefer that T13 doesn't respond to edit requests, but nothing about the removal of the user right itself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Wbm1058 has something like this in mind. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, the burden of providing a clear, complete and consensus-backed edit request has always been on the requester. Edit requests at all levels are routinely declined for small missing details (as was the case here). That someone else (you, in this case) went "the extra mile" to fulfill an otherwise incomplete edit request is entirely to your credit, but should not be held against the original decliner. If you want to change that so that a template-protected-edit-request shifts that responsability partly from the requester to the responder, I'd actually support that, but I do not believe that this is something currently in effect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel that, per the examples given by others previously, the right has been abused or misused to the point that merits removal of the right, for some minimum unspecified time. I was adding my perpsective, and Redrose gives a good example of that, I'm sure others can be found. I've had an "edit skirmish" with T13 as well: see Template talk:TL. A lot of these may not seem particularly severe when taken in isolation, but after a while, they add up, and we reach a point like this... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another wonderful inconsistency. I'm admonished and de-TEed because I allegedly don't know how to get consensus before editing, and then during the discussion for this, I'm admonished because I asked for a link to the consensus of a requested change. Per WP:PER it is the requesting editors responsibility to show that a consensus has been reached before requesting an edit with the edit protected templates. I closed this example as such. I hope you do see how this can be confusing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not that inconsistent, and you shouldn't be that confused. In some cases which may be assumed to be not controversial you could be more bold and proactive. Maybe ask for a link to consensus without closing the request, and wait a reasonable time before closing if it becomes evident that such a link will not soon be forthcoming. In cases that are controversial, you need to be less bold. It's OK to sometimes assume wrong re: controversial or not, but once a request becomes obviously controversial, then slow down and seek a consensus. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I oppose the change, does that not make the request controversial? Also, leaving the request open for another is against current policy and I'm assuming consensus. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, yes, if anyone opposes an edit request, then that request is potentially controversial and should be discussed. My comments are supplementary to the rights-removal decision, and in response to your statement "As one of the top User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable responders, being a member of this user group is required to continue my work." "Sometimes responding editors may request further information, and disable the template"... you're not required to immediately disable the template. A judgement call, and—just my opinion—being a little slower on the "not done" trigger can seem to be a more "editor-friendly" response. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I may request further information, but if I do, than the template should be disabled. That is what it says. It is a linear if...then statement. If I request further info ... then disable the template. Also, I've seen maybe a handful out of hundreds of requests that I have closed reopened with more information or clarification. I've also seen what happens when these requests are left open, either someone else comes by and disables the template, or they stay open without an answer for weeks or months and I find making a requester wait that amount of time for a definitive response to their request far more bitey than closing the request (which clearly says that when they add more information they are welcome to reopen the request or start a new request) asking for more details or clarity. Why should it be my fault that they are too lazy to clarify or reopen the request or start a new request? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're also not reading the directions in the big tan PER template on every request that reads; "

The edit may be made by any template editor. Remember to change the <code>|answered=''no''</code> parameter to "'''yes'''" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category.

" — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant endorse removal. So, there's a lot to unpackage here. I'm really disappointed to see a "request denied" response from MSGJ in terms of an explanation. There should have been one. I'm also not really convinced that nature of T13's edits on Template:Documentation could cause any systemic problems (but I think that the nature of the template itself necessitated some caution in editing). T13's experience in template editing is definitely valuable.

That said, this is another example of T13's bold approach that is in conflict with the need for discussion. Like Salvidrim! notes, I think T13's approach is often a positive one. But that method needs to be tempered by an understanding that when you are asked to discuss the changes you are making, you do it and stop making additional changes ([10] [11]), related or not. T13 has referred to his edits the Documentation template as "collaborative", but when you are calling involved persons "dictatorial", go out of your way to write a script rather than actually discuss a solution, and presumptively attribute a motive for reversion using WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, it is anything but collaborative. I agree with Writ Keeper's assessment that T13 engages these situations with too much stubbornness and it is not conducive to being a template editor in the long run. I want to see T13 reinstated, but he should acknowledge that this was not a collaborative process and that simply withdrawing from templates is not actually a solution to the broader concerns expressed here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Template Editor page gives a fair amount of direction about care in making changes to the templates, but very little direction about responding to requests. In fact, I had to go through two more links to find the instructions, where it says 'Once the request has been responded to, the responding editor should disable the protected edit request template by changing the |answered= parameter to "yes"'. This makes it sound as though any kind of response triggers the “yes”. Protected templates can be edited either by Admins or Template editors, but Template Editors, while expected to follow Wikipedia policies, are mainly chosen for their technical expertise, and may not all be experienced in judging consensus. Should the information on the Template Editor page be expanded with some direction about answering requests? For example, perhaps the instructions could say that the “answered=yes” should be added if the request was fulfilled, or if the request was not fulfilled for clearly explained technical reasons, but that if a TE disagreed with the edit for other reasons he or she could leave a comment or join a discussion about why the edit was a bad idea, or just ignore the request, but should refrain from adding the “answered=yes”, so that other Template Editors or Admins would still see it. If this had been clearly written, Technical 13 may have avoided some missteps. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea to me. I imagine that it's easy for technically-minded editors to interpret instructions like that too literally, and I think some clarification on how to judge consensus when responding to edit requests would be welcome at both WP:PER and WP:TPE. Perhaps the specifics could be added at WP:PER, as this applies equally to edit requests answered by admins. WP:TPE could just have a note saying "template editors are expected to follow the standards set out in WP:PER when answering requests", or something similar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, but think that the wording etc. need to be tweaked a little. I'd rather see something that specifically discouraged setting answered to yes by the editor that made a bold change ( this does not include one where the editor just implemented an edit request with consensus ) where the request was for a revert to begin the BRD, unless they are reverting as part of answering. I see a loop hole in that if a TE makes a bold edit for what they believe to be technical reasons that they might not see the issue in answering requests that they revert themselves. I also worry that change is too tight disallowing answered=yes in rejecting requests. We do not require editors to be admin to close many types of discussions, if there were previous discussions on a topic that rejected something I don't see why a TE shouldn't be allowed to just reject an end run edit request etc. Perhaps something like if disagreeing with an requested edit if there are no objections, the responder should post there concerns and not set answered=yes. If there already are other objections and no consensus then they can set answered=yes and add a comment requesting that consensus be sought before trying again or the like. PaleAqua (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was leaving them open for others that might want to go the extra mile trying to decipher an incomplete or unclear request, until I got yelled at for it. I swear, I can't win on some of this stuff. I do what I think is right, and get told I'm doing it wrong. I change my way to make that user happy (which Jackmcbarn endorsed and that is why his user script has the quick close buttons that I often use), and now I'm being told that was bitey and I'm doing it wrong... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like a good argument for why that that bit of the instructions needs to be clarified and/or tweaked. PaleAqua (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note: I was one of the two editors that reverted Technical 13's recent edits to Template:Documentation and Module:Documentation. I think it's a shame that the situation has had to escalate this far, but I broadly agree with MSGJ's removal of T13's template editor rights. I was surprised that T13 didn't stop to dicuss his recent edits to Template/Module:Documentation, and I think that this plus the past incidents that were brought up on T13's talk page by Hasteur are enough grounds for removal of the right. We require that template editors respect consensus when using their right, and template editors who don't do this (whether purposefully or not) are going to create significant friction in the community. However, as I said, it is a shame for Technical 13 to lose these rights; he has done an awful lot of hard work editing templates and answering edit requests, and he deserves recognition for that, rather than vilification. I would support restoring the rights if T13 can show that he understands where he went wrong this time, and if he can show that he is willing to make the effort to follow the rules more strictly in the future. Writ Keeper has made some good suggestions above about how he might go about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate support T13 is indeed a fairly technical person when it comes to HTML coding, etc. That's a positive. However, they suffer from an unfortunate case of "fukyouiamrightitis", which has been a part of the personality since they joined the project. One only has to go back to their first ANI dust-up about blinking signature functions, which led to an editing restriction as condition of unblock (which they continue to violate as they add their personal desires into signature guidelines and loudly proclaim as law). People who hold any form of advanced permission must be able to respond to concerns in their editing with something other than "fukyouiamright". Until this communication/criticism acceptance improves, it's unfortunate that the permission needs to be removed the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Back in February I approached Technical 13 to voice my concerns about his editing of protected templates, in particular regarding frequent re-reverts without discussing the concerns of the revert first (...#Protected templates). This still seems to be the case, so I agree with MSGJ's action. Amalthea 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the administrator who removed the template editor userright from Technical 13, I guess I should probably comment here and respond to some others' comments. Firstly I would like to make it clear that this was not a rushed or instinctive reaction to the most recent spate of problems, but a measured response to a long history of concerns and issues with the use of the userright. I do not intend to provide full details or diffs, but they most can be found in T13's talk archives. The concerns are numerous, from not taking enough care when editing templates, not seeking consensus for changes, re-implementing controversial changes which have been disputed, acting while "involved", and using the userright to enforce his preferred version of templates. I did not engage with T13 on my talk page because he should have been well aware of the reasons for removal and I regarded his tone as a form of wikilawyering. In response to Writ Keeper, I would point out that the userright is handed out on the decision of one admin, so I do not think it is inappropriate that it is removed in a similar manner. In conclusion I would like to acknowledge T13's technical work with templates, and suggest that he take a lengthy break before requesting the template editor userright again. He surely has a lot to offer the project, but the mistakes and drama were starting to outweigh the positives. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claim for why you removed the right looks a lot like a to prevent further disruption to the project yet you did it after I said I was done with it and wouldn't be touching the template or module anymore. This seems like an entirely punitive misuse of the administrative tools. I would expect an administrator to not be a part of such a misuse of the term of wikilawyering, but I digress. In response to the response to Writ Keeper, the right is given out by one administrator just like that admin right is given out by one crat. I'd say that there was plenty of support for me getting the right based on the comments left on my talk page and that a community consensus should have been reached before removing the right as there was no danger to the encyclopedia in waiting. I'll also go on to mention there are other projects that are now waiting on me to make changes and fix things that are being held up by me not having the right and this loss of the right has resulted in a net loss to the project. Hopefully things get set right soon, so things can start getting fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose restoration of right, per MSGJ above. T13 having this right is not a net positive, based on past observations. --John (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closure of RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed?

RESOLVED

Closure endorsed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a request to review the close at RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. Also relevant discussion: Tesla's birthplace which contains one of the most important source, Nikola Tesla's statement that he was "born in Croatia".

I also point to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS since I will cite several things from there.

I feel that the consensus, or that there is no consensus to change the version was decided upon unfounded objections, poor arguments. ALL of the presented sources have been disregarded with this consensus. I feel that many comments were not made in good faith and that those comments should be disregarded. "...administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith.". A lot of people have expressed their views on geopolitical situation (which by itself is beyond the scope of this discussion) and have not presented any source to support their claims. I plead many times to support their claims with sources, and that was not done, in fact sources that directly contradict those geopolitical analysis were presented. I regard those comments not made in good faith not only because they move this discussion in the wrong way but they are unsupported with any source. Also, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).". I feel that ALL of the presented sources are in favor of my suggestion. With this consensus ALL sources have been disregarded with poor arguments (see discussion with closer). I feel that there is not a single source presented that disputes the edit suggestion. Also, the consensus have been reached on highly subjective basis of the explanation that "no change is needed, the present wording if fine". I feel that much stronger arguments were disregarded with subjective opinions, unfounded objections and unsupported claims. No amount of unfounded objections, subjective opinions and unsupported claims can overturn ALL of the presented sources that point the other way. Since the argument is quite long i would suggest you point your attention to the presented sources (also note that some sources presented by MrX are dismissed). Also point your attention to the summary of the sources listed in the article (which quality is indisputable) located at the end of this discussion. Asdisis (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not explain in the article that his birth place is a complex matter and describe what information the sources provide without coming to a conclusion? Chillum 18:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it is a complex matter. The only dispute is whether Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. Asdisis (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Reliable sources are all over the map with regard to how they describe Tesla's birthplace. There are reliable sources that say he was born in Croatia, Serbia/Servia, Montenegro, Austria, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and so on. Thus, we must use editorial discretion to determine how best to inform our readers. Consensus has determined that it is best to omit the geopolitical subdivisions of Tesla's birth country, including Croatia, military frontier, and Lika. This leaves us with the consensus wording "Nikola Tesla was born... in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)."- Mr X 18:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Sources are quite clear. All sources that negate Austrian Empire(Austro-Hungary) should be dismissed. I have clearly dismissed them in the discussion and no one, including you had objected. No one had disputed Austrian Empire as Tesla's birthplace, including you. In fact we all agree that Tesla was born in Austrian Empire. Thus, I feel that introducing unclear sources with obviously incorrect place of birth accompanied with conclusion that "reliable sources are all over the map" so the present wording should stay, is not done in good faith. It may be considered as a deliberate act to dilute the argument. Also, the conclusion that the present wording should stay can not be derived from that argument. Sources are not all over the map. Apart from dismissed sources, ALL of the rest is quite clear. Also note that the sources listed in the article itself are quite clear. Quality before quantity. The quality of the sources listed in the article is indisputable. The quality of sources that clearly list inaccurate birthplace is questionable. I gave the reasoning why the present wording should be edited. I haven't seen any reasonable argument why it should stay. I saw highly subjective opinions that "the present wording is fine". Your argument that "Consensus has determined that it is.." is logically flawed. This whole request disputes that consensus thus you can not base your claim on the premise that the consensus has determined something. Apart from this logically flawed argument, and highly subjective opinions there is no reasonable argument or source that supports the present wording (except Britannica). On the other hand there are numerous sources pointing the other way. Also I would like to mention the source mentioned in Enric Naval's comment who stated indisputable quality of one source. That source does indeed has the present wording and yet is the most important source that supports the suggestion for editing (see Enric Naval's comment and my answer). Asdisis (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The close is correct in upholding the status quo, so I endorse it to that extent. However, the RfC question appears to be about the wording in the infobox, which the close doesn't address. Place of birth in infoboxes in normally given on WP using the town and then the political state that the town was in at the time. Some sources might not follow the same convention, but that's a red herring as far as the infobox goes. Formerip (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was also about the wording in the article body, specifically the first sentence under Early years (1856–1885).- Mr X 21:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To a limited extent, maybe. But the actual question posed was about the infobox, and the close didn't directly answer it. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same RfC? There was no mention of "infobox" in the request at all.- Mr X 23:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording that the question asked to be changed came from the infobox, rather than the body of the article. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I read this RfC a week or so ago after it was flagged up in the requests for closure list (I declined to close it, as it hadn't gone past 30 days). There was definitely not a consensus to change from "Smiljan, Austrian Empire" to "Smiljan, Croatia, Austrian Empire". I did think there may have been consensus to use "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire", but technically that was outside the remit of the question, and there were some continued weasling attempts to try and sneak "Croatia" by itself somewhere into the text, which may have killed that off. As a side comment, Asdisis' conduct in the debate was rather unbecoming, and they need to understand that they do not own the debate, nor decide its outcome. That's for the closer to do, and it was no surprise this ended up here. Number 5 7 21:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one. I also supported several of Director's suggestions. However, sources are quite clear and Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. See my conclusion at the end of the discussion for explanation. Also, you may notice that Director is the only one willing to work on the consensus. With him leaving the discussion all that was left were unfounded objections. No one was willing to respect the presented sources or even suggest a consensus. People have only objected and lead the discussion in the wrong way, geopolitical analysis. I tried to reason with them. Although the discussion had moved in the wrong way, I tried to find sources that asses geopolitical situation of that time, including the sources that tell of national sentiment at that time, since the description of someone's birthplace does not have to strictly reflect geopolitical situation . I found several sources, which were disregarded with unfounded objections. Several times I plead those people who strongly objected to support their claims with sources. That was not done. Thus I regard those objections unfounded and not done in good faith. It's obvious that someone needs to disregard opinions and comments that were not made in good faith. As suggested by WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Asdisis (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"_{Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one}." ... did we? At the discussion is quite clear that "we all" agred not to change the present wording. FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should explain why I said that we all agreed. I and Martinevans123 were arguing that Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. You yourself have suggested "Having "Croatian" Military Frontier instead of Military Frontier in between Smiljan and Austria is already enough for precition.". No one objected to that. Director suggested to mention "Croatian Military frontier" several times, no one objected. I explicitly stated that I agree with that suggestion, however my objections went towards explicitly mentioning Croatia. Joy [shallot] also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. Peacemaker67, also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. 23 editor explicitly agreed with Peacemaker67 and Director(however he's not a major participant). Those are major participants and no one ever objected Croatian military frontier be mentioned. I can't asses the opinion of some editors, since the argument was not about mentioning Croatian Military frontier, so not all people have expressed their opinion. However I note that the 5 biggest participants have themselves explicitly suggested Croatian Military frontier and that no one had objected. Asdisis (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between not objecting and agreeing. The CMF was just mentioned in the discussions. You wanted Croatia instead of Military Frontier (or one of its sections, Croatian Military Frontier). You want more "Croatia" by any means, and you need to make a proposal with a precise edit and then see the result of your proposal. The only agreement reached by majority is that the current wording is fine. FkpCascais (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My experience from editing for nine years is that sources can be found that align with pretty much every viewpoint possible (particularly on debates related to nationalist fervour), so I have no truck with people rejecting sources if they are not in line with common sense. However, I have a feeling that you simply don't get my final comments above. Please note Dennis Brown's comments below. Number 5 7 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a danger that someone initially writes inaccurate and highly biased construct that is impossible to change. I feel that the sources are rejected on Ad hominem basis. Asdisis (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Asdisis, your comments comprise the majority of the discussion, here and at that RFC. You made 62 individual responses in that RFC and I didn't count bytes, but I'm pretty sure it was well over half of the verbiage and possibly a record. WP:BLUDGEON comes to mind, as you seem to be invested in the topic at a level that is unhealthy for you and Wikipedia. I will pass on commenting on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was only a small portion of time i spend. Majority of the time I spent researching numerous sources. I supported every claim with a source. I presented majority of the sources in the discussion. I tried to answer every dispute, although many of them were not made in good faith. I tried to be helpful in every possible way. That is why I have so many comments. I do not think that WP:BLUDGEON is an accurate description. For instance, I quote: "They always have to have the last word, and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view.". I did not ignore any argument, reasonable, or unfounded. I also clearly stated in the discussion that my good will to answer does not give any credit to unfounded objections. Yes, i do not think that WP:BLUDGEON in an accurate assessment at all, although I posted many comments. I think that every of my comments was done in good faith. I did not show any emotions, although some accused me of several misdeeds. Asdisis (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did ignore a lot of trivial evidence counter to your POV. The fact that you instantly refuse to acknowledge that, and are continuing to post at an unabated rate, sadly confirms exactly this assessment in my mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I ignored any reasonable argument. Asdisis (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created WP:BLUDGEON back in 2008, and this is pretty much what I had in mind. You've been polite enough, and I don't question your faith, but bludgeoning actually hurts you as people quickly ignore your comments after reading a few, and in fact, they may instinctively lean against you because it looks like you are too invested. That is the point of the essay, to help, not to scold. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is the time to talk about WP:BLUDGEON. I noted in this request that the discussion had been a long one and that you should point your attention to the presented sources. I think that pulling this question now can only lead to Ad hominem attack Asdisis (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I wasn't wanting to offend, only help. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as (Non-administrator comment). As I said when I declined the initial edit request, he was not, by own admission, born in Croatia. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an appropriate explanation on several levels. Firstly, it belongs to a different discussion. Anyway, I disputed your interpretation. I had not admitted such a thing. It's based on wrong interpretation. Furthermore, it gives too much credit to my opinion and disregards valid sources. Also, it leaves doubt that you even read the RfC that is being discussed here. Asdisis (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse As this is a review of the close, not RFC #2, I won't inject my own opinion of the merits and just look to see if the close represented the discussion as a whole and had no fatal errors. We allow the closer leeway in determining the weight of each !vote, guided by policy and common sense. With that in mind, I don't see any action that was outside community expectations when judging consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION I apologize, I provided a wrong link to the discussion with the closer in my initial post. I corrected it now, and I would appreciate if you would read it and make sure that this mistake had not influenced your decision. Here is the correct link again. This mistake also raises the question if MrX had even tried to read the discussion I had with the closer, since he would surly notice I referenced the wrong discussion. Asdisis (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse summary and conclusion represent the participants' views. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

"You made a link to a disambig" warning fault

I received one of those link-to-disambig messages; it is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disambiguation link notification for July 7. But it did not contain the usual link to the process that automatically lists the disambig possibilities and lets the user click on the correct choice. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard, I believe the dabsolver is one of those tools lost 1 July Wikipedia:Vpt#Other_tools. --S Philbrick (Talk) 13:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editor has made it easier for editors to introduce disambiguation errors, and now one of the main tools to clean up these errors has been taken away. It seems like no one with the power to do anything about it cares to promote the accuracy of links in the encyclopedia. This is very disheartening. bd2412 T 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Visual Editor is a god awful tool, if ever we make it mandatory that will be the end of my contributions to WP. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll be the only one... Peridon (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: The missing links are check to confirm and fix with Dab solver. These links are to Toolserver, which has been down, permanently, since the early hours of 1 July 2014. There is plenty on this matter at WP:VPT: search for "Dispenser", that being the provider of these tools. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding Visual Editor and disambiguation, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 3#Link disambiguation for a recent discussion on this topic between myself and the product manager. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards