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 Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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.
If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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 seven 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 6 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 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.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 41 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 106 days ago on 14 August 2024)

Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 60 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period

(Initiated 26 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#RfC On the Better of Two Revisions

(Initiated 10 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Total
CfD	12	12
TfD	8	8
MfD	2	2
FfD	10	10
RfD	44	44
AfD	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 5#Category:National artists of Thailand

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 October 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 19#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Oppose Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 November 2024) JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 15:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 316 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 October 2024

(Initiated 58 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM that has been open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 October 2024

(Initiated 47 days ago on 11 October 2024) RM that has been open for 1.5 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I was also going to make this request. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone is proposing a community ban

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

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

Discussion here with examples provided: [1]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [2].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guarantee you that the placement of your request did not effect the outcome - you saw to that. BMK (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A typically unhelpful comment from you. This thread is not about me or you. Stop wasting the communities time and try some content editing for once. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee - what parallel universe do you live in, Doc? (Nevermind, I already know, the one in which fringe bullshit is considered to be valid science). In this universe, which is known as the real world, over 70% of my 186K+ edits are to articles. I've done more content edits this month then you have done this year. So, please, take that totally undeserved attitude of yours, and store it where the sun doesn't shine. Just consider that every day in which you're not indef blocked is a victory for you, and enjoy it while you can. Those of us who have been around for a while can see what's coming down the road in your direction. BMK (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, we live in this universe where a complete and total uncivil WP:DICK like Beyond My Ken can make the most disgusting personal attacks and get away with it. It's well past the time to stick BMK and his "totally undeserved attitude" somewhere "where the sun doesn't shine". It looks like a community ban is due for BMK. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan!! Where have you been, my man? You used to always be there any time my name came up, but you've been AWOL recently, and I've missed your predictable calls for my banning over every little thing. Whew! I'm glad the world is right again. Welcome back to the merry-go-round. BMK (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, the only people who call me by my name are my family, my friends and those I respect. You're zero for three here. It would be improper of me to call you Ken, as even the most UnEducatEd among WikipEdia Ed itors have access to the historic details. Maybe it's a good idea if you avoidEd the false familiarity of the whole first name basis thing, BMK? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was very cute the way you did that, very cute indeed. Unfortunately it just helps to firm up my suspicions about who wrote that piece - certainly the quality of the research matches your own: generally good overall, but with quite a number of complete whiffs at balls in the dirt and way over your head. BTW: Take a look at WP:OUTING with a critical eye, just, you know, to see how closely you're skirting the policy. It's always good to know where you stand when you're slagging off another editor. BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradedia^talk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[3] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately despite all appeals[4][5][6] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Possible improper RfC close

I would like to draw attention to a recent RfC at Paul Singer. This was the eighth discussion on this particular subject and all have eneded with the same result. The previous discussions can be found here: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].

After an involved editor closed the last RfC, there have been multiple allegations which I don't intend to interpret on here in order to leave this post as neutral as possible so that an uninvolved moderator (also not involved in this related discussion) can examine the situation and determine what course of action (if any) is needed and how to proceed with the article. Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the closure of Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: Vulture and what the conclusion is. It's not that the closure is controversial but it doesn't resolve anything. And it is highly unusual for the editor who set up the RfC to be the one who closes it and another editor or admin should have taken that role. I don't have much experience closing RfC but I'd recommend an admin well-versed in discussion closures to look it over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re "doesn't resolve anything" - Yeah. For realz.

What's nice about RfC's that don't resolve anything is that we get to continue to debate the subject........ there's always a silver lining..... NickCT (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The RfC discussion had decided upon a series of copy edits that were then made to the article, so the closure was made uncontroversially in light of the proposals made. I encourage the reopening of said RfC if the parties involved believe it to have been inappropriate. I also encourage editors to read the discussion section thoroughly and understand we had all agreed to said proposals. If reopening the RfC is the way to move forward, I suggest it is promptly acknowledged and set forth. I also believe it inappropriate that I was not notified of an ANI discussion I was directly involved in. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by many editors in many places it was very unwise to close your own RFC, and many contributors consider your closure statement to be an inaccurate and partisan summary of the discussion. There are simple and obvious reasons why closures of contested RFCs should always be made by uninvolved editors. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let us have it reopened by an admin and coalesce around further discussion. We can request closure when the time's right. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The above user has requested the standard offer, which was declined last time. It's been over a year since they've edited outside of userspace - is it time for a second chance? SQL ^{Query me!} 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is time for a second chance. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that it's time. Miniapolis 01:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problem with them coming back under the standard offer. I would like clarification on if they are under any current topic or interaction bans though. It is my assumption that these would stay in place, if still in effect. HighInBC 15:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns mentioned by Dennis are valid. While I would prefer these be addressed I am not going to withdraw my support at this time. HighInBC 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Sure, last appeal was in August 2015, and resulted in no consensus: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant (restored); I've alwayd been a proponent of second chances and rehabilitation, and I certainly think Technophant has been blocked for a long enough time to justify giving them another shot. As for active sanctions that HighInBC asked about: Technophant is still indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture (see WP:EDR for details and links to discussions). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to actually hear the subject address points 2 and 3 of standard offer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?????? I don't actually see any explanation of how they expect to move forward, after bypassing the block last time by editing as an IP. To their credit, they admitted the socking, however, supporting the removal of an indef block requires a bit more explanation by the person requesting the deed. Two short paragraphs would be sufficient. Last time, I had serious doubts about how forthright they were being. Today, I have nothing to judge by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the conversation over the last time we discussed unblocking Technophant I wrote:

I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors.

If anyone thinks that this is a bad idea please read my comments in full from the last unblocking discussion and explain to me where Technophant has explained how he now realises that his editor interaction had become antisocial and that socking was only the final straw that broke the camel's back. -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@~~user:HighInBC~~ User:Salvidrim "long enough time to justify giving them another shot" the time is not the issue. The issue is does Technophant understand all the reasons that he was blocked? Where during this whole saga (from the initial topic ban up until this unblock request do you think he has given any explanation of how he will modify his behaviour in future? (a couple of diffs would be nice).

@User:Salvidrim as Technophant transferred his antisocial behaviour from the initial ban topic to other topic areas, why keep any ban on him if he is a reformed? If he is not reformed then why let him edit at all? BTW under what user:name was he topic banned? -- PBS (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you quoted the wrong person, I didn't say that. HighInBC 20:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake I should have addressed it to User:Salvidrim -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Technoplant has already stated (in his Sept 2015) request I broke my promise I made to User:Adjwilley to permanently refrain from using IP edits and paid dearly for my mistake. I'm willing to put any and all past differences behind me and move forward in a constructive fashion Several comments I made above were very much out of character from my normal professional demeanor. I was going through a time of enormous personal stress at the time however I have recently gone through a great deal of personal growth, psychotherapy, and medication changes and now feel that I am ready to go "back to work" editing in my usual gnomish/elfish fashion., and three components of WP:STANDARDOFFER do not include groveling. (See WP:Editors have pride). Unblock the editor, and if their behavior (as opposed to rhetoric) indicates a problem, block 'em again.NE Ent 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with PBS (talk · contribs)'s 6-month topic ban suggestion.--v/r - T P 00:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Yet, per User:Dennis Brown. I'd be inclined to support unless their response to the comments are completely off the wall, but I'd like to hear more from the user to be sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose per Dennis Brown. I have serious doubts and suggest if we err, that it's on the side of caution. The socking is too recent and the promises to finally behave are easy to make, hard to keep. Jus da fax 08:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last socking from this user was in November of 2014. To be fair - that's the 'last socking that we know of', per the user in question. It is difficult to trust someone who's already socked in the past. SQL ^{Query me!} 09:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support We should show forgiveness when a banned editor has shown that they want to move on from their previous behavior. If recidivism is an issue, blocks are cheap. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocks are cheap" is a hoary Wikipedia cliche, but it's not actually true. When an editor goes off the rails, it often takes considerable time and effort from the community to convince an admin that a block is needed. That's time and effort which could be used to improve the encyclopedia, so it does have a definite cost. BMK (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 500 cheap blocks for every one that takes more than a 10 paragraph discussion on ANI.--v/r - T P 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so, if you're talking about run-of-the-mill blocks among the general editing population, but we're talking here about blocks based on noticeboard discussions, and that is a different animal entirely, where the ratio -- if not actually reversed -- would most probably be much, much lower. On blocks (or actually unblocks, since it's the unblock discussion which makes up the cost) which are discussed on noticeboard, you're always guaranteed to have a percentage of comments pushing WP:ROPE, WP:AGF, or other supposedly mitigating factors, and it takes time to overcome these and build up a consensus.
In any event, I'm simply pointing out that "Blocks are cheap" is a cliche, and not a reasoned argument. BMK (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. At least until Technophant provides a better unblock request than what we have now. I asked him to amend his bare-bones request for unblocking here, but apart from attributing his block to administrator incompetence, he has thus far fallen short of actually providing a satisfactory request. I should note that while his block, as recorded in the block log, was for sockpuppetry, his behavior since then is the main reason for why he is still blocked to this day. He has thus far steadfastly refused to address anything other than the sockpuppetry. I don't think it's too much to ask for some recognition that his behavior was unacceptable.--Atlan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

touch (so the discussion is not archived just yet) -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless @Technophant: responds on his/her talkpage within the next 24 hours, I would recommend closing this discussion until they have time to participate. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Per Atlan's commentary, I want to see a WP:GAB compliant unblock request that takes responsibility for their being blocked and how they intend to prevent this in the future. Hasteur (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection

Hi guys I recently encountered List of social networking websites which under an indefinite full protection, which seems like major overkill given it's history, all the while semi/PC protection doesn't seem like enough of a solution. Looking at the history of the page, it would seem the 30/500 protection is an almost perfect fit for this article, and would go a long way to making it editable by the community. Most problematic edits/edit requests come from users who don't meet this threshold, while the majority that do, meet the threshold.

Since only the community can authorize the 30/500 protection level, I propose reducing the article List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection.

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

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

Support per initial statement.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather if we ran an RFC on the idea of starting to use 30/500 protection outside of the current arbitration-imposed cases in general, before we started looking at requests case-by-case. –xeno^talk 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The community can also authorize the use of 30/500, but this isn't a discussion to change the policy but to keep in line with current policy and to have the community authorize this protection, especially since this would be indefinite protection.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The community has not yet decided to authorize this new form of protection, and I oppose it being used anywhere that isn't absolutely necessary. I believe it to be counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Semi- and full-protection are necessary to protect certain articles, but 30/500 unnecessarily creates a new hierarchy as to who is allowed to edit what. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has. The community and the arbitration committee authorizes certain articles for this level of protection. And arguing "that anyone can edit" goes against your argument as this article is indefinitely fully protected. The disruption is caused by users who usually don't yet possess the extendedconfirmed right.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 500/30 should only be used when it is known to be a topic area that has external agencies working in some type of coordination to affect the article, where full protection is not sufficient to prevent long-term disruption. It should never be used as a mid-point between semi- and full- since, as the Wordsmith points out, the very notion of it is counter to the open wiki nature of Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So exactly how is indefinite full protection helping the open nature of Wikipedia? I can't even edit the article as it stands to make a minor correction if I needed to. With 30/500 protection, bots, and experienced editors can at least edit the article. 30/500 is an ideal protection level in this case.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the logs of why that page is fully protected, 500/30 wouldn't help. It attracts random users wanting to add unrecognized social media sites too frequently, which includes users that have passed the 500/30 level. As one of the admins that FP'ed it put [13] it also helps to account for all requests to add sites to the list so that there's little to argue if someone wants to argue for removal or the like. So in this case, this is a use of FP simply to better audit an article that is otherwise a highly attractive one for unsourced/inappropriate additions from across WP but without any constant external influence, so I agree FP is the best call, and 500/30 would not help. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason pending changes cant be used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pending could be used to achieve the stability, but I see the value discussed in the diff above that since all additions have to have an edit request and subsequent discussion, and we are talking a topic area that would seem ripe for favoritism and self-promotion, that having a record of all requests and accepted additions is of high value. But this is a situation unique to that topic area. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify the specific phrasing of the policy which enables administrators to use this protection level outside of ARBCOM/AE areas. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:30/500: "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community." This is a community discussion which is competent to authorise the protection on the page. BethNaught (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that wording give us the leeway to authorize its use on a page by page basis outside ARBPIA3 or the Gamergate pages? I read it as we have to authorize it for topic areas. I mean, I'm all for giving us the ability to use the protection (not necessarily in this case as I'm not convinced it would work) but I'm not sure we can do it. Or am I reading it too literally? Katie^talk 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the original close was "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". Besides, even if that were not the case, I think that is too literal a reading. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee has made it clear that the community is not prohibited from creating policy in relation to the imposition of 30/500 protection. Whether this is the appropriate forum for that is another question. Speaking generally, 30/500 appears to be a protection level that is a step between semi-protection and full-protection, though much nearer to semi-protection. Like other protection level, it should only be used to protect the encyclopedia and used for a minimal time. No comment on whether this particular case is ripe for this.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indefinite full protection is well, not useless, but it is aggravating. Plus, most people who have passed the 30/500 protection are trustworthy. Peter Sam Fan 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The slippery slope has begun. I opposed creating the 30/500 usergroup back when it was proposed at the Village Pump because I feared that this protection level would go from an ArbCom mandated sanction of last resort to just another sanction level. Even the creator of the RfC, Cenarium, recommended that "Pages may be protected by admins with the new level only when a decision of the arbitration committee mandates it". Well, here we are in April, facing a decision whether 30/500 protection should be a routine substitution for full protection or only used under ArbCom authorization. Although I don't like either option, I strongly recommend against the former. Altamel (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what this discussion is about at all. This protection can only be used by authority of ArbCom or by a community discussion. This is a discussion about to protect this ONE page with 30/500, not to make it routine.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing this protection once sets a precedent regarding the circumstances that would justify its use. The community should exercise this protection very sparingly, but I don't believe we should start with this particular case. Altamel (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand your rational, and it makes sense to an extent, but can you tell me how 30/500, which allows more users, who are likely productive and WP:CLUEful contributors, to edit an article, over the current status quo, which is restricting a page to admin edits only, indefinitely? I'm not proposing this to set a precedent, I'm proposing this because this option upholds the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" more closely, and see it as the idea solution to the specific problem this article faces. I would otherwise not have proposed this, and requested semi-protection instead, which I initially did, until I learned about the article's history. From my point of view 30/500 isn't meant to be another hierarchical protection level, but rather an in the middle solution when semi isn't enough, leaving the only alternative indefinite full protection, which IMO is unacceptable. If it was only a temporary protection, I wouldn't have bothered starting this discussion. I hope this helps.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, both procedurally, as this isn't the largest community forum for such a discussion, and on general principles, as my understanding was that 30/500 is for serious problem areas. Fighting over social networks on a list is relatively small-time. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So as it's a less serious problem area it should have less protection, not more? Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this oppose either. If this isn't a big problem area, then why leave it fully protected. If it's not a problem area, then semi should be sufficient right? But it isn't. That means to keep disruption at bay, it's either PC2, template, or 30/500, which is a middle-ground solution I am proposing to keeping most disruption at bay, while still allowing all the established editors to edit, not just admins.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is already being used, and most opposition is either a request for process or "slippery slope" argument that is unlikely to be a consequence (most BLPs are still unprotected, for example). Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like the 30/500 protection seems perfect to me. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assuming that arbcom is not reserving this userright for their own purposes. What is more I think it should be used liberally throughout Wikipedia when there is a semi-protection is not enough but protection is too much. That being said I am not sure this is what arbcom intended for the userright or what the status of use of it outside arbcom is. HighInBC 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose 30/500 is intended to be for Intractable areas of dispute, not as a step down from full protection. Second, if we disclude the 30/500 we're only left with semi-protection as the only place to reduce the threshold to which has been shown to be easily gamed and thereby crash the page back into edit warring about inclusion on the list and going right back up to full protection. Third, as much as we don't want it to be, being listed in Wikipedia is a great way to increase the prominance of your venture (whether business, website, art endeavour, etc). See also COI/Paid editing. Fourth, if something needs to be changed/added to the page there is the "Edit Request" way of proposing the change and potentially securing consensus for the change. In short: 30/500 should not be authorized barring a Village Pump discussion authorizing it and Full Protection is not set in concrete. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best place for community discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As mentioned the original proposal only intended this as arbitration enforcement, and didn't allow use outside such context. In the discussion, also allowing use by "community consensus" was suggested, and the closer stated it was restricted "to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". But the "or the community" mention isn't explained, and I believe not supported by the discussion. It should require a formal proposal at village pump and actual consensus before being suggested for use on a particular page outside AE, and the proposal should specify where and how it should be requested for an article (e.g. on article talk page with mandatory WP:CENT listing...). Cenarium (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

In the alternative, I hope that people here take the result from this discussion (I'm more of a meh on it) and incorporate it into the protection policy. If 30/500 is a new protection standard, it would be easily just to put it into policy, whatever it is, and then to use WP:RFPP for it in the future. ANI can always be the backstop if no one at RFPP agrees to it. I mean, we have the technical ability to PP2 but that's been wholly rejected for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something new every day

No urgency here, however I just learned something concerning (for me) regarding pending changes and I thought I would note it here in case any other admins were under the same mistaken impression as me. I protected the BLP Ayesha Omar (subsequently moved to Ayesha Omer) due to the addition of BLP violations (some rev-deleted) and chronic addition of unsourced material to the biography. When a recent unsourced edit regarding the receipt of an award was accepted, I asked the reviewer if they could include the source they used to verify the content to the article, but to my surprise I was told that there is no impetus at all for reviewers to make any determination as to whether the content is valid, they only need to ensure it's not outright vandalism or disruption in order to accept it. The guidelines for reviewing indeed support the reviewers comments. Lesson learned. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REVIEWER says reviewers should check for fours things before accepting a revision: WP:BLP, WP:VANDALISM, obvious WP:COPYVIO and Legal threats/Personal attacks. WP:BLP says that any contentious/controversial content should be sourced or removed immediately (or non-accepted, in the case of pending revisions), but also says that any material "likely to be challenged" (say, an unsourced alleged award the subject may have received) must be directly sourced. WP:REVIEWER also says Furthermore, reviewers should take special consideration of the reason given for protection, and attempt to uphold it. Thus, I do not think that whoever this was can be said to have been correct in accepting a revision containing unsourced BLP material when the article was PCP'ed for that reason precisely (although I'm sure there was no bad faith). Whoever the reviewer was should be more careful in their use of the tool. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the reviewer in this case, the move wiped the protection log. However there does appear to be a lot of ambiguity in the reviewer guidelines and I can see why an editor would think accepting unsourced changes to BLPs (outside of blatant BLP violations) would be perfectly ok given WP:REVIEWER states "Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader" and at WP:PC "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content...Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the correctness of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above." I've seen many pending changes accepted by reviewers that I believe should not have been, however I can see why they may be confused given the guideline doesn't overtly state that the edits need to be sourced or suggest verifying the accuracy of a BLP edit before accepting it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was the reviewer in question, for what it's worth. I'm happy to discuss it and I'm suitably thick-skinned :)

The context here is that the article already contained the information that this person was nominated for an award at a ceremony to be held on April 16th. The status of the award was shown as "pending". On the 17th, the day after the ceremony, an IP changed the status of the award to "won". This did not raise any major concerns to me as a reviewer - even in the context of a BLP, that is not a change that is obviously going to be contentious. Nor is it obviously disruptive, or obviously vandalism. It was a credible edit.

BLP is an important policy (mild understatement) but we shouldn't read things in to it that it doesn't say. For example, it doesn't say "no information may be added to a BLP article unless it is accompanied by a source that verifies it." It only modifies the normal expectations of WP:VERIFY with regard to contentious material. Is changing the status of an award, under completely credible circumstances, from "pending" to "won" a contentious edit? Actually, I don't know. But I do know that it is not obviously contentious, and as such, the expected default behavior of any pending changes reviewer should be to allow the edit - at least, if they are following the WP:REVIEWING guideline as written.

This edit did not breach WP:BLP, just as it would not have breached it if the identical edit was performed by an experienced logged-in user.

Having said all that, if the log for the page had been preserved it would have given more specific guidance from the protecting admin, which would probably have changed my reviewing decision. Unfortunately in this case that wasn't available.

I think Ponyo is right to identify a disconnect between what some administrators believe they are getting when the use pending changes protection, and what reviewers believe they are there to do. Perhaps some administrators believe they are getting WP:VERIFY checking on each edit, while reviewers believe they are executing a lightweight "does it seem basically credible?" test.

It may be that WP:REVIEWING actually doesn't say what it needs to say. Maybe it should say "deny all BLP edits that you can't personally verify from reliable sources". But the fact is that it doesn't impose anything like that kind of a serious duty on reviewers at present.

Thparkth (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find there is a wide variety of Reviewers' approach to Reviewing. I suspect I'm one of the "hardliners" in Reviewing – for BLP's I'll reject pretty much anything that's unsourced, and will even often check that the newly added sourcing actually backs up new additions (and will occasionally check that current sourcing at the article does the same). I'm pretty sure many reviewers don't do that. I've also seen other Reviewers accept edits that are malformated. Etc. FTR, I generally agree that the current instructions for Reviewer on the Reviewer page are too "lax", and should be toughened up to shift the bias more towards rejecting edits that are even somewhat problematic, esp. at WP:BLP's. I'd also be in favor of "raising the qualifications" for being granted Pending Changes Reviewer status: for example, I think a "minimum editing time" (e.g. 6 months; or a minimum editing count) should be added to the qualifications – frankly, I think you can't be a proper PC Reviewer unless you've put a fair amount of time into editing the project and learning how to properly edit articles and add sourcing. PC Reviewer is less "vandal fighting" and more "article quality control", but I think it's being primarily "sold" as the former when it's really more important as the latter... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall sums up my concerns on all points. When I've come across accepted edits that should have been rejected in the past I've chalked it up to good faith reviewers with little experience dealing with problematic BLPs and socking and left them a note on their talk page asking them to not accept edits that introduce unsupported material in BLPs unless they've verified its accuracy. It turns out that the guidelines for the reviewers are quite lax (as are the requirements to become a reviewer), and there's no impetus at all for them to do so. Any potential changes will need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes, however it is important for admins to be aware that, in its current state, PC is not a very good tool for protecting BLPs other than for persistent vandalism.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Generally Speaking when I'm reviewing an article if its a BLP with issues that I find questionable I'll either reject/revert/decline (whatever word you'd like to use) the edit or leave it alone and let someone with more experience check the article. For example this edit, it was an obvious issue since the information could be defamatory and it didn't have a Reliable Source but that just me. The WP:Reviewer Policy is kind of clear on this in my opinion. It states "As a general rule, you should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find any of the following: It conflicts with the biographies of living persons policy... but then again its a should not not a shall not but that may be my legal background from work kicking in. I'm not trying to be nit picky with the policy... --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by 24.205.178.119

IP blocked (non-admin closure) --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This IP address has made personal / threatening attacks on the user Popcornduff. See diff 1 and diff 2.

Widr just beat me to it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. ;-) Blocked for 48 hours. Widr (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also blocked Popcornduff for edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for rev-del of edit summary

The edit summary here is in beach of an injunction considered today at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Maybe some article protection would prevent this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely , Wikipedia is not governed by the UK. KoshVorlon 18:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the identity of PJS/YMA has been, as the article claims, "widely reported on" in multiple non-UK countries, is there consensus that the article should avoid mentioning their names? Just curious. I understand BLP, of course, which would require an exceptional level of quality sourcing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen quite a bit of discussion about this and, yes, I think that is the consensus. Perhaps we should ask User:DanielJCooper, who created that article. I'm surprised there aren't perfectly good sources available from the land of the free press. Looks like it's open house over there for edit summaries, then. In fact it might make an interesting WP:DYK candidate, with names added, before befuddled old Lord Justice Cocklecarrot gets round to making a decision? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC

I am an English Wikipedia editor so I would be breaching the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and also incurring the wrath of the rather litigious Carter Ruck law firm. That is why while I created the article I have *avoided* mentioning names. Also as I edit under my real name I would be asking for a lawsuit! If anyone else wishes to include names it is completely up to them. Personally I think it is absurd an injunction is in place given how widely reported certain names now are. DanielJCooper (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.. and I am a Welsh Wikipedia editor who can't avoid English law. So it feels doubly absurd. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As our servers aren't bound by Englishandwelsh law, we have no legal obligation to obey it. Courtesy deletions for the sake of editors who might be endangered by their edits are normally okay, but I see no reason (at least judging by the links presented here) to believe that such a situation has arisen. Protecting the page because of the actions of non-English and non-Welsh editors would be a bad idea, unless the actions would be seen as problematic anyway. It's comparable to the fr:Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute situation out of France a few years back (details), in which French individuals heeded the legal situation, but WMF and admins didn't place any restrictions on the actions of Swiss and Quebecois editors, because there weren't any internal policy problems, and neither the servers nor the Swiss-and-Quebecois editors were bound by French law. Finally, I don't understand your concerns for yourself in this specific edit (could you please explain?), because you haven't added any names. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost positive they're saying that they couldn't add the names themselves given the injunction and their legal status. It doesn't relate to the revdel request. ~ Rob^Talk 04:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've revdeled this edit summary - as it is unsourced information about a living person-this is 100% without prejudice for verifiable information later being added to the actual article. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, page protection is not currently warranted. And I left a talk message on the editor whose summary was redacted that they are free to edit the article with WP:Verifiable informaiton. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I suggested protection as I anticipated a huge tsunami of copycat pile-on name-and-shamers. It seems no one cares that much after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If after reviewing this another administrator disagrees and wants to overturn this, you may do so without further consultation - please log your overturn here, and notify the requester and the editor should they desire a wider review. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a reasonable action. Edit summaries are not the place for BLP claims that require strict sourcing. HighInBC 08:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling a law firm 'litigious' meant to be an insult, a compliment, or what? Surely that's their job? GoldenRing (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Depends if it's "Sue, Grabbitt and Runne" or not. Incidentally, we may now be starting to see some battling at PJS v News Group Newspapers. Does WP policy require the article to be protected to keep those names displayed? I'm not getting involved in reverting as the legal position for English and Welsh editors is still not clear to me. Sorry to burden you so. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Opera browser may cause problems

See here: "After successfully launching a version of its browser that offered ad blocking, Opera just won’t quit. On Wednesday night, the company released a free VPN service with unlimited bandwidth, built right into its latest beta. The Opera release is developer edition version 38.0.2204.0 for the Mac and the PC". Count Iblis (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they'll be using the existing SurfEasy networks, some of which are already blocked. It may speed up the process of blocking the others, which probably won't be a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be nice to develop an editnotice or something that will display for people coming from Opera's VPNs. "If you're using Opera and seeing this message, you can still edit if you follow these easy steps!" Something like that. People will probably turn this on and forget about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly they're only using three exit servers to begin, but maybe we haven't caught those yet. Regardless, an edit notice is a good idea. Katie^talk 21:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the two other ranges that are in use. (One was already blocked.) The VPN service is opt-in, so you'll know if it's enabled. Mike V • Talk 21:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be more and more common with embedded browsers in things. We should accept that in the near future this could affect such a large number of our users that a simply blocking it may be impractical. It may become the new normal, and it won't always be something the user can turn off(like on a kindle). HighInBC 14:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer request for Mdrnpndr

I am handling an unblock request and this user wishes to request the standard offer. I am deferring this to the community to decide. The message below was originally posted on their talk page and reposted here by me[14]. At this point I am going to withhold my opinion, but I may express it later. HighInBC 16:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited 6 months since I was originally blocked to make this standard offer request to give myself sufficient time to come to terms with the situation. I think that insufficient time away from Wikipedia may have been a factor in my previous relapses into edit warring. As for the matter at hand, I agree with the original declining administrator that my efforts in terms of dispute resolution and discussion in general were quite weak. If unblocked, my number one priority will be consensus building. I will focus a tremendous amount of effort on reaching out to all community members whom I have editing disputes with, even if their opinions are radically different from mine. I will not avoid discussion and will make sure that my voice is heard in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but I will respect community consensus once it exists. In either case, edit warring is a definite no-go zone, period.

I would now like to address some issues that an administrator brought up on my talk page. First of all, I am not under any sanctions other than the block itself. Second, I admit that my previous unblock (which, it stands to mention, happened about two years ago now) was as a second chance, but it was for a very specific issue that was only indirectly connected to my edit warring behaviour. More importantly, I followed through on the terms of my unblock that time, as I have taken great care since then to respect the desires of other users with regard to their talk pages. I plan to do the same here for edit warring in general, by respecting the desires of the community in regard to articles and similar pages. Finally, I would like to point out that, even though I have been indefinitely blocked before, I had never made a standard offer request until now. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm the blocking admin, but I have no opinion, because I don't remember the situation (or your username, for that matter) even one bit. Just saying this lest people wonder what I think about the situation. For future reference, the most recent block entry had a rationale of Persistent tendentious editing; https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=681944624. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I should have pinged you. I will remember next time. HighInBC 02:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I only learnt this by accident: since "I have been indefinitely blocked before", I was curious to see the block log, so I went to it and was surprised to see my own username as the blocking admin. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this is the thread/situation that resulted in the indef block. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not expressing my opinion on whether this user should be unblocked, but if the user is unblocked, I strongly suggest placing a WP:1RR restriction on them for a period of time, with a swift return to an indefinite block if it is broken. I'm not opposed to giving another chance to someone with a long history of blocks for edit-warring, but only if such a restriction prevents wasted editor time down the road in the event that edit-warring persists. ~ Rob^Talk 02:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mdrnpndr has made a response here: [15]. HighInBC 16:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support conditional on an indefinite 1RR restriction that can be appealed here after six months. Katie^talk 17:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock based on 1RR acceptance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to 1RR. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this a while I have decided to support subject to 1RR. HighInBC 15:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI is backlogged

Can an admin please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open almost two weeks, and it's basically a WP:DUCK case. And, no, I didn't file it, but it's incredibly obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the registered account, but the IP is a little stale so it's simply tagged. Katie^talk 00:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I hear it for the good folks working SPI? They have a complicated and ungrateful task, and deserves happy things like puppies and apple pie. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need more CheckUsers? I'm seeing regular backlogs at SPI and on UTRS and I think I maybe might be able to contribute. Katie^talk 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can more people apply to SPI? It seems that a small fraction of the 38 CheckUsers are working on SPI. KgosarMyth (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a very underserviced area of the site, sadly. But that's coming from a notorious SPI-stalker like me. There is no need to really apply; you can help there regardless of whether you are a Checkuser or Admin (I'm neither, heh), or you could consider becoming a trainee clerk in the future. GAB^Hello! 20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need more Checkusers, we need more willing admins and Clerks to review and act on the open reports. There are only three Checkuser-endorsed reports open at the moment, every single other entry is awaiting review from willing participants. Another option is to clone Vanjagenije, though I'm not sure he would be open to the suggestion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Better idea would be to divide me in two, that would also help me with my weight problem. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could divide me in four to build a quartet of reasonably-healthy men, but they'd probably be slackers just like me. Sorry I'm not helping out more, Vanja. We love ya! <3 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Dravecky's death

All of the Admin tasks have been completed, additional user discussion continues at User_talk:Dravecky. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am deeply saddened to be in the position of reporting to the community that Dravecky, a friend in real life since 1982, died Saturday, April 23. I am mindful of the guidelines set forth in WP:DWG, and I hesitated to post this news pending what I anticipate will be forthcoming "real newspaper" obituary confirmation from the Huntsville Times (Alabama) at minimum, but this blog apparently highly relevant to Dravecky's professional community has chronicled the events with considerable third-party corroboration, given that Ed was at a professional function at the time of his death. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian but I assure you all that this is, unfortunately, no hoax.

Given Eddy's—augh, excuse me, Dravecky's—tenure and status on WP, I thought there were probably many of you who would want to know about this sooner rather than later. I also think I did know him well enough to surmise that he would want somebody to make sure his admin tools were locked down, even if only temporarily pending further bureaucratic confirmation (which I will furnish as I become aware of same). My condolences to those of you who worked with him here. I hadn't seen him in person since 1986, but we reconnected after I became active on WP and stumbled across his name and knew it could only be him. He was one of the most interested people I ever knew, whether or not we shared the same hobby-horses, and I am grateful to this community for coincidentally allowing the opportunity to reconnect for a little while. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-standing editor and friends with Ed (and his girlfriend) on Facebook, I can sadly confirm that Dravecky has indeed passed away. I posted a little message of my own on Dravecky's talk page.

I believe that Dravecky should be added to the WP:RIP page, but I am unsure how to do this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit this page Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What awful news. When I fell into the radio station area here, Dravecky was the one who schooled me after my first major screwup, and encouraged me throughout cleaning up after myself afterward. He was a reliable sounding board, a solid teammate in defending unloved pages from deletion attempts, and a model for how to admin in an underserved area once I got the mop myself. More than all that, he was a content creator at a degree to which I've never dared aspire. A true colleague, and someone who it always felt like I would have gotten along with well out in the "real world". We didn't trip over each other as much over the last couple of years, but it always brought a smile to my face when we did. My deepest condolences to his friends, his family, and everyone else who's had the opportunity to interact with him here. Mlaffs (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You would have, Mlaffs. There wasn't a base pair in his DNA that wasn't inquisitive and kind and inclusive and smart. I may not have shared all of his interests, but I never doubted his genuine fascination with any of them or his camaraderie with anyone remotely inquisitive about them. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to his obituary in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to his talk page. It's a "news" obit, not a normal paid obit. I knew him in person and can independently - and with great sadness - confirm his passing. From a Wikipedia perspective, this hits me extra hard since Pedro and I were the ones that nominated him for adminship back in 2008. He sailed through unopposed, 66-0-1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin(?) Midom causing disruption on Occitan Wikipedia

We're not responsible for nor can we act on user conduct issues at the Occitan Wikipedia. Katie^talk 13:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I've nothing to do with any of this but passing through oc.wikipedia.org I have noticed someone who I presume to be some kind of admin, one Midom who seems to be rather lacking in social skills, judging by what's going on here: https://oc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilizaire:Midom

I think I appreciate the technical issues being dealt with in there, but his behaviour is way out of line and clearly oversteps what is considered acceptable today in any functional online community.

Especially when this behaviour is directed towards a group who are small and lacking in resources, but very enthusiastic, such as the Occitan Wikipedia lot, this is just plain bullying.

He has, very much without discussion or consultation, decided on the deletion of a significant amount of data--while the reasons appear legitimate, the way in which this was approached by Midom is lamentable (and this is a different discussion, but one could argue that if the templates under discussion lend themselves to be misused in the way they allegedly were, that doesn't say much about the competence of the programmers involved so perhaps they, being a handsomely paid bunch these days, unlike the oc.wikipedia.org editors, should step in and find a solution to the problem. Just saying.)

So, for what little is left of Wikipedia's credibility, I urge you to take action and:

Reprimand Midom for his reprehensible actions and attitude.
Admonish him to present his apologies to the Occitan Wikipedia community for his rude, aggressive, and unhelpful behaviour.

As I said, I personally have no axe to grind here, but I do not condone bullying.

I might as well add, having made a note of the information volunteered by this user in his user page, I do reserve the right to contact his employer and make them aware of his highly irresponsible behaviour and questionable social and technical competence. Midom, it is up to you to take this as a learning experience and make amends with the users you have inconvenienced and offended. Providing some assistance to the OC guys in migrating their data into a form that doesn't clog up the servers wouldn't go amiss either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.182.89 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins on English Wikipedia have no standing to admonish users on Occitan (or any other) Wikipedia. Also, OP should (but won't) be blocked for the threat to contact a user's employer. 172.56.34.49 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to get this straight, 83.47: you want us to punish a user who (with the exception of a single talk page post) hasn't been active for over a year, for something that happened on a different site four years ago in which everyone over there made mistakes? (Calling someone a troll for saying "nuking" as slang for "deleting" is an utter failure of WP:AGF). And you're saying you are the one opposed to bullying here, despite all this and despite threatening to contact his employer? If it wasn't for the off chance that you're sincere in this, I'd delete this thread under WP:DFTT. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm coming from the Occitan Wikipedia, where I've sensed Midom edit on his personal space with a new link to this page. I do not know why that IP has posted that. From the Oc Wikipedia side, the damage had been done as Boulaur has stopped contributing (he was the one able to try to build bots...) But we keep on moving, so IMHO this request is just useless. Yours friendly. --— J. F. B. ^{(me´n parlar)} 10:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gemma Lacey

Nothing more to do here, move along. Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The BLP Gemma Lacey has not been given any references for seven days. It should be deleted. Peter Sam Fan 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to point out expired BLPPRODs or other admin backlogs. We're aware and we'll get to them when we can. We're volunteers just like you. Katie^talk 18:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit summaries

Edit summary deleted by MSGJ (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is there any good solution to deal with inappropriate edit summaries like this [16]? I mean where to report them and ask to delete them? Because I always post such reports on this board. --Zyma (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion, where it says what to do. Note that I, personally, don't handle anything with the word "Iranian" in it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the edit summary. You can just report them here. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Profile101

Re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Profile101

Some of you may know the name. He is under the impression that he will be unblocked in 6 months. He socks dailyweekly to ask if it can be now. I don't think he will ever be unblocked due to CIR, socking, threats, and frankly, the worst quality lying I've ever seen at Wikipedia. Would it be reasonable to ask him to give up because his chances of ever being unblocked are near zero? Are they near zero? Would that have a chance of getting him to stop? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he should never be unblocked, the way to go is propose a community ban discussion - which means that any return is subject to community consensus rather than the whim of a passing admin. In answer to your specific question, given recent Arbcom unblocks, and some admin unblocks of editors who no one thought would be unblocked ever, the chances are that he would be unblocked at some point. It costs him nothing to ask, and much like the carpet-bomb approach to dating, someone will eventually AGF and say yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there's not been any activity on that SPI since March, and the most recent account in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Profile101 is a few weeks old. Why bring this up here and now, or am I missing something very obvious? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Lankiveil. He posts using IPs. We mostly stopped bothering to socktag the userpages. Examples:

120.50.40.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
121.7.127.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
118.200.220.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
118.200.73.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is socking every day then you don't need a community discussion to let them know they are not going to be unblocked. A formal ban is not always called for. If no admin is willing to unblock then there is a defacto ban. Unless there is an admin willing to unblock I would just document your evidence and decline any unblock request.

If there is disagreement with another admin about if they should be unblocked a community discussion may be called for. HighInBC 15:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighInBC. Is there anyone who would disagree? And if there were, I would have to respectfully disagree with their disagreement and seriously question their judgement. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think not, unless you know something I don't. My point is if no admin thinks they should be unblocked then we can just use everyday administrative discretion to deal with such people instead of spending the time and effort for an official ban. HighInBC 01:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, HighInBC. Next time I see his IP pop up, I will direct him to his original user talk, where I will now post a message saying that he ought to give up because there is almost no chance of him ever being unblocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Botched Page Move

Histories merged by MSGJ (non admin closure) -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 05:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, earlier today, a newly formed pro sports team, Toronto RLFC, became Toronto Wolfpack. Unfortunately, instead of moving the page and all its history to the new title, a user created a new page and just redirected the old page to it. I tried to fix this by undoing the redirect at RLFC and speedy tagging Wolfpack but I was reverted by another user who seems to have ignored my rationale. I'm not here looking to get either user into trouble. I'm just bringing this to Sysop attention so the botched page move can be properly fixed. Many thanks 2.218.253.200 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the history. We should be all good now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) 2.218.253.200 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declining CSDs

Hi all

A new admin here :) I just wanted to clarify the procedure for declining WP:CSD requests when they're placed on articles? It seems that removing the template is the first thing to do, but should the admin then notify either the page creator or the person who put the speedy template in the first place? (I've found {{Csddecline}} which seems to be aimed at the page creator, but not a template for the person who wanted the speedy). And is there any requirement to start an AfD discussion, or is that up to the person wanting to delete? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually an edit summary is enough. I only bring it up on the tagger's talk page if I notice a pattern of behavior, rather than one or two bad calls. (And I can't imagine a template being well-received.) There's no requirement for you to start an afd, and often the tagger will be in a better position than you to do so. On the other hand, just because an article doesn't strictly meet the speedy criteria doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be deleted, and it's especially irresponsible to decline speedy deletion on a technicality and then never follow up. I tend to keep borderline articles open in a browser tab, then prod after a couple days if there's no improvement and nobody beats me to it. —Cryptic 07:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSDH is a good script for this; you can choose to notify taggers of declines or change in rationale automatically or on a case by case basis and the template used isn't one of the scary ones. —SpacemanSpiff 07:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: thanks for that - I'll check it out! — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Cryptic: thanks for your answer, that's really helpful. I wasn't really thinking of a "you've made a mistake, this is a warning" kind of template, just something like a notification that the CSD is declined and they may wish to proceed to AfD. But that's fine if edit summaries will do the trick. The one I've been looking at is Violet Benson, which has had a CSD put up a couple of times now. As far as I can tell she's the subject of articles in reliable sources though, hence why I declined it - I'm not sure if that's what you'd regard as a technicality. Seems like more of an AfD candidate than a speedy. I'm more familiar with WP:RMT, which is perhaps the equivalent to CSD for the requested moves space. When those are declined, the admin usually converts it to a full RM and pings anyone who's already expressed an interest in it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely notify the tagger, because the NPPs are watching recent changes and will see the edit summary I leave and because most of them have a CSD log that will show the page hasn't been deleted. I'll say something like, 'decline A7 - asserts importance, PROD or AFD instead'. It's not your job as the admin to start a PROD or AFD because that takes you out of the admin role and can put you into INVOLVED. If you want to be involved, cool, but it's a line and I try not to cross it very often. :-) Katie^talk 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also rarely notify the tagger on their talk page. I will usually, if the software allows it, undo or use twinkle to revert the edit with an edit summary. That will give the tagger a notification that a revert was done to their edit. -- GB fan 15:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent CSD tagger while working maintenance categories I really appreciate notification of a decline along with a reason. Often there can be multiple reasons to delete something, and of course interpretation of CSD criteria may vary. I tagged an old completely blank of content page as "blank page consisting only of the default article text" even though it did not even have that. It was also a declined AfC (for being a blank page) so could have been G13. If that was declined on the technicality that it did not have the default article text, I'd want the Admin to pick another reason or notify me. Watchlist is not enough when you have 800+ pages watchlists. Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia O. Arefeva

Done — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can I get a copy by email please? It was deleted. Moscowamerican (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright (?) RevDel request

Not sure if I'm at the best place for this -- lots of instruction pages to sort through -- so bear with me. This edit seems to be some weird game or something and the text is identical to here. Can/Should this be revdel'd (and the edit summary, too)? Rgrds. --64.85.217.243 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this doesn't really need to be RevDel'd, however it appears the user reverted the edit right away. This would be more a case of a test edit or simple vandalism than anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith Edit War: Brenton Lengel

Esoteric10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated attempts to take down page with no cause. violations of consensus protocol and deceptive behavior in AoD arbitration such as not signing their own complaint then voting for it Theyself and violating Assume Good Faith. Attempting to remove page for obviously political reasons, ignoring/lying about the existence of good sources ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] Plankhead (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ===Brenton Lengel=== Plankhead (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brenton_Lengel#Brenton_Lengel

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenton_Lengel

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brenton_Lengel&action=history

[1]

[2]

[3]

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