Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 43 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)

@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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_importation#Request_for_transwiki-importer_-_EggRoll97

(Initiated 9 days ago on 21 November 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. If successful, I can take care of sending it to the stewards. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 108 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)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 62 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)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 52 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 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)

Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge#RfC: Truncate Giulio Regeni content

(Initiated 44 days ago on 17 October 2024)

The last comment in this RfC was on October 22. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done by DoubleGrazing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period

(Initiated 28 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)

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

(Initiated 27 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)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 12 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	71	71
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	9	9
RfD	0	0	0	41	41
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 30 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Fayenatic london. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 318 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)

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

@Allan Nonymous: do you still plan to close this? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM that has been open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 50 days ago on 11 October 2024) RM that has been open for 1.5 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Aaron Liu (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 30 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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

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

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

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)

@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)

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

 Doing... Aaron Liu (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (43 out of 8902 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision 2024-11-30 06:57 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. If others need to make some request, it can be done at WT:AC/C. SilverLocust Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop 2024-11-30 06:57 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. If others need to make some request, it can be done at WT:AC/C. SilverLocust Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence 2024-11-30 06:57 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. If others need to make some request, it can be done at WT:AC/C. SilverLocust Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 2024-11-30 06:55 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. If others need to make some request, it can be done at WT:AC/C. SilverLocust Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop 2024-11-30 06:42 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. SilverLocust Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision 2024-11-30 06:40 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. SilverLocust Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence 2024-11-30 06:39 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. SilverLocust Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Preliminary statements 2024-11-30 06:38 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and per instructions from drafting arbitrators. SilverLocust Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 2024-11-30 06:31 indefinite edit,move The case pages are to be limited to extended-confirmed users per the extended confirmed restriction applicable to edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict and instructions from drafting arbitrators. SilverLocust Northwestern Syria offensive (2024) 2024-11-30 03:51 2025-03-02 03:51 edit,move WP:GS/SCW ToBeFree Battle of Aleppo (2024) 2024-11-30 03:51 2025-03-02 03:51 edit,move WP:GS/SCW ToBeFree User:GreenC bot/button 2024-11-29 21:46 indefinite edit,move Request by bot operator Daniel Quinlan Liz Fong-Jones 2024-11-29 20:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Russian warship, go fuck yourself 2024-11-29 11:24 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Operations Directorate 2024-11-29 11:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Arpit Singh Yadav 2024-11-29 08:19 2024-12-29 08:19 create Repeatedly recreated under various titles DoubleGrazing Wikipedia:DICK 2024-11-29 04:24 indefinite edit,move Does not require full protection Pppery Pan-Arabism 2024-11-28 21:44 2027-11-28 21:44 edit,move Edit warring on Arab-Israeli conflict - WP:CT/AI Yaris678 Călin Georgescu 2024-11-28 20:55 2025-11-28 20:55 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies 2024-11-28 20:33 indefinite move Full move protection no longer necessary from 2008 vandalism. SilverLocust PTI do-or-die protest 2024-11-28 18:50 2025-02-28 18:50 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBIPA ToBeFree List of genocides committed by the United States 2024-11-28 18:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA, WP:AMPOL ToBeFree Northwestern Aleppo offensive (2024) 2024-11-28 02:25 2025-03-02 03:51 edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL Daniel Case Hans (clan) 2024-11-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case IDF Spokesperson's Unit 2024-11-27 22:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: my bad Ymblanter Draft:Laxminarayan Maharana 2024-11-27 19:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, socking, spamming DoubleGrazing Aras War 2024-11-27 19:25 indefinite create General sanction enforcement for Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict topic area Tamzin Template:Jsub 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2510 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Year category name 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:AFL Haw 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2515 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II 2024 Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire agreement 2024-11-27 13:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Draft:Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Tomer Bar 2024-11-27 02:17 indefinite edit,move WP:PIA DatGuy Sarah Toscano 2024-11-27 01:21 2025-05-27 01:21 move Move warring against RM Red-tailed hawk Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion 2024-11-26 23:30 indefinite edit Restoring protection by HJ Mitchell: Contentious topic restriction Protection Helper Bot User talk:114.129.250.118 2024-11-26 22:06 2024-12-03 22:06 move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ScottishFinnishRadish Za'atar 2024-11-26 21:09 2025-11-26 21:09 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli generals' plan 2024-11-26 21:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Shiva 2024-11-26 16:25 2025-11-26 16:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian User talk:31.163.172.36 2024-11-26 15:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:115.23.250.36 2024-11-26 13:12 2025-11-26 13:12 create HJ Mitchell Dheerendra Singram 2024-11-26 11:14 2025-02-26 11:14 create Repeatedly recreated, PP (EC) 3mos DoubleGrazing

Daily Mail RfC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC

When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Careful there. Outrage causes cancer. I know that this is true because I reads it in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The trash tabloids sold at US supermarkets called. They demand an apology for being compared to The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if you need a third (fourth? fifth?) opinion/voice on the close. As much as I hate to say it this might actually involve some 'crat-style discussion about which steps to take. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, if folks don't mind and want it I can bring my own assessment in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [1] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

As in RFAs where oppose votes gets heavily discussed, here in this RFC, the oppose voters are subjected to replies, objection and comments. The support votes are not getting too much questioned, why they support ban of Daily Mail. The oppose votes, where editors oppose ban of Daily Mail are getting badgered. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. First, many of those in support of a ban are among the most vocal of editors/admins on WP and seem unable to behave in a way that does not lead to the treatment you describe above. Second, very, very few opposers have been able to indicate that the DM is a reliable source, however, opposers believe for their own various reasons that a "ban" is objectionable. This means the "supporters" have nowhere to go in terms of discussion, other than attacking the opposers. There may also be an element of frustration here. If the closure is in favour of a ban, how will this happen? There is currently no blacklist of newspapers and I think forming one would require a change in WP-policy. I'm wondering if the supporters have seen this eventuality and have decided to attack the opposers hoping they will not return to any future debate. For the record, I have not voted either way on this matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative explanation: the supporters, being mainly very experienced Wikipedians, have come to the good-faith conclusion that The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything and that Wikipedia would be greatly improved if a software filter prevented any new attempts to use it as a source. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The oppose includes SlimVirgin, Anne Delong, Boing! said Zebedee, The Four Deuces, Richard Keatinge, Thincat, Softlavender, Lugnuts, Andy Dingley, Jheald, Finnusertop, Ianmacm, Davey2010. All of them are also very experienced Wikipedians. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The results so far.

We are now 7 days away from the normal 30-day RfC closing.

So far it looks like we have 46 support !votes and 24 oppose !votes. (My rough count; a more careful count should be made checking for dupes)

There were 7 !votes in the last 5 days (all suppport) and zero !votes in the last 2 days.

(Crossposted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The results so far). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Closer should also keep in mind that many of the views offered here were more nuanced than reflected by straight-up oppose or support. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have contacted those who volunteered, above, by email, as I think some discussion of this is necessary. However, doing so on-wiki runs the risk of such discussion getting derailed by well-meaning passers-by; I'm therefore proposing to hold a quick email discussion with Primefac, Sunrise, Tazerdadog and Jo-Jo Eumerus and will close the RFC as soon as we come to an agreement. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Email works, so as long as there is not too much traffic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

<gasp> Private discussions on WP? It's the secret cabal that runs- wait. I'm part of the cabal. Carry on, then. I'll just monitor the email conversation through my NSA contacts and we can bring it up at the next meeting of the other secret cabal the WP cabal secretly works for. In secret, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just tweet the result, why dontcha? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's funny because I have such pleasant memories of the Cabal. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion, and that it should, like the RfC mentioned in a thread below, be closed by a team of three neutral admins. This is a middle-market newspaper, not a tabloid, and notwithstanding its negative politically incorrect frontpage headlines and at times scandal-mongering, it also contains good, standard, valuable journalism, reportage, interviews, and reviews that are exclusives and completely unavailable elsewhere. It is a mixed bag, and should not be painted with a broad brush, even though it is hated in the UK for its misleading front pages. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Even if a blacklisting was likely (which I don't think is the case) why would an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard not be sufficient to gauge the consensus of the community? Any consensus at centralized discussion is only likely to gather users who aren't as familiar with the policies on notability as those that visit the reliable sources noticeboard, which is only likely to result in a less useful discourse. What would be the point of searching for more users that are not as familiar or as interested in the issue of the reliability of sources?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Because WP:RSN is watched by very few editors, whereas the editors of affected articles which cite the Daily Mail for legitimate reasons (reviews, exclusives, interviews, and reliable reportage [non-political, non-science, non-libel] unavailable elsewhere) are unlikely to be watching that board. By and large the board has a core cadre of participants and commentators, and even editors who might at some point happen to query the board only watch it for the time that their discussion is open (as with many dispute-resolution noticeboards). In short, the vast majority of the experienced editors likely to be affected by a blacklist of this publication are more than likely not watching that board. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually just claim that a RfC with 93 responses didn't have sufficient participation? If you wish to challenge the result, the first step would be to go to the talk pages of the closing admins and try to convince them that they got it wrong for the reasons you list above. I have done this IIRC twice in the ten years I have been editing Wikipedia; one time the admin reconsidered and asked for another admin to close it, the other time the admin quickly convinced me that I was the one who got it wrong. If that doesn't work, I don't think that there is any rule that prevents you from posting a good-faith RfC at Centralized Discussion asking whether to overturn the results of the Daily Mail RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I claim that 93 responses is not enough for a decision of this magnitude. It is more than enough to make many decisions, but this is as extremely broad decision. If the Guardian is to be believed (which it is not) Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source, but even the more nuanced actual position is quite strong. I daresay I am not alone in learning about it after it was finalized.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I second comments by Sphilbrick, I found out about the RSN discussion because my wife read the outcome of the RSN RfC in her Greek news site! I have contempt for the Mail's journalistic norms, but there have been occasions when articles by guest or regular column journalists have been invaluable (as I recall, pieces on US use of 'enhanced interrogation'). A blanket ban is not going to last two minutes. I would always prefer to use a better source and we should enforce that practice, also there are times when the Mail's treatment of a story is itself notable. There are many reasons for treating the Mail with huge scepticism, none for banning it, especially when any claim is attributed to it. Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Can we please all sign a petition somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed

It's done. Let the tarring and feathering of myself and the other admins involved in the close begin... Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oy. Seems like the email discussion happened while I was off-email - stupid email service. The closure statement matches almost exactly what I would have proposed, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for you to certify the result in the closing statement? We already have at least one person who is talking about challenging the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on the signing. Alas I have mislaid my pitchfork today. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yunshui and Primefac, I'm not sure I agree with the strong wording of your close, particularly the words in bold (bold added): "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

The RfC question allowed for exceptions, as did several of the support responses.

I've summarized the responses at User:SlimVirgin/draft. There is more support for a combination of the qualified-support (11) and oppose positions (27), than there is for unqualified support (47). Some of the supports read like opposes to me. For example, I opposed, but I agree with the qualified supports. So I would say that consensus is more nuanced than your close reflects. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Not to speak for the others, of course, but based on our discussion I would suggest interpreting that statement as a general principle which may have reasonable exceptions to it, i.e. the focus should be more on the first sentence than the second. For myself, I don't think we had enough justification to say that specific exceptions definitively exist other than IAR, but I think it's fairly likely that they do and I don't see the close as cutting off those possibilities. Sunrise (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding, SV, but your math seems off? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, yes, thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) We used the terms "generally prohibited" and "nor should it be used" specifically because it gave a small amount of wiggle room for IAR/historically reliable usage of the DM to be used. It's not a 100% ban (which we did discuss as a possibility), because that would go against the overall consensus.

As a minor note, I really shouldn't be surprised when five uninvolved editors come together, actually agree on something, and still get roasted for the result. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunrise, the problem is that it will be interpreted as written. Another problem is that the close didn't distinguish between the Mail as a primary and secondary source, although a few comments alluded to that distinction, even if not using those terms. Also, I see that the RfC wasn't added to WP:CENT, so I wonder whether enough people saw it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SV: I think the other responses below address these issues well. Of course, please feel free to cite my comments here in discussions if it would help. With regards to the primary/secondary distinction, I would say the same idea applies as in my previous comment - that the amount it was addressed in the RfC was low enough that I think the community should certify any proposed exceptions in a separate discussion (and with no prejudice towards starting such a discussion immediately). Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, "generally prohibited" reflects consensus, but it's contradicted by "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." That last part says: "Do not use this as a source", and that will be interpreted strictly by editors who will remove it no matter how justified the use. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV My take away from the close is 'prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be'. When editors attempt to remove it no matter how justified, those wishing inclusion will have to argue from it being a necessity as a source, and to ignore this RfC result. In my opinion, and from what I've seen in the comments from the closers, this is a feature, not a bug.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be" is a very good summation of the intent of the close. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "generally" usually means "always", so from a strict semantics viewpoint the close appears to reflect that the consensus did not call for a no-exceptions ban. I don't see much discussion on primary vs. secondary source in the RfC. I'd also like to register a complaint that procedural issues such as which noticeboard to put the discussion on and whether to list it in CENT should be assessed and processed before and during an RfC not after. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The question of weather to bring it up at CENT wasn't asked until the RfC was closed pending a ruling. See previous section for my opinion on the matter.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's standard practice to add RfCs to CENT if they have the potential to affect every article. I'm not reading the close as acknowledging exceptions. It says don't use it as a source, and "Volunteers are encouraged to ... remove/replace them as appropriate." Not "remove/replace/leave it in place as appropriate". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

Note that this RfC has received media attention so we are all likely under the microscope of journalists at the moment. Careful what ya say eh? ;D  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Three cheers for HBH, or as he's better know these days... Paul Dacre's private dealer. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why the Wikimedia Foundation quickly prepared and sent out a statement to The Guardian. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't like the idea of WMF using our discussions for political advocacy, which is what it feels like they've done here... WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement from the WMF was more or less factual, how was it 'political advocacy'?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing better to do, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jbarbara (WMF), WMF communications director. Juliet, can you let us know what happened here? We held an RfC on whether to stop using the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, as a source. The RfC was closed today, and we were discussing whether the close reflected consensus. Within hours of the close, we find that the Wikimedia Foundation has issued a statement about it to The Guardian, so now this feels political. Can you tell us who issued that statement and why? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion on Iridescent's talk page that may shed light on it. An editor may have contacted the newspaper before the close. Also pinging Hillbillyholiday. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The story is a direct result of (and abstracts some of) my correspondence with Mr Jackson of the Guardian which took place immediately after the close. The story was news to Mr Jackson, so I suspect the WMF release was in response and not pre-prepared. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hillbillyholiday. So you contacted The Guardian before they knew anything about it? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that, I can only say that Mr Jacskon didn't express any prior knowledge of the situation. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone - The reporter reached out to us on our press queue earlier today (press@wikimedia.org). As we always do with reporter inquiries, we responded in a timely manner to meet his deadline and emphasized the community’s role in setting editorial policy. We responded factually about the community processes of RfCs and assessing reliable sources. This was not a proactive effort on our part, but rather part of our normal commitment to responding to reporters factually and quickly.

We also shared a link to the RfC, which he quoted in the article, so we felt that he was aware of the discussion taking place among volunteers. We expect to see a few more requests and will respond with the same language and will continue to point any requests to the RfC and this discussion. If there were things in our statement that seemed problematic, please let us know. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet, thank you so much for the quick response, and for clarifying that the WMF didn't initiate the press contact. Discussions are ongoing about whether the RfC close reflected consensus, so the story was a little premature. Also, the Daily Mail is by no means the only problematic tabloid source. We should have dealt with them all in the same RfC to avoid this looking so political, but I suppose that ship has sailed. Thanks again for letting us know what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV You're very welcome - thanks for looping me in! Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet Is there a link to the full statement? I see what is in the Guardian, but do not know if that is the full statement. We are receiving inquiries at OTRS, and it would be nice to be able to share the official position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick We have not published our statement anywhere. We are only sharing with reporters when we receive inquiries. Here is the current text we're using: Thanks for reaching out. We’d be happy to share a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on the recent outcome of a discussion among volunteer editors around the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. One point of clarity -- A number of outlets have called this move a “ban.” This is not a blanket ban, but a general statement from volunteer editors on the reliability of the source for use on English Wikipedia. Also, I should mention that as the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not set editorial policy on Wikipedia. That is up to volunteer editors around the world who contribute to the site. Editors have discussed the reliability of the Daily Mail since at least early 2015. In January 2017, an RfC (Request for Comment) discussion was proposed to evaluate the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This is one of many community discussions that take place every day about a broad range of issues, including reliable sources. In this case, volunteer editors seem to have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is “generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.” This means that there is a general recommendation according to this discussion that the Daily Mail not be referenced as a "reliable source" on English Wikipedia or used to demonstrate an article subject’s notability. That said, we encourage everyone to read the comments in the RfC itself. You will find considerable discussion on the topic, including views both for and against the proposal. Wikipedia is a living, breathing ecosystem where volunteers regularly discuss and evolve the norms that guide the encyclopedia. Among Wikipedia’s many policies and guidelines, there is even a policy to ignore all rules. It captures the open spirit of the community: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” As a general guide to reliable sources, articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Editors assess the reliability of a source at these levels: The piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). They also use a variety of criteria to evaluate reliability within each of these levels. For example, one signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

• Comment: The Daily Mail is one of the five major venues for theatre reviews in London (the others being the Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, and The Independent). Their theatre reviewers are excellent (as are their film and television reviewers). We can't just remove all of the reviews from these excellent critics simply because they are in the Daily Mail and we don't like the Daily Mail's politics, any more than we can completely ban Fox News because we don't like their politics. I understand the UK campaign of "Don't Fund Hate" (don't buy products advertised in the Daily Mail or The Sun), but top-notch theatre critics can't generally help which of the five publications they work for, as there are only a few spots to go around. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to be a bit more careful. I, for one, know nothing about DMs politics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm vaguely aware that the Telegraph is somewhere on the right and the Guardian somewhere on the left but know nothing about the political leanings of other British newspapers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Iridescent, one thing that puzzles me is that you used the Daily Mail as a source in Hope (painting), one of your FAs (and I objected), yet in the RfC you supported and I opposed, even though I think we both agree. I used it as a primary source in Death of Ian Tomlinson, also an FA, because it was one of the first to publish images of Tomlinson with the police before his death. The situation is nowhere near as simple as the RfC close implies. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• OTH - Is that a five editor close? This falls into the trivia question box, but have five editors ever been used before? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the Daily Mail was put as the sole target on the sights in the first place - their reporting style isn't specifically populist or right-wing. It's a British tabloid thing. There are plenty of Labour-supporting tabloids with the same, occasionally sensationalist, brute style and less regard for fact-checking such as Daily Record or the Daily Mirror. The current political climate is said to be as divisive as ever with Trump and Brexit. I think this vote with it's the Guardian piece and reactions is a sign of that and I don't welcome it in Wikipedia. I don't know why the Daily Mail should be treated differently than other tabloids. --Pudeo (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• You could always bring those to discussion and see what happens. Though I suppose the answer is that both of those sources are cited approximately never. There are only two links to the Daily Record on Wikipedia, and only a few dozen to the Daily Mirror. Nothing compared to the ~12,000 links to the Daily Mail. Perhaps this means they are already de facto banned by never being used, or removed whenever they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• As someone pointed out in the RfC, Press Complaints Commission records over a ten-year period: Successful complaints against Fleet Street publications: average = 43, Daily Mail = 153.That's why it was a target, and it has absolutely nothing to do with its politics. Yes, there are other very poor sources that are used (Record and Mirror among them), but I sincerely hope RfCs are opened to discuss the possibility of each of these too. If it leads to a raising of the bar on the sources used on WP that can only be a positive step. - The Bounder (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah I am probably going to have to take the hit for this one. In the context of the recent Trump-o-geddon story-after-story of depressingness, I sent a message about a week ago to a close (blood) relative who freelances for the Guardian along the lines of 'look on the bright side, wikipedia is probably about to declare the Daily Mail unreliable'.... I got a message this morning saying he had passed it on, so I guess thats why they were ready to move quickly as soon as it closed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Point of clarification: the closure has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable", but doesn't specifically mention its sister paper The Mail on Sunday which commonly appears on the same website, and is frequently mistaken for the Daily Mail. For example, "Daily Mail names “whistleblower” who told US gov’t that NOAA manipulated climate data | Ars Technica UK refers to a www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article and in the body text correctly notes this is from the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday. An attempt to get this into a BLP has been reverted. In my view, The Mail on Sunday is equally unreliable and its online republication at dailymail.co.uk is covered by this decision. . . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: Can one of the admins explain what's the point of having DM "generally prohibited"? WP:QUESTIONABLE is already a thing. What's the point of this voting if there's no policy to enforce it, nor it's even mentioned on any of the WP: pages. I found out about this whole ban via the Guardian article, but I doubt editors will remember about this vote in half year time. Idea: There needs to be some framework/policy to list "generally prohibited" (or however you want to call them) websites that wikipedians can refer to & link to during any possible disputes. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Mail on Sunday, I don't see any differentiation or discussion of that newspaper in the RfC. I am not certain what the issue with banning the use of a source is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday was mentioned twice in the RfC by editors saying the proposal was unclear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• A few comments Please in future could we have wider notification of this kind of discussion? The Mail is, for right or wrong, one of the biggest media organisations in the UK and probably quite high up the list for the English language. What's more, the whole idea of a blanket ban on a certain source is a significant innovation in how we handle sources. Those are both individually big deals - to my mind, an RFC on the relatively out-of-the-way sources noticeboard isn't a big enough forum for this kind of decision. Also it would have been handy for someone to let the WMF and Wikimedia UK know this was coming - so that there could have been discussion about how to handle press inquiries in advance. The Land (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I mentioned that above this section. The good-faith editors most affected by this decision -- e.g. those writing and editing on theatre articles and theatre actors and directors, were not even aware of it. I requested that the discussion at least be posted at Centralized Discussion, but instead it was immediately closed. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender wrote above at 03:59, 8 February: "If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion ..". The RfC was closed nine hours later, so most editors who will be affected by this will learn about it via the Guardian, even though whether the close reflects consensus is still being debated. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Following a discussion with Thincat and Yunshui here, I'm wondering whether we should seek consensus to overturn this. The question is what to ask for. Re-open the RfC for seven days and advertise it widely? Start from scratch with a new question? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd support re-opening it, as a) plenty of editors will have found out about this whole thing from reading the Guardian and b) I don't think the debate had either high enough participation or a strong enough majority to warrant the strongly-worded result. I would also suggest perhaps workshopping some alternative formulations of the result. The Land (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the history of {{Centralized discussion}} and this significant RfC doesn't appear to have been mentioned on that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question as to scope?

Is "generally unreliable" applicable to citing the Daily Mail as a primary source for the content of the DM itself... or for attributed statements of opinions appearing in the DM itself? For example, suppose a noted expert on some subject wrote an opinion piece in the DM relating to some aspect of his/her field of expertise... previous to this RFC, we could cite the opinion piece to support the fact that the opinion had been stated... something along the lines of: "In an op-ed appearing in the Daily Mail on 23 June, 2016, Ima Expert stated his opinion that 'X was Y' <ref DM op-ed where he states x was y>". I assume this would still be allowed, but I would like confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the above; it's disappointing that the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football weren't notified of this disucssion. I recently sourced several new articles on Charity Shield finals to Daily Mail articles (1936, 1935, 1924 and 1923) for example - it has a good history of relatively extensive football reporting that I couldn't find in some of the other archives that I had access to. While I acknowledge that the closure does use the word 'generally', I think the strength of the assertion is disappointing. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers note that the close specifically indicates that historically the DM may have been more reliable, therefore there is totally a case for ignoring this decision when it comes to very old topics such as that.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but only 'ish': there's a lot of sceptical "mays" and "coulds". I hope that editors stand by the wording of these statements, but my concern is that babies are being lost with bathwaters here, as much as I fully support a general rejecting of the contemporary Daily Mail.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, it can be used as a primary source when it has become part of the story. Or when someone has a byline in it and you use it as a source about that person. But the expert writing in her field of expertise: I would say no, in general, but it would depend on context. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah... "it would depend on context" is exactly what I was trying to say. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be completely unreliable in one context, and completely reliable in another. I think we need to ask the RFC closers to amend their closing statement... to better outline the (limited) circumstances in which the DM (and similar "tabloid" news sources) should be considered reliable. As it stands, editors will be confused as to when it is reliable and when it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree completely. I asked the closing admin to amend his close, but he declined. See the end of the section directly above this one. It seems we may need to ask that it be overturned, but the question now is what to ask for exactly. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the scope needs to be interpreted with a healthy dose of common sense. I see the words "generally prohibited" as giving editors some wriggle room for those rare cases where there is truly no source other than the Daily Mail, and it is in a topic area where the Daily Mail does not have a reputation for poor quality (such as politics and current events). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

RfC advertisement: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#RfC:_use_of_edit_filter_against_unreliable_sources

I opened an RfC about the technical details of the implementation of similar bans for the future. I expect it to pass without much trouble, considering the results of the DM RfC, but you never know. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS applies. "I expect it to pass without much trouble" does not accord with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems with close

The close, in part, includes the following clauses:

• The Daily Mail... is generally unreliable
• its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited
• should not be used... as a source in articles
• The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects
• The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically
• it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion
• Volunteers are encouraged to review [existing citations to the Daily Mail], and remove/replace them as appropriate

I trust that the contradictions and ambiguities they contain, and their potential for causing dispute further down the line, are clear. Regardless on one's view of the DM and its suitability as a source, this is a very badly-worded close.

That said, we should probably move this discussion somewhere else, as it's no longer an issue requiring admin intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that we looked at the wording very carefully in our close. One of the purposes of the wording was to try to give a sense of how easy it should be to use IAR when our close might not make sense in a specific case. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel like most of the contradiction talked about by editors is originating from editors not used to using the WP:IAR guideline. When working on the bleeding edge of contentious policy issues (such as the Daily Mail's reliability, fringe topics, etc) editorial judgement in the form of IAR is commonly used. Editors not used to contentious topics likely don't have to use IAR much, as they generally work in places where WP policy works as written pretty much all of the time. As written, and with my understanding of WP:IAR the close makes perfect sense to me and many others, but might not make much sense to someone without the context of having had to use editorial judgement to IAR from time to time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We are already getting a lot of editors who are interpreting the close as a complete "ban" on citing the DM. I do understand that this was not the intent of the closers... but that is how it is being interpreted nevertheless. I think we may need to hold a second (follow up) RFC to discuss the contexts and circumstances when the DM (and similar sources) should be considered reliable, and when citing it is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost without exception, reliable sources are calling it a ban so who are we to argue? Huffington Post quotes the Dail Mail itself as describing it as a "so-called ban".[2] So all we can be sure of is that it is not a "so-called ban". Thincat (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to, shall we say, be sensationalist. "A ban" is always partial, or total, here it would be partial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel that calling this a "ban" is an oversimplification, but it's a really common way to oversimplify decisions and such misleading coverage happens all the time. I'd like to disagree with Pigsonthewing, RfC !voters have no obligation to end up with a black-and-white aggregate opinion and neither have closers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And where did I say that they have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

See, my impression from the comment you wrote here is that the close was "very badly worded". I don't agree as the opinions given were inherently ambiguous and not all on the same page. Hence the seeming contradictions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone has seen this Reddit post that was on their front page regarding the decision. The actions on ANI can somehow spread like wildfire, depending on the situation (although most appeared to have applauded the decision). Buffaboy ^talk 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

there are sufficient problems with this close that a new discussion is needed. I'm not sure how we should go about it. The most conventional method at WP is to add a page of interpretations, which adjusts the over-broad policy to make it correspond with what people generally at WP really want to do. (for example, to say straight out thattheatre and sports are exceptions). That's the way most WP policies have developed over time.

A more direct though equally complicated way is to bring an RfC to review the RfC. In principle, an RfC can do anything.

a third, already mentioned, is to just use IAR.

As for getting the media to understand us, it can't be done. Every significant word in WP guidelines and policy is a term of art, which has no necessary correspondence with the way anyone would use the term in any other context. My personal suggestion is to try rewording things so they will at least be closer, or else coin words like "WPreliablesources" A precedent for this is NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No one could possibly confuse it with English. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there were problems with the close, described above. There is also another issue now. Since reliable sources have written about the ban and cited the closer's comment describing the Daily Mail's "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication," that lets editors directly insert that comment into the article! I have removed such a comment from the lead of the article. This is a really big problem, in that wikipedia editors are creating the news that they then enter into articles! I suggest the closers retract their closing statement at once, and open a new RFC to a much wider audience. Not even 100 editors weighed in, and many votes as described above contained barely any justification. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you feel that the other closers and I misread the consensus of those who participated in the RFC? If so, a closure review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is encouraged. I do not suspect there is an appetite for an immediate RFC relitigating the same question as the original. However, a RFC which tries to carve out explicit exceptions to the ban (e.g. historical usage, citing the DM as a primary source, or using the DM for theatre reviews), and/or discussing implementation details may be a good idea. Additionally there may be cause to re-evaluate the decision in a few months, once we have more details on how the ban is working. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue would be that the RfC was not listed on "Centralized discussions". That newsmedia are (sometimes inaccurately) reporting on it is not an issue with the close, and people adding these newsmedia reportings in articles is a different problem altogether. A supplementary RfC to settle the theatre and sports question would be fine, in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of an improper RfC closure

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [3], [4], [5]).

In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).

First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).

Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Note: This shouldn't be closed until at least the last point is addressed: if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept? In this case, because of the wording of the question, the closing summary (by involved editors) changed the existing policy. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting three uninvolved admins to close RfC

The RfC on secondary school notability is nearing the 30-day mark. Last week I suggested that we request a team of three uninvolved editors/admins to work together on the close, as is done from time to time on highly contentious matters. The three users responding to that suggestion were supportive of it. The subject of the RfC is something that's come up so many times, and so often, and with so much history that it may be useful. There are furthermore nuances, qualifications, interpretations, etc. that make for a potentially complicated close. So how about it? Are there three uninvolved admins willing? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in the close, but I'll happily defer to almost any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Poking people - This really does need a multiple-editor closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't look too awful. I could participate. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. We're looking for one more admin or experienced editor then. Thank you for volunteering Someguy.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cough Cough... we are still in need of a 3rd uninvolved admin or experienced editor to help close this RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I did peripherally comment, so I am probably not a candidate for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I pushed back pretty hard on secondary school notability in the bad old days; I probably shouldn't be involved. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm game. I didn't even know the discussion was going on, so I think that qualifies as "uninvolved" ;) Primefac (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing if needed. Fairly experienced in contentious RFCs. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites It looks like you have three (+1) experienced editors on board. I suggest that the RfC be closed with a results pending notice and that the closers move their discussion to a subpage somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog, Someguy1221, and The Wordsmith:: subpage or e-mail? I suggest the latter only because it was helpful for the DM close. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Email is probably the best option (or IRC), and is the most common when doing committee closings. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac, Someguy1221, and The Wordsmith: I have emailed Someguy1221 and The Wordsmith to set up an email discussion about the closure (I have Primefac's email from the DM closure above). I have also placed a holding message at the RFC. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 and The Wordsmith: I haven't seen input from you guys on the email thread in a while, I just wanted to poke you on it. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium on requested moves of Trump?

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

---

In the last year, there have been three WP:RM discussions relating to the page Trump and the article Donald Trump:

1. March 2016, closed by admin Mike Cline. Proposed that the card game should be get a dab, and the dab page be moved to the bare title. Result: not moved
2. November 2016, closed by me (admin BrownHairedGirl. Proposed thatTrump redirect to Donald Trump. Result: disambiguate
3. January 2017 closed by non-admin SkyWarrior (aka JudgeRM). Proposed that Trump redirect to Donald Trump. Result: no consensus.

There has just been a fourth botched attempt, with a botched attempt at closure by inexperienced new editor Chris H of New York (60 edits so far in 4 months). Details here[6].

This may turn into a perennial proposal. Or maybe not. Consensus can change, as it did between March 2016 and November 2016. So there needs to be a chance to revisit the issue at some point.

However, it would also be disruptive for the same proposal to be wheeled out every few weeks. In some previous instances of contentious article names, there has been a moratorium on further proposals, of up to a year. I suggest that it would be appropriate to have one here, initially for between 3 and 6 months. Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that could work, but there are more disruptive pages that could use one, namely Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia, which, including the current one, has had about five RMs in 2 months, and that excludes one started by a sock and another that was speedy closed as disruptive. By comparison, there has been three RMs in 10 months at Talk:Trump. So we could probably issue a moratorium for both pages, but clearly one is more disruptive than the other. Sorry I had to bring this up, but I kinda had to since its (somewhat) related. SkyWarrior 11:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, I support a moratorium on both Talk:Trump and strongly on Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia. SkyWarrior 12:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Few things piss me off more on Wikipedia than those who keep demanding until they get the answer they want. It's antithetical to collaborative working. I support a moratorium for 12 months or until after the impeachment proceedings, whichever is the sooner. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support moratorium as I fear the loss of the noisy fart on the page. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support moratorium per noms well-reasoned argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Implement moratorium, please. Recommend six months. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yep, count me in too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with the moratorium 100%. Bigly you could even say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• I think that the suggestion above of a 12 month moratorium is too long for Trump. The most recent discussion made some use of pageview stats (which had been absent from the November discussion), but those were contested on the grounds that they related to his inauguration day, when there was a huge spike in page views (see this chart). It seems to me to be reasonable that editors should have a chance to reassess the metrics a few months into his term of office. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support a 4-year moratorium, combined with any requested move needs to be addressed directly to admins on this page. I say 4 years, because the subject matter is a lightening rod that draws very strong opinions on any aspect. — Maile (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Maile66, have you read the RM discussions linked above? There was some partisan commentary, but most editors conducted themselves quite responsibly. I think that we need to find a balance between the disruptiveness of having a move discussion very few weeks, and the shutdown of an over-long moratorium. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support a 12-month moratorium. I pray for impeachment, but (given the present Congress) am not optimistic. Miniapolis 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• A one year moratorium sounds like a reasonable idea, but if consensus is for something of a different specific length, count my !vote as support for that as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• 12 months is a good starting point. We can either extend it if necessary when the time comes, or terminate it early in the (unlikely) event that things calm down before then. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• 6-month moratorium at least . I believe this should be the general rule for re-opening a discussion which had a consensus, except where some major change has occured sice the closure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• 6-month moratorium, between the two discussions, per @BrownHairedGirl: there was a slight change in consensus, but arguably still no clear consensus, it seems reasonable to re-assess it after he has had a fair amount of time in office. I pretty much dislike all the partisan commentary on this AN thread, you can love or hate the man, but there is no need to discuss impeachment etc here. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• There is now another botched move request on the sane issue: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_malformed_Trump_move_request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  Sure you meant insane issue. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• At least a year break because its unconstructive and not helpful to building an encyclopedia... It's mostly people with political agendas getting annoyed. A DAB is the safest and most neutral route for the time being. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• 12 months. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

L'honorable

Editor L'honorable has for quite a while an unblock request standing: User talk:L'honorable#Unblock request. Somebody should take care of that. The Banner talk 09:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved, but if I wasn't, I'd have to say that continuing the behavoir that got them blocked isn't an encouraging sign. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Involved as well - seems to revolve mostly around a commons admin with a grudge posting to AN/I. Still don't understand why the user copied their talkpage here, however. SQL^{Query me!} 04:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone daring to take action? The Banner talk 09:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll unblock if there are no objections. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Cease and desist plus fees for re-users of freely licensed images as a rip-off?

There is currently a survey going on at the German Wikipedia that evolves around the practice of a few photographers to licence their works with CC-by-sa or the like and then wait for re-users to violate the terms of the licence only to charge a fee in the range of some thousand EUR including a cease and desist letter. Apparently this has led to repeated complaints to the German Wikipedia where people found images and just used them for their own purposes without obeying the CC licence (which can sometimes be complicated). The survey at de.wikipedia is now proposing to remove such images from the local article namespace by default. Re-users are of course responsible for their actions and sloppy reading of the terms and conditions but the initiators of the survey think that the general "business" model of such photographers should not be rewarded by spreading their images all around Wikipedia.

So while I have not yet voted over there, the question has arisen whether the English WP has experienced someting similar in the past. I can't recall having witnessed any such cases but maybe anyone else? De728631 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard of such a case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a terrible idea, our image default is CC by SA and a majority of our images are licensed that way... Of course they should belong on Commons but thats another issue...

These kinds of actions as described do not seem to be in the spirit of the type of community we aspire to be. I would personally not even have a problem with a global ban, if there are sufficient hints that these contributors consider our platform a businessmodel instead of their photos a contribution to free knowledge. People have a right to defend their copyright, but that doesn't equal to us having to host their material, just because it is CC-by-sa. I would consider such a practice similar to undisclosed COI article editing for the promotion of commercial purposes and maybe even touching upon Wikipedia:No legal threats. I'm not aware of precedents however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NLT is concerned with the disruptive action of attempting to use (or threatening to use) the courts to influence the contents of Wikipedia pages. Making legal threats against people not involved in the project, as is the case here, is a completely unrelated issue. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree that doesn't reflect one to one to this case. But again, in spirit... Besides, I wouldn't call reusers of our hosted content 'people not involved in the project'. Sharing in the sum and all that stuff.. The point is, no we don't have rules for this, but if you look at our mission, our origins and even our rules towards areas where we DO have jurisdiction/precedence, then behavior like that does not compatible and so avoiding that type of content is not a very strange idea. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as "not in the spirit of the project", I tend to agree, and your suggestion of treating it like commercial COI sounds like a good idea to me; I just oppose blocking someone for taking legal action for what really is the infringement of our licensing terms. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any block being proposed. But if we identify contributors using this "business model" then maybe we tag their images with a notification of the potential problem, so that people who add their images to articles, or use them for other purposes, will have a chance to be aware. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not needed. All our CC license templates contain a link to the license, which already has such a warning. All reusers are already obligated to obey the license conditions, and some users' failure to enforce terms on infringers isn't a reason to provide special notice that other users will enforce those terms. Unless we're going to sanction someone for using Wikipedia improperly for commercial purposes, as TheDJ's suggesting and I'm lending toward supporting, there's no reason to do anything regarding this situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is very easy to see a situation in which a committed free content advocate might contribute many images and be very angry when their lovingly created work is stolen by others (in the sense of being reused without complying with the really very straightforward license conditions). It might be that this is abuse, but it could equally just be righteous wrath. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some users at Commons have big reminder templates for this purpose, including some who permit alternate, simpler licenses for noncommercial purposes (see Commons:User:Kadellar/credit or Commons:User:Fir0002/credits), so I agree. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  It's common. I know a few photographers like this. But they are not doing it for the money. All they want is the terms of the CC-by-SA licence adhered to. Mostly, they just want to be credited for the image. Which they are entitled to under the licence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Like others, my first instinctive reaction here is a 'NLT'-type thing; if people do this, we should block them until they withdraw the threat. But of course that amounts to banning use of the CC-BY-SA license on en-wiki. Technically we're saying, "You can use CC-BY-SA but you can't enforce the conditions on the license," but it amounts to the same thing. Photographers should be free to enforce the terms of what is already a very generous license. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• You, OP, might want to reexamine how you put that: "then wait for re-users to violate the terms of the licence". There is no violation of the licence until someone violates it, so it's not about 'waiting', it is about actually enforcing the licence, the licence we allow and encourage. The reason we allow and encourage it is it makes for a more informative encyclopedia. It's also a benefit to the world that others can also use it, if they follow the quite undemanding licence terms. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If someone contributes an image to Wikipedia for the purpose of using it here (possibly in an article (s)he intends to write eventually), and gets angry when it's used against his/her license, then there is nothing wrong here. If a user uploads an image as a trap to get money, it's abuse of the license. As long as wre're in doubt, we should assume good faith. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify this: generally, licence enforcement is alright, but the concern voiced in the survey at de.wikipedia is that a number of external authors – not necessarily Wikipedia editors – who licensed and published their works under free CC licences, apparently did this only to catch unsuspecting and uninformed re-users and make money out of enforcing the licenses. I. e. the very first action they use to take against any offender is a cease and desist letter plus a hefty fee instead of just warning them in the first place. This fell back on the German WP when such images were used in articles and were then picked up by random readers. So, the motion at the survey is to effectively ban these images from authors who are known to pursue this type of business from being placed into any WP articles. De728631 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• If we know someone is intentionally abusing our policies in order to intimidate and grab money from readers, we can block per WP:NOTHERE and delete their images. If, on the other hand, there are people just enforcing their legal rights, then there's nothing we can or should do. Would it be possible for us to place some kind of highly visible notice of the situation on the File: pages of CC images? Something on par with the old Orange Bar of Death talkpage notice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • First of all you'd have to identify such a scheme beyond doubt, and since even forwarded OTRS mails are not indicative I'm wondering how this "misuse" should be proven. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Moreover, as a "money making scheme", this would be an incredibly stupid waste of time: 1) you are only going to maybe even begin to collect money from someone who is actually taking your work and making money from it, and that's if you are willing to really pursue and pursue them, beyond a letter; 2) Generally, chasing down people is expensive will be of little value, except it will get the ethical takers to actually fix what they did wrong and give credit where credit is due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A related type of money making scheme became quite infamous in Germany when certain law firms specialised in tracking down copyvios of photos in Ebay auctions and similar venues so I can see where the caution at de.wikipedia is coming from. Apparently though it's not a problem here at the English WP. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Not surprising; see the text immediately after citation #8 in the Impressum article. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
      • You may be surprised, Alan, at how well this sort of scheme can work. Many people are either so unfamiliar with their legal rights, or so scared of a lawsuit, or so unwilling to consult a lawyer, they will simply pay up. Some lawyers have made millions doing this sort of thing on a massive scale. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Not surprised, just unimpressed. So, it's claimed that someone paid 1000s of Euros based on a letter (which is going to be be relatively few people). The immediate possibilities are: 1) they owed it, or 2) such payments are part of the payor's cost of doing business, or 3) they have money to throw away, or 4) they just cannot be protected from themselves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Or 5) are victims of a legal conspiracy that has proven very effective in many different settings. Check out the saga of Prenda Law some time for one group of attorneys that operated an even more outrageous racketeering scheme. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring and legal threats on You Made Me

Today I blocked User:Toddmeagher for blatant legal threats (e.g. [7]) relating to the article You Made Me. Ronhjones has been involved with this issue as well. There are a couple of IP sockpuppets too: 47.185.22.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 172.110.128.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Any advice or suggestions would be welcome, because I have no idea how to handle legal issues like this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I told him User talk:Toddmeagher if he has a legal issue to contact the legal team. He chose to ignore that for a while until I stopped him and his socks from editing the page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I've used OTRS to give a heads up to the legal team ticket:2017021410023486 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably related to this. Suffice to say that user should not be editing that article regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mo's Apology

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

---

Hello Wikipedians it's me I know you angry with me for being a sockpuppet so you hate me so well. I admitted I was a stubborn, selfish jerk you ever dealt with, guess I got carried away and I was really in bad mood, I'm sorry. The point is being a sockpuppet was very depressive, miserable and filled with loneliness. For the past few months I was very deeply remorse for my abusive action and I went over the edge. Technically you don't understand who your dealing, I'm proud Egyptian with great national pride how dare you condemn me as sockpuppet, not a terrorist, I mean't no harm. Before this I was being a silent anonymous editor for few years until Yamla spilled the bean for no reason whatsoever. Tell you the truth my editing skills was very poor at that time I made most collateral damage very worse OK I was the most disruptive irrelevant editor most of times and I'll pay my damages some later, guess I was potential. It's seem you don't want me here in Wikipedia it's like "you won't have Mo to kick around anymore" seems to be I was a failed editor. In conclusion I wanna regret you all now changed and reformed that's all. I'll restarted my editing in a good way and now it's time to unblock my user account Moatassemakmal which is blocked by Connormah for 2 years and I'll redeem myself as a peaceful editor as calm and dignity. From my bottom my heart I ask you my forgiveness, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.133.52.94 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing logged out is a violation of your block/ban (and we have no way of knowing if this really is User:Moatassemakmal talking to us, so we could not possibly act on it anyway). If you wish to make an appeal, you need to do so logged in to your account. As the ability to edit User talk:Moatassemakmal is revoked, you should contact WP:UTRS and request that it be restored for the purpose of making an appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Moatassemakmal, just to be clear, you are not permitted to edit at all until your main account, Moatassemakmal (talk · contribs), has been unblocked. Boing! tells you how you can accomplish this. Given your long history of block avoidance, you may find it difficult to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Merge bot and revdeletion

Please comment at Wp:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2 - on the specific question of whether or not the bot should WP:REVISIONDELETE the edit summaries used by Cydebot while creating new category pages (as part of category rename process) between 2005-2015. (These edit summaries carried a list of editors for attribution.) 103.6.159.65 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Template protections

I've just been asked by George Ho to change Template:Infobox to template protection - it seems I full-protected it in December 2006(!). I can't seem to find the discussions but I believe there was a small flurry of them done around this time and seen as a reasonable special case to deal with the risk of very visible vandalism; template protection, of course, didn't exist back then.

Dropping it down to template protection seems in line with WP:PP, but thought I'd flag it here in case a) it should have remained on full (in which case, please feel free to revert) or b) anyone is keen to dig out old full-protected templates and drop them down to template-protected. I have a draft query to identify these here, currently waiting to run. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Here is one from 2015. George Ho (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as (a), I agree with the reduction; this is why we have template protection. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It still looks protected to me (as a template editor), downgrading local protection didn't have any effect because it was cascade protected. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It was on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, so I've removed it from that page. Going to edit the template, I was told that it was still under full cascading protection, but now I'm told that it's only under TE protection, so this situation should be resolved. Come back here if it's not. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Mr. Stradivarius about Module:Infobox, fully protected but not cascaded. The protection of the module should be lowered to "template protection" also. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? Is there any evidence that reducing protection would help the encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not the place for people to exercise their human rights to edit any damn thing right here and right now. In principle, the template editor right should be sufficient to get a good result, but there have been lots of cases where TE editors have made multiple minor changes to a template or module without any testing in a sandbox and with no effort to get all required changes implemented in a single edit. Fiddling with infoboxes affects millions of pages and is not the place to try bold editing on the assumption that someone else will clean up if a problem is found. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

...If you want, Johnuniq, you can re-cascade the template and reinstate the "full protection". If that happens, feel free to strike my request on the module. George Ho (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've downgraded Module:Infobox to template protection. The template editor user right is only supposed to be given out to users who we can trust to edit templates and modules sensibly - if there are editors out there that are abusing the right, then we should remove their template editor rights, rather than upgrade pages to full protection again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You are too nice Mr. S! I predict doom and gloom. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this change for these specific templates, in use on over 2million pages. There is almost no backlog for FPROT edit requests and these frameworks are not subject to frequent updates. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux, are you disagreeing on "this goes against the policy" grounds or disagreeing on "I don't think this is a good idea" grounds? Either way, I disagree with your disagreement (this could get really repetitive if you disagree with my disagreement with your disagreement, and then I disagree with that, etc.), but I'd like to understand your position better before I respond to it. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I don't really have any good policy arguments on this, but breaking changes to such a template would have have a significant impact on readers and full protection helps remind even admins that maybe they should really really really discuss such changes before implementing. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a decent question. Is it worth making it slightly easier for a 150 people to change templates that often go entire years without any edits, at the risk that one mistake breaks half of Wikipedia until the job queue clears out? I mean, that's not too bad, and we'll probably go back to full protection on a lot of templates the first time it happens... Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[ec with Someguy] So it sounds to me like you're saying "I don't think this is a good idea". As far as reminders go, what's the difference between full and template protection? Both get a box saying

WARNING: This page has been protected so that only users with [details about rights] can make edits.

Either way, the box then transcludes the rights log, and there's a red background for the page's coding. Full protection being a good deal more common, you're much more likely to assume that a template-protected page is fully protected than vice versa (and if we're talking reminders, first impressions are the important thing, even if they're somewhat wrong, as in my example), and if you're ignoring the first impression and thinking about the situation, you'll remember that both full and template protection require a lot of care. Reading your words, the only possibility I see for an alternate problem situation is the risk of a breaking change via vandalism by a template editor, and (1) if you're trying to hack an advanced-permissions account to vandalise with it, you're foolish to go for a template editor's account, since they're a good deal rarer, have far fewer rights, and can lose that right via action by a single admin (as opposed to requiring an Arbcom case for an admin), but the password hack shouldn't be any easier on technical grounds; and (2) since the policy [which you're not addressing] permits this kind of move, I don't think we should disagree with the RFC's decision that there's not a significant and dangerous risk of having a breaking change caused by vandalism from a TE. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as account security goes, currently WP:2FA is not available by default for template editors (though they can request it on meta:). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, George Ho and Andrew Gray is there any special reason for this change, George Ho is not a template editor, has any template editor been blocked from improving the encyclopedia? I'm normally in favor of removing old protections, etc to reduce hurdles for improvement but I'm not seeing that here. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

At least one former template editor has had multiple blocks for personal attacks and block evasion but not for abusing the template editor right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry NeilN I used "blocked" above as in "prevented" not as in a user block. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No particular reason on my part - George asked and it seemed reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't consider about the "Template:" and "Module:" namespaces. Now I'm convinced one faulty edit would affect the infoboxes. However, I think the template editors would work more efficiently on the "Module:Infobox" than they would on "Template:Infobox". Also, the template editors may either reject or turn down accept or reject such edits on the module page. As said, you can reinstate the full protection on the "Template:" one. However, I'm sure template editors would do fine with the "Module:" one. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 22:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

When a template invokes a module, intentionally having different protection levels for the two pages seems a bad idea — editing either one will cause significant changes. If the template needs full protection, the module does as well. I believe that template-protection is appropriate here because it's a good example of why the template editor right was created in the first place: aside from templates used in permanently protected pages (specifically, the Main Page and various Mediawikispace pages), trusted non-admins should be able to edit high-risk templates without having permissions-related difficulties. Pre-emptive protection generally goes against our ideal of open editing, and while of course it's appropriate with widely transcluded templates, it's better if we can achieve the same anti-vandal goal without full protection. To quote WP:PREEMPTIVE, "The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes." We need protection to be indefinite on these templates and modules, but template editor, not full, is the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption that would likely occur on these pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I feel better. Nothing wrong with TEs editing both namespaces of "Infobox", IMO. As you said, we can trust the ability of TEs to edit the "Infobox" of both namespaces. However, the issue can be raised at a very appropriate later time when things go wrong often (or frequently) with the plain "Infobox" of both namespaces. Meanwhile, I guess I must be careful making huge risky requests for now. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, template editors have been specifically selected for technical competence in editing templates. Admins haven't, and in fact most of them have no clue and are happy to avoid it. Switching to TE protection increases the proportion of knowledgeable users in the access group, and while more access may mean more opportunities for screwups, it also makes those knowledgeable users available to fix any errors. It's unlikely this change is a net loss. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't do major edits to non-simple templates (just because I don't understand the coding) unless the code is supplied to me in a sandbox, and even then I've at least once broken something significant without noticing until someone reverted my change, because I made some sort of error in the copy-paste process. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Alternatively, if full protected (again), TEs can work on sandboxes and testcases to improve both namespaces of "Infobox". --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail, again

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

---

How many times is the Daily Mail question going to be hashed over? We had an RfC, we had an editor who misinterpreted the RfC as permission to remove all citations to the newspaper, and now User:The Four Deuces seems to want to re-litigate the issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, [8] by asking what is basically an unanswerable rhetorical question about how the Daily Mail has affected the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. The question about the reliability of The Daily Mail has been settled, and I think this forum-shopping needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

TFD notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur. We've definitely moved past the dead horse stage and getting into the realm of tenditious editing. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, please strike out your accusation of forum shopping. I have not raised this issue on any other noticeboard or discussion thread. If you do not want to reply to my discussion thread no one is forcing you to. The ban on using the Daily Mail is a major step and no doubt other editors will have questions about its implications. I am however happy to close the thread if that is the consensus. I just did not think that the request of one editor qualified.[9] TFD (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The issue was decided in a general RfC held here in which many, many editors took part, and, despite the conclusion, you chose to go to another place to, essentially, re-open the case by attempting to undermine it with a rhetorical question that no one can answer. (Comments on your talk page point to your dissatisfaction with the result of the RfC, as does the Independent article linked there which quotes you.) So, you went to another forum when you were unhappy with the result in this forum. That's forum-shopping, so I will not strike it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see forum shopping: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".)" I have not raised this issue or anything about the Daily Mail on any other notice board or talk page or request to any administrator and ask again that you strike out your accusation. TFD (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The RFC wasn't widely published with an absolutely ridiculous outcome. The blowback is part of the ridiculousness. The faster the RfC is ignored, the better. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for how to deal with an rfc close 'you don't like', otherwise any such challenge is outside of process and thus easily becomes tendentious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The white-space experimentalist, from Brazil

Howdy. About 2 or 3 times a month, an unregistered editor from Brazil continues to show up & add/revert white-space to mostly the same articles, with some variations each visit. Though it's not a big problem, as (again) he immediately undoes his 'experiment edits?' Is there any way to put an end to his re-appearances? His latest IP (just blocked) was 177.139.45.123. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's favoraite articles can be semi-protected; this ,ay be of little value if (s)he goes on to other srticles. Additionally, we could give this user a range block if the list of IPs is appropriate - you only gave me one, so I can't be sure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Other past IP accounts are 177.139.47.52 & 191.19.79.80 for examples. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How about other IPs in the 177.139.44.0 to 177.139.47.255 range? This is a blockable range. And anything similar to 191.19.79.80? If the first 2 numbers are different, then the 2 IPs can't possibly be blocked as a single range. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into this before. Vivo's ranges are just stupidly large. You'll probably have to block all of Sao Paolo. Now, it should be possible to make an edit filter that stops white space edits from those ranges. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the 177.139.45.123 IP has returned. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist ten minutes after you said this. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

For some time, I've been working on keeping Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old depopulated but will be unable to until approximately 1 March. On one hand, it is not a critical backlog in terms of timing, no one is likely to notice if it piles up a bit, but there's a new bot adding to it, so it may get to be large. I believe there's a bot in planning to do the depopulation, but I do not know the status.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I've been dabbling in it, and will work a bit harder as circumstances dictate. All the best, Miniapolis 23:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Previous Deletion

Hey, if any of you don't mind could you check to see if the article O'Leary for Canada has previously been deleted? There's some numbers in brackets in the main body that look suspiciously like they were copy pasted from somewhere and poorly formatted. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No deleted revisions. The content is copied from O'Leary's own article; see Kevin O'Leary#Politics. For future reference, you can find whether a page has been deleted: go to the page history, and just below "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", you'll see a link to the page's logs. Any deletions will have been logged, and while of course this won't tell you if it's been deleted under a different name, we admins don't have a way to find that out either. Basically all you can't do is discovering whether there are any deleted revisions at the title in question and reading the contents of those revisions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe that slipped my mind. For some reason I got it in my head that only admins could see page history rather than only them being able to see the actual deleted pages. Maybe it's time to get some sleep. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct place to report interaction ban violation

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

---

I am under a 2-way interaction ban imposed by ARBCOM. I believe the other editor has violated this interaction ban. Where do I report this? This might seem like an overly simple question to bring here, but last time I tried to use an ARBCOM page I inadvertently violated my topic ban and got blocked for my trouble. I obviously want to avoid this happening again, so I am seeking admin advice. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If the ban was a result of an arbitration case, WP:AE. If it's a community imposed restriction, ANI or here. I would point out to breach an interaction ban requires reverting or interacting directly, merely editing the same article is not a breach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this advice. The problem I have is that I took a complaint to AE in which I mentioned my ARBCOM-imposed and I was judged to have violated my topic ban by doing this - and I got blocked. I have absolutely no desire to re-hash that decision, but it seems logical to me that if I can get blocked for mentioning my ARBCOM-imposed topic ban at AE, I could be blocked for mentioning the editor with which I have an ARBCOM-imposed 2-way interaction ban. I hope I am making sense here. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

BANEX doesn't allow one to report someone for a topic ban violation if doing so also violates your own topic ban. It does allow one to report a violation of an interaction ban they are a part of though. I would suggest you best have an iron clad diff of said violation though otherwise it's going to come off as tendentious and petty and likely boomerang. Capeo (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears we have an icomlete record, while I found several Arbcom topic bans at WP:RESTRICT, I did not see any record of an interaction ban. Was this related to a particular case? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes - but I am not allowed to mention it. Oh, the beauty of this circularity! DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe you may have already violate your interaction ban, since you are not allowed to "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". WP:IBAN Clearly you have indirectly referred to your IBan partner in this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. IBAN violations can be discussed here without invoking circular argument stupidity. Well that was what we all hoped. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Capeo, so where do you believe I should post my complaint? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is listed at WP:RESTRICT, under the other user's name. For the benefit of everybody else [10]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DrChrissy, from BANEX "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)." I would expect here would be fine BUT, as I said, it best be an iron clad diff or it's just going to look like you can't drop the stick. Please ask yourself if it's worth the drama. Capeo (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you would like to comment on the posting by Beyond My Ken that in asking this question I have already violated my interaction ban? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking BMK is correct. If I were you I'd either put up a diff of a clear violation or, better, just retract this whole thing. Capeo (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I think we're allowed to day that it's Jytdog that DrChrissy is indirectly referring to. DrChrissy, why did you start this thread instead of following the clear instructions on WP:BANEX to "[ask] an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)"? By opening this thread you have opened yourself up to possible sanctions, whereas if you had followed the instructions on BANEX you could point to them as allowing your inquiry. Did you not learn from your AE fiasco? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I can answer that quite simply - I was told to do this publicly by ARBCOM after I emailed them and gave them details. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You are saying that you contacted ARBCOM, and they told you to start an AN thread in which you asked where to report the violation?? Would you care to say who at ARBCOM told you that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous - I'm not going to release the author of a private email. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And for the record, the reason for the block at AE the last time you reported there was because your request was entirely without merit. So, like Capeo said, make sure you are certain it really is a violation, as in t other editor directly interacted with you or mentioned you by name, and you can proceed at AE. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Deleted file check please

Could an admin please check Kellyf07 (talk · contribs)'s deleted file uploads and compare them against the user's visible file uploads? In at least one case, the user is uploading as free content files that are also tagged as non-free, and based on the existence of F7 talk page notices for files that have since been deleted, I suspect there are more (i.e. File:Erindi Carnivore Lion.jpg and File:Lion at Erindi.jpg could be the same thing) In addition, many of the non-free files that remain do seem to be replaceable. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The example you gave, it's a different image. Different lion even. I'll also note a reverse image search didn't turn up the new image anywhere else on the internet, as far as I can tell. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked at a few others, also different. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OK then. What is to be done about the case I linked where the same file is uploaded under free and non-free? — Train2104 (t • c) 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So I ran more of Kelly's uploads through a reverse image search, and at least some of the ones she claimed as her own work were pulled from the internet. Since this is at least the second batch of copyright violations, and she seems to dislike communication, she has been blocked indefinitely. I suppose there is a possibility she is, in fact, the professional photographer who took all those photos, or works for Erindi and has permission to upload them, but in that case her identity would have to be confirmed to OTRS. And that's of course, leaving aside the matter of having a massive gallery of advertising material in the Erindi article, which could always been handled as an editorial issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've marked the replaceable fair use ones for F7 and tagged the one suspect file that had since been moved to Commons. Looks like this can be marked  Done. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI

After Mike V's inactivity we need at least two more new check users. --Marvellous Spider-Man 11:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

While I'm sure you're right, it's not anything this noticeboard can do anything about. You need to poke ArbCom. Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've handled some of the CU requests. What's needed as well as CUs are admins to work through the 'open' requests and the 'checked' requests to determine what action needs to be taken (for example, whether there has been socking based on behavioural evidence and then whether or not a block is needed and for how long). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm active on IRC, and I get pinged whenever anyone puts "admin" in the edit summary in an SPI page. Whenever a clerk is "requesting admin action", I generally stop what I'm doing and respond to the request. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I said this on the functionaries list, but I want to publicly apologize for my lack of recent activity. I feel terrible (pun intended) because I just can't concentrate well enough to write or use CU. I really, really hope that events next week will bring an improvement and that I'll be back soon to terrorize sockmasters everywhere. :-) In the meantime, what Callanecc said – we need clerks to review the CU requests and we need admins to pitch in with the open cases. Katie^talk 23:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

improper name

I just started my username but now I have second thoughts.

Is my user name permissible? Yes or no. Fritz Farrell (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing any problem... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Permissible, with the current userpage, likely. However, going by your first edit and area of interest, I would suggest that your second thoughts were correct. You are welcome to request a rename at WP:CHUN. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a law firm named "Farrell Fritz" on Long Island [11], so I would say "no", and a visit to WP:CHU would be advisable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add that Fritz Farrell's first edit involved "Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky, & Armentano". So yes, I also think we need to see a name change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium for Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia

Recently, there has been consensus for a moratorium at Talk:Trump for 6 months. While I agree with that, I think another page needs one more badly: Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia.

At Talk:Trump, there has been 3 RMs (and one botched one) in about 9 months. At Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia, however, there has been six, including the one that's currently open right now in the past three months. This does not include one that was opened by a sockpuppet, or one that was speedy closed as way too soon.

So here I am, proposing a moratorium at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia for at least 6 months, if not longer, because clearly the page needs one. Thoughts? SkyWarrior 21:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Addendum: I am fine with the current RM running its course, and if consensus falls in favor of a moratorium, then it should take place immediately after the current RM has closed. SkyWarrior 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The current one is uncontroversial and should be allowed to take effect. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Specifico. Miniapolis 22:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant; I've mentioned a moratorium in the Talk:Trump discussion above, and went unnoticed. The current RM can still run, but my proposal still stands. SkyWarrior 23:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• After the current uncontroversial RM, then the six month moratorium should take effect immediately. Thanks. Btw, what does the Trump RM moratorium have to do with this page? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Absolutely no relation, except for comparison (and the fact that I originally mentioned this in the moratorium discussion for [{Talk:Trump]], but to no response). SkyWarrior 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose any moratorium as stifling legitimate discourse on Wikipedia. Editors are self-disciplined. Even though I believe we still have a WP:POVTITLE, I recently !voted to support the change to a grammatically better version. The underlying dispute will go on but I don't think anybody will dare to propose a title change unless new information comes to light. — JFG ^talk 13:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Editors are self-disciplined." You really think so? Then why do we need AN, AN/I, EWN, AE, COIN, and so on and so forth, not to mention Arbcom? The problem is that even the very best of editors are, at times, not self-disciplined, and the articles dealing with American politics tend to attract editors with a strong personal POV who find it difficult to edit in a neutral fashion, lacking the self-discipline to do so. A moratorium would be the community's way of imposing discipline on that topic area, in much the same way that ArbCom has found it necessary to do with Discretionary Sanctions. I support the suggested moratorium after the current RM has completed, and think that 6 months, as imposed on Trump, would be advisable. Perhaps things will have calmed down by then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article check

Could an admin please check 66°NORTH and tell me in what state the article was in and the PROD reason ? I am asking since I know that even that subjects like 66°NORTH, which is an known outdoor apparrel company, can be created with content that has nothing to do with the subject.--Snaevar (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"concern = Advert for unnotable entity". It was eventually a bit of an advert and COI-fest, with no sign of independent sources. 2,867 bytes, 341 significant words which could probably be entirely replaced, if the subject is notable. But you can request its restoration if you want to write a proper referenced article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can translate from German, the deleted article shares a lot in common with de:66°North, most of which was trans-wiki'd,[12]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snaevar:@Zzuuzz: If you want me to I can translate some of the article from German into English. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

WP:AN/CXT

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Could an admin please help me solve this issue? A user continues to add unreliable sources to the Puthandu page. I initially asked them to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources but they removed my message. I told them again but they aren't listening to what I'm saying. The source in question is unreliable because the author of the article has written an entire piece that is supposedly based on fact but there are no secondary sources to back any of the information up. There are reliable sources to confirm the information already listed on Puthandu § Related holidays in other cultures, so I'm not sure why this user is so intent on listing this unreliable news article as a source. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

• This is the source that is unreliable. → [13]

Dear Administrator

I have been a Wikipedia editor for at least 10 years. I am a bit surprised about an anonymous editor with divergent IP numbers i.e. 58.164.106.182; 121.214.128.24; 121 214.96.118; 121.214.175.49; 121.214.120.94 to give just a few examples had arbitrarily and rudely deleted items in the Puthandu or Tamil New Year Page. I suspect that this is an act of mischief - not sure why. It is an instance of edit warring, uncivility and perhaps even sockpuppetry.

Here is the background. There were three footnotes introduced by another editor. I am not sure who introduced the footnotes. This anonymous editor then proceeded to delete all three footnotes blaming me for introducing them (which is not correct). I instinctively reverted the deletions as I was not clear as to the reasons for the deletions.

After a to and fro of deletions and reversions, I looked at the three footnotes under question. I agreed with this anonymous editor that two citations (introduced by another editor) were in fact of poor quality. I therefore deferred to him/her and deleted the two footnotes. The third citation appeared rigorous and I retained it. This anonymous editor proceeded once again to delete it. Its a newspaper citation.

Please note that the main text is not under debate. Its a mere footnote that is being debated here. Should it be there or not? I seek your advice.

Meanwhile, please investigate this anonymous editor for destructive editing. Its not helpful. I also am not sure what the motive is. Does it border on vandalism?

I am genuinely puzzled by all this and seek your advice. I will be traveling and there will be a delay in response on my part.

Warm regards

Dipendra2007 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not an act of mischief @Dipendra2007:, my IP address constantly changes and there are two well established Wikipedia users on here who know about my constantly changing IP address as I have been editing Wikipedia for some years now. I can "ping" them to show that I'm telling the truth. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I only asked you to read the Wikipedia guidelines article, you didn't do that. I'm not sure why you're trying to portray me as the villain here, I'm not. I kindly asked you to read it but you were pretty cold in your response. I needn't have come here if you were coopoerative so please be cooperative, at least here, without trying to paint me in a bad light. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I have to correct you, I am not edit warring. You are the one that is edit warring. I reverted your edit and left a message on your talk page. The right thing to do would have been to reply to my message without deleting it and reverting my edit. We should have reached a consensus. I reverted your edit based on a Wikipedia guideline, that is not edit warring. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: It may be a news article but have you read, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? There's a big flaw in that article and it's not supported by those guidelines. Please read it as you will understand why that source is not at all appropriate for such a topic. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: It appears you are actually not aware of the rules on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Under "News organizations" it says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. Hence the reason why I removed that source. Please read the guidelines before reverting my edits and claiming I'm disrupting Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Dear Administrator

I would also think that IP # 137.147.17.104 may be the same individual. Anyway, he/she has reverted edits thrice in a 24 hour period. This may call for his account to be temporarily blocked. Please look into this. He or she appears very belligerent. He is disruptive. Thank you. Dipendra2007 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you doing this @Dipendra2007:? You're the one that actually started this whole thing without reading the document. Did you read any of my messages above your one? (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: Please stop lying. No, 137.147.17.104 (talk · contribs) did not revert three times within 24 hours, why are you making things up? Did you even look at the contribution mad under that IP address? This is not the right way to behave on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: You're touching on Wikipedia:Witchhunt and that is against Wikipedia policies. You're not suppose to treat users like this here on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

• The more you argue among yourselves here the less likely anyone uninvolved will chime in to help... Just sayin' Jbh ^Talk 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok I give up. I am about to travel. An editor of 10 years standing is overruled by an anonymous disruptive editor. Wikipedia - go ahead. This is not fair. But I will not be checking my wiki page. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3)To the IP editor: users are allowed to remove messages from their own talk pages, it is seen as a sign that they have acknowledged them (even if they later claim to have received no messages or to have not understood them after being blocked). While "fails WP:RS" can be acceptable for the first revert, further reverts should have been followed with a note on the article's talk page explaining in detail why the sources were not reliable. I see that you've brought some reasons up here, but this is not the article's talk page.

To @Dipendra2007:: Some internet service providers give users dynamic IP addresses, which change through no fault of the user's own (which also makes blocking the IP nearly pointless, since that address will be given to someone else soon after). The IP editor here openly admits that those IP addresses are his, and furthermore has made no pretense of being distinct individuals. As such, your accusations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack against that user, something that an editor who has been here 10 years should know not to do! Furthermore, the only belligerence I can find in your interactions is your accusations toward the IP editor. You need to [[WP:Assume good faith (something someone who has been here for 10 years should know to do!) and quit making groundless accusations of belligerence and sockpuppetry. IP editors are not some bottom-tier caste, they are editors just as much as you or I are.

Both of you are edit warring as far as I'm concerned, which is why I locked the page. Don't bother arguing with me about whether or not someone did or didn't cross 3RR, I'm only going to regard that as wikilawyering the the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. I've locked the page. Do not continue this discussion here, take it to the talk page. I've started a section at Talk:Puthandu - Is this or is this not a reliable source? Why or why not?. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I did say that I give up! I do not intend to argue with you. The fact remains he/she reverted thrice in a 24 hour period or less. Its no point when an editor with a name who contributed a lot in terms of footnotes and citations to multiple articles is overruled in favor of an anonymous editor. Its your call. I am not interested in continuing this debate. As I said, I give up. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: Drop that "editor with a name" and "anonymous editor" bullshit right now. The IP editor ("anonymous editor") is just as much an editor as you are -- see WP:Assume good faith. If you do not understand that, then your ten years on this site were a waste of our time. There is no caste system between editors with names and IP editors, quit acting like there is. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You should have good faith yourself. I repeat - I give up. And stop that patronizing nonsense about caste. You are abusive yourself. The fact remains that that editor had broken the rules - reverted thrice in just a few hours. And you backed him! There is no justice here. Period. (Personal attack removed) - to use the language that you use! I do not intend to continue this conversation. Good bye. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: You've treated me in a disparaging manner and honestly, I didn't think it would end like this. I think it's fair to say that the source is unreliable. I pointed it out in reference to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, thereby it was removed and you should have respected my words when I first pointed out why it's unreliable. I reverted it three times because it was against the Wikipedia policy. Look at Wikipedia:Edit warring, you will understand why my "three reverts" was not edit warring. I hope you don't treat other IP users the same way you did to me. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

(edit conflict)@Dipendra2007: If you are going to quote rules, know what they say: WP:3RR forbids making more than three reverts. Thrice is not more than three. WP:3RR does not forbid thrice reverting. There has been no 3RR violation. Now, if you want to argue that the broader rule of WP:Edit warring was violated, then that rule says "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable" -- which would include you as well. Shall I block everyone who was edit warring? Shall I block both you and the IP editor?

As for me assuming good faith: I assume that you're here to help as best as you understand how -- I just have an objection to how you understand to help, as it plainly contradicts the rules you seem to be so certain of.

As for your attempted ad hominem regarding my religious identification: it's laughable if you think that Christianity prefers justice over mercy. Would you prefer I side with justice instead and block all edit warriors involved? :) Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I sincerely did not understand what you were saying. Perhaps I was an idiot. Those footnotes were not introduced by me. I told you that. I was reverting what I thought was an unjustifiable reversion of another editor's input - that's all. But you won. Well done. I give up. You were quite disparaging yourself. So do not give me that victim story. I did try to explain things to you - but my - you became belligerent. I have deleted the correspondence in my talk page now since this is behind us. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: So you continue on with this behaviour, why couldn't you be civil? I never tried to talk down on you. When did you try to explain anything to me? All I feel is that I was explaining everything to you as to why those sources were unreliable. How am I speaking in a disparaging manner? You were not civil right from the start. This is not a game of who wins and who loses, this is Wikipedia. Your behaviour shows me you have other intentions. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: Can we all accept that there were faults on both sides, including the fact that you did not read the article I was telling you to read? Yes this is behind us and we should continue editing Wikipedia in constructive manners and treating everybody equally. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Clear instance of bias and collusion. Patronizing indeed! Disparaging of one side. Shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pararaja (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't revert this move

Could any one revert the move of this page? As I have explained on the TP, the moves had to be negotiated. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done it. I'm not sure why you couldn't, it might be something to do with the fact the page is under pending changes. Hut 8.5 18:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hut 8.5: Thank you. I don't know either. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting dilemma

Category:French castle stubs (along with its subcat Category:Alsace castle stubs) contain a total of 455+63 = 518 pages. However, this Petscan query reveals that only 313 of those pages are in Category:Castles in France or its subcats (to any depth). This makes it clear that the stub templates have been used by editors for not just castles, but for all types of French châteaux. (Read the chateau article - castles are a subset of chateaux -and chateaux is plural for chateau.) This means that the following renames need to take place (the only other alternative is to identify each non-castle article using {{france-castle-stub}} and change the stub template):

• Template:France-castle-stub to Template:France-château-stub.
• Category:French castle stubs to Category:French château stubs. The |category= parameter in {{stub category}} template should be set to Category:Châteaux in France.
• Template:Alsace-castle-stub to Template:Alsace-château-stub.
• Category:Alsace castle stubs to Category:Alsace château stubs. The |category= parameter in {{stub category}} template should be set to Category:Châteaux in Alsace. Also, the parent category Category:French castle stubs should be changed to Category:French château stubs

The wordings of the templates don't need to be changed, as they already mention, "This article about a castle or château".

103.6.159.71 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging Dr. Blofeld, who mass-created most of the stubs in question here. I am not entirely sure whether the renames should take place, because Category:French castle stubs is parented by Category:European castle stubs, and renaming the former would cause ... The best way to resolve the dilemma perhaps is to destub these articles. Dr. Blofeld, is it possible to make the subject of European castles sub-goal or sub-challenge (or even an editathon) under WP:The 10,00 Challenge? I ask this because many of these stubs are easy enough to expand, especially the French ones, because for most of them a longer article is available on frwiki. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)