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 41 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure.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

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 17 October 2024)

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

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 106 days ago on 14 August 2024)

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

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

(Initiated 61 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 51 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 51 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shorten recall petition period

(Initiated 27 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 25 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 11 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	12	12
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
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 39 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 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 November 2024) JJP_Master (she/they) 15:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 11 October 2024) RM that has been open for 1.5 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

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

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)

Considered for unbanning

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

---

On my talk page, I was referred to this Administrators' noticeboard as the correct place to ask to be considered for unbanning.

A ban was imposed on my Wikipedia account two years ago (in July 2013), which stipulated that I could no longer edit Wikipedia medical articles (but the ban does not apply to other areas of Wikipedia). It is now two years hence, and if possible, I would very much like to be considered for unbanning.

The ban originally resulted from an over-heated discussion on the Morgellons Disease talk page, where myself and others tried to get the pseudoscience extricated from that page, but the major editors there were intent on keeping the pseudoscience .

The reason I am requesting consideration for unbanning is because I would like to partake in this AfD discussion on a Wikipedia medical page that I originally created, namely the page List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens.

I am not sure whether I can partake in a AfD discussion under a ban, although one editor mentioned in the said AfD discussion they thought my medical ban would not apply to AfD discussions.

Thank you for considering this. Drgao (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you find a diff of the actual wording of the ban and the discussion that led up to it? Chillum 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This would appear to be it. Given that the wording is "indefinitely topic-banned from articles and talk pages within the realm of WP:MEDICINE" I would think that participating in an AfD is not a violation of the topic ban. Sam Walton (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, AfD pages are considered "talk pages". Participating in a debate there would indeed violate the topic ban. Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that in that ban discussion retrieved by Samwalton9 above (thanks), the individuals originally asking for the ban only requested the ban to be applied to the Morgellons page and related articles, not to the whole of Wiki medical (in the ban discussion, see the sentence: "I am asking that both Drgao and Erythema be topic banned from Morgellons and related articles"). However, for some reason, the ban was applied to the whole of Wiki medical; I am not clear why the scope of this ban was widened. Drgao (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the community felt that a limited topic ban would be less helpful than a full ban from medical topics. Sometimes when someone comes to AN/ANI seeking a resolution, the outcome can be more than they asked for, or less. Just because a request is made seeking a specific action, does not bind the community into 'only that action or nothing' resolution. For what its worth, I support an exemption to contribute to the AFD of an article you substantially contributed to, as its generally considered unfair to (potentially) delete an article someone has created and is now topic banned from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Only in death; it would be nice to have official clarification on this issue of whether I can contribute to a medical AfD. It would also be nice to have the ban removed, if this is possible. I felt that the ban was a little unfair anyway, given that myself and others were simply just striving to improve the Morgellons page. Drgao (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See also the subsequent talk page discussion, namely the indefblock and unblock under the terms of this ban (which appears to have been a legitimate problem with the original wording). The unblocking admin asked On what page/s in Wikipedia does your topic ban permit you to post on medical topics? and accepted the answer No pages at all.

That being said, as the AfD nominator I support a provisional modification of the topic ban specifically for the purposes of participating in the AfD. (FWIW, I was not active at the time of the original ban, but based on comments here and in the original discussion I would not support lifting the ban in its entirety at this time.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) The reason is clear: Whatever the OP wanted, it's what the voters wanted. At ANI where everyone and his monkey can have their say, that's what happens, although there were in fact several sysops supporting a total ban from Med, and there appears to be no denying the evidence. Kim Dent-Brown just read the consensus and appplied it. I think Drago should be permitted to participate on the AfD, but perhaps he should now also consider making a formal request for full unbanning by stating what he believes to have learned from his ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The edits at Morgellons clearly establish a systematically incorrect approach to the scientific basis of medicine. It is textbook civil POV-pushing (and tendentious and agenda-driven and a bunch of other things we don't need). The original discussion had only two dissenters: the banned editors themselves. They dissented on the basis that even at that point they still didn't get it, and I think that has not changed. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I was recently informed that a topic ban refers to all pages with "en.wikipedia.org" as the URL, so this means it even applies to a users sandbox.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I should perhaps mention some of the circumstances of my ban. Originally on the Morgellons talk page, the conversion became quite heated, because some experienced editors there were defending the existing Morgellons article, an article which is filled with what many consider to be pseudoscientific psychological theories describing of the origin of Morgellons disease, a disease with physical symptoms. These experienced editors pointed out that these psychological theories were referenced by secondary sources, and that was the basic reason they wanted to keep this psychobabble in the Morgellons article.

I appreciate that secondary sources do carry much more weight than primary sources; however, scientific standards for evidence in the world of psychiatry are often much lower than standards found in hard sciences, sciences such as say biochemistry or immunology. Psychiatric theories for physical diseases, and Morgellons is in part a physical disease, often have more of quasi-religious quality than a scientific one. Many psychiatric theories are not even science, in the sense that they cannot be readily empirically tested, and thus confirmed or refuted. Yet because these theories are published in secondary sources, they are given just as much weight on Wikipedia as hard biochemical sciences. I was trying to make the Morgellons article editors aware that psychiatric theories are often pseudoscientific or low quality science, and do not deserve this weight. However, I was told that Wikipedia editors are "not allowed to think for themselves," and must just mechanically go by the Wikipedia rules for reliable evidence, even if those rules result in a pseudoscientific article. I appreciate that following the rules is paramount; but when that leads to a pseudoscientific article, well, what do you do in this situation?

Really this issue is wider than just the Morgellons article: the issue is about whether psychiatric theories can be considered high quality science, worthy of equal status in Wikipedia to the hard sciences. I would propose that psychiatric theories are often not high quality science. Many psychiatric theories that held sway until recently (like the Freudian psychosexual theories) are now thank goodness finally seen as complete nonsense. Thus, as a wider issue than just the Morgellons article, I think the status of psychiatric published sources needs to placed under review on Wikipedia. It does not make sense that psychiatric sources are given the same weight as hard sciences. Obviously that is going to be very unpopular with psychiatrists. But psychiatrists have been getting away with low standards for scientific evidence for far too long.

My ban came about as a result of "tendentious editing". Early on in the heated discussion on the Morgellons talk page that led to the ban, I was accused by some editors of getting too personal; so I then complied with their request not to take a personal angle. But then they just got fed up with hearing my arguments, so said that my efforts to improve the article were tendentious, and I was apparently banned for tendentiousness. I do not agree with this, because my efforts were aimed at removing low quality science and pseudoscientific psychiatric theories from the article. Those editors who classed my actions as tendentious could equally have had this epithet applied to them, as they were in intransigent in upholding a psychiatric pseudoscience viewpoint. Drgao (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose lifting topic ban. From reading Drgaou's comments above, it seems entirely evident that this contributor does not accept Wikipedia policies regarding appropriate sourcing for medically-related content, and accordingly the topic ban is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• oppose lifting the indef As a WP:MED editor who deals with a lot of FRINGE-pushers, I do not support lifting the indef. Drgao seems still very much committed to the FRINGE view that Morgellons has some physical basis, which is not what the medical consensus holds, per MEDRS sources (recent reviews in the biomedical literature and the major medical/scientific bodies that have commented on this (namely the CDC). As there is no statement of change in orientation toward the policy issues that led to the indef (WP:PSCI) there is no reason to lift it.Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting the topic ban because I do not believe that it would have a net benefit to the project. However, if Drgao wanted to e-mail a single, short proposed comment or vote for the specific AFD in question to any willing admin (=not me, since I'm not an admin), then I'd have no objection to an admin posting such a vote on Drgao's behalf. I would even go so far as to making a one-time exception to the topic ban to permit Drgao to post a single vote at the AFD, if it were limited to, say, 300 words or less, and was a standalone vote (not replying to any individual or trying to start a discussion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

QUOTING AndyTheGrump: "From reading Drgaou's comments above, it seems entirely evident that this contributor does not accept Wikipedia policies regarding appropriate sourcing for medically-related content, and accordingly the topic ban is justified".

That is not the case at all. I think the MEDRS rules are an excellent system, I strive to comply with them, and I think they work very well.

The main issue here is not MEDRS, but the unfriendliness of the editors on the Morgellons page, and their unwillingness to listen to numerous other editors with different views. During some of the discussions on the Morgellons talk page, one editor even wrote to me personally said that this level of unfriendliness is not normal on Wikipedia, and that I should not be put off editing Wikipedia as a result of my bad experiences on the Morgellons page.

When editors are friendly and listening, there is often plenty of scope to modify and improve the article, and in an amicable way, while still fully complying with MEDRS. I was not in any way suggesting that MEDRS rules be contravened, and AndyTheGrump is not correct in surmising that I do not accept Wikipedia policies. I very much do accept these policies, and I understand why these policies are important.

Note that AndyTheGrump was one of the editors who wants to uphold the low quality psychiatric pseudoscience material on the Morgellons page.

QUOTING Jytdog: "Drgao seems still very much committed to the FRINGE view that Morgellons has some physical basis, which is not what the medical consensus holds."

Actually I have very little interest in Morgellons, and if you would consider lifting my ban, but maintaining a ban against me editing the Morgellons article, I would be very happy with that, because I would not want to edit it anyway.

But incidentally, Jytdog, you are not correct about the medical consensus of Morgellons: there is no medical consensus regarding the etiology of Morgellons, because nobody really knows what causes this disease, and to pretend otherwise is wrong and incorrect. One of the main problems with the Morgellons article is that it vastly overstretches the science: the article takes what is essentially an opinion piece about the nature of Morgellons, proposed by psychiatrists who don't have much reputation for good, solid science, and presenting this opinion as if it were an established and empirical fact. That's wrong. It's being untruthful. In the article, you need to be honest and accurate about the state of knowledge. You should not be overstretching the science to try to create the illusion that Morgellons disease is all understood and all wrapped up scientifically. Hardly anything is known about this disease, so you need to say that in the article. But the article is pretending that Morgellons is well-understood. Overstretching the science is bad in any situation, but is particularly bad if the science is of low quality to start with, and the psychiatric theories of Morgellons etiology are certainly low quality science at best. You certainly do not want to be overstretching these.

As for the accusation by Guy above that I am pushing a point of view, well, if you care to glance at the Morgellons talk page, over the last two years that I was banned, every few months you have new editors appearing on that talk page, making exactly the same points that I was making. All of these new editors face the unmoving regular editors that just don't listen, so no improvements to the article are made. So this is not just my personal point of view that there are problems with the Morgellons article.

But as I mentioned, this is an issue that is wider that the Morgellons article. Indeed, one other reason I would like my ban lifted (apart from on the Morgellons page), is that I would like to start a process that instigates a review of MEDRS guidelines when it comes to psychiatric sources. Psychiatric theories are rarely backed up by empirical evidence, so should not be given the same weight as empirically supported theories from the hard sciences. Indeed, if MEDRS were updated so that it recognized that psychiatric theories often have no empirical basis, and are often more akin to religious beliefs, we would have never got into the argument on the Morgellons talk page in the first place.

Ultimately, this is an issue of revising MEDRS, so that MEDRS does not give high weight to dubious psychiatric theories that do not have a proven empirical basis. Does anyone know what the official route would be to raising a proposal to change MEDRS? I would like to have this matter of unproven psychiatric theories discussed.

This is what I should have done in the first place: I should have bowed out of the Morgellons discussion, and instead tackled the root cause of this issue, which is in MEDRS itself. Drgao (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Weren't you just asking to lifting to discuss the AFD? Now, you're suggesting that if lifted in full, you'll instead fight at WP:MEDRS, basically expanding the scope of articles where there were concerns? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That issue of MEDRS was something I had at the back of my mind for some time, but sort of forgot about it. It just occurred to me again now, so mentioned it in passing. Drgao (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

oy, that WP:Wall of text is a perfect example of WP:CRUSH. I already !voted above but please do not lift the topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban, and opining that it applies to AfD - The evidence supporting the need for this is right here in this discussion. BMK (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain what evidence is that exactly, BMK? I cannot read minds. Drgao (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note to admins: Drgao went ahead and leapt into the AfD here, on the basis that "a few editors" said it was OK, and in that comment made ad hominem arguments; this is exactly the kind of behavior that was described in the ANI that led to their topic ban. I hatted it. My goodness. I just deleted a subsequent comment they made, but they just came right back. I will not attempt to stem them further. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I gave a 72-hour block back on the subsequent comment with an explanation on the editor's talk page. "A few editors" think it's not a violation is not sufficient and not accurate, especially when the editor does come here believing that it would be a violation. I'm not accusing the Drgao as such but it's akin to forum shopping to have a request in multiple places and wait for a few supporters before going forward. The block was not for the duration of the AFD and the editor can be unblocked if they wish to participate further here on removing the entire topic ban or somewhere else not in violation of the topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support unbanning - Bans are preventative, not punitive. They are aimed at preventing disruptive behavior, not controlling the content of articles. If Drgao hasn't caused any problems in the 2 years of his/her topic ban then what's the issue here? If he/she becomes problematic again then reinstitute the ban as necessary. Article creators should be allowed to participate in discussions related to the articles they created. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No comment on the larger ban but that sounds very WP:OWNership-y to say that those who create an article have some greater right to comment on discussions about it. Would an editor who was unblocked or banned overall have a right to return due to an AFD on an article they created? I've already felt no one owns an article means that all, contributors or non-contributors to the article, have an equal right (or lac thereof) to opine on things (which falls into WP:RANDY territory if you take it too far I admit). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not really an ownership thing. Even editors under quite harsh restrictions dur to an arbitration sanction are allowed exemptions for certain (usually limited in scope) discussions. Remember a lot of people come under sanctions not because of their knowledge (no comment on this specific case) but because of how they behaved. An AFD has limited scope for disruption and once its over its over. Allowing someone to make a single statement would not harm the project. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Kindzmarauli, while it is true that "Drgao hasn't caused any problems in the 2 years of his/her topic ban", it seems that he also hasn't made any edits since his topic ban. We have no indication that he is capable of contributing productively, and his behavior during this discussion suggests that the problems which existed two years ago remain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. Having re-read the discussion from two years ago, I notice that I participated in it. (I'll be honest, I don't even remember the editor or the discussion.) At the time, the last sentence of my comment was: "It appears, based on the information above, that this is an ongoing, persistent, and otherwise intractable IDHT problem." Given Drgao's behavior during this discussion – and his insistence on immediately violating his topic ban to participate in the AfD (based on very selectively hearing only what he wanted from a few of the comments above) – it appears that the intractable IDHT problem persists. A block for violating his topic ban would not be out of order, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. It is clear from his contributions history that Drgao's only interest in Wikipedia is to push his personal view that Morgellons is caused purely by physical agents and has no psychiatric basis. This runs counter to the mainstream scientific view and has no place in an encyclopedia. It is obvious from Drgao's comments above that lifting the ban would only result in a repetition of the problems that caused the ban. We don't need to revise our entire system of reliance on the best secondary sources just to accommodate one editor who doesn't agree with them. --RexxS (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. I want to avoid taking part in content disagreement as far as possible, but Drgao seems to be approaching this from the point of view that psychology-related science should be treated as less rigorous than physical medical science. And with that I agree, as psychology is indeed a lot less precise. However, in railing against psychological approaches to Morgellons, Drgao appears to be completely ignoring the apparent consensus from medical experts that Morgellons has no confirmed physical symptoms whatsoever, and that that's a consensus that stands utterly apart from psychology. Drgao's approach remains undimmed in this appeal against the ban, and what we're hearing here is simply a repetition that the ban was wrong and that the same approach would continue to be pursued should the ban be lifted. Mr Potto (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting ban and clarify that it also applies to AfD. I thought I would, at the very least, be arguing to exclude AfDs from the ban, but then I saw Drgao's comments at that AfD. No way. Reyk _YO! 14:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban from medicine There is no clear indication that User:Drgao realizes what the issue is or that they will use high quality sources in a neutral way going forwards. So yes this ban is preventative. The ban also applies to AfD IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting topic ban. I was the admin who originally judged the consensus of opinion that imposed the ban. Although I am not presently very active on WP I have revisited that decision and the discussions above. Had Drgao approached this from the perspective of "Hey folks, I was pretty stupid back then, I've learned a lot" I would have little or no problem. But their line seems to be "I was right then and the ban was a poor one", which suggests that nothing has changed. Until it does, I support the original consensus. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Missing evaluation

Dear Administrators,

I'm concerned that this ban is not based on a systematic, contextual and non-partisan evaluation of the grounds offered for it. Does anyone agree that this is missing and ought not to be?

Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: There was quite a detailed evaluation of your template editing (this ban was from January) which led the community to impose a ban on editing in the template space. As its been six months roughly, and that the general consensus there was that it was reluctantly imposed due to your inability/unwillingness to listen to guidance and advice, you could of course appeal the ban. However for a ban appeal to be successful the community almost always wants you to a)acknowledge you made mistakes, b)state how you are going to not make the same ones in the future. Absent either of those, any appeal is doomed to failure. Your post above does not indicate you understand why you were banned, or that you agree with it, so you fall at the first hurdle I am afraid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree - a set of conditions were given to Sardanaphalus , these conditions were given 13:10, 29 January 2015 by MSGJ. That same admin closed up and banned Sardanaphalus on 15:36, 30 January 2015. Considering the small amount of time given for a response, and the fact that he was given a change to avoid a ban if he agreed to those terms, and given the lack of discussion, I'd say the ban needs to overturned - AND Sardanaphalus needs to respond to whether or not those conditions are acceptable to him. Obviously, a repeat of any of the behaviors that lead to this premature ban would and should reinstate that ban, but for now, overturn it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The ban discussion ran from 22 January 2015 to February 1, when the ban was enacted by User:MSGJ. This looks to be a thorough discussion. Sardanaphalus was given a chance to respond, but his response was judged to be inadequate. Later, in February 2015 Sardanaphalus got blocked one week for socking around the ban. From a quick look, it's hard to see any obvious flaw in the original ban discussion, but if Sardanaphalus wants to appeal, he should do so. He's more likely to get relief if he will make concessions about his future editing behavior, like the concessions proposed in the ban discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sardanaphalus is free to appeal. The main conclusion was that he failed to acknowledge the issues pointed out to him, and rationalizing his errors. If he continues to do so, I see no benefit or incentive to lift the ban. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston Per | this diff Sardanaphalus was offered a set of conditions on Jan 29, the discussion was closed on Jan 30 with a ban ordered. No way was that enough time for a response. Sorry, but this ban needs to be overturned. (Obviously, if Sardanaphalus dosen't agree with the terms or continues his same mistake, then yeah, the ban can stay ) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Conditions were irrelevant. Thats a process-wonkery argument. There was clear consensus to topic ban him. If anything offering him conditions to agree to was out of process given the comments there. It can be argued that making an offer and not giving someone enough time to think about it is not fair, however the consensus was to ban him, so that he ended up topic banned is in line with the discussion. Saying that however - it has been six months, so should he agree *now* to take up that offer, I dont see a problem with lifting the ban on those criteria. Otherwise the usual process applies for having his ban overturned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Concur with Edokter, the ban should be appealed if necessary, otherwise should stand. Nothing out of process happened at the original discussion, they have had six months to respond to MSGJ's and Technical 13's suggestions and failed to do so, and still fail to do so. Also Sardanaphalus's casting of vague aspersions against Mr. Stradivarius and MSGJ hardly inspires confidence. Any appeal should be tempered with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardanaphalus. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Uphold ban. Discussion ran for 10 days and Sardanaphalus fought community feedback during the whole of that. The ban was proposed on the first day. Any appeal should be viewed in light of the socking and this thread as well, which is about process rather than the substance of the concerns. It would take an acknowledgement of the community concerns with their behavior and a promise to change their behavior, to lift the ban. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But... this isn't an appeal or request for a ban's review. A systematic, contextual and non-partisan assessment of the grounds offered for it could've reduced the groupthink, taking-as-read, social-proofing and conclusion-jumping that ensued -- and which are happening here, compounded by a halo effect. I wonder how many and how far other decisions have been compromised similarly. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm game; what action are you actually requesting here? I'm less than impressed by the attempted deception of the community via sockpuppeting, but from that discussion it seems acknowledged that you are capable of doing useful work. What path would you propose towards getting the ban lifted, while making sure that the concerns of those originally seeking the ban are addressed? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright backlog

Anybody got a little time for some copyright cleanup?

There are backlogs in all areas of text-based copyright work - WP:SCV, WP:CP and WP:CCI. Because WP:CP transcludes the WP:SCV listings (to ensure nothing is overlooked), resolving the backlog at SCV could knock out a lot of the problem at CP as well. Currently, CP is so backlogged that it's broken, in part because some of the completed days cannot be removed until SCV is completed.

SCV is generally the low-hanging fruit of the text-based copyright world. It is, of course, the page where bots list new articles that flag for potential copyright problems. Content there is either:

Extended content

A false positive (rare) Copies of non-creative content, like discographies A mirror of another page or a copy of an external mirror of another page (is it attributed? No issue. If not, it needs to be and the contributor told how to do this.) Cleaned (Make sure what remains is not still too closely paraphrased) Cleanable (remove the copied content if what remains will survive; you can also rewrite from scratch if you want) Eligible for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G12 (complete copies; no assertion of permission), or Blanked with {{copyvio}} for deeper review at WP:CP (assertion of permission; copied but otherwise not eligible for CSD#G12)

There are notation templates at SCV (you see them whenever you edit an individual page), but they're just for convenience. If you don't want to use them, don't worry about it - just doing the work and saying what you've done is the important thing. :) Even if you just grab a few listings and go for the low-hanging fruit, you can help clear the backlog.

Of course, if you'd prefer to work at WP:CP or WP:CCI, that's heartily needed as well. :) And if you want to dedicate your wikilife to it, that's good, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I can check in. I must ask, is there a reason why deleted pages are kept there, especially G11 and G12 cases which usually aren't restored? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Pages are occasionally recreated -- sometimes with copyvio, sometimes with an inadequate rewrite, sometimes clean. Therefore they need to be checked again. MER-C 13:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to help clear some of the backlog later today. - MrX 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate and topic bans

Given the intractability of issues surrounding the Gamergate controversy, which I first looked at yesterday, I'm wondering ... have we ever imposed "good faith" topic bans in an attempt to resolve a messy article? There are regulars editing at that article who do little else but contribute there and perhaps to related matters, and the merry-go-round keeps spinning because they're the ones who effectively created the huge archive of talk pages etc in the first place and return repeatedly to the same points with the same outcomes.

I know that topic bans are generally seen as a preventative measure but could they not also be viewed as a proactive measure, imposed for a limited period with the intent that they might encourage wider, less involved contributions, a breath of fresh air in situations where more or less everyone agrees the article is a mess and that no significant improvements are occurring because the issues have become so entrenched within a coterie of contributors? - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this would be beneficial. The coherency of the article has been improving a lot in the past few days. A large number of the issues you raised with the article have already been dealt with. When compared to the past few months, quite a lot of progress is being made here. Also, if all the regulars are topic banned, we'll end up with the article mostly being edited by people with little knowledge of Gamergate. This raises the risk of factual errors and BLP violations. It's ultimately better to have a Wikipedia article that's factually accurate but reads like garbage, than an article which has beautiful prose but is misleading and defamatory. Brustopher (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not improving but, worse, if the best we can do is factually accurate garbage then WP:TNT is the way to go. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that (a) we're not a news website; (b) we're not obliged to have an article for everything; and (c) the GG stuff mostly comprises news and non-independent sources. At this rate, we'll end up with articles for every twitterstorm when what we should be doing is waiting for independent, peer-reviewed academic studies. Think of all the BLP issues that would go away if only we adopted some common sense.

I am aware of the earlier AfD, by the way. That merely demonstrates the news-y nature of the article. We've got to get a grip on this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There was an RfC on de-newsifying articles a month ago, but it was strongly rejected. However, there has been a slow trickle of academic studies on Gamergate coming in, some already used in the article, so there is something to work with. But I don't see what any of this has to do with topic banning everyone. Also from what I can see most of the issues you've raised on the talk page have been dealt with. How come you don't view this as an improvement? Brustopher (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It was strongly rejected partly because the proposal failed to understand the definition of "primary source"; of course news articles aren't primary for retrospective subjects, e.g. "Today's events are comparable to those of the Gamergate controversy ten years ago, when such-and-such happened" is secondary-source coverage for Gamergate while being primary-source coverage of whatever today's events are. The article itself is a primary source, a document created at the time of the event! Sitush is completely right. Stuff written from secondary sources by people less familiar with the topic will probably be reasonable, unless the academic studies are also guilty of making factual errors and BLP violations. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So, you believe the hundreds of editors who have contributed to editing the article and talk page, including reverting vandalism and BLP violations, should be topic banned from the article? I don't think anyone is 100% satisfied with the article as it is but it used to be littered bias, POV editing and BLP violations. It's come a long way since November or December. There are plenty of mainstream news sources that are incorporated in the article and the passage of time will only lead to a stronger article as better sources become available and the subject become less divisive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, I didn't say topic ban everyone. I'm thinking more of those who are basically SPAs, such as MarkBernstein and ForbiddenRocky. That it took disinterested people like me and DeCausa to highlight long-standing nonsense is an indicator that people are not seeing the wood for the trees. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Moves and page creations by Tobias Conradi socks

The long time banned user has unique ideas of article naming and moves per that. There's a lot of them done over the past three months that need to be checked to see if they should be moved back and also to see if any of the new page creations meet G5 criteria. The newly identified socks are (listed in order of effort required):

• Eldizzino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimurKirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FreightXPress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The relevant SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. Any help in cleaning out the moves that go against WP:NAME and tagging/deleting new creations under G5 would be great. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)