Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours
are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

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

Centralized discussion

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.


Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Creation of the "Special talk:" namespace[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 114#Creation of the "Special talk:" namespace (initiated 18 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek#Request for comment[edit]

Is a consensus formed? If not, can you give it a few more weeks? If closed, I will start a new RM on the title itself. --George Ho (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be consensus, and the RFC is still open. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
After noting that the RFC was still open, I expressed an opinion, and so have become involved.
Will an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek#Request for comment concerning the name of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural Marxism#Merger proposal[edit]

  • Please evaluate consensus here, and take the appropriate action. In this particular case, please be mindful of the large number of SPAs and IPs that have commented without providing any relevant reasoning behind their comments. RGloucester 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ayurveda[edit]

New sanctions have been placed,(see Talk:Ayurveda#Update) further discussion seems to be unnecessary. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Debito Arudou#RfC: Is the "Academic Publications" subsection of "Publications" in this BLP warranted?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Debito Arudou#RfC: Is the "Academic Publications" subsection of "Publications" in this BLP warranted? (initiated 15 October 2014)? Please consider in your close the related comment at Talk:Debito Arudou#Suggestion for improving this BLP (1) from the subject of the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC Pro Life Stance[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC Pro Life Stance (initiated 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Paul LePage#RFC: Paul LePage and the Sovereign Citizen's Movement[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul LePage#RFC: Paul LePage and the Sovereign Citizen's Movement (initiated 21 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Just noted on WP:WikiProject Maine's talk page. As such, suggest holding off on closing until project members have a chance to respond. I'm unable to close this discussion myself as I am a resident of the state of Maine (and a member of the wikiproject for the state) that strongly opposes Governor LePage (despite the fact that I would have to close it as a consensus to not include the controversial content), and I don't want this residency to be usable as an argument to overturn the closure. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 15:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)#Request for comment (initiated 26 October 2014)? Please note that Talk:John Wood (Room to Read)#Requested move was initiated 23 November 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done - Closed by User:Dekimasu and article renamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Indo-Canadians#Merge discussion (initiated 23 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Question: Should Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver be separate or should the latter be merged into the former?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arius#Rfc: Did Constantine and Licinius legalize Christianity?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arius#Rfc: Did Constantine and Licinius legalize Christianity? (initiated 20 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Was Christianity legalized throughout the Roman Empire by Constantine or Galerius?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Consensus is that the RFC does not ask what the article should state and is not a valid RFC, and that any editor who has a question about what the article should say should originate a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Vietnam War#war crimes should be at least mentioned in the lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vietnam War#war crimes should be at least mentioned in the lead (initiated 14 October 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Vietnam War#RfC: Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"? (initiated 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:France#RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:France#RfC: Should the lead's coverage of French history be broadened? (initiated 22 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Watergate scandal#Add "international reactions" section?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watergate scandal#Add "international reactions" section? (initiated 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done - Consensus was to add the section. Since one of the reactions was in the US, it is called "Reactions". Robert McClenon (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Removal of the Timeline Section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Removal of the Timeline Section (initiated 6 November 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done - There is consensus to retain the section. Not a snow closure, however. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 17#Ordering of sections[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 17#Ordering of sections (initiated 26 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 14#Editor Poll[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 14#Editor Poll (initiated 11 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Two envelopes problem#Request for comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Two envelopes problem#Request for comments (initiated 19 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "There is an ongoing discussion about whether or not we should include to the main article an excerpt from a published paper written by Tsikogiannopoulos." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done - Consensus was not to include the excerpt from the paper. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:100-gigabit Ethernet#Wots in a name[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:100-gigabit Ethernet#Wots in a name (initiated 29 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 61#RfC (initiated 24 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Which of the following formats for presenting late-night anime air times should be followed?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of One Piece characters#RFC: Straw Hat Pirates as Main characters or Protagonists? and Talk:List of One Piece characters#Character additions[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of One Piece characters#RFC: Straw Hat Pirates as Main characters or Protagonists? (initiated 16 October 2014) and Talk:List of One Piece characters#Character additions (initiated 16 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:What I've Been Looking For#First female artist to debut two songs at the same time on the Hot 100[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:What I've Been Looking For#First female artist to debut two songs at the same time on the Hot 100 (initiated 22 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hi-5 (Australian band)#RfC: Reorganize band members section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hi-5 (Australian band)#RfC: Reorganize band members section (initiated 22 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Band members section be simplified to just show current and former members, with members' reasons for leaving and successions to be expanded upon in the band's History section?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)#RfC: Article/character name and usage[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)#RfC: Article/character name and usage (initiated 25 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Application of sharia law by country#RfC: question about "application of sharia" in the article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Application of sharia law by country#RfC: question about "application of sharia" in the article? (initiated 22 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should "application of sharia" in this article include "legal code that applies parts of and norms derived from sharia"? The context for the dispute and discussion can be found on talk page here; and therein, the terms sharia, Islamic law and religious law of Islam are synonymous.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States pro-life movement#Supporters of anti-abortion violence: a fringe element in the US RTL movement: should there be a sentence about them?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States pro-life movement#Supporters of anti-abortion violence: a fringe element in the US RTL movement: should there be a sentence about them? (initiated 15 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 3#RfC: Proposal to move the content of Chronology section to Wikinews[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 3#RfC: Proposal to move the content of Chronology section to Wikinews (initiated 29 October 2014)? The discussion was removed here with the edit summary "moving RfC back to current Talk", but it was not moved back. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Azad Kashmir#PoK as title or Anything related to disputed[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Azad Kashmir#PoK as title or Anything related to disputed (initiated 13 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Azad Kashmir#RFC: Disambiguating PoK (initiated 16 November 2014). Please consider the unclosed 2012 RfC Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December#Request for comment: claimed districts in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to waste admin time for a formal close.. consensus is already implemented among participants and RFC was withdrawn. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think a formal close would be helpful to record the consensus since this was previously discussed in the 2012 unclosed RfC Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December#Request for comment: claimed districts. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 18#RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 18#RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves (initiated 29 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish people#Christians[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish people#Christians (initiated 22 September 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Turkish people#Request for comment (initiated 12 October 2014), where the opening poster wrote: "Request for comment is on weither or not its notable to add Christianity to the infobox even though less than .001% of Turkish people are Christians." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formula 1 (initiated 12 October 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Formal poll (initiated 13 October 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings#RFC - Violence against men category for article 2014 Isla Vista killings[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings#RFC - Violence against men category for article 2014 Isla Vista killings (initiated 14 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#RfC: Recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures should not be included in rugby team articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#RfC: Recent fixtures and upcoming fixtures should not be included in rugby team articles (initiated 14 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Persib Bandung#RfC: Should it be shorter? and Talk:Persib Bandung#Consensus[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Persib Bandung#RfC: Should it be shorter? (initiated 15 October 2014) and Talk:Persib Bandung#Consensus (initiated 10 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Tq#Removing the italics option (initiated 14 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should we remove the italicize-quotation option from this and any similar [i.e., quotation-formatting] templates?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Miniseries naming convention[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Miniseries naming convention (initiated 15 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

This discussion started in January 2013, but was soon after archived, and the discussion never closed. The purpose of this discussion is to determine if Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episodic television should be rewritten to state that "(TV miniseries)" or "(miniseries)" should be the standard for disambiguators in TV miniseries articles that require disambiguation in their titles.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Proposal: remove parenthetical information from lead (RfC)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Proposal: remove parenthetical information from lead (RfC) (initiated 20 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014 (initiated 15 October 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the community adopt the changes to the makeup and procedures of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee proposed below?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Care Bears#Companies[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Care Bears#Companies (initiated 18 October 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq (initiated 8 November 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her (initiated 10 November 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#iBan suggested[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#iBan suggested (initiated 18 November 2014)? Relevant discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive862#RTG. If there is a consensus for an interaction ban, please add the interaction ban to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues (initiated 18 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Electronic cigarette[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Electronic cigarette (initiated 4 November 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AlbinoFerret. If there is a consensus for a topic ban, please add the topic ban to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2[edit]

Would an admin or admins assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1 (initiated 3 October 2014) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2 (initiated 3 October 2014). Please note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Close Review Media Viewer RfC. An editor wrote at the bottom of the AN discussion: "I support the idea of having three a panel of 3 close this, considering how contentious this matter is." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC[edit]

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Vapor, Mist, & Aerosol RFC (initiated 18 November 2014)? SPACKlick (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Would a experienced uninvolved editor please close this. discussion and responses stopped about a week ago. The issue is very contentious on the page and only one part of a multi question RFC appears to have a clear answer though the response to others may help. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Rape in Jammu and Kashmir#Proposed merge with Rape in India[edit]

Since the proposal is being criticized as "proposer admitted to be a sock puppet" and during the discussion we had found a better page where it could be merged, i.e. Human rights abuses in Kashmir. I think this merge needs to be closed because many of the votes have been made in favor of merging the article into Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It would be better to start a new one. Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Punjabi_language#RfC:_Writing_Systems_of_Punjabi_language[edit]

Need closure and assessment of the consensus. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nothing but Love#Merge singles into this article?[edit]

The consensus has formed. --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre#Article title[edit]

Discussion appears to have run its course. Need an unonvolved party to assess and close it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at this, but given that votes are more-or-less 50/50 and we're in the I/P topic area, I don't think it can be safely closed until the 30 days are up. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq[edit]

I've discussed this with the closer on their talk page[1]. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Timestamp-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The only expressed problem with the close that I see is "You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution." I don't believe the closure is required to specify a specific solution to make the article better. The closure expressed the consensus that the section should be included, and then suggested that it might be improved in the future. You can just ignore that second part or try to improve it, but it doesn't invalidate the closure. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The comment, "Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject." Seems to reference the conversation that took place between Myself and the final editor to comment. Yes you are right the closer does not have to provide a solution. When the closer suggested the same thing that was acknowledged. The closer is an uninvolved party their solely to determine the consensus based off the discussion of the involved party. A Good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not a head count. The issue discussed is not that the closer failed to provide a solution. The editor they seem to have referenced failed to provide said solution. More specifically the editor they referenced failed to make the case that Iran and Hezbollah's reaction to the 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is related to the 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Without the closer providing transparency I have no way of knowing how they determined the consensus. The only readily apparent reason is that the vote count is the reason.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
After reading that brief discussion, it seems to me that you didn't really ask for a rationale. Your first comment does indeed seem to say that your reason for requesting a review is that the closer didn't provide a solution. Only in the final comment do you mention vote counting, which is perhaps an indirect request for a rationale, but since Samsara hasn't edited since that time, I think they don't know about it rather than that they are refusing to provide transparency.
Also, you might want to know that I found it pretty hard to interpret your comments, and I'd suggest that's why this request hasn't been getting much attention. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
When I first contacted Samsara I had asked them to review their close. Their close seemed to be based somewhat on comments by PointsofNoReturn. PointsofNoReturn suggested that a section could be written that on how Iran and Hezbollah feel about the 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq relates to the 2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Iran.2C_Hezbollah_Reaction_to_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The material was removed on the basis that it was not related to the Iranian-led intervention. The nominal subject is the Iranian-led intervention. There is a tangential relationship between it and the American-led intervention. They were asked to demonstrate or explain how they could link the two in the article as they suggested they could. They didn't respond.
I do not know that this is the rationale for Samsara close. After they suggested I take it for a close review I did respond once more. I did wait 4 days before bringing it here. It has now been more than 15 days.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I reckon the case here is not that complex it seems. To me, how the consensus is reached is questionable, when a user is reasoning why there should not be such a section and no response is made. I think this is why he asked Samsara to review the close. Although the closer is not responsible to explain what the solution is, he has to recognize if there is any consensus over the issue being discussed. Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry i was manic when i was trying to get this reviewed. Yes that is exactly what I mean.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her[edit]

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open [2], it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.
Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't guessed by now, the best solution is to do a real RFC instead. Because the last wasn't transcluded to a larger audience, I think it would be in good faith to do so. If your interest is finding a solution, to get input, to get a true answer from the community, that is your best option. Dennis - 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis were you going to actually address the arguments made about this closure being against policy or just continue ignoring them?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the timestamp, I had thought this was already archived.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the closer didn't understand the scope of the RFC and admitted to ignoring policies and policy based arguments in the RFC, there is also an issue of Forumshopping that was done on this topic by the creator of this local RFC. This issue has been brought up and discussed on multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages numerous times, with the creator trying to find some avenue or spin to insert Breitbart.com as a reliable source even though multiple editors in almost every discussion explained why it couldn't be used or explained specifically where it could be used. The RFC certainly didn't disclose these other noticeboard discussions.

RS Noticeboard
NPOV Noticeboard
RS Noticeboard again
RS Noticeboard again
Verifiability Talk Page

Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to a topic, but just do a search for "breitbart" or "Victor" and you'll see that's quite a bit of forumshopping.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


  • I just wanted to respond to the accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Scoobydunk as it relates to this RfC, here is how I see that it is not forum shopping:
RS Noticeboard: About the Blaze, not Breitbart
NPOV Noticeboard: An accusation by another user (not the RfC starter) that Breitbart.com is WP:Fringe and a very long quote is WP:Undue. (RfC was on if it is a WP:RS so it is a different topic)
RS Noticeboard again: Started by someone other then the RfC, closed almost immediately do to ongoing discussion on the talk page.
RS Noticeboard again: This was the RfC creator, but there was only one response and he was told: "Be bold! Include it and attribute it clearly" Not Forumshopping he was not creating the RfC to overrule this consensus (of 1 person), but because others had objections.
Verifiability Talk Page: Doesn't seem to be about the topic at all.

--Obsidi (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze discussion included discussion about Breitbart.com because the two were likened to each other. It was clear that the reliability of Breitbart.com was also discussed on this noticeboard post.
NPOV Noticeboard: This noticeboard also discussed the reliability of Breitbart.com and when/where specific quotes could be used. The subject was addressed and Forumshopping includes "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards". The issue was raised here and addressed here and the opener of the Rfc didn't like it, so tried to seek answers elsewhere. This is where I was an uninvolved editor and became involved.
RS Noticeboard again: This is still another example of trying to ignore what was said in previous noticeboards by "Raising essentially the same issue".
RS Noticeboard again Still another example of bouncing between noticeboard conversation to get a desired answer.
Verifiability Talk Page This is about the same topic and this is another attempt at finding a niche excuse to try and justify the inclusion of the desired source.

On another note, I did/am not currently accusing the opener of forumshopping, but am saying that this **issue** was being forum shopped. So who opened the other noticeboards is irrelevant to the fact that Breitbart.com was discussed on multiple noticeboards and generally rejected as a reliable source. The Rfc opener participated in all of those discussions and continued trying to manipulate the subject line to include the desired sources. Once the opener found the single answer they were looking for, they used it as a platform to include multiple different articles from the source in question that weren't covered under the scope of the Rfc. That's exactly the type of behavior that wp:forumshopping speaks against and is the type of behavior that would overturn a discussion close.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation from a disinterested Wikipedian. This conversation has been relisted again & again since mid-November without anyone except for the original poster (& Obsidi just a few hours ago) commenting on it. I'd say if no one has bothered to add their two cents to this, it's fair to conclude that a lot of Wikipedians tacitly agree that the discussion was closed properly. And I did look at the referenced discussion, & I'll go out on a limb to say that it had pretty much run its course: everything that could be said on the matter was said. All that saying that there was no consensus reached on this issue would achieve is to force everyone involved to repeat what has been said once again, & maybe get a little more emotional over the positions they have staked out. And I think it's fair to say that everyone involved in the discussion has better things to do than to hash out this discussion one more time.

But does this mean the discussion about citing this movie review from Breitebart.com is over? Is this fact stuck in this article for every & ever? Speaking again as a disinterested Wikipedian, I can see at least two further arguments that could be made to remove it, or replace it with one from another source. (I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.) Instead of Wikilawyering over whether this one discussion was properly closed -- or whether this properly fits some definition of "a reliable source" -- why not move forward & try to discover one of these arguments. Discussing them may not end up removing this one citation, but IMHO doing so would lead to improving this article. (And if I am right about this matter -- the discussion was properly closed -- maybe someone else would kindly close this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not this discussion would carry on is irrelevant to whether it was closed properly. None of the people who've commented on the closing of this article actually addressed the concerns/arguments as to why the close was invalid except for Obsidi who addressed only the forumshopping aspect. The point of a closure review isn't to get more opinions on the discussion, but to discuss if the closer was justified in their closing. When serious questions are raised as to whether the closer understood the scope of the discussion and understood how consensus is defined, then those points need to be addressed. The closer already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion and also used a "majority" excuse in justifying the close which is against WP policies regarding consensus. Consensus is not determined by majority vote, but by an analysis of the arguments presented and the policies in play. The closer admitted to ignoring arguments that are clearly supported by WP policy, which is not how a consensus is reached. Furthermore, there was no suggested consensus that people agreed upon, the closer merely treated it as a vote, which, again, against the rules regarding consensus. Also, this is not wikilawyering which is an attempt to use loopholes in WP policy to try and bypass other WP policies. Requesting a closure review is the next step in a process of a discussion available to all editors. A closure review is not some arbitrary WP policy that acts as a loophole. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to liken my participation in a valid step of dispute resolution as wikilawyering. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yu managed to find an opinion which was cited as opinion to come from a "QS" - where the general finding is that a major source is RS for opinions in any case - RS means they "did not make the opinion up" and that is what counts. The quote was majorly trimmed to meet objections of "undue" before this last series of objections, and the RfC close clearly allows it in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, RS and QS are clearly defined and has nothing to do with "did not make the opinion up". QS included sources that have a poor reputation for fact checking, have little editorial oversight, or mostly based on personal opinion and/or rumors, and other things. Either way, the Rfc did NOT address concerns about QS and completely ignored that relevant objection. The only person who actually addressed the concerns of QS, documenterror I believe, quickly fled the discussion because the amount of information needed to comprehend the matter was too much for him to read. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Llywrch: No, the RfC merely determined that Breitbart.com is a reliable source for a review from Breitbart.com. The question of whether a mention of the review should be included in the article is mostly separate, but the reasoning that Bb is not a reliable source for Bb was found not valid. HTH, Samsara 12:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samsara: BB is only reliable for Bb when the article or topic is about BB or the author of the questionable source. This is clearly covered in WP:QS. So for BB to be included in an article/topic not about Breitbart.com itself, then it must first be established that BB is not a questionable source. So the RFC should have been moved into a new dispute resolution noticeboard to establish if it was a reliable source or questionable source, since there are guidelines that strictly limit the appropriate usage of both. Here's a quote directly from the RFC issue raised "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." To determine whether the source is allowable on an article that isn't about the source itself, then questions about its reliability must be verified. If it's a questionable source, then WP:QS state that it should only be used on articles/topics about itself. Therefore, the close ignored valid policy based arguments. Thank you though for taking part in the discussion again, instead of trying to wave me off. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza[edit]

Ban implemented. Closing comments below. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

We've been here before (here, for instance): Hoops gza's contributions to WP:UAA are greatly appreciated but also greatly overdone. Recent conversation is found at User_talk:Edgar181#Usernames. Recent examples include a username "Da Cow", which they wanted blocked for being the pronunciation for "Dachau"; "Ratbastardassn", which I think may mean an association of rat bastards and thus in reference to the user themselves; and "Bangminah" which I think they think is a way of saying "bang a minor". Other users/admins recently involved are Yngvadottir, Edgar181, Connormah.

The problem here is twofold: a. a lack of good faith on the part of Hoops in terms of what users intend their name to be or to mean, and related to that an overemphasis on the US English pronunciation of certain things ("Da Cow" being the best example); b. UAA is already backlogged on a regular basis and plowing through report after report is tedious, so if that work is made more difficult it is to the detriment of the project. I suggest, and I do this reluctantly, a topic ban for Hoops gza. Mind you, last time this came up I was not in favor of it, but after plugging away there for a few days, yeah. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the username policy is that it does not matter what the user's intentions are, but rather how the Wikipedia community interprets the username. For User talk:Da Cow 2.7 (you didn't spell the username correctly, ergo leaving admins unable to find it), an admin even requested that the user change the username (see the user's talk page for proof of this). For "Bangminah", I don't know what you're talking about - you are completely fabricating information about why I made that report. I never made a connection to "bang a minor", in fact I noted that Bang Minah is a famous person, and therefore this, too, in my estimation, is a username violation. I reported "Ratbastardassn" because it has the word BASTARD in it. That is an offensive word in the English language. If you look through the Users list (search "Bastard", for instance), you will see that usernames containing bastard and its variations are blocked on a regular basis as username violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Lately, I've definitely noticed from Hoops gza both a high volume of UAA reports and a high error rate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
My main problems with the reports (for the umpteenth time it seems) is that many of them are borderline "violations" that are more subjective (not blatant and serious violations of policy) and that a great deal of the accounts have either never been used or have not edited in months to years - both points of which are in the guidelines at the top of UAA. I find myself pretty much in accordance with Drmies' two points. Connormah (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For Bangminah you said "offensive and disruptive", so don't give me that "famous name" jive: you said it was offensive. Bastard, as I responded at UAA, meh. Really. "Bastard" here is something the editor applies to themselves, so they're not trying to insult you. That I didn't spell out Da Cow's name completely is that there's no point to it, and that another admin said something too is immaterial. Your point about the user name list is immaterial. You've been asked before to stop interpreting these user names so narrowly and you couldn't. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
No. I did not. I said offensive, disruptive, misleading and promotional, because it was all of those things. I pointed out and linked Bang Minah in my report, pointing out that it was a famous person. Now, as for "bastard", as I have said, take a look at the User list and search "Bastard" to see that we do indeed block bastard. After all, the dictionary defines it as a generalized term of abuse. We also block other expletives. Because they are offensive. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Judgment is required to work out when names need to be reported in order to avoid overwhelming the system. Hoops gza's enthusiasm is good, but the reports are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Unfortunately, I think a temporary restriction for Hoops gza on making reports to UAA is necessary. Numerous attempts to get Hoops gza to work within the guidelines for reporting usernames have not worked. Dealing with the bad reports takes too much effort away from handling usernames that are actually problematic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this has been raised several time before, but Hoops does not seem to be learning from experience. If he wants to work in this area, I suggest a three months' break during which he watches the page regularly to see which reports are accepted and which declined and why. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - and as JohnCD suggests, then look at the reports on the noticeboard (including how other reporting editors explain why they are reporting a name) and how they get handled. Also, I'd urge the editor to review the guidelines posted there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Hoops gza has been given ample opportunity to step back and better vet their reports at UAA, to no avail. It's time for a topic ban. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I can't fault this user's enthusiasm and good faith, but after a quick review of their edits to UAA I see a concerning pattern of newbie biting, failure to assume good faith of new users, and a regrettable attitude when asked nicely to take a little more care with their reports. Hopefully someone can step up to the plate and mentor this user, so their enthusiasm will not go to waste. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Oppose If you want to ban him for being innacurate, you may as well as ban the bot that's filling up the bot side of that page, it's wildly inaccurate. Further, per "Da Cow", it's entirely possible that a user would try to escape notice by changing the spelling of a name so that it sounded like something else (i.e: "Dachau", "Da Cow"). So his posting wasn't out of line. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the bot being sharpened up but that's a different thing. We have humans doing this work because they are supposed to have judgment, not just algorithms. Presuming "Da Cow" as a variation of [ˈdaxaʊ] is just silly. Yes, it's possible that et cetera. Sure--and then you have to make that argument for all the other cases. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak support - personally I do find the "Da Cow" and "Ratbastardassn" usernames somewhat offensive, and had it been some other user filing the reports I would think that we all need to just chill out and give the good-faith reports due process. I don't think Hoops submitted these in bad faith, but having been previously asked to put more consideration into whether a report is necessary, and having apparently not done so, points to a misunderstanding of the policy and has caused much disruption on a frequently backlogged noticeboard. So only because the backlog is an issue do I support a temporary ban from UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note Based on recent editing, the Rat Bastard user name is an artistic reference: Rat Bastard Protective Association. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Ponyo. NE Ent 22:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Yngvadottir: And a username containing "Nazi" might edit about Neo-Nazi organizations. What is your point? Would you not block the username containing "Nazi"? Ergo, are you saying that the word "bastard" is not offensive? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I can't speak for Yngvadottir, of course, but no one brought up Nazis here. The word "bastard" in this context is not offensive enough to be blocked. You've been told this three or four times now; if you disagree, maybe you should try your luck at RfA and patrol that board 24/7. If you are successful I will argue to have this topic ban vacated, should it be issued. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What makes this use of the word "bastard" any less offensive? How does the inclusion of the word in the name of an organization make the word any less offensive? Could someone who is a native English speaker please answer? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Frankly, I think that Drmies has a vendetta against me. It was not a few weeks ago that I posted a slew of vandalism-only accounts to AIV. She took the time to block IP addresses that were reported after my reports, but she didn't take the time to check my reports. And now this, which may have been made in good faith. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No vendetta. That I didn't look at some AIV reports while pursuing others means nothing--most likely I checked into a heavily vandalized article and when I got done with that took the dog for a walk. Or the chickens. Do feel free to post an AIV suggestion on my talk page and I will not fail to follow up if I can.

    "Native English"--thanks very much, I think I know English well enough. The problem isn't that I think you're reporting in bad faith: I don't think you are; I just think you fail to apply good faith and, frequently, common sense, to the users whose names you're reporting and from the looks of it I'm not alone. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Hoops gza: I am a native speaker of English (of a sort), for what it's worth. I share Drmies' feeling that "bastard" is just not terribly shocking, particularly when applied to the user him/herself. Also, I'd like to point out that being reported at UAA has the potential for big-time biting of new users who may unthinkingly be using nicknames or internet handles - or have names that sound unfortunate in English - or pronounce things quite differently from you - or have simply not thought it through that this moniker is going to follow them wherever they go in a vast database of edits (newbies tend not to know about contributions pages or article histories). And we don't have anything at sign-up that says "Wait! Don't use the name of your company because we have a rule against that!" And an awful lot of the names are already taken (the first four I tried were.) So this is a fairly sensitive area, which is why the rules highlighted at the top of the noticeboard: there's a risk of turning off or blocking well-meaning new editors, and we do like people to register user names. Does looking at that aspect of it help you understand? It's not just that you're making work for admins - I have to fulfil my quota somewhere or they may take my badge away '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support After going through Hoops gza's UAA reports from August and October, it's evident the the user is reporting usernames that at a quick glance seem to be known violations ie. "shit" which is a very common part of middle eastern sur/given names, also seems the user reports usernames that seem to be famous people, ie "ROBINWILlAMS"[sic] which is a famous person but, it's also too generic to be considered a UPOL. It's very evident the user needs to slow down and take a long review the username policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hoops gza, I think the moment an admin with five minutes to spare walks by here this topic ban will be implemented. Until now you've done nothing to alleviate our concerns; all you've done is argue we're wrong. The problem is that there is an overwhelming majority of users who believe that we are not wrong. If you want to keep on doing what you're doing, I think the best thing for you to do is to listen to what these editors/admins have to say. (Remember, it's admins that have to act on your reports--do you have any idea how much time it takes to clear a day's worth of reports?)

    If you can tell us that we may have a point and that you will take our concerns into consideration (something you haven't said yet) then perhaps this topic ban can be halted for now. That is my offer to you, based on your good intentions and our workload and concerns. But it will have to come with some detail, and you'll have to acknowledge the concerns we've had with various reports, like (the last time) the "nazi" names, for instance, and, recently, names like UWOTM9ILLHITU ("Deliberately confusing"). I would need to see a commitment to more care and more judgment--in general, not just with one or two particular examples. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Closing as ban implemented. Consensus is clear that Hoops is trying to help, but it's also clear that Hoops is unintentionally causing more problems that are being resolved. Ponyo's comment is crucial, When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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


Need advice: How to handle a banned sock who is also a BLP[edit]

I am bringing this question here in the hopes of getting some sound advice from administrators experienced in sock puppet and BLP matters. A semi-notable scientist has gotten himself banned for using various IP addresses, etc., to edit the Wikipedia article about him. There are, however, serious BLP concerns about the article that deserve to be addressed. He has posted those concerns at BLP/N using an IP address and self-identified himself as the article subject. Another editor struck the comment by the banned IP user. Please note, I am not alleging any wrongdoing by the editor who struck the IP user's comments. If the banned IP user had posted anywhere else other than BLP/N under these circumstances, I would probably have struck the comments myself, as is the common practice. However, given the circumstances, I wonder if this was appropriate. Should we not be encouraging a concerned BLP subject to bring their concerns to BLP/N, rather than punishing them by striking their concerns (even if they are a banned sock)? I can only imagine the frustration of the banned IP user at this point, who no doubt feels that he is caught in some sort of Kafkaesque web he does not understand. I would appreciate some feedback. For those seeking more background, please see the BLP/N discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question about content and source in a BLP article on Ariel Fernandez. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerned subjects should not get themselves banned, so that they can avail themselves of the article talk page, BLP/N, etc. Failing that, there's always info-en-q@wikimedia.org... Bobby Tables (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
As Bobby Tables, they can also view the whole section on advice at WP:Contact_us_-_Subjects. Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That e-mail is handled by WP:ORTS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Bobby, theoretically I agree with you: don't get banned/blocked. The common reality of the situation -- which I have now witnessed multiple times -- is an article subject attempts to make changes, or even simple factual corrections, to the article about them, and then they get banned/blocked because they chose a user name that identified them as the article subject. (Some then compound that error by socking.) Most article subjects have little or no understanding of internal Wikipedia policies and procedures -- why would they? I have witnessed merciless blocking/banning with little or no talk page explanation under these circumstances, and I have also witnessed the community controversies that are sometimes generated when a BLP article subject learns the WP rules and strikes back. It seems we should have better procedures for handling what is a relatively common problem. I have encountered a number of BLP subjects over the last five years, and once I have explained the applicable WP guidelines and policies, I have often found them to be a helpful resource in improving the articles about them -- they are often aware of bona fide reliable sources about themselves. Most BLP subjects just want to get the basic facts of their bios correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I find it hard - as a very experienced editor - to navigate Wikipedia's help pages, so I'd suggest providing the person with a fair bit of leeway here. It would be best to direct them to an off-Wiki means of communication though, if only for the sake of protecting their privacy. Bobby, I can think of a few instances where notable people ended up blocked while trying - in good faith - to amend their article to remove BLP issues, so your comment is a bit harsh. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The first thing that came to my mind was User talk:Jimbo Wales, where banned users are welcome to present their case directly to him. This seems like the exact drama that Wales' talk page is generally known for addressing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── fwiw i was involved in the last eruption of Ariel Fernandez back in October, which led to the semi-protecting of the article about him and a couple of days of drama. Ariel knows very well how to work all the boards and how to email WMF. I have been in email touch with him all day, until this afternoon when I told him i was done with him. he knows how to email editors. I think leaving one post from him at BLPN, struck (like this) is reasonable for people who are kind of new to the issues with him, but all other posts should be deleted. i would even say revdelled but i wouldn't want to waste anybody's time with that. Key point is 'he lost his privileges - after tons and tons of warnings. As a WP user he is not "poor little" anything - he has made many many SOCKs and in SPI discussions has outrageously lied (those of you who have seen SPI discussions know how that can go) and his editing has been relentlessly self-promotional. 100% WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


  • It's really not a good idea to keep this discussion going in such a public forum. If they wish to use the talk page or BLPN and don't cause disruption, we should allow them, but their best bet is OTRS—info-en-q@wikimedia.org. OTRS agents have a lot of experience dealing with article subjects and working with them to address what issues there are while patiently explaining that we don't write puff pieces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone wonder if maybe the subject's BLP concerns were addressed that maybe he wouldn't keep socking? Just a thought. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Blastikus[edit]

With the upcoming unification of these two SPIs[3][4] along with recent sock activity, I propose a site ban for Blastikus (talk · contribs) (the master sock).

Blastikus' voluminous screeds, sometimes spanning pages, have a recognizable style. He had been using WP as a soapbox for anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories,[5] eventually receiving an indef block for "trolling, disruption or harassment".[6] Socking followed.[7]

Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs), though it never officially connected to Blastikus until now, was another sock that edited fringe topics (Vitamin C megadosing, orthomolecular medicine, and others), including an 84K (!) sprawling rant about the New World Order.[8]

As 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) he was blocked twice for warring and disruptive editing at orthomolecular medicine, and later topic banned from fringe science.[9] His ban appeal exhibited the same kind of fringe science screeds that got him banned.[10] Through other IPs he violated his topic ban, proclaiming "I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban" and saying that admins "do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems".[11] He was blocked for violation of the ban. As another IP he continued pushing fringe science, resulting in another block.[12]

Most recently he was making a large number of fringe POV-pushing edits to Gustav Geley, along with his characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page.[13]

The new SPI connects to a global account which is currently going hog wild at wikiversity. Maybe we don't care about wikiversity, but if some of us do, then an additional reason for an enwiki site ban is that it will permit the wikiversity community to cite precedent, if/when they need to deal with him. Manul 09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support ban as proposer. Manul 12:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the ban from Wikipedia, but due to his fringe interests I suggested for him to get involved with a paranormal encyclopedia, he may have taken my advice. Goblin Face (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The user is blocked indef and will continue to be blocked if his behaviour continues, so I'd consider him banned already. Yes bans mean we can revert whatever he does, but haven't his edits been reverted on the spot already? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a procedural thing. Support ban 218.106.157.150 (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse siteban. He's already de facto banned in that no sysop with a lick of sense will unblock him. Might as well make it easier to revert his edits on sight. The WordsmithTalk to me 06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Against ban. I can't see why writing at length in support of an edit should a problem, in circumstances where making the case properly demands consideration of considerable detail. No-one is forced to read it all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The reasons for the ban are not appropriately summarized as "writing at length". Manul 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the phrase 'characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page', which seems to be regarded as bad (or at any rate written with the intention of influencing people against him). In any case, a lot of the case against Blastikus seems to be based on the assumption that anyone writing in a somewhat similar style to him is him, an assumption that in law would be characterised as 'unsafe'. The more one looks into this, the weaker the case for a ban seems to become. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the evidence for block evasion is unequivocal, as can be seen in the SPIs. Writing style is just one facet of the body of evidence. After reviewing the SPIs, you could confirm the findings by googling the real name in the latest SPI. He isn't shy about admitting the socks, both on-wiki and off-wiki. Manul 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Close required for Media Viewer discussion[edit]

Moved from ANI NE Ent 11:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We need a closer at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2, both sections should probably be closed together. These were previously closed as no-consensus, but after discussion, the close was reverted. Now it needs to be re-closed, please. (This just might be why no one wants to be an administrator) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and if I were inclined to close it then I would be inclined to close Question 1 as Pass (remove Media Viewer as the default) and Question 2 as No Consensus or Pass (minus point 6). Given the number of people who actually voted in either question, I might be inclined to close both as No Consensus though: a decision of this magnitude deserves as much representation from the community as possible. Were I an admin, I would take the time to properly read all the comments and make a formal decision, but I am not and so I will just voice my opinion and defer it to an actual administrator. demize (t · c) 16:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No one in their right mind would touch that. It's not an RFC, it's a WP:POLEMIC. We all know that "Consensus is not voting" is an oversimplification (it's voting, it's just weighted voting), but many of the supports didn't ever bother to make up a reason or toss in a perfunctory per nom. Many of the comments don't even address the question at all, but rather simply disparage WMF. Sure, Media Viewer annoys me, too, and back in August User:Erik Moeller (WMF), was a PR disaster, but an RFC supported by 75 of 134,529 active users with many of the voters not addressing the actual issue is not going to carry much weight with WMF. If you have concerns about MV, go to mw:Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About and discuss them there with the WMF with maturity and respect. NE Ent 11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would be better if this was advertised better to the entire community. I don't recall any advertising of it, but then again it may have been advertised before I came back to the project. Either way, I likely wouldn't have voted: there was no neutral option, and that's what I would have voted, if at all. My guess is most of the 134,529 have the same opinion as I do. The thing to do might be close this as no consensus, which amounts to giving in to the Media Viewer (which it appears isn't really much of an issue for most of the editors here). If someone really wants to start another RFC, then it should run longer and invite the participation of more editors. But first it should be established that the WMF is going to listen to the results. demize (t · c) 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
NE Ent, the WMF has made it very clear that they are not interested in discussing this with us. On meta:Talk:Community Engagement (Product)/Media Viewer consultation, started to address the many concerns people had with the MV, the opt-in discussion was (politely) deemed off-topic by User:Keegan (WMF), then (impolitely) removed from the Community Engagement Consultation[14] (those three words and the WMF really aren't a happy marriage), and then again by User:Whatamidoing (WMF)[15]. This move then started an edit war between Whatamidoing and an IP user, with eventually other similar sections bein re-removed with blatantly incorrect "rvv" edit summary[16], or with totally false edit summaries[17]. This from the "community liaison"... Not suprisingly, the page where the WMF peple wanted to shove that discussion, [18], got a lot less discussion about this topic. Burying this again was nearly achieved by that move, if it hadn't been for people willing to editwar with WMF employees on the wikimedia site... So, basically, NE Ent, discussing this there is totally useless, and the creators of this RfC were quite correct to discuss it here. We should close it based on what enwiki has expressed, not based on what WMF will think of it or do with it. Fram (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, it has no basis in policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to rehash your arguments for or arguments the Rfc. CONEXCEPT doesn't mean that we can't have an RfC to decide our position anyway; CONEXCEPT means that in some cases, the WMF may ignore it. Arguing that an RfC is invalid because it may be toothless is not correct. But you have stated this in the oppose section already, whichever admin or admins close this will see it there. Fram (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
No. You have not provided a policy basis, and policy is to the contrary. WP:VPT says that software "feature requests" are submitted for determination elsewhere not to an RfC. CONEXCEPT says that the WMF position takes "precedence" and "preempts" any such claim of consensus. NOVOTE says things are not determined by vote. IDONTLIKEIT says RfC claims that you don't like it don't matter. CONLIMITED says RfC results don't override policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Just because the WMF may ignore it does not mean a consensus cannot be determined. 165.91.13.252 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It does not say "ignore", the policy on consensus says "precedence" and "preempt". To have a valid wp:consensus, that which takes precedence or that which preempts is first taken into consideration - it is "pre" not "post". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A valid consensus can end with a consensus of "no action", or just with the Wikipedia community agreeing on something. Just because the action that a consensus agrees upon is prohibited by the WMF, or the consensus is ignored, does not mean that it is invalid. Invalid implies an error in determining the consensus, such as a loaded question. I find that there should be a consensus in this issue, and that there should be no problem determining one, even if it is one that will not be able to be carried out. In that case, the consensus is such that, "if it were possible... blah blah". 165.91.12.181 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No. For a wp:consensus to be valid it must accord with wp:consensus policy. It makes no sense for you to say, 'if we had some other consensus policy (one that does not have precedence and premeption clauses), the consensus according to that imaginary policy would be . . .' Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Solely because regularly scheduled programing was preempted, or was preceded in urgency by a Presidential Address, is it no longer regularly scheduled? No. As in this case - consensus can be formed, but the implementation of it may be stopped because the WMF as their "judgement" precedes the consensus. Nothing in the relevant statement: "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus." says that there can be no consensus. In fact, the wording of this shows that it applies when there is consensus. Please point me to the sentence that says "If the WMF makes a decision, there can be no community consensus on the right course of action." 128.194.3.181 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No. The program does not take place as scheduled and your analogy is irrelevant - taking "precedence" in consensus is taking the lead to be followed, "preepmt" consensus means that that any claim of consensus to the contrary is prevented in its happening from the start. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I closed this origionally, and would happily reclose it again if people can agree, with a bit more explanation, my original close as "no consensus" would be fine in this instance. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it would be smart if you reclosed it, no matter if your conclusion would be right or wrong. Fram (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2. Someone else want to tackle #1? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. I requested the closer either do a full close or withdraw the fragmented close. Note that part 1 issues an immediate call to implement, a "no consensus" on part 2 eliminates the 7 day bar against implementation. Clear consensus on part 2 can be reached by dropping the final bullet point from part 2. Alsee (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Both questions were started independently, so they can be closed independently. The only revert I am aware of, is the previous close on both questions (which I am still studying). Also, no matter how you construct the questions, there is no way to force any action depending on outcome, and you do not get to impose any conditions to any closures. I will not withdraw my close on question 2, and I still may close question 1, if no one else is stepping up. Either way, you will just have to wait for an administrator to close question 1. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, editor actually. Content RFCs don't require sysop bits to close. NE Ent 11:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This is content related? That is rather a stretch, considering the original wording calls for administrator action. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree an editor could not implement all possible outcomes. NE Ent 14:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

GG sanctions / Brad Wardell[edit]

Per advice I was given in the Teahouse, I am posting here to discuss.

I propose to add the Gamergate sanctions tag to the article for Brad Wardell, on the basis that he has recently been involved in a much-talked-about Twitter exchange with Zoe Quinn, and the page subsequently appears to have been vandalized recently (looks like it was revdelled) after a period of inactivity. I worry that more such attacks may be on the horizon.

Are there any objections?

76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As one who penned the GS/GG, I'm not seeing a reasonable case based on the text and the comments to justify enrolling the page. If the juvenile vandalism continues, request page protection is one of the least ways to protect the contents from drive by vandalism. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; I'll keep it in mind and be on the lookout for more vandalism. Agreed that the sanctions only make sense if there's more significant contention over article content. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (Xenophrenic)[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 7.1 ("Xenophrenic topic-banned") and Remedy 7.2 ("Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect") of the Tea Party movement decision are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the relevant enforcement provision, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.

Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Appealing my topic ban[edit]

Hi. I was banned for removing the words "and aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control, beginning with Iraq and the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." from the lead section of the ISIS article. This does not appear in any sources (most significantly, the first part, "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control"). Each time I removed it I opened a discussion, pointing out that it is not in any sources. Others agreed (not surprisingly), most recently here on my talk page. I have appealed here to the imposing administrator, who sent me here. As I mentioned to him, it seems to me that whoever complains to the edit warring noticeboard is assumed to be right. If I was guilty of edit warring by removing the fictional statement 3 times, over the course of several weeks, then surely the editor who immediateley replaced the fiction each time (and reported me for edit warring each time) is at least equally guilty? I opened a discussion each time, so my editing is not "disruptive" by any stretch of imagination, whereas replacing a fictional statement surely is disruptive! zzz (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This dispute is about the lead of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an article which is under the WP:GS/SCW sanctions. The case was twice at the 3RR noticeboard:
The best summary of the sequence of events is the list of points 1-10 at the beginning of the December report. As you can see, Signedzzz won't accept the view of the other editors that their statement about ISIL in the lead is adequately sourced. In my opinion, this is a matter for editor consensus and Signedzzz won't defer to the consensus. He seems to be defending his right to keep reverting indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually EdJohnston - he's been at 3RR notice board 3 times, you missed the one between the two you listed. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I endorsed the ban before it was imposed. The edit warring report was not just about the latest edits zzz made to the article. I blocked zzz on November 17 for 48 hours for violating WP:1RR on the same article. zzz's latest edits were the continuation of a pattern of misbehavior. In addition, putting aside the disruptive nature of the edits themselves, you can see both here (above) and at AN3 an argumentative denial attitude, "I've done nothing wrong", "It's not disruptive", "It's not sourced", etc. zzz even claimed that another editor agreed with him when in fact the other editor felt that zzz was being disruptive. The 3-month ban is a mild sanction for the conduct. This subject area is controversial and this article in particular even more so. The sanctions were put in place to control this kind of behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
How is it a "consensus" when other editors agree with me that the statement is unsourced? By the way: there is still no source produced by anyone that backs the statement. Here an editor says "zzz Its a good point that we either need a citation for this or to make a correction." And here a different editor says "I am as concerned about citations for that whole section of the Lead as you are."
The editor who reported me is, in fact, the one who is "defending his right to keep reverting indefinitely." - here where he says "Your choice Signedzzz - you want to continue to delete the same content over and over or you going to stop?". zzz (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I said nothing about my planned behavior - I was very correctly questioning zzz's planned behavior. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
If it is "disruptive" to remove an unsourced statement, with an appropriate edit summary, while opening a discussion on the talk page each time, (eg. here where several proposed improvements are casually dismissed, with a complete disregard for sources, by the same editor who reported me this time) then what is the non-disruptive way to remove an unsourced statement? zzz (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz's diffs, just as at AN3, are misleading. Gregkaye later made a much more complex statement about the language and the sourcing here; plus there was additional discussion disgreeing with zzz, from Greg and from others. At AN3, Greg said about zzz: "Edit warring with later appeals to talk page apparent." (classic edit warring, btw) Greg endorsed a ban at AN3 here (the suggested ban was overly broad). As for zzz's question, removal of allegedly unsourced material is not a defense to edit warring. How do you do it in a non-disruptive way? You obtain a consensus from other editors that the material should be removed. (This assumes the removal is controversial, as it is here; many removals of unsourced material are straightforward.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
So, if at least one editor says "no, I want to keep the unsourced statement", then the unsourced material has to remain? And it is "edit warring" to suggest otherwise? zzz (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
We have the {{uw-unsor1}} through {{uw-unsor4}} series for a reason; if someone's persistently adding unsourced claims, and they won't listen when you talk about it, request a block. Nyttend (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you Bbb23. I had forgotten that I had written that content.
Signedzzz, I hit edit conflict re your previous report and the following did not get to be considered:

In that case I'd suggest a block for any particular length of time might accompany a topic ban. This is in relation to edits on the Boko Haram article, a group whose name means "British colonial (western style) education is a sin":

I find this last reply amazing. There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram. A simple search on "boko haram" education curriculum gave About 227,000 results with notable pages to start being of news reports of the group attacking and closing down schools with reports clearly stating a connection to the groups anti Western education philosophy.

At this point I would suggest that the ban be extended to all Islam related organisations designated as terrorist as per Wikipedia's List of designated terrorist organizations. Gregkaye 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye Please could you provide a source stating that Boko Haram have restricted education? zzz (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@zzz please could you adopt the way of working to also check things yourself and debate issues ... before they get raised with you. My text above starting "I find this last reply amazing..." gives a clear indication of how the content could have been verified. Please search deep. Are you familiar with the meaning of "Boko Haram"? It is fairly common knowledge. How did it come about that you decided to revert? Was there ever an option that you might have checked and added the less than needed citation yourself? I know that you are well aware of the nature of this encyclopaedia and appeal to you to fully take on its goals. Gregkaye 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye You say that "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram". Since I started editing that article at the start of July, there has been no mention of "restricting education" whatsoever. Please could you specify which part of the talk page you have read that discusses this? zzz (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I am of course familiar with the name. They are opposed to Western education. That does not necessarily mean that they actively restrict access to education. Can find a reliable source that says that they do? I can only find this which goes on to say

"Boko Haram said that the social media campaign was also a strong motivating factor in formulating the truce.

“Some of the tweets were very touching … [they] brought tears to our eyes,” the spokesperson said."

The truce in question never in fact occurred: this article is clearly not a reliable source. zzz (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Affirm If what you are saying “This does not appear in any sources” was true, I would support you. I don’t believe it to be true. The article references two reliable sources that I find to specifically say what you claim doesn’t exist:
Bakr al-Baghdadi “used his prison contacts to take over an al Qaeda–aligned militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq… al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims[19]
"Q: What is [ISIS]’s goal? A: Islamic State and its Iraqi leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, primarily aims to establish a radical Sunni Islamist state in the Levant region of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus and Southern Turkey." [20]--Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The second source is fine for the Levant region. The first source was brought to my attention yesterday. al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims: this is not the same thing as saying "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control". zzz (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I brought this citation to your attention yesterday as that is what I thought, and said so on the ISIS Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that is almost exactly the same thing. That he is the person who should have political, military, and religious control over all muslims. When you declare yourself their leader that means you should have control. --Obsidi (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
See this source: an ISIS spokesman saying “We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will ≠raise the flag of Allah in the White House”. So, you could say that they want to take over America. In fact, you would have better evidence of this, since since they have specifically stated it. This may seem pedantic, but this is an encyclopaedia, so it should be when it comes to stating things as facts. zzz (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you think "raise the flag of Allah in the White House" means? If it literally means what they are saying then yes that is saying that eventually their long term goal is to control the united states. That doesn't mean they are going to try to accomplish that right now. The question is, does the reliable source say that it, and in this case it does. If you wish to phrase it slightly differently gain consensus, if you editwar in without consensus you eventually get topic banned. --Obsidi (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The reliable source says he claims to be the political and military leader - already. Not that he aims to control. These are two different things. The article states the latter. The source does not support this. zzz (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That is absolutely accurate. Editors sometimes do not read citations properly or carefully enough, in my experience. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is original research to say "aims to bring Muslim areas under its control", and it directly implies that ISIS would not be interested in controlling non-Muslim areas of the world. zzz (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz Re: "You say that "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram"." Please consider, are you really, honestly serious about this? Please think of a word connected with education that you might use to search through the talk page and article content and see what you come up with. Think on your feet. Don't expect to be spoon fed by others while wanting to take no responsibility for the article than to passively delete. Do some checking yourself. The word used in Wikipedia for the removal of valid content is vandalism. I think that you went way over the line here. My question earlier (one of my questions earlier) was, are you familiar with the meaning of "Boko Haram"? Gregkaye 20:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, actually, there hasn't been any discussion about this on the talk page. Maybe you should have a look - before claiming that there has been. zzz (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, you apparently didn't read my reply above. Here it is again:

I am of course familiar with the name. They are opposed to Western education. That does not necessarily mean that they actively restrict access to education. Can you find a reliable source that says that they do? zzz (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor suggested a few rounds ago that zzz not be allowed to edit the article until he read the article and all the sources. The content he keeps attacking is in the lead - a thinking person would look at content in the article and sub articles spun off Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Territorial claims, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Declaration_of_.22Islamic_State.22_.28June_2014.29, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Ideology_and_beliefs, ISIL_territorial_claims and even Levant (where you will find the exact same list of countries·in a different order, including Israel which yesterday zzz says is incorrectly in the list and is not a traditionally Muslim area! Is the Arab-Jewish conflict the result of a factual geographic misunderstanding?) zzz attacks a core concept necessary for understanding ISIL - world domination. They want to rule all muslims, as Baghdai said - "Obey me" - and they want to kill everyone else.
As for Boka Haram restricting access to education...how about "Cameroon officials have shut down over 130 schools near the Nigerian border over Boko Haram concerns... The Muslim extremists have increasingly targeted boarding schools, college campuses, secondary schools, and other educational facilities across Nigeria." [1] or "For years, Boko Haram fighters have been attacking schools, churches and other targets, killing scores, including male students."[2] or from Yobe State school shooting "Since 2010, Boko Haram has targeted schools, killing hundreds of students. A spokesperson said such attacks would continue as long as government soldiers continued to interfere with traditional Koran-based education. More than 10,000 children are no longer able to attend school due to attacks by the Boko Haram.[3]" Yup, Boka Haram is a regular Ministry of Education.
A complete unwillingness to follow sources, nonsense edits, long useless discussions (including this one) and a steadfast desire to edit war makes zzz a liability to Wikipedia. A 48 hour block did not help. a topic ban leads to more of the same nonsense here on another related topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"unwillingness to follow sources, nonsense edits... ": diffs, please. zzz (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Look up on this page ^^^ Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It is original research to say "aims to bring Muslim areas under its control" - and it directly implies that ISIS would not be interested in controlling non-Muslim areas of the world. (See above, on this page) zzz (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support extending the topic ban to all Islamic terrorist organisations per Gregkaye above. GoldenRing (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Well anyway, Nyttend's comment makes sense to me, I think I see where I went wrong now. Thanks, all. zzz (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@zzz The problem is not contesting edits but the hacking of clearly relevant sections of content. As you know a procedure, regarding non category related content, when wanting clarification is to add a citation needed tag. This is a common Wikipedia way of working. Question: what would you do with the perhaps aptly named article Handle (grip). There are no citations. There are over 10,000 Wikipedia articles similarly marked as without citation. Listed articles nos 9,501 - 10,000 are shown here. What would you have us do with these? I have gone to the effort of finding the references and am asking you this question because I really want you to get some perspective on these issues. I also agree with Nyttend, "We have the {{uw-unsor1}} through {{uw-unsor4}} series for a reason". They are for tagging content and raising debate. Whichever areas of Wikipedia that you are in future permitted to edit I hope that you will be able to keep these approaches in mind. Gregkaye 13:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

References
  • Support extending the topic ban to all Islamic terrorist organizations as well. All this discussion and debate about the wording of the ISIL article is in direct contravention of his topic ban. If he wants to appeal, he should bring some history of constructive edits and some evidence he recognizes his edit warring ways are wrong or even one source that supports his point - but none of that is presented - only whining and misrepresentation of how we got here. We see here is a continuation of the same debate that resulted in the topic ban and continued similar behavior on the Boko Haram topic where, had the article not been locked, he likely would have gone over 3RR.Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Appealing a topic ban and talking about the topic in there isn't a violation (unless it is done unreasonably over and over) or an appeal would be almost impossible by your logic. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support removing the ban per Obsidi if some one uninvolved can verify the claim. Also per WP:ROPE, he'd get blocked anyway if he editwars which I hope is something he wants even less than the ban. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)~
Respectfully, Obsiti never suggested repealing the topic ban. Obsiti is an uninvolved editor that read the sources and says zzz is wrong. I've got to issue with an appeal of a topic ban~and of course you need to mention the topic in the appeal but I take issue with directly carrying the same bad behavior over to the appeal and broadening it to include another topic. The ban was for repeatedly going against consensus and being disruptive (behavior), not over the correctness of a few words (content). Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I know and read the statement. I was referring to this initial comment "affirm If what you are saying “This does not appear in any sources” was true, I would support you. I don’t believe it to be true" (ie. inclusive of his disagreement). My comment states that if any one can verify, I can also support the appeal. A support for being "right" is meant to suggest that WP:V takes precedence over consensus and if he's right, then going so far as the ban is unfair. There's no ambiguity I guess. That said, I don't condone carrying the same behaviour to other topics. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That is, in a nutshell, exactly what I've been trying to say. I have absolute respect for the rules of edit warring (when I was blocked for 48 hours, I did not know that my initial edit counts as a revert). Re "carrying the same bad behavior over to the appeal and broadening it to include another topic" - if this is referring to Boko Haram (?), it was Gregkaye who raised that topic here, as I recently opposed him and Legacypac adding a category "Islamic extremist groups restricting education" to that article. FWIW, having read (and cited) hundreds of newspaper articles etc. about Boko Haram, I do not recall a single one that describes them as a group that "restricts education" - this is, I believe, a gross misrepresentation based on a lack of knowledge of the subject, as they are known for attacking a wide range of targets, eg. police stations, barracks, churches, mosques etc. zzz (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Ps. re "similar behavior on the Boko Haram topic where, had the article not been locked, he likely would have gone over 3RR." I gave up reverting as soon as it became clear that Legacypac and Gregkaye were intent on edit warring to keep their new category. (The page was locked 6 hours later). zzz (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

SEO spam attack[edit]

For information - [21]. Please keep your eyes out for this kind of link addition; Could we get a edit filter or something to stop this sort of thing? --Mdann52talk to me! 16:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how we could. Without checking the URL, there's no way to distinguish between a legitimate deadlink fix and a Matthew Woodward edit. The best course of action, as I see it, is to deal harshly with someone doing this: block immediately and without prior warning, and blacklist the URL. If I caught someone doing this, I'd be likely to leave a block message of "you've been blocked for following Matthew Woodward's advice, and your site has been blacklisted. You will not be unblocked." No need for {{spamblock}} or instructions on getting unblocked; you can't perform this kind of edit in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I found out through this through OTRS originally; I sent them a strongly worded email back advising them not to try and do this again. I am aware of one editor actually doing this; Look on the page mentioned in the article. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The only way I could see a filter working for this is if one logged anytime {{Dead link}} (or templates that redirect to that template) are removed from a page. The filter couldn't be used to block or prevent the removal, as it requires someone to actually review the content of the new link to determine if its an appropriate new link. But a log would at least provide visibility to where this is happening.
If a filter log shows enough incidents of this method of abuse, the filter log could also be used as justification to support creating a new report in the special pages - one that reports when a requested template, or category, or wiki-link has been removed from a namespace. But at this point, there may be insufficient evidence of abuse to justify a developer working on such a special page addition (although it could be brought up at WP:VP to get consideration). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It strikes me as particularly hard to monitor/enforce this any differently than we would monitor for other forms of spam. If someone is good at SEO, it's feasible a user unrelated to the spam site making a good faith attempt to fix the dead link would find the SEO-ed site through a search engine or any of the other places the marketers are "updating" links. Trying out a filter for removing a deadlink tag sounds like a good idea -- even if it's less indicative of abuse than most other filters I've seen this sort of tactic several times just in the last year. What about -- and I realize I'm veering more into village pump territory -- a bot/tool that looks for similar urls or unwhitelisted domains across a user's edits? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
[ec] So you're thinking of a tag that's comparable to HHVM or mobile edit, just making a mark and being logged without alerting the user in question? Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I was originally thinking along the lines of a filter that quietly logs at Special:AbuseLog - although those are harder to monitor. Now that you mention it, a new tag added to Special:Tags may be the better solution as it would give visibility on the watchlist. There are already tags for removal of other types of templates; so this would seem a good fit for that area. ---- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A big difference is the nature of the link changes; Woodward was replacing official governmental URLs with URLs for vacation resorts. This isn't the kind of thing that's done by good-faith editors. Yes, perhaps we'll have some grey areas, but that's where we have to exercise discretion, and that's why we have to do it with humans instead of bots. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That's true but little tags in the edit summaries alongt the lines of "speedy deletion template removed" will be helpful with that task.
Would it be possible though to add a sort of hardcoded temporary __NOINDEX__ that is triggered whenever a "dead link" template is removed (or even better: if the next url preceding a "dead link" tag is changed)? Woodward's method would appear inattractive if the pages in question are actually not indexed for a period of, let's say 3 weeks. And it wouldn't hurt a lot to have these articles "fly under the radar" SE-wise because people looking for Wikipedia content can still use our built-in search function. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I expect that this would require a bot or a major software change; it's not something that the current software can do automatically. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Technically, all external links from Wikipedia articles are already tagged with "no follow" - it's hardcoded into this site. So this would be redundant. In the end, it's up to users to catch this type of abuse; and any potential tags would help flag changes for review so they are at least a bit harder to sneak them through when no one is looking. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 January 15#Trying_to_understand_nofollow; nofollow seems to be a bit weak. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
We can probably add a tag to each removal of the dead link template by new/unregistered users. Experienced users are far less likely to use it. I also suggest noindexing the new webpages whenever such an edit is performed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
(Edit: Oh, that won't work. The source says "To help us fly under the radar you should edit a couple of other articles first over the next few days." So, we need a filter to catch newly autoconfirmed users as well, or just no nothing to the tags and just revert the spam links as they come out.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I had a read of some of the comments after the article and a relevant point was made. I'll quote "You could mention that for other languages the query differs (which makes sense) so for German – for example – it would be something like: site:de.wikipedia.org "keyword" "nicht mehr abrufbar"" It would be worthwhile if there are admins and editors who use the other language wikis to raise this on the appropriate noticeboards perhaps even as a general notice up to the foundation about this sort of thing. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice left at the German admins' noticeboard, in English, since they'd have to speak English to understand Woodward's page. I didn't know where else to advertise it, so I didn't. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You guys beat me to it. I've left a summary in German over there explaining Woodward's tactics. De728631 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Google claims that "nofollow" prevents a link giving any value to the link destination.[22]. However, comments from the SEO community indicate that might not be true.[23]. Clearly, the people behind this link spam think it is a useful SEO tactic. John Nagle (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Even without a direct value as a backlink, the link has a value for the spammers - it can give a bit of direct traffic, and it is easier to convince other websites to link to their site.
The Eyepiece edits happened after the article was published - I guess it has been tested on other pages as well, this is just the most obvious one. --mfb (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
At the beginning of this discussion, I reverted the other edits made by Woodward (Special:Contributions/Tomofm2) but haven't known where else to look. I definitely like the tagging idea. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We look for links that seem to lead to companies. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but where? I have no idea which articles to check; that's why I supported the tagging idea. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The tags and edit filters are closely related (Many of the tags listed at Special:Tags feed off data from the edit filters) ... so a first step would be to request a new filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested (unless someone here has the ability to create and maintain those filters). Is it agreed that in the first iteration (pending future refinement), the filter should identify when {{Dead link}} (or any of the redirected templates that do the same function) has been removed from an article?
I'm guessing that creating a tag based on the filter is also requested at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, but I'm not certain on that, Wikipedia:Tags doesn't clarify that process. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw Special:Contributions/Localreview doing that the other day. I've not seen any others. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I just encountered another one today. Edits by Special:Contributions/Jeffcoll01 and Special:Contributions/Bigdisneyfanatic appear to be pursuing this strategy as well. Edit summaries specifically address their intent to provide coverage found in "dead links". The site is highly promotional, and according to the date stamps, the articles they are linking were created on their site this week, despite being news coverage for events (from the original articles) that are from many years back. In fact, some of the content from their new articles appear to be pasted together from the original articles that have either been moved to new URLs on the originating site or via archive.org links. Later this weekend I should have time to work on updating some of these dead-links to the correct legitimate sources.
In this case, the user was sloppy and was just spamming the links to the bottom of articles, so the above suggested filter wouldn't have caught these (they weren't removing the dead links while adding the new ones) ... but it is suggesting to me that there are users learning of this strategy and beginning to attempt it. A filter can help give us visibility to more easily catch at least some of it. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This is going to be really hard to track since we would effectively need to monitor every link addition to any article, but the dead link removal tag seems like it could help. Blacklisting any websites obviously added because of this method might be a good idea too. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
One user updated the date of the dead link tag, so you'll need to check for the existence of the tag in both the old and new revisions. The user I saw also made their own template (now deleted) to replace the dead link. I don't know where they go that from. Anyway, a filter which detects any edit to or within a dead link template should be easy enough. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something similar already. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions[edit]

Additional eyes on, and feedback of, the section RfC: Should WP:PERM take advantage of User:ClueBot III or User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver? is requested. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog[edit]

Hi, SPI is backlogged again. Need checkusers, clerks, admins, please. Some fresh reports are 2 weeks old. <3 Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is only one checkuser requested report, and no endorsed ones, at SPI. There are however 42 open reports for administrators to review and five cu-declined reports that also need review from admins. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Ponyo, I think I've mentioned before that we should clone you--and others, like User:Callanecc and User:Callanecc. I check the occasional report there to see if I can close anything, and every time I decide against closing one I am more grateful to the admin regulars there. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Close, please?[edit]

Can I get an admin to look at and close "Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza", on this very page, please? It seems Hoops is not interested in my suggestion, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've marked it as "ban implemented", and I'll "close" it once I can figure out the coding. I can never remember how to do it, really, so I have to copy/paste from somewhere else. Feel free to do it if you can get in ahead of me; since I already made the decision, you'd not be doing anything more than the bot that closes FFD discussions. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nyttend--I'm not in a rush and after patrolling UAA for a little while I'm done with templates, so I appreciate your help. Also, I'm sure don't know any of it better than you do, haha. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate, full protection, ArbCom and a little light begging[edit]

Informed-and-uninvolved administrator needed. As some here will remember, I gave gamergate controversy full protection some days ago. I've since gotten a request from an involved administrator to unprotect the article, but I declined because I wasn't informed enough to make a sensible decision. If you're uninvolved yet familiar with the article and related events, I would appreciate it if you'd review the situation and leave your comments here — either your rationale for unprotecting it or reducing protection (no need to ask me if you think this is the better route) or your rationale for leaving it as is. Below I copy the request and my response.

Hello Nyttend. I am here to ask if you will consider lifting the full protection from the Gamergate controversy article. Here's my argument:

With the behavioural issues now under ArbCom scrutiny, I think there is an opportunity for some of the most contentious issues still outstanding at the page to be resolved with much less rancour that at any other time. It would be foolish for anyone to edit-war or otherwise misbehave at the current time, rather it is in editors' own best interests to demonstrate their willingness to work collegially. ArbCom's steely gaze is always transitory and when the case is concluded the opportunity will have been lost which is why I am asking for this now. Of course, if I'm wrong and it all goes belly-up, the page can always be re-protected in a moment.

So, any chance I can talk you into this? CIreland (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not willing to lift it, but this is not a "no"; let me explain. All I did (if I remember rightly) was restoring protection that had been cut short as an experiment, and it looked to me as if the experiment demonstrated that continued protection was necessary. I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with the subject and with whatever contentious issues you're talking about (if I were dictator, the whole article would be deleted; as it's an ongoing controversy, secondary sources can't even exist yet, but people insist on pretending that primary sources are secondary), so I cannot have a reasonable opinion on whether unprotection is a good idea. I think the best course of action is for you to ask someone who's uninvolved yet more familiar with the situation than I am, and when you do, please be sure to say something like "the protecting admin is fine with you unprotecting it, if you think that's the wisest action". Judging by the way you asked me, I assume you're involved, but if you're not, feel free to unprotect it yourself. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

CIreland responded by saying "yes, I am involved, so I won't take action" — thus this notice here. Thanks for your help. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about why an article on a reproductively viable female worker ant that is able to reproduce with mature males when the colony is lacking a queen is generating so much controversy. Anyone want to clue me in? EEng (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Link fixed. NE Ent 22:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Semi-protect - Not an admin, but revert to semi-protection because ArbCom has the case and the named parties will be on their best behavior and we have an active and now being used sanction page. Protection for a long time damages our ideals, prevents actual improvements and just serves to let those out to damage Wikipedia's credibility and value succeed. It is one of the most watched pages and I am sure that after a brief "flurry of activety" it should be more civil than prior to its protection. Those will bad motives will likely get themselves punished quickly and those less active in the intervening weeks probably won't return. A firm, but fair hand is needed for this article and full protection is a monument to chaos bringing Wikipedia to its knees. We are better than this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note — while of course you can chime in, my request was intended to get another admin's eyes on the situation, and I'm not attempting to have some sort of discussion that would result in consensus. The admin who responds should decide on the merits of the situation (which can of course include your comments, if he agrees with them), without feeling a need to establish any consensus from a discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Completely uninvolved, no strong POV on the subject, but vaguely familiar with the issues) I'd leave it protected personally. It's caused nothing but problems. Perhaps re-evaluate when the arbitration case is over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If the article has caused nothing but problems, perhaps we should give it the Liancourt Rocks treatment instead. east718 | talk | 22:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not the worst idea I've ever heard. Let's face it, it's not an important article; I'm pretty sure I could walk down the street, ask 1000 people if they've ever heard of it, and get a 0% return. Of course, given the demographics of Wikipedia editors, that won't happen. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Definitely not the worst idea I've heard. For what it's worth, I hadn't heard of it before the editors on the article declared all-out war on each other, though it has since been covered extensively in the mainstream media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Heh, but the "Liancourt Rocks" "solution" (back in the good ol' days when admins prided themselves on being "rouge") only worked because it was pretty easy to replace the deleted article with a quickly-written neutral stub. Anybody up to the task of providing that for GG? Fut.Perf. 23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the first paragraph of the lede looks good to me, and it's already longer than our typical stubified articles. That paragraph's been stable for at least a month so I doubt there's anything in it that one would find contentious. That said, I have no rouge points left to be going and deleting stuff on a whim so I'll just leave this here as a suggestion. :) east718 | talk | 23:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
As suggested several times, merge to Gamer culture - one paragraph - but oh well, good luck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If we start enforcing WP:PRIMARY more carefully here, we could do that quite reasonably: just give a few basic statements, especially since WP:BLPPRIMARY all but forbids using primary sources about living people, and isn't pretty much the whole controversy about living people? Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
For an article with over 1 million views since its creation, it is an important topic now, but simply sweeping it under the rug is of poor form. Though WP:TNT is always an option, would you still leave it up to semi-protect if you were to begin again and go by my strict rules laid out before? If the topic space is a chaotic mess, you enforce a form of Robert's rules and resolve the problem by handling it in piecemeal. Also, begin by putting Pending Changes on the Semi-protect. This article is a perfect case for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support continued full protection. A wholly unimportant topic in the larger scheme of things, with far, far too much valuable time wasted by trolls and their denizens fighting over meaningless trivia. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 is back with the same stuff that got him blocked for a month.[edit]

IP blocked for six months by Ponyo. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Amazing. His suspension is just over and 64.183.48.206 has begun editing pages with the same unverified edits about which he was warned and eventually blocked. He just wants to be abusive and will not listen to the Wikipedia community on this. He needs to be blocked again, for a longer period, if possible. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


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


Jak Alnwick[edit]

Hi, I'm unable to create the article Jak Alnwick because it has been previously been created and deleted on many occasions therefore it has been blocked to stop users creating the article. However this footballer made his professional debut today in an important match for his club therefore he now passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Would one of you lovely Admins please use your admin tools and make the page eligible for creation? Regards IJA (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)