Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:39, 12 December 2011

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 94 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 91 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 91 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 33 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 30 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 26 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 24 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	1	10	11
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	0	76	76
AfD	0	0	0

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 249 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 68 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 57 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closers wanted for WP:V RfC

Hi. The RfC regarding the lead section of WP:V ended a little over a month ago. There was an agreement that it would be closed by User:Newyorkbrad, User:Black Kite and User:HJ Mitchell. However, this has not happened because of the low availability of two of those.

Would anyone be interested in joining the process so that it can get back on track?

There is an existing understanding that closers should be three in number, be admins in good standing, not have participated in discussions leading up to this point and not have commented elsewhere in such a way that their impartiality might be questioned.

It's a responsibility to be taken seriously. A minor change is at stake, but it is one about which there are strongly-held views. It's also the RfC with the highest ever level of participation on Wikipedia. So there is a lot to read and it will probably not be an open and shut case.

Any takers? If so, please put yourself forward by making your mark below. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tempted. Am I wrong, or is that RFC archived twice on that page? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess that will make it twice as much work. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be persuaded. Depends how urgent it is, as there's a lot to read and I'm busy this weekend. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is urgent is the sense that a decision is needed by 10 am. But I think editors want to know that it is moving in a forward direction. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to step in if the two above me cannot or someone below me has more enthusiasm.--v/r - T P 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could do it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe SlimVirgin could work with you. Leaky Caldron 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have plenty of time starting Monday and am willing to wade through the stuff. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I don't have the time to do it justice before Monday anyway so that suits me. If Worm will join us, we'll have the requisite three admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited knowledge of the three of you, that should be good. But can I suggest making yourselves known on the WP:V talkpage first? There has been a little concern there about the risk of a runaway train of biased and incompetent admins. Yes, its a tautological concept. --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just checking but are the victims... er I mean volunteers familar with the term hospital pass?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. If no one has mentioned it at the RfC by tomorrow, I'll mention it then. Lots of reading to do... yay! Worm^TT · (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are playing rugby now? :P --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Government: "A government can also be agreed to in order to close very contentious RFCs. A notable example of this was the 2011 closure of the RFC on the "not truth" issue in the Verifiability policy text. While in principle any univolved Admin is free to close a RFC, in this case it was decided that a group of 3 editors should have the exclusive right to do this. While no other Admin was formally prohibited from ignoring that decision and close that RFC him/herself, in practice any such closure would have been swiftly reverted." Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal was pretty clearly rejected, Count Iblis -- taking the Rejected tag off is not a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten it to reflect current practice. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is my understanding that the permission class of a user that the Wikipedia community trusts to specifically judge consensus already exists. If we're going to limit this close to a certain class of editor based on permissions held why not entrust it to the people we already trust to make difficult decisions regarding consensus(send it to 'crat chat)?Crazynas^t 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In no way is the above meant to disparage or attack the neutrality or objectiveness or ability to judge consensus of any of the administrators that have volunteered, more of a procedural question. Crazynas^t 20:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're understanding is correct, actually, Crazynas. Admins/bureaucrats don't have the exclusive privilege of closing RfCs. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I do understand that, which is why my second sentence was conditional. This is a question for this particular closure (and others of this nature) why we're limiting the close to a subset of editors that are not selected primarily for their ability to judge consensus when there already exists a usergroup that is scrutinized on their neutrality and ability to gauge consensus. (in other words, allow any editor in good standing to assist the close, or limit it to the well defined group of users that are promoted based on this specific type of trust to judge consensus). Crazynas^t 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Yes, actually, that makes sense, except bureaucrats do not present a very large pool. I think, in this particular case it is just a case of consensus, for better or worse, between involved editors that they wanted admins. --FormerIP (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and finish what I started on my userpage. I hope you all find it helpful in reaching a conclusion on the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, we have what is one of the largest RFC's ever, and its about a month after comments were closed it looks like we don't even have the closers picked. May I suggest that we create the short list of potential folks here, vett them not only for having no relevant issues, but also for anything that someone could successfully pretend is a relevant issue. And if that doesn't get it down to three, flip a coin and pick three and then roll. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my naiveness, I'm listing the above volunteers and the original three, so other folks can starting paring or adding to the list, please consider this to be editable (not like a part of my post). North8000 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJMitchell
Black Kite
NewYorkBrad
Ultraexactzz
Worm
Regentspark
~~SarekOfVulcan~~
Cla68

I interpret the above discussion to mean that the "new team" of closers consists of HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned. Isn't that correct? Neutron (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All three indicated that they would be willing... I would just like them to confirm that they are actually taking this on. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my understanding, but I also said that I won't be up to it until Monday. I'll probably spend a good chunk of monday afternoon on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that people are in a super hurry, they just want to know that it is heading forward, which, right now means hearing a clear statement something like: "HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned are the trio that is or will soon be working on closing this" Can somebody say that? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or to be more specific, can ALL of THEM say that? Neutron (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly reading through. I hereby commit to the trio of closers. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've scanned the discussion but won't be able to read it carefully till Monday. Since a Monday-Tuesday timetable seems acceptable, I too hereby commit to the trio of closers. --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Worm That Turned, RegentsPark and HJ Mitchell... it looks like we have our new "admin panel" in place. Hopefully it won't take yet another month... but we will be patient. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, am reading and writing right now - did I willingly volunteer for this :) --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. About halfway through the poll responses and making notes, but have a long way to go. What on earth did I agree to this for ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, nothing bad's going to happen. The sudden disappearance of Black Kite and Newyorkbrad after they agreed to take on the task is almost certainly nothing more than a coincidence... --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading. This is mighty interesting. Also, I have noticed this guy with sunglasses, mac, and hat pulled down over his eyes following me around. Just another coincidence, I guess :) --regentspark (comment) 16:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck myself from the list above -- <Leghorn>that was a joke, son.</Leghorn>--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of image compromise at Muhammad

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could try and close the image compromise discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images. The exact section link is Talk:Muhammad/images#Proposed_image_solution, although there is other further discussion elsewhere on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly hope no one claims that wall of text is a closable discussion. Hold an RfC or something, but that's just an argument that is difficult to parse and too long to follow. Voting is evil, but unorganized walls of text are worse. There is just no way outsiders to that discussion could possibly follow or comment intelligently on it without spending at least 30 minutes. It currently stands (if I counted correctly) at more than 31,000 words. That's a third of a novel. At most I'd hope it would be closed as "hold an RfC". Disclaimer/comment: I personally believe a handful of editors are creating these walls more-or-less on purpose in an attempt to get their way on censorship related issues. WP:NOT's talk page being a good example, with the pregnancy image debate being another one (but it at least was readable). Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree. Frankly, the discussion got trainwrecked by a couple editors (one on each side), and movement forward is unlikely as a result. An RfC would be pointless for the same reason. Resolute 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I don't have the time to read it all just now, and probably wouldn't if I did. You're talking about Ludwigs and whom? If you think they're an impediment to reaching a stable article, would you support an article ban for both? I find it impossible to discuss the topic with every thread being derailed into a battle of the egos. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And Tarc. But remove the former, and you remove the latter as well. Ludwigs goes somewhere, repeats the same arguments he made 100 times already, and Tarc replies with the same rebuttal he made 100 times already. Ludwigs moves to the next forum, rinse, repeat. And voila, 500kb of "discussion". Reso lute 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My problem is not with Ludwigs' position - that it's a net negative for the encyclopedia to be gratuitously offending our readers - with which I agree, but with his style of argument, seemingly more intent on impressing posterity or silent watchers with his considerable eloquence and logical prowess than engaging and convincing his interlocutor. I thought you Erasorhead, Jayen, Mathsci and the others (excluding Alan, IP and Tarc) were working towards something there but once Ludwigs returned from his month away, the delicate and elegant resolution you'd proposed just got shoved aside while the various gladiators preened and posed. I don't think I've ever called for an article ban before but I'm seriously tempted here. I'll let Ludwigs know about this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        While Ludwigs has definitely been annoying and over-argued, he has been prepared to compromise. I'm sorry but I strongly object to topic banning an editor who has behaved significantly better than the editors on the other side. If you want to do a two sided topic ban (so Alan, IP, Tarc and Ludwigs) I'm OK with that, and I'm OK with blocking whoever you think is the worst offender - and that isn't Ludwigs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've thought about it some more, and I think this needs to go to Arbcom. They can look at the evidence and decide what to do with regards to topic bans. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was hopeful that someone might try and close it, but fair enough. I thought it was a better option than escalation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is now at arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Muhammad_Images. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Who's got the popcorn contract for that monstrosity? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment of exposing someone's identity

I recognized an old user who used to edit under a different username last year, but ended it and started a new one. I went to his new user-page and called him with his old user ID (essentially exposing his old "user" identity). I wonder if I qualify for any sort punishment.69.232.73.16 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are genuinely concerned that you've outed someone's identity, pointing out that you've outed someone's identity on this noticeboard is going to further compound rather than resolve the problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, genuinely revealed the old username of a current user and my IP has been blocked by an administrator for one month(saying that he knows the user corresponding to this IP). I am asking here if that is a fair punishment.--69.232.73.16 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. And evading that valid block by editing with a new IP address isn't good either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the rule says, an IP must not be blocked for more than a few hours?

"Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours," --69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC) By the way, I did not expose his name/address or anything; just his old user ID. Does that also violate the policy?69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Should not" ≠ "must not". I'm not sure whether you're genuinely concerned or just trolling us; if the former, you should contact WP:OVERSIGHT, and if the latter, you should stop before an admin less charitable than I blocks you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda what I hinted at above ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP's are blocked for months or years, just not "indefinite", unless maybe they're open proxies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep? The discussion has been open 10 days.

I ask that the closer not be an arbitrator or arbitrator candidate as NWA.Rep (talk · contribs) is an arbitrator candidate.

I further ask that the closer not be a writer of an arbitrator voter guide because the user has said: "the lynch mob (namely the arbcom voters guide writers) wants me out of this project and are disgracefully trying to sneak this Mfd through when all the people who support it are the 'arbcom voter guide' writers". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that guy manages to get elected to the ArbCom, it should be a cinch for me the next time I run for admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr, is their consensus to delete that too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr has been filed. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of VPR

Hi could you please review and close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#.22Blocked.22_template_tweak it's blocker for deployment. Petrb (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the thread needs closure per se. It's quite clear that there is consensus in support of the proposal. You now need to convince developers to turn it on. Sandstein 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a developer it can't be deployed if discussion isn't closed. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32819 Petrb (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this procedure stated? Rmhermen (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment Petrb (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there about needing to close a discussion. Did I miss something? Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the request to close discussion is in bugzilla. Petrb (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's closed now. Feel free to implement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:TreasuryTag unblock request – December 2011

User:TreasuryTag has requested to be unblocked. I am taking no position on that, but per his request will copy the unblock request here for the community to discuss, as his previous declined unblock request was judged to be a community ban, and this is the venue for considering whether to rescind such bans. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been gone for more than two months now, and I daresay some people have noticed the peace and quiet broken only by occasional orchestrated assaults on the project!
Meanwhile, I've been racking up a lot of edits I want to make. Edits that need to be made. Not controversial; not deletion-related; not Doctor Who-related – completely free of the areas where I seem to have generated trouble in the past.
I understand that I caused a lot of problems, understand how it happened, and fully intend to stop it from happening again. I'm already topic-banned from initiating any sort of deletion for six months after being unblocked, so there can't be any issues in that department, and as I say, I've discovered new areas of editing to go into which are (a) away from my past fault-lines and (b) sorely in need of an experienced, good-faith editor like myself.
Please let me back in! Best, ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 19:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This unblock request is so accomplished that I find it almost irresistible. Hans Adler 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can resist it. A longer break will do wonders for TT's attitude when he returns. A thought: it might help his case if we could see some evidence of trouble-free contribution on another Wikimedia project. The block is not a global one across his unified account. --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One minor point on the phrasing of the copied-over statement, regarding: "Edits that need to be made". No, no edit "needs to be made"; we don't need any contributor, especially if they are unable to collaborate with other people. Having said that, I'm of two minds about the appeal. Two months is not very long, and I find it hard to believe that TT's combative attitude has vanished. His unblock statement is heartening, and suggests the break did him some good, but did it do him enough? If a little is good, more must be better: I'm not sure the break was long enough, but if TT (and everybody who comments here) thinks so then I don't see a problem with letting him return. He certainly did good work when he was around and tried to be professional. For the purposes of the closing administrator, this is a tentative support. AGK [•] 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock I've never wished to see TT blocked long-term, merely for him to stop being so gratuitously abrasive when there was no call for it. If he'd go along with that, I'd welcome him back. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support' The potential benefit of giving a second chance here far outweighs the potential discomforts of having to block him again if he doesn't deliver on his promises.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support unblock~~ he's done enough time and seems to have made significant progress of understanding the issues that caused the block and seems positive about avoiding them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User:Worm That Turned is wiser than I am - so oppose per him. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (with regret) I was quite unimpressed when the last discussion was interpreted as a "de facto ban", something that appeared to come from left side and was unfair on TreasuryTag. I've had a couple of editors come to me and suggest that whilst they were opposing at the time, it was only for that specific discussion, and not for future ones. Having said that, I am not sure I can support an unblock of TreasuryTag, with no restrictions besides the topic ban. When HJ Mitchell unblocked him a few months ago, his restrictions were lax and TreasuryTag flouted them - I'm not sure that I believe he will not return to his old behaviour. Perhaps with mentoring or strongly enforced restrictions or even evidence that he has changed, I could support, but the unblock request does not persuade me. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then if that were to happen again, we'd block him again. This small risk is worth taking. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about making a counter proposal that you could support ? Mt king^(edits) 22:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would want to see someone actively working with TT, who could nip problems in the bud before they escalate. Depending on what the results of the ArbCom election are, I would be willing to do that - which I mentioned last week on my talk page. Otherwise, I'd like to see some evidence that he has changed, perhaps from work on another WMF project or a decent period where he accepts there is an issue. It's less than 2 months since the discussions died down, and from what I understand, he has appealled this block to a number of admins hoping one would endorse an unblock. Andy, I know reblocks are cheap, but if no one is watching him then I believe he is likely to cause too many problems. I find it telling that TreasuryTag is so desperate to come back to the encyclopedia, that he will not until the announcement of the ArbCom results (less than a week from the point he made this request). As such, I think he'd say anything that might persuade people to let him back in, and so unfortunately, I'm not willing to take his word on this matter. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (also with regret). I've seen TT around a lot, and I fully acknowledge his great contributions and I really would like him back on the project. But with his extensive history of abrasive and aggressive confrontation with others, and the past breaking of promises, I could only support an unblock with some sort of reasonably strict mentorship, restrictions, or other supervisory plan in place - and I do hope that can be achieved in the not-too-distant future -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one has to wonder if we need an unblock option for 1 day and so on. So that we can give an editor a chance to demonstrate that they are reformed. They can ask for longer periods each time and maybe get back to normal status. Probably not worth the effort to implement, but I think the concept still makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't re-blocking an editor that has only been productive since their unblock just be making a point?Crazynas^t 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Probation" is a common practice in the real world. The point is that it is much easier to reinstate the e.g. block if the terms are violated; starting over from scratch is not required. Setting up such a thing might be good. From their wording where "you need me" is emphasized (including in the selection of a link) the and "I've changed" is barely there, I'm guessing that they they have not changed much, but that would be a way to find out, and possibly a way to modify their behavior. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood Vegaswikian's proposal as saying that just like a user can be blocked for a specific amount of time, so that they are automatically unblocked afterwards, we might want to unblock a user with an automatic block later on. It would be even better if we coud set this up periodically, so that e.g. an editor would be allowed to edit only 2 hours per day or so. I suspect that many of the behavioural difficulties on this site have to do with its addictive nature. This is a way in which many blocked editors would still be able to contribute productively, and I think quite a few editors who would otherwise start full-time socking might be led to find a better real-life/Wikipedia balance instead. Hans Adler 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While on the one hand, the behavior here in making an unblock request is obsessing and bounds testing; fuel to the fire is the vagueness of the indef block, which must be frustrating. Suggest changing the indef block to a two-month block to be followed by the start of the six-month topic ban. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unblock- basically because if this is opposed then we might as well add the following to the indef blocking policy: "An indefinite block is permanent and irreversible, with no possibility of appeal, under any circumstances, ever." What we have here is an editor who has contributed a lot of good stuff to the encyclopedia and can certainly continue to, but who has got himself in trouble by being obnoxiously opinionated and combative. After two months out of the game there is strong evidence of a change in outlook and a commitment to stay away from the areas that got him into trouble. What more can be demanded? Further, the long and messy discussion that led to the indef block was vague, confusing and frustrating to all involved, and I think indef blocks with a lingering air of dodgyness should be easier to reverse than clear-cut ones. If we unblock, there are two things that could happen. Either TT stays out of trouble, in which case we gain a productive editor, or he reverts back to being objectionable, in which case he can't do much harm because everyone will be watching him. Unblocking has only upside and no downside. If we refuse to unblock, TT's gone for good and it makes a joke of principles like WP:OFFER and "indef != permanent"- only downside and no upside. Thanks. Reyk _YO! 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, the spirit of WP:OFFER is that when some time has passed, editors can change. Since his block on the 6th October, there was over 2 weeks of discussions regarding it. TT took it to Arbcom, who turned him down then asked me if we could go for another unblock request early November, I suggested early next year. Since then, a few admins who had tentatively supported his last request have come to me to mention that TT had approached them about unblocking. Last week, one of them asked me on my talk page if my offer to mentor was still open and I suggest it was, depending on the results of the ArbCom elections. Rather than waiting for that, which would be a few more days, TT put forward this request. TT has not stayed away for 6 months, under WP:OFFER, nor has he stayed away for 2 months. In fact, I don't believe he's stayed away at all. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with great regret (sorry, TT, it's nothing personal) and noting my disagreement with the above comment by Reyk. To address Reyk's comment first, declining to unblock an editor at this stage does not banish them to the waste bin of history—it merely says that more time is required—and you would find me vehemently opposed to any proposal to permanently remove TT from this project. However, I do not feel that sufficient time has yet passed for TT to fully appreciate where he went wrong and for the wounds he caused to heal. TT has previously been unblocked under fairly lenient restrictions—themselves imposed to mitigate the potential for him to get himself into trouble in the same way that led to his original indefinite block—and made next to no effort to adhere to them, so I am sceptical that, just a few weeks down the line, he is ready to be released from his third indefinite block in six weeks. That said, I would very much like to see TT back at some point; I just feel that now is too soon. I would suggest another appeal once the block has been in effect for between three and six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unblock. It's been a little over two months since TreasuryTag was blocked, and, as demonstrated in his unblock request, he has clearly learned a lot from that experience. Furthermore, he has agreed to stay away from the topics and areas that resulted in him being blocked in the first place. Like those above, I'm more than ready to give him a chance to prove his worth and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This user has been blocked thirty four times. See here and here. Even asking for unblock after only two months is basically asking us how stupid we are. Well, how stupid are we? Stupid enough to believe that chance number thirty five will be the one that finally works out? I hope not. I instead propose that we not allow this long-term disruption to continue, that we revoke TTs talk page access and refer him to WP:BASC if he wishes to appeal in the future. By the way, before anyone gets all upset and thinks I am saying they are stupid, that's not what I am saying. It was not widely noted in this user's recent history that they had been renamed several times, and that each of those names had a substantial block log of it's own. However, I should hope that the collective "we," now in full possession of the facts regarding how long this problem has really been going on, (again, 34 blocks over a period of about four years) would not be so foolish as to trust this user again after so short a time, and in consideration of the possibility that the renames may have been a strategic maneuver to make these facts less obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was wondering why it felt like there was less drama on here recently. Now i know why. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too soon. This editor's disruptiveness well outweighed his contributions to the project. Six months, minimum, I think, and then if he still wants to return, we welcome him back with open arms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soon, given the extensive disruption caused. Chzz ► 04:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I got an extremely similar email from TT about a week or two ago. I'm guessing he carpet-bombed such requests to at least a handful of admins, hoping someone would bite, and I'm not impressed by that. To me, the request reads as pretty clearly him playing nice through gritted teeth, and the (apparently) scattershot deployment of the request makes me think he realizes that enough people are going to be unimpressed by it that he needed to plant multiple seeds in the hopes that one might grow. In addition, his initial ban came after enough blocks, and enough trampling of second chances and olive branches, that I'm simply not convinced - and I'm not sure how I could be convinced - that TT is capable of operating within Wikipedia's guidelines and mores. There is no restriction or parole that has held TT, no matter how repentant he claimed to be, so far; why would we believe that any would work now?
As a side note, as far as I know, BASC has already declined at least one appeal from TreasuryTag and stated that he may appeal again six months after that. I'm not at all certain that the ability to lift this ban even lies in the hands of the community any longer, given that restriction. I wonder if an arb or someone more well-versed in ban policy than I could weigh in on this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On matters of blocking/unblocking, the community always has the power to override ArbCom. However, in a case like this BASC could be an effective buffer for making sure TT doesn't get unblocked purely through attrition, that is requesting it every month until people get tired of it and stop commenting. BASC could insure that only requests that have a reasonable chance of succeeding are put back to a discussion, and could limit the number of times that happens, but only if we revoke talk page access and possibly email as well in light of the fact that TT has, according to above posts, also been attempting to canvass by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fluffernutter is correct; the Arbitration Committee en banc, not just the BASC, reviewed Treasury Tag's request that his block be lifted, and responded to him on 23 October that we upheld the community decision, and that he could appeal again to BASC/Arbcom in six months. However, that does not prevent the community, which imposed the ban in the first place, from reviewing it at any interval that the community feels suitable. The community may wish to impose a minimum timeframe for a community review as well, but I think that decision is best left in the hands of the community, and I (speaking as an individual arbitrator, and not for the Committee) would leave that issue to the community to decide. Risker (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well - the 34 times and the ArbCom statement sway me. I would like to discourage pushing any problematic user onto another project to show improvement. Any problems here are best dealt with here and some other projects have far fewer resources to manage difficult editors. Rmhermen (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The standard offer lists six months as the default time. TreasuryTag was particularly disruptive, and particularly incapable, seemingly until now, of recognizing the reasons we were upset with him. He needs to wait at least another four months, preferably ten months, IMO. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Since he has agreed that he made a few problems in the past and he will be a little more careful in the future. And he will refrain from contributing in the areas he has made problems at. And I agree that this is now sufficient time. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many problems in the past to un-ban so quickly. Will Beback talk 06:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't know much about TreasuryTag's history here, but it's been only two months since he was blocked, banned, expelled, whatever. I'll rely on my IRL experience : 2 months is way too short for someone to reflect on their actions and to "change". It's easy to say whatever the community/boss wants to hear (e.g. I acknowledge my errors, I'll do better, give me a chance), perhaps it's a first for TT, but it's still an easy thing to do/say. In light of this, and after reading the above, I'll need more than words to be swayed on this; a much more concrete, detailed, specific, thought out plan of what he will edit, how he will edit it, and why we should let him edit it; "an area where an editor like me is needed" is way too abstract and vague. As a general rule, like Sven, I think 6 months should be a standard wait-it-out period, and 12 would be ideal. A mere 2 months served, and coming up with a boilerplate 'acknowledged, sorry, I identified a good area where to edit, thanks' rationale, with no specifics? Sorry, but I don't buy it. That said, and even though I've read the various threads, I'm not familiar with TT and his actions, and thus my opinion should be weighted accordingly. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given the 34 blocks over four years, I don't think two months is enough time for someone to change their behavior. Kcowolf (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block statistic: TreasuryTag's blocks are spread over four block logs, and these are not easy to read. So I made a statistic: 12 straightforward blocks, 4 block tightenings, 15 blocks followed by unblock on request, 3 blocks followed by unblock marking them as erroneous or inappropriate, 4 technical blocks to connect accounts. I believe the last two categories should not be held against the user in this context. That leaves 27 blocks, of which 4 were followed by a tightening and 15 were followed by an honoured unblock request. All this over a period of 5 years / almost 50,000 edits. It amounts to roughly 1 block per 9,000 edits. Hans Adler 09:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27 blocks / 50,000 edits = 1 block per 1,850 edits. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Although I supported his last request, a de facto community ban isn't answered by an unban/unblock request in two months. If he had just stayed away and let the issues be forgotten, he may have gotten off after a few months, but stirring this all up again so soon is just ridiculous. I'll also add that TT emailed me a while back, looking for advice on how he could return, and I obliged. I'm disappointed to see that he apparently decided to opt for an hasty (and pretty generic) unblock request instead. I'm not seeing any real concrete restrictions, no mentorship plan, nothing said that convinces me that a community ban should be overturned so soon. Swarm ^X 09:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose far too soon, especially as the unblock conditions in the last unblock were promptly broken. Hut 8.5 12:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far too soon. There was some sound advice in his editor review in June, and in August he proclaimed that he would be weaning himself off Wikipedia for good. He hasn't taken any notice of the former, and didn't do the latter. Users have been blocked for longer for less, and based on this I see no reason for an earlier unblock, and he should sit this one out for a full 6 months at the very least. Any return should be tied to extremely strict conditions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In their request, their wording emphasized "you need me" (including in the selection of a link) and anything about true change is de-emphasized/barely there. And this is when they are at their best, trying to get back in. I think that a request that is a much more explicit commitment on the latter would be the minimum to expect. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with extreme hesitance. The timing is terrible. I am one of those contacted by TT, and I did follow up (although TT may not realize this.) I reached out to Worm, who had volunteered to act as mentor, to see if the offer still stood, in light of the ArbCom elections. Understandably, Worm expressed concern about such a commitment if elected to ArbCom. I understood, and decided to wait until elections were over (which they are, just awaiting results). So the "chomping at the bit" when a couple more days might ring a more positive result, is troubling. However, as Hans Adler points out, the block history isn't as simple as the raw number would suggest. TT has contributed immensely, and a reformed TT would be a great addition. My sense of the results so far is that this isn't yet reaching a positive consensus, although it could but if it does come down as a support for unblock, I urge TT to read the close call as a strong mandate for extreme caution. Many opposers, and I daresay some supporters, would be quick to impose a block in a situation where another editor might get a minor warning. --SPhilbrick T 14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with reservations. I have mostly seen the good side of TT and was saddened when I found the other side. I would support the maintenance of the topic ban(s), but would be interested to see what could come of TT editing away from there. I would agree with Sphilbrick's comments about TT needing to use caution if successful - this is early for a request, and if restoring TT lead to another disaster, it would be a lot longer than the mentioned six months before a request could possibly be considered again. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too soon, it's only about three weeks since his last unblock request. Come back in late March/April with some other wiki contribution history. Nothing in the unblock request shows any understanding of the issues imo. As per User:Dweller, who had tried with TT and still is I imagine. Youreallycan (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I count about 6 weeks since last on wiki request was closed (the one I raised), and a matter of days since the last off-wiki one was brought to my attention. Not sure about 3 weeks. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here, at the list of banned users, it says TT had a appeal to WP:BASC declined on October 24, 2011. - seven weeks ago, thanks for the correction. Youreallycan (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you too, I wasn't aware of that page. Either way, I agree it was too recent. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He's rude and insulting and this is a much more hospitable project without him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - TT has burned out any AGF I used to hold towards his ability to work with others. I believe, given all of the past promises, unblocks, and re-blocks that TT will say what he believes we want to hear in order to be allowed to edit again. Given this is largely a behavioural issue that extended over years I simply don't buy that in the short time he has been away he has become rehabilited, seen the light, and will now be able to edit collaboratively. In short, I ain't buying what he's selling. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To those who want him back under mentoring: he turned doen an offer in October. Paolo Napolitano 21:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which directly lead to this block in the first place. He then accepted mentoring, which was the last unblock proposal before the community. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So much trouble over such a long period, so many blocks, given another chance so many times... No. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock to edit only non-Dr Who related articles and his talk page, and then see what happens - let's see what happens if we let TT edit articles and his talk page only. His major problem is, basically, being an absolute bastard to others, and misusing wiki processes. So let's see what happens if he edits only articles that are nowt to Dr Who, and has no interaction with other editors, except on his talk page. The next step could be zillions of things depending on what happens but I see no reason that he can't be trusted to start off this way. For the avoidance of doubt, if for some reason the closing bureaucrat/admin (?) sees this as a deciding !vote, yet one between blocking or unblocking, then default to blocking... I will change that to unblocking if TT apologises to me (yes, I could be a better man than that, but frankly he doesn't deserve it) Egg Centric 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greg L unblock request (baffling block) – December 2011

Resolved

– ...and ~~accidental~~ blockee suggests it's been dealt with amicably with no further action by this forum (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I can't make any sense of the block of Greg L (talk · contribs), allegedly for disruption (the only evidence is to a discussion at Talk:Yogurt which was mostly caused by a misunderstanding, but was resolved much better and quicker than most disagreement I see on talk pages). Greg has asked for an unblock review, but so far no response from anyone. If I was so blatantly wrongfully blocked, I would hope someone would try to get the attention of an admin to unblock me, so here I am doing that for Greg. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone should be blocked for disruption, it should be the admin who blocked Greg. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Born2cycle. The block by User:2over0 needs to be explained to the community. GFHandel ♬ 00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 2/0 needs to explain his block to the community. It looks like a terrible block to me. I see nothing blockworthy in anything Greg said at Talk:Yoghurt. It looked like an animated but ultimately productive discussion to me. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was 2over0's first action after 2 two weeks of inactivity and he hasn't done anything since, either. It looks as if there is only boilerplate text, so maybe he just pressed the wrong button somewhere and isn't aware of what he has done? (Admins will know better if that idea makes sense.) Or maybe his account is compromised or something.

It seems pretty much out of character, so the situation should be monitored and maybe the account blocked if things don't get clearer soon. Hans Adler 01:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive instructions at User:2over0#Security, it almost looks as if he suspected something like this to happen at some point. Hans Adler 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Greg L. There was no reason for him to be blocked at all, especially without any sort of warning or discussion from the blocking admin. Horologium (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Hans's question, it is easy to block/unblock the wrong user if you regularly have a dozen tabs open at once. I've never done it, but I've protected/unprotected the wrong page before now!! However, this was the chap's only edit in two weeks, and only admin action in similar time. He doesn't appear to have been doing or looking at anything else on the project. Have to wait for an explanation I guess. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for your help. I am now unblocked and able to edit. My block was indeed curious because 2over0’s contribution history shows he was off of Wikipedia for two weeks, dropped in to make just a single edit (block me) and immediately fell silent—even after others inquired on his talk page. I don’t profess to be super-expert on all-things-Wikipedia, but I do know human nature and find that unusual. Anyway, I very much appreciate my wiki‑friends stepping in here as well as other editors with whom I have had little-to-no interaction with stepping in here to do what they saw was the right thing. Regards. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually even more weird than your summary. I suggest contacting Elen with any further information, as I have done. Hans Adler 09:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed User:2over0 last night to ask if it was really he who blocked me or if his account had been hacked. He assured me he has a strong password. Then he assured me that I had not been contributing in a productive and collegial manner. Implicit in the email was that his block was good stuff.
There were eight years of hard feelings and water under the bridge over on Talk:Yogurt and nerves were apparently raw over the spelling change (*sigh*).
But why intervention by 2over0 after being off Wikipedia so long? At the time of my block (23:30 (UT) on the 11th), there was no mention of “yogurt” on ANI. It stretches credulity to think that 2over0 thought, after a two-week wiki‑break, he would peruse Wikipedia, land on Talk:Yogurt, block me, and go back to watching “Jeopardy” on TV. It further stretches credulity to think that 2over0 had some special page watchlisted and, after two weeks of watchlisting, he ended up straight at Talk:Yogurt and did as he did.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on here. The most likely explanation is that someone on that talk page took offense, emailed 2over0 asking for a block, and 2over0 blithely obliged. Whoever asked 2over0 to do so clearly knew who to go to for a drive‑by blocking. It would be nice if whoever put 2over0 up to this to come forward and man‑up to putting 2over0 up to this. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that there is more than a touch of bad faith in that accusation, and whilst I have no comment on the block itself, the chances that 2over0 was reading Yoghurt/Yogurt even if he wasn't actively contributing on wiki seems reasonably high to me. The person you should be taking this up with is 2over0, who is responsible for his own actions. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg: I found your comments toward Boing! said Zebedee on the Yogurt talk page to be fairly obnoxious, to be honest. If someone did ask 2over0 to take a look, I don't blame them. I would strongly recommend you consider moderating your aggressive tone. Be thankful that consensus was against the block in this case, but be aware that if you continue to unnecessarily inflame and escalate situations, as you did in this case, more blocks may be in your future, and they may indeed be supported by consensus. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything in that discussion that could be described as "fairly obnoxious" or blockable - and at the end of it BsaidZ says, Looks good to me. And yes, all just a misunderstanding - but all's well that ends well. Cheers. - Who was it that asked 2over to have a look? 2over is making a poor job of explaining his reasons for the block also. Youreallycan (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that hard feelings at Talk:Yogurt have spilled over far and wide across the wiki-land and I find it silly. As Horologium wrote, There was no reason for him to be blocked at all, especially without any sort of warning or discussion from the blocking admin. I think we all know what was probably going on here. What is abundantly clear to me is making this ANA any more protracted than it is will inevitably lead to polarization and further accusations being slung about that someone or another is acting in bad faith. Wikipedia is an all-volunteer collaborative writing environment and there are different skill levels at every level. 2over0 took the time to respond to my email but elected—so far anyway—to not respond here, which is his right; none of us have been drafted into the Army and we may all participate to the extent we see fit. There is no point pursuing anything anymore. I’m done here then. Thanks to those who intervened. Greg L (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, I've only just seen this. I'd just like to confirm that the discussion I had with Greg L was purely down to a misunderstanding, and my feeling was that it had been settled amicably - so for the record, I don't support the block, and I do support the quick unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary desysop

Yes, Greg's comments and attitude were a little obnoxious, but they did not cross the lines of civility, at least not clearly. In any case, there was no justification for any kind of authoritarian intervention whatsoever, and, even if someone thought there was, the first step should have been a friendly suggestion, not a warning, much less a block.

Such a blatant abuse of power (blocking someone for comments in an inconsequential discussion that resulted in a quickly resolved misunderstanding), made even worse by a failure to explain his actions on his own talk page or here, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of one's responsibilities as an admin, and the blocking policy.

If possible, to prevent further such abuses, I propose that 2over0 (talk · contribs) be relieved of special admin privileges for, say, a period of 30 days, to make sure they are not abused again. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support As proposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. If he isn't trusted enough for the tools now, he shouldn't automatically get them back in 30 days. Leave them, or take them, don't do both. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as per Sarek. With the details that we have I couldn't support recall for a single error as an admin. If he refused to , or is unable to clearly explain what happened and exactly who asked him and why he made the block - I could support him being blocked for the same length of time as the unexplained and quickly reverted block that he made. Youreallycan (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems to be a one off, so removal of tools would be disproportionate. Recommend administration of oily fish, as Occam's Razor says he probably just didn't read all the way down to the bottom and see that Greg L and Boing had made up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blatant misuse of the block button is allowed.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Mistakes can be easily forgiven. The misunderstanding I had with Boing! said Zebedee was purely one of my devoting too little time to carefully parse what was written there; we all have to balance real life with our volunteer efforts here. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so I do not at all favor de-sysoping because of a *mistake*. However, I question whether an editor who devotes so little time to Wikipedia and exercises so little attention to wiki‑courtesies (like responding to ANA postings on his talk page asking him to explain his reasoning to the rest of the community) ought to still be using his sysop tools. Greg L (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Oppose 2/0 is generally a sensible and reasonable admin, and I think this is the first time I've ever seen him accused of misuse of the tools. This block was inappropriate (and his refusal to engage the discussion here is irksome), but in no way at all does it rise to the level of a de-sysop, temporary or otherwise. Horologium (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking a pattern of abuse, or immediate threat of further abuse. I would also rather 2/0 be given the opportunity to address the situation before we take any drastic action. Reso lute 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment too early to say - either way. They need to respond here with an explanation. Leaky Caldron 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check over today's "Google doodle" topic

Today's Google doodle topic is Robert Noyce, and as usual his WP article is nearly his top g-hit. I read over the article and did a few minor copy edits, and was going to leave a message on the talk page with respect to the over-referencing and use of footnotes to include "cute" anecdotes, when I noticed an allegation of plagiarism. I'm not able to address this myself, as I am about to log off, but it would probably be good if another experienced editor would review the talk page allegations and perhaps also look at some of the other referencing. I know this probably doesn't belong here, but this page is more heavily watched around the clock than most others, and since the article has already required semi-protection due to its sudden popularity, this request is a bit time sensitive. Risker (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the External Links, this page is mentioned as a biography: http://www.elahmad.com/Robert_Noyce.html
The content of the page is almost identical to the article on Wikipedia. Certainly looks suspicious, though whether it was made itself from the Wikipedia article who knows. Either way, the external link to it is pointless as its a duplicate of content here. I'll let someone with more copyright knowledge work out who copied who... (Its semi-protected anyway so nothing for an IP to do.)) --81.98.52.181 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a copyright expert by any means. But the link was added today with the edit here. I also note that the elahmad page has the [20] reference in the second paragraph of the career section, which suggests to me that they copied the Wikipedia article, but didn't remove all the references. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should remove it from the external links section then. If all it does is duplicate Wikipedia content (and claim its a biography) it is of no use to the reader as an external link, and adds no support to any claims in the article anyway because its a cyclical reference. --155.245.103.78 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In future, folks, remember that {{backwardscopyvio}} is around to flag instances of external sites that copy our content being suspected of being plagiarised. But in this case, it's simply a spammy portal linkfarm. I'd be unsurprised if there were plenty of other examples hidden on that site. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I was talking about Talk:Robert Noyce#Possible Plagiarism (dating back to July 2010), which suggests that at least part of the copy was taken from the PBS website, not that external link. The article has had a lot of changes since I looked in last night, so I am not certain if this has been addressed. Risker (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate detector suggests some still remains - but it has its roots in pretty deep. I don't have the time at the moment to do it, but the article needs a deep clean just to rephrase the copied portions. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on non-free images needs to be closed

Would an admin please visit the RfC here regarding non-free images of deceased persons, and close it one way or another? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:213.232.79.43

Seeing as I cannot report this to AIV, and it is not really an incident, I am reporting that this IP needs its talk page access revoked for some time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed talk page access for the duration of the block. Hut 8.5 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarcusBritish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to WQA. 28bytes (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and incivility

He has been blocked before for personal attacks, he obviously has not learned that this behaviour and provocations are unacceptable.Sheodred (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at the surrounding conversation, I see that you're clearly escalating the rhetoric and unnecessarily personalizing things. Perhaps you could stop doing that? 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Are you serious? Sheodred (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite serious. If you tell an editor he talks a lot of shit, bring up unrelated disputes [5] to belittle them, and then haul them to a noticeboard (without initially notifying them), you should not act surprised and indignant when this is noticed and commented upon. 28bytes (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with any sense will see this as another attempt to retaliate against a Brit for having put a stop to Irish POV-pushing. Your history of reverts, false links to MOS "dictated policy" and such, speaks for itself. As does your claim that "I talk shite" [6]. WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. ArbCom have previously blocked similar Irish COI edits Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Binding_resolution, this is just another which you are desperate to push through, having attacked numerous editors for "civility" when you are just as bad. You have a habit of opening AN/I as a tool to protect your own agenda: [7] Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone with any sense will see this as another attempt to retaliate against a Brit" Come again? Sheodred (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I regret that comment "talking shite", however it was a statement of your vitriol not you, regarding your statements you were attacking me not the points I raised, and in the face of the torrent of abuse from you, the commment was called for in my opinion.Sheodred (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that's untrue, as vitriol can't talk. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin support and apply these closures: [8] - Sheodred keeps reverting them despite this AN/I protesting about civility: obviously he lives by double-standards. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You derailed the discussion Marcus, you had no right to close the same discussion.

[[10]] Here was the discussion about MarcusBritish's other recent incivility issues.Sheodred (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reeks of WP:POINT. I see no connection between that and you. Synthesis. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a heated thread is no different than hanging up the phone when there's an argument. Your reverts only highlight your desire to persist in arguing. Or simple petty mindedness, by not only refusing to drop the stick, but picking it up again, repeatedly. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone with any sense will see this as another attempt to retaliate against a Brit" Come again? Sheodred (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derailed, no – that's your retort, unsupported by anyone else. I challenged the proposal, and people saw my argument as stronger. I only derailed your agenda, which is evident in your contribs. And I think it would be good for an admin to review your changes to biogs, removing British/Anglo-Irish references and rewriting Irish, to see if there is a major issue here. Enough for a Topic Ban, perhaps.

Also, note [11] I am not the only one you have attacked as "British POV pusher". That's about 4 I count now. Me, Malleus, Sean, and her. So... speak up? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologised and so did she and noted my error,and also retracted my POV statement here [[12]],

[13] *sigh* Removing a convo from talk doesn't hide it from view, and only brings into question whether you actually have something to hide, whilst flaunting my "past". Needless to say, I did warn you to expect a boomerang here. Doesn't help your case when you keep throwing it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find comments from Sheodred in his opening statement such as "He has been blocked before for personal attacks" to be extremely prejudicial and rather revealing. What has what happened before got to with what's happening now? Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I find your comments about blocking all Irish editors] prejudicial to your contributions here. Mo ainm~Talk 23:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments derive from years of bitter experience with Irish Republican POV pushers; my unswerving opinion is that they're better out than in. But I am not the one laying charges here, that would be Sheodred; it's entirely inappropriate to attempt to colour the jury's impression by drawing attention to alleged past misdemeanours while deliberately ignoring one's own. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see 'reinforcements' for Marcus have arrived, to answer your question Malleus it is relevant as we are dealing with the same problem that Marcus has been blocked before for, "prejudicial" no, "revealing" of his continuing belligerent and offensive conduct, yes that is the point. Sheodred (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three diffs are provided at the top as evidence of "Personal attacks and incivility". I see no personal attack. I see incivility. There's another place where that can be brought up. The enthusiasm with which MarcusBritish contributes to talk pages can indeed be wearying, but there's no reason to discuss it here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If enthusiasm is a bad thing, I stand guilty as charged. I type just as much when it relates to articles; verbose is my nature. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all you have observed is incivility I suggest you read the discussion that he derailed and disrupted, more carefuly.Sheodred (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst your comments on Talk:Ernest_Shackleton#Anglo-Irish are perfectly civil, right? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus, responding to incivil comments in kind is obviously a good reason, but rarely a good excuse. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you stick "Personal attacks and incivility" right at the start of your report if you actually meant something else? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please determine why Seodred keeps spamming my page with notifications, despite this thread being an hour old? [14] [15] Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's moving this to WQA. As such, I'll close it here. 28bytes (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wgfinley's conduct on A/E

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ADMINACCT

This was originally a request on WP:A/E that has been migrated here because it is not under the scope of A/E apparently.

WGFinley has seemingly lost sight of his of his duties as an Administrator on Wikipedia. As to why I feel this has happened, I will not speculate it was do to his preference towards a certain POV, unwillingness to admit a mistake or even flat out arrogance, because I quite frankly see that as irrelevant. This all stems from his adjudication of the User:Jiujitsuguy case. In quick summary, Jiujitsuguy violated WP:Consensus (in particular WP:Legality of Israeli settlements), by removing reference to Katzrin being an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights. Jiujitsuguy later self-reverted. Something is important to note here: that although the complaint was originally filed for JJGs removal of a consensus statement, more diffs were added which shows that Jiujitsuguy deliberately abused sources to push a certain POV. This was especially concerning considering JJGs recent expiration of a topic-ban of, which he received largely for misrepresenting sources.

I am not going to copy the text verbatim, but it is clear to see from JJGs most recent A/E case he distorted sources to push a POV that Mount Hermon is in Israel. Both User:EdJohnston and User:Timotheus Canens both seemed to agree that there was an issue with JJGs sources and were willing to discuss the matter. But WGFinley was not interested at all. WGF was asked multiple times to please address the issue of JJG misrepresenting sources, he either did not, or claimed that he already did. I still, until this very second, have no idea where he purportedly addressed the issues.

JJG source misrepresentation diffs:

13 Nov 2011 Claims Mt. Hermon is in Israel by using the Fodor's Travel Guide source and the quote he cites in the ref, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain," but leaves out, "at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." The full quote should read (with the strikethroughs being what JJG omitted), "Mt. Hermon -- famous as Israel's highest mountain, ~~at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory.~~" (see the source here)
13 Nov 2011 Uses this source to claim Mt. Hermon is in Israel, although the source clearly writes, "Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights."

Besides the multiple requests on the A/E thread, WGF was asked on his talk page to explain the issue:

30 Nov 2011 Asked by User:Malik Shabazz to address JJG misrepresenting sources after prematurely closing the A/E thread without seeing T. Canens latest post calling for a topic-ban
30 Nov 2011 User:Gatoclass brought to WGF's attention that the issue in A/E was misuse of sources
1 Dec 2011 Matter brought to attention, again by User:Nableezy with request for an explantion
1 Dec 2011 Asked by myself to, again, address the issue of misrepresentation of sources

WGF's confusion of the matter was further illustrated by claiming that JJG had "self-reverted" himself at Mount Hermon, which he never did (see Mount Hermon's history):

30 Nov 2011

This was the only other time WGF even brought up JJG and Mount Hermon in the same post. Neither of the diffs refer to him addressing misrepresentation of sources at all, whatsoever:

30 Nov 2011

Additional comments

Lets pretend for a second that we want to accept WGF's position that Nableezy was uncivil and, therefore, WGF wouldn't want to respond to someone who was acting to so "uncivil" towards him. Fine. But what is the excuse for the other three editors who posed the same question? WP:ADMIN clearly states, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." WGF can't just say he has responded to something he didn't even respond to push the issue aside. He should be accountable for his actions, he can't use ambiguity to disguise bad judgement calls he has made as an admin. He seems to have an issue with editors questioning decisions he makes, as is evidenced by the amount of "discussion closed" hats he places on his talk page.

But what has become even more hard to bear in this whole debate is the fact that some admins are only catching the tail-end of the situation and noticing Nableezy's perceived "incivility", without even understanding the context of the situation. By doing that, some admins seem willing to sacrifice one "uncivil" editor to better the so-called "Project", but not look at the larger issue of POV-pushing and falsification of sources. Being an admin on A/E is not about personal vendettas or tallying up blocks and bans, it is about using tools in a proper way to make the encyclopedia experience more reliable for the average person trying to get information on a topic based on a simple Google search. This admin, in particular, has decided that a more important issue for A/E is the is an editors perceived incivility, but not one editors manipulation of sources that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. I find that extremely distasteful.

I don't think WGF's adminship should be recalled, but I do think he should not be allowed to adjudicate anything further relating to ARBPIA. He should also be reminded, that he should be required to give a clear response when serious questions (like falsification of sources) are asked to him. -asad (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Deletion review close request

Non free deletion review discussion requires closure - an admin with experience in non free file usage and the foundations statement as regards such usage would be beneficial to a closing rationale , at discussion - open around eight days, with no comments for the last three days. Youreallycan (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 290: / Line 290: @@
 == [[User:MarcusBritish]] ==
+{{discussion top|Moved to WQA. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)}}
 Personal attacks and incivility
@@ Line 339: / Line 339: @@
 :Can someone please determine why Seodred keeps spamming my page with notifications, despite this thread being an hour old? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarcusBritish&action=historysubmit&diff=465533980&oldid=465529845] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarcusBritish&action=historysubmit&diff=465541677&oldid=465537693] '''[[User:MarcusBritish|<font color="#003399">Ma<font color="#CC0000">&reg;&copy;</font>usBr<font color="#CC0000">iti</font>sh</font>''']]&nbsp;<sup>&#91;[[User talk:MarcusBritish|Chat]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[WP:RDP|RFF]]]</sup>''' 23:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
+::Looks like he's moving this to WQA. As such, I'll close it here. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
 == Wgfinley's conduct on A/E ==

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

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