Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 54: Line 54:


== Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule" ==
== Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule" ==
{{Archive top|result=Per unanimous consensus and no objection, the restriction requiring that any reversion be discussed has been removed from the article.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)}}


{{La|Golan Heights}}
{{La|Golan Heights}}
Line 112: Line 113:
*'''Support''' '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 17:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 17:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
In this thread, nobody has spoken up in favor of retaining the restriction, so it looks like it will be lifted. Unless some hitherto uninvolved admin wants to come by and declare the sense of this thread I will enact a closure in a few hours. The wording of the restriction is given in the box above, and it applies only to the [[Golan Heights]] article. Currently the restriction forces all reverts to be discussed on the Talk page. That discussion requirement is to be lifted but the 1RR remains in effect, since it applies to all of the ARBPIA articles. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
In this thread, nobody has spoken up in favor of retaining the restriction, so it looks like it will be lifted. Unless some hitherto uninvolved admin wants to come by and declare the sense of this thread I will enact a closure in a few hours. The wording of the restriction is given in the box above, and it applies only to the [[Golan Heights]] article. Currently the restriction forces all reverts to be discussed on the Talk page. That discussion requirement is to be lifted but the 1RR remains in effect, since it applies to all of the ARBPIA articles. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
*I did what Ed said he planned to do. For clarity and in case I forgot something, this is what I did: (1) I removed the discussion restriction on the talk page of the article; (2) I changed the editnotice to remove the discussion requirement; and (3) I logged what I did at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]]. I will now close this.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== [[User:Chutznik]] asking for an unban (basically) ==
== [[User:Chutznik]] asking for an unban (basically) ==

Revision as of 01:18, 29 November 2012





    

    

    
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

    

    


    Shortcuts
    


    

    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)

    


     
    Template:Active editnotice
    

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

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

    

      

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


      


      Shortcuts
      

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

      

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

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

      

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

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

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

      

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

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

      

      

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

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

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


      

      

      


      

      Technical instructions for closers
      

      

      


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

      

      

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


      

      

      

      Other areas tracking old discussions
      


      Administrative discussions
      

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Adamantine123_from_caste_topics
      

      (Initiated 7 days ago on 10 October 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

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

      Requests for comment
      

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline
      

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 9 August 2024)

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG.  The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain
      

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 17 August 2024) 
Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      


      Talk:RfC re including chart quantifying increase in election denial rhetoric
      

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 17 September 2024)
A RFC on a WP:BLP that is winding down and could use a close from an experienced closer. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?
      

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 25 September 2024)
Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

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

      Deletion discussions
      


      
XFD backlog


      
V

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Total

      

      
CfD

0

0

0

2

2

      

      
TfD

0

0

0

3

3

      

      
MfD

0

0

5

0

5

      

      
FfD

0

0

0

0

0

      

      
RfD

0

0

0

39

39

      

      
AfD

0

0

0

0

0

      

      

      (Initiated 7 days ago on 9 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

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

      Other types of closing requests
      

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

      (Initiated 142 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]

      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk)  07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

       @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month.  Might be best for someone else to close.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024
      

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"
      

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days.  TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations
      

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond
      

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024
      

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_1_October_2024
      

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM #8, 257 comments, 54 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down, and all arguments have probably been stated at least once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Now closed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

       Done by Vpab15 (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      Range blocks
      

      Could an admin familiar with range blocks take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer and see if anything can be done with blocking this person?  I'm concerned that what we're catching of his vandalism might be the tip of the iceberg, and articles are being distorted with his misinformation without being discovered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      From which IPs has this vandal most recently been active? AGK [•] 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      are some that I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Also

      

      Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Knowing nothing whatsoever about filter construction: is it possible to block certain key words only if they came from 71. or 96. addresses? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't know about the edit filter question, so I've asked here. Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Apparently the answer is yes, you can have edit filters limited to IP ranges. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

       The latest IP used by this vandal is:

      

      Only two edits so far, but it's clearly him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


      

      OK, I created Special:AbuseFilter/506. We'll need to let it run log-only for a few days to be able to see what kind of edits it's catching and thus determine how we need to refine it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Thank you, that's excellent news.  Please let me know if there's anything I can do to assist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule"
      

      

      

      Per unanimous consensus and no objection, the restriction requiring that any reversion be discussed has been removed from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      

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

      

      

      

      Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      ANEW report

      I need some help from those more knowledgeable about these sanctions and what discretion admins have to impose extra restrictions on articles (not editors). Apparently, in 2010, User:WGFinley, whom I've contacted but who hasn't been around for a couple of months due to more exciting things in his personal life, imposed an extra restriction on the Golan Heights article that not only limits editors to 1RR (typical) but also requires every content reversion to be explained on the article talk page. Guy added a separate notice to that effect on the talk page and changed the edit notice so editors are also warned when they edit the article.

      My first question is can Guy do that? If the answer is yes, how is such a restriction removed? I'm struggling to see what authority an admin has to impose a restriction on an article that doesn't appear to have been supported by the ArbCom decision itself. Imposing it on editors, which has been done, makes sense to me, but much less so on articles. It's a fairly onerous restriction on all editors who edit that article. I seriously doubt it's being followed or that editors are being even-handedly sanctioned for not heeding it, but I haven't researched that. Even assuming we (admins) have the discretion to do such a thing, there must be some guidelines as to when it's appropriate and when it's not. After all, here, it's been in place for over 3 years. Ironically, the editor who's been accused of violating it was at one time under such a restriction as an editor, but that restriction expired (or was lifted).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      No, he can't. That's not the intent of discretionary sanctions -- I'd fix the editnotice if I could but I ain't got the bits for it. NE Ent 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'll investigate the specifics, but those sorts of restrictions can sometimes be implemented as a result of AE threads; we did it some months ago at Nagorno-Karabakh.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      It was done as arbitration enforcement in this thread. It can be removed via a thread at WP:AE. MBisanz talk 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Such restrictions have been allowed for some time. Mass killings under Communist regimes was actually placed under article-specific restrictions through AE. The success rate and practicality of these more nuanced restrictions would be another matter for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Indeed, ArbCom has been asked several times about such restrictions, and they have, without exception, been seen as valid uses of the discretionary sanctions system. Whether this one would be upheld if appealed to AE or the Committee I do not know, but the idea of article-level sanctions is pretty much been settled. Courcelles 06:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      

      • So, let's see if I can crystallize this a bit based on the above comments:
      

      1. Any admin can impose an article-level sanction like the one Guy did.
        2. 

      2. Such a sanction can be appealed to ArbCom.
        3. 

      3. Can an admin remove such a sanction without going to ArbCom, or would that be viewed in the same way as unblocking a user who was sanctioned?
        4. 

      4. Are there any guidelines for imposing such a sanction or for the duration of the sanction?
      

      --Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      The standard rules governing appeals of AE sanctions apply; you can either go to ArbCom or try to get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to lift the sanction.
      There is no special guideline for article-level sanctions that I'm aware of. T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks, Timotheus, particularly for the link. The lack of a guideline is disturbing because I don't even know how to justify a request to terminate the additional restriction if there's no guideline for its imposition in the first instance. Perhaps a trip to AE will clarify some of these problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • The discretionary sanction authorization states "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working" (emphasis mine). It does not say an uninvolved administrator can make up new rules for a page.
        • 

      • The procedures say "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" -- is there any evidence this was done?
        • 

      • A cursory review of article history and talk history shows the "must use talk page" restriction is clearly not being followed. Drawing a line in the sand and then not enforcing breeds contempt, not respect. And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions clearly states it can be overturned by consensus here (WP:AN).
        • 

      • Given the widespread ignoring of the restriction, how can an editor reasonably file a AE request for enforcement without running afoul of the "unclean hands" warning at AE? NE Ent 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • @Ent, I tend to agree with everything you've said, although I confess that I haven't macheted my way through the thicket of policy, practice, arbitration decisions, etc. What enforcement action would we be overturning if we had a consensus here? Guy's? If so, Timotheus already made that point. Perhaps seeking clarification would be a better way to go. I'm musing as much as anything because connecting the dots in these things gives me a headache.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I will say that one of the biggest problems with this sanction has been editors pushing for enforcement without clearly notifying the party violating the restriction. Nowhere do I see that Gilabrand was ever made aware of this article-specific restriction. However, Gilabrand does appear to have violated the standard ARBPIA 1RR on another article ([2] [3]).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • In theory, one doesn't have to be specifically warned. That said, it is on the article talk page, just as the other restrictions are, and it pops up in an edit notice box when you edit the article, meaning there is as much warning as there is for the 1RR restriction itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • The edit notice isn't markedly different from the standard 1RR edit notice. Editors who are already aware of the 1RR are likely to ignore the notice, thinking it is just the standard one. Personally, I find that quite a lot of editors tend to not pay attention to edit notices. My view is that such notices should not be taken the same as a user talk page notification, which is much less likely to be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Gilabrand personally received a notice with the rules:[4]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok, I did not see that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Supreme Deliciousness is a walking historical reference for this stuff. It's impressive and almost scary. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      • Having read some twenty line truth table edit notices on user talk pages -- If it's Tuesday and it's about an image, I'll reply on your page, but on Wednesday ...  -- I pretty much ignore them. NE Ent 22:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Well, looking further, it seems Gilabrand has been previously sanctioned in a very similar fashion and has been notified of the specific restriction on the Golan Heights article, in addition to recently violating 1RR on another article. I think maybe this should have been taken to AE given that the article-specific restriction is not a simple 1RR, but there does appear to be sufficient cause for action against Gilabrand. Any administrator reviewing this discussion could take action per the discretionary sanctions.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • There is a fairly technical reading of the discretionary sanctions provisions that allows such sanctions, as explained in Kirill's comment in this old request for clarification.
        Sanctions like this are usually lifted either when they are no longer necessary or if they have proven unworkable.
        I'd prefer any complaint against Gilabrand to be filed at AE so that we have a more orderly presentation than this mess of a thread. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • However in the same thread Risker notes "Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely" and Carcharoth noted "articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely," As the restriction is two years old it's reasonable to address whether the sanction should remain in place. NE Ent 02:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • It might be worth noting that the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions does allow "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" which does not require as much of a technical stretch of the older wording.  That said, Risker's caveat that it is wise to periodically review article-level sanctions for continued relevance is also appropriate.  — Coren (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Are there any admins that wish to monitor the discussion requirement at Talk:Golan Heights? At present the complete edit notice says: 
      In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.
       
      

      Though I see no problem with this being a valid restriction which an admin could impose under discretionary sanctions, I'm not sure it is doing any good. People keep forgetting that this restriction exists. Why not abolish it for now. A consensus here (of uninvolved editors) could lift the restriction. Any admin could reimpose it in the future if they are persuaded there is a need. AE retains plenty of authority to deal with edit-warring at Golan Heights if it is found to be a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I don't find the ArbCom clarification decision on the Armenian article to be very satisfying. Although the arbitrators discuss the 1RR restriction imposed by the admin (back in 2008 - the decision was in 2010), it was not just a 1RR restriction but also a requirement, as in the Golan Heights article, that any reverter explain their revert on the talk page. Yet the arbitrators don't mention that. In addition, although there is a "warning" on the article talk page, the edit notice on the Armenian article doesn't include a warning about the explanation requirement. And those restrictions have now been in place for 4 years - has anyone even checked whether the talk page explanation requirement is being enforced?
      

      I agree with Ed. We should remove the explanation restriction imposed at Golan Heights. There seems to be no current justification for it, and enforcement appears to be completely uneven. I do a lot of closures at ANEW, and I'm not at all happy with the inherent unfairness of blocking one editor for failing to explain, yet allowing so many other editors to do the same thing but not be sanctioned. It's already hard enough looking through the edit history of these articles, which is often heavy, because I don't look just at the conduct of the person reported but at the conduct of other editors as well (that's typical in any ANEW report).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      I also agree with Ed that we should remove the explanation restriction as no longer being necessary or reasonable to maintain the article's integrity. MBisanz talk 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Proposal to lift Golan Heights restriction
      

      The restriction on the Golan Heights article requiring that editors explain reverts on the talk page is lifted. General 1RR restriction on article imposed by the ARBPIA case is unaffected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


      In this thread, nobody has spoken up in favor of retaining the restriction, so it looks like it will be lifted.  Unless some hitherto uninvolved admin wants to come by and declare the sense of this thread I will enact a closure in a few hours. The  wording of the restriction is given in the box above, and it applies only to the Golan Heights article. Currently the restriction forces all reverts to be discussed on the Talk page. That discussion requirement is to be lifted but the 1RR remains in effect, since it applies to all of the ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


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

      

      User:Chutznik asking for an unban (basically)
      

      

      

      Chutznik has withdrawn his request and claims to have left Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      

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

      

      

      

      Although he had large number of socks in the past he says he has been clean in the mean time, and claims that he complied with WP:OFFER. His unblock request has been pending for a while. I think it's best that this is dealt with by the community. Thoughts? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


      

      The standard offer

      It's simple:

      

      1. Wait six months without sockpuppetry.
        2. 

      2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
        3. 

      3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
      

      

      

      • Note that WP:OFFER is an essay, and one that not all editors agree with (and probably even less do in its watered down version). Fram (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Furthermore, Chutznik is under the mistaken impression that the offer automatically grants them a review at the end of 6 months, in a sort of "I did my part, now you do yours" type of bargain and the fact that they're fighting tooth and nail for his interpretation to be the interpretation isn't exactly the sort of attitutde that would encourage me to say "sure, let him back in". Blackmane (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Anyone who wants to comment on this unblock might take a look at User talk:Chutznik#Standard offer unblock request. If he would take a break from the legalisms of the unblock process and explain what he intends to do differently in the future, things might be more promising for him. This editor did a lot of good work but also some strange things. A sincere moment of reflection on his past problems would be very welcome. His belief that he should be allowed back until the exact moment that he starts to mess up again is unconvincing. He should explain what he'll do differently so he doesn't mess up again. If he has plans for any content work he should mention that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Support unban - Bans are pointless. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        Are you ever going to explain why they are pointless? And for the record, I don't believe this user is technically banned. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        Regardless of how this discussion ends, we'll have a clear ban situation when this concludes: either we'll end up with an unblock decision, or the community's refusal to permit an unblock will be interpreted as a community ban, per WP:CBAN.  Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Nope We don't need to start all this nonsense all over again. Jtrainor (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose per the section that EdJohnston linked.  These comments indicate that he's not doing this in complete good faith and that an unblock will likely be succeeded by more problems very quickly.  Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose, this user has very problematic past and his recent unblock indicates that there is a considerable chance that he will return to his old ways if unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose, sure we might say we can always re-ban/block if old behavior resumes, but I'm not sure it's that easy. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose based on the behavior I'm seeing on his talk page. Apologies and prostration are not necessary, but recognizing that it's possible to be wrong and it's useful to listen to other people when they try to help you are. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose - I'm reading the unblock request right now and I couldn't stomach half of all those blocky messages he's making. One thing's for sure, he's crying "It's so unfair!" in most of them and the fact that there was a big-wall unblock request a month ago and his rebuttals to Boing!'s rejecting of it doesn't look good for his case. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      

      Archiving my talk page
      

      

      

      Fixed by Nyttend and explained by Writ Keeper.  --Nouniquenames 04:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      

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

      

      

      

      I would like to create archives #6-10 (so that I can archive, and so I would not have to come back here to bother you again. My current archive is full. When I do it, it says I need administrative privileges.  Please assist. Thanks.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Done.  I'm rather confused why this is an issue; perhaps it thinks that you have too many non-alphanumeric characters in these archive names?  Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yep, it's this line in the global title blacklist, I think:
      

      #URI like page titles
.*[?&]+[^=]+=[^&]+.*

      

      Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      

      Operation Pillar of Defense
      

      

      

      no adminstrative  action requested or required. Article is semi-protected but reporting user is autocomfirmed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      

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

      

      

      

      Hi, Israel casualties and injuries are different in some part of article Operation Pillar of Defense, please correct and match them to each other. I put this request on talk page of this article but nothing happen. --H.b.sh (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      No answer? --H.b.sh (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      See WP:SOFIXIT. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      

      Unblock request from User:Mythdon
      

      

      

      Unblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      

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

      

      

      

      Indefinitely blocked user Mythdon (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock - see User talk:Mythdon#Block/ban appeal. The history is that Mythdon was banned for six months in September 2009 after Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong, and was indefinitely blocked in March 2010, shortly after that ban expired, for reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#concerns_about_too_much_of_user:Mythdon_on_AN.2FI. I have not read this up and express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


      • From what I can see here, I was the one who originally referred him to  BASC, but as a possible avenue to unblock, not an exclusive one. For whatever reason Mythdon's replies indicate he did not (or thought he somehow could not) go that route. Maybe I am missing something but at the moment I don't see any reason a discussion here would not be an appropriate forum for making a decision as to whether to unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Original quote of FayssalF: "It is time for this account to have an indefinite break from Wikipedia affairs. The last ArbCom issue which involved you dates back to this ban. I see no sign of an improvement. If you want to appeal against this block, please use the appropriate steps that you are aware of. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)" - ergo, he could have gone community route (although, I guess, he wasn't getting through for a community review so he thought BASC was the only way?). Ergo, I think AN/ANI can hear it. (I think this is better as ANI material, though...?) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Unblock- that would have to be the most insightful and in-depth unblock request I have ever seen. I do not think Mythdon will cause any trouble in the future. Reyk YO! 05:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Unblock - I agree that the request shows great awareness of why Mythdon was blocked, and gives a positive report of the editor's future intentions.  I believe this is a case where "they can always be blocked again" applies, but would advise that the probationary period applied by ArbCom here remain in force for the proscribed 6 months. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Unblock per the concerns by Beyond My Ken.  This request is very insightful and in depth. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • I've just received an auto notification via e-mail (thanks to the message by JohnCD at my talkpage). I've been away myself for a long time. But since the notification concerns a case I worked on I decided to log in and participate here. After reading the ban appeal, I say unblock as per Beyond My Ken. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  08:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Unblock per a very comprehensive and convincing unblcok request. I do, however, still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      

      The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is open
      

      The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. Users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote. The election will run from November 27 until December 10. 

      Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates. 

      Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259. 

      Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

      For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz talk 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Admin smoke signals needed
      

      SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) deleted Template:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes with the explanation that it was T3: Unused, redundant template. It was neither unused nor redundant. The first instruction at WP:DRV says "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first", which is difficult if he is ignoring me. I thought one of you admins might call his attention to a ridiculous deletion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  05:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      So take it to DRV since he made it quite obvious he doesn't want to discuss it (with you anyway). Tijfo098 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      I've undeleted it. A contested speedy (not for urgent things like attacks or copyvios) is better served with undeletion and TfD if necessary. The template was not unused, but has a lot of redundancy with another one. Some solution for this can be discussed, but refusing even to give an explanation for a deletion is not the best way to handle this. If this had been posted at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, it would normally have been restored, so I see no reason not to do the same here. Fram (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I've notified Schumin. Would be interesting to hear why he's ignoring seemingly valid concerns from a number of editors. GiantSnowman 08:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the massive dispute at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25, this will probably land at ArbCom as NFCC round n+1. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Fantastic response to my AN notification on his talk page... GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Just to be clear about this; the template deletion/undeletion has nothing to do with NFCC. There may or may not be a more general problem with this admins recent deletions, but that's the only link between the NFCC ones and this one. Fram (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Seems we have an issue of WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."  This administrator has ignored calls to explain themselves on two different deletions with different editors.  Do we need to proceed to an WP:RFC/U?--v/r - TP 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Fram, thanks. I had been hoping for an undelete all along. I just thought that with two requests for reconsideration, he might do it himelf. My part in the issue is not such that I would want to lead an RFC. Since 5 of the 8 (7 of 10 if you count the title) links are redundant with {{Anita Loos}}, I understand that upon a quick review, an admin tasked with deleting a ton of stuff might mistakenly speedy this template. I will WP:AGF in regard to his intention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  15:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      While a deletion may be a mistake (we've all made them!), ignoring the concerns is not. TParis, I agree that RFCU is a good route to go down. GiantSnowman 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

       Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Admins closing as Delete even when the deletion discussion has a clear Keep consensus?. GiantSnowman 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      

      • If this admin is deleting image files against clear community consensus to retain them in the cases being made reference to here it should be understood that this admin has a long history of engaging in this practice often resulting in these deletions being reversed after a review is requested. This admin also has a history of arbitrarily removing long standing "non-free" images from articles even though they have been correctly justified and provided with complete conforming rationales for their use. After unilaterally removing the image files, the admin also usually then immediately deletes the images themselves without going through the normal community review process on the specious grounds that they are "orphaned" non-free files. These practices are contrary to both the spirit and letter of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • His methods and, um, highly personal theories have been a problem for years, as I commented in the DRV. At the very least he should be forbidden from deleting images himself and from using methods for getting them deleted that bypass explicit review. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I also had a problem with one of his recent image closes, not only on the merits of the close itself but with his failure to give me a meaningful response. The discussion on his talk page is now archived here; the FFD in question is here. postdlf (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • I was rather surprised at this particular close. The nominator brought forward a new reason against the deletion rationale. I was the only person saying "delete"  but stated my !vote was non-policy-based. More importantly, the curtailed discussion was unsatisfactory. I felt on a previous occasion I had been treated similarly.[5] Thincat (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • I appreciate that SchuminWeb may be feeling a little beat up on here, but in order to stave off an RfCU I really think he needs to stop by here and address these concerns. The response so far is not ideal; I hope he reconsiders. I'd love to have him stick around here helping with admin tasks, but the accountability thing is not optional. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Agreed - his comment that "Apparently this has brought every person with whom I've ever disagreed in nearly eight years here out of the woodwork" is ridiculous; I can't speak for anyone else but I don't ever think I've ever interacted with SW before. It seems like a way of deflecting valid criticism. GiantSnowman 10:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I have spelled it out as best I can. I really can't do any more than that - I fully predict that if this gets to RfCU, he'll feel trapped in a corner and - boom - we've lost another good editor :-( (though I'm willing to be proved wrong on that one) --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      • I appreciate what you're saying, but think a few moves ahead and put yourself in his shoes for a minute. He's done lots of edits that he sincerely believes are within policy and within good faith, and is suffering from editor fatigue. Do you honestly think that if you file a RfCU against him, he won't say "stuff this for a game of soldiers, I'm off" and leave the project? The relevant deletion review is still active - let's wait and see what the result of that is before acting in haste. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • If there are genuine concerns regarding an editor behaviour that give rise to a valid WP:RFC/U filling, then it should be filed. Otherwise every problem editors who are having their conduct questioned can just threaten to leave the project to stop any complaints in its track. -- KTC (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Ritchie, I don't want to lose an editor or an admin either, but I'm not willing to accept an "if you criticize me I'll leave" ultimatum from an administrator either. We simply have to hold admins to a certain standard of accountability, even if they find that annoying sometimes. If this were the first time he'd alluded to taking a break in the face of concerns about his admin behavior, that would be one thing, but it's not. I don't think he's a bad guy or anything, he just needs to engage with legitimate concerns and hopefully indicate he understands what people are telling him. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I think there's a bit of confusion over what I meant. I'm not talking about threatening to leave, I'm talking about actually leaving. As in, he voluntarily hands in his bit, gets desysopped, and puts {{retired}} on his page. The past precedent for this (amongst others) is EncycloPetey (talk · contribs), who, on failure to justify WP:INVOLVED, elected to leave WP and lost his bit in the process. To be honest, I see SchuminWeb's point of view - WP:FFD has a slightly different emphasis to WP:AfD as non-free files are in direct conflict with Wikipedia's pillar of free content, so cases for keeping them have to be watertight. Mind you, here Schumin wrote "I made a decision to close a large number of deletion discussions as delete that I knew would be unpopular because they're about people's precious television shows" so he really should have expected blowback on that, and responded to it, otherwise it's a somewhat misguided move. He could have just !voted delete as an editor and got an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I hear you, and I don't want to see him leave either, but if our only choice is to sweep legitimate concerns under the rug out of fear he might quit, that doesn't really leave us in a tenable position. 28bytes (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      • Speaking from my own experience as an editor and as an admin who has been involved in the project for close to a decade, it's an important responsibility to realize when it's time to take a break (whether from a particular area or from the project as a whole) because you're getting too personally worked up, and/or getting others too personally worked up. It's certainly nothing new for NFC issues to be contentious and emotional, so that kind of self-awareness and self-restraint is especially needed if you're going to work in that area. postdlf (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Reverted closure [6]. Purpose of this board includes discussion of administration methods, -- that does not imply every discussion must result in an administrative action. NE Ent 22:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Perhaps you could explain what forcing this back open (without even bothering to inform me you had undone what I consider an administrative action) is intended to accomplish? No formal sanction is even proposed, the subject of the discussion is not participating, the disputed actions are being discussed elsewhere. As I indicated in my close RFC/U is an appropriate forum if prolonged discussion of these issues is needed. What is the purpose of re-opening this?  Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I didn't force anything, I edited. It's not an administrative action. You don't know whether the participant is reading the thread or not, and the more users to go on record as expressing their disapproval the more powerful the message will be; therefore the purpose is to allow discussion to continue to see if anyone has anything else to say -- if they don't, the bot will get to it soon enough. The more appropriate question is what basis was there for Beeblebrox deciding the conversation was over? NE Ent 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Biased posting of Fram in my COI request concerning my own article talk page Frederic Bourdin
      

      

      

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

      

      

      

      Hello. 
I know now that it is discouraged to edit an article which is about yourself, but before I knew this, along with many other things I edited the article about me Frederic Bourdin. And I did that honestly, always with the true.
Until that day that I got in conflict concerning an edit of my article with the user Bbb23 . At the time because I was mad and it was unfair in my opinion, I got myself blocked for making legal threats and then socking.
I, then, asked help to Jimmy Wales, Jimbo talk page as to how to get out of this mess, he showed me the path and now I'm not blocked anymore. He also advised me (Jimbo) to make a COI request to edit my article and that's what I did.
But there is a problem, this user Fram who is not neutral because of his involvement with Bbb23 concerning me ( Bbb23 ) asked him his help concerning the problem he had with me), is trying to make my COI request fail with biased speech on my article talk page.
I have asked him to refrain from discussing my COI request since he is personally involved but he refuse to do so.
He claims that all my reliable sources supporting my COI request should be ignored because, basically, I'm me ((Frederic Bourdin]]
Can someone help me with this ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francparler (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

      

      Closing this as you've also posted at ANI. GiantSnowman 13:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

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

      

      

      I saw an ad for this on my Facebook page a couple of minutes ago: http://www.wikiexperts.us/

      The ad reads, "We write, improve, translate, monitor, update and protect Wikipedia profiles." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      One of many companies out there - and unfortunately there's no policy against paid editing. GiantSnowman 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      However, their logo incorporates the "wiki-globe" logo, which is in fact copyrighted. I'm going to find someone from the legal team and let them know about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I let them know a couple of weeks ago - they're pretty overworked right now. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Legal is well aware of these guys.  It's being worked.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I take it the old "send the, a letter from a lawyer and that should be the end of it" trick didn't work? It usually does in cases like this, but maybe these guys are more the stubborn type. (consider this a rhetorical question, I realize it is unlikely you would post the intimate details of a legal proceeding here) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      unnecessary protection
      

      Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates is protected contrary to policy; see prior discussion Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#protection.3F and Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#24_November_2012. Could somebody unprotect, or, actually give a policy based rationale for its protection?  NE Ent 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Isn't there a thread about this on another talk page already? (Which I think you linked to.) Why the need for another venue? - jc37 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion died there. NE Ent 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It didn't really die.  It served its purpose and concluded.  It would seem you just don't like the outcome.  The page will likely be unprotected after the election.  Until then, it can stay.  Has been done this way a while. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      High-visibility page.  Important to an ongoing, time-limited, wikipolitically-sensitive process.  No good reason for non-admins (or, really, admins, except under very limited circumstances) to make any modifications.  Not an article or talk page.  The lack of previous vandalism doesn't negate the value of preventive protection; even one instance of serious vandalism could affect the (perceived) integrity of the election process.  I own a fire extinguisher, even though I don't plan to need it.
      

      Beats me if some or all or any of those are explicitly within the word of the policy, but they're all in the spirit.  Do you have a good common sense reason to unprotect, or are you just stirring the pot? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I would say that is beyond the explicit scope of the protection policy. For reference, last year, afaik, the only page we protected was the official questions page, and that was because we wanted to make sure that the same version was transcluded for each candidate, also not strictly speaking within the scope of the policy. Monty845 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Just an observation here, but I'd suggest that drawing attention to the page here, and asking for protection to be removed, is a sure-fire way to ensure that the page will be vandalised if it is unprotected... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      I think protection is appropriate here. There are 3 necessary questions which need to be asked in determining this for any page:

      1. Would Wikipedia gain anything from non-admins editing the page? In this case, clearly not. No one should be eiting it.
        2. 

      2. Would limiting who can edit the page scare away potential users? No way; anyone who knows enough to find this page, unless sent there for disruptive purposes, is probably familiar enough with Wikipedia to understand that this page's integrety needs to be kept.
        3. 

      3. Would there be any harm to Wikipedia, its articles or its community if the page is edited disruptively? Here, the answer is yes; the integrety of te election depends on it.
      

      Since questions 1 and 2 show no reason for not protecting the page, and question 3 gives a reason for protection, the page should definitely be protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The 1 necessary question which should be asked is -- is the protection consistent with policy? Obviously not. With regards to Od Mishehu's strawman questions:

      1. Review of past year's pages show sporadic maintenance edits, e.g. category changes. No reason why that should require an editor with a sysop bit.
        2. 

      2. The issue is the continued spread of protection-itis -- we've see it with talk pages of blocked users, templates with lots of transclusions, templates with few transclusions -- where does it stop? Is the written policy a quaint anachronism, and the real policy -- if we can't up with a reason a peon editor should edit it, no harm done?
        3. 

      3. Integrity of the election? Absurd, voters cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259. -- does editing the candidate page change the contents of the voting page?
      

      When I inquired at the talk page, the justification given was a. there wouldn't be any need to protect it, and b. it was standard operating procedure. Review of past year's pages shows both reasons to be untrue. I was just wondering if anyone could come up with a reasonable explanation consistent with written policy and the anyone can edit meme of Wikipedia. I'm disappointed but unfortunately not surprised no one has thus far. NE Ent 00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      So no specific reason why it should be unprotected then, beyond the usual 'slippery slope' fallacy... As for your suggestion that editing the page couldn't affect the integrity of the election, supposing someone vandalised it by adding negative material to a candidate's statement? In any case, 'anyone can edit' may be a meme, but it sure as hell isn't policy - we restrict editing all the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Request to lift a topic ban
      

      This is a request to lift the indefinite topic ban that is currently imposed on me (User:Alan Liefting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) on non-mainspace category related edits. The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Topic ban for Alan Liefting and it attracted eight editors in support of a topic ban.  Of those editors three used the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum and one gave no supporting arguments. That leaves four remaining !votes:

      

      • GiantSnowman based his/her !vote on the fact that I am removing categories from AfC pages that are present in content categories. She/he then proceeded to block me, calling it is disruptive editing. It is utterly ludicrous to describe the clean up of polluted categories as disruptive.
      

      • Andy Dingley suggested a wider topic ban than the one suggested. I am certain that Andy's !vote is coloured by a disagreement that we have had in the past on categorisation related edits. Interestingly, from what I read here he is supportive of some of the edits that actually caused the escalation of this issue.
      

      • Arthur Rubin based his !vote on previous discussions and the reasoning is unclear to me. He did not actually describe his concerns in the topic ban discussion (I hope the closing admin did due diligence and followed all the previous convoluted discussions!). Arthur had blocked me at one point for "Disruptive editing: Specifically, removing categories from AfC pages, rather than quoting them." To me, as well as others, it seems to be a very petty and heavy handed use of what is a very powerful admin tool.
      

      • postdlf has supported the ban saying that I am ignoring a "clearly demonstrated consensus" and cited an RfC in which I failed to get a guideline established based on what is done by convention. In the absence of policy or guideline what is wrong with editing to what is done by convention? To his/her credit postdlf has made attempts to resolve the issue, including talk page discussions and partaking in a proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories that I had instigated.
      

      It seems most of the editors involved with having the topic ban being imposed on me fail to see some of the unwritten conventions with respect to categorisation. If editors drill down from Category:Fundamental categories and Category:Main topic classifications (of which none of their subcategories have any images) it is easy to see that images  are not included in content categories. My contentious category editing, described as "disruptive" by some, is simply done to the prevailing convention, to ensure consistency, and to benefit the reader.

      Note that prior to having the topic ban placed on me a huge amount of my editing was focussed on categorisation. That, coupled with my high edit count inevitably led to differences of opinion and these differences are but a small part of my editing history. Additionally, categories are not visited as often as articles, and image pages probably even less so.  I have now wasted a huge amount of time and energy in defending myself on this issue with absolutely no benefit to the project.  We are volunteers but that does not mean that our time and energy can be wasted. We should also put things into context - cost-benefit analysis and all that.

      Fram, the nominator of the topic ban, apparently has a prediliction for hounding some of the high edit count editors. See this and  this. Fram's actions, coupled with my talk page stalkers and the bad blood between myself and a few editors appears to have escalated the issue.  Also, in the case of the edits mentioned in the nomination I don't understand why the WP:BRD process was not used. And given that Fram expressed some uncertainty on the reason for my edits in the nomination trotting off to WP:AN is very poor form.

      Given the foregoing rationale I argue that the topic ban is based on poor decision making and it does nothing to assist with building Wikipedia.  I would also like to point out that I am on occasion asked for guidance on category related edits by editors who find the categorisation of pages a bit confusing. This should surely indicate that I am seen as somewhat of an expert on categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Counter proposal
      

      Given the frequency of his appeals to this ban I propose that Alan be prohibited from posting further appeals for a period of six months, and limited to one request for lifting it every three months thereafter. Failure to abide by these restrictions would result in escalating blocks, as with the original ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      • Support As proposer. The initial ban was in fact based on consensus, and that consensus was upheld the last it was appealed by Alan. While he is free to disagree with the ban, he does need to just accept it and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      So how many times have I appealed the topic ban?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You just had an appeal denied a few weeks ago [7] and you have been blocked a few times for violating it. This kind of WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      I had completely forgot about that appeal. I think this whole messy issue is making my brain go soft. Maybe I should seek another venue? Or would that smack too much of forum shopping? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes it would. This is an entirely appropriate venue, the problem is the brief time frame between appeals. Since you now claim not to remember doing this barely two weeks ago a formal restriction to help you remember seems even more apt. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      I will reiterate - there is a convention whereby images are not included in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The word you chose—"convention"—makes me think that you refer to a poorly defined practice with which others disagree. If the images were not allowed in content categories because of an explicit guideline I'm sure you would have said so. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Firstly, to say "not allowed" is not really the sort of language used with respect to editing wikis. As I have stated there is an unwritten convention to separate images and content (as well as templates etc). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Then why were you reverted? Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      My edits are reverted because of a difference of opinion and because some editors are not making themselves familiar with what is common practice. Surely you see it happening yourself? Everyone from newbies to the long in the tooth wiki-heads make edits that are reverted because they are not completely familiar with every single aspect of Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia has become a very complex beast making it virtually impossible for an editor to be fully conversant with the whole shebang. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      And I could argue that my request is not being given due consideration. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      Can you please explain to everyone what was wrong with my conduct? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Oppose I continue to hope that Alan Liefting will come to the understanding that the pattern of editing he still wants to undertake is disruptive and agrees to stop. I would trust him if he pledged to do so, and don't see a reason he should be made to wait 6 months if he does come to that understanding. That said, I also oppose lifting the topic ban until that time. Monty845 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Support Alan still appears to have no comprehension as to what the original problem was and sees this merely as a Gulliverian attempt by the little people to tie him down. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Can you please explain to me and to editors unfamiliar with the issue what the actual problem is? And I take issue with your suggestion that I am not wiki-egalitarian. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=525465479"