Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 50 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)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations

(Initiated 766 days ago on 16 July 2022) Requesting formal closure due to current discussions over the reliability of the subject. CNC (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: - it doesn't look like this was ever a formal RfC, and I'm not really a fan of taking a 2 year old discussion to show the current consensus, given the number of procedural arguements within, and given that discussion is archived as well, I'm extra tempted not to change it (especially as I would be leaning towards a no consensus close on that discussion based on the points raised). Is a fresh RfC a better option here, given the time elapsed and more research into their reliability since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdann52 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor:  Not done Closures are intended to assess current consensus, not consensus from two years ago in an archived thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for both your replies, it's interesting to hear the assessment of no consensus from that discussion given previous/current interpretation of that discussion. It's looks like another RfC is needed after all then. CNC (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not an assesment of no consensus, that seems more like an assesment of no assesment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 111 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 108 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 108 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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 79 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 59 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)

(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)

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)

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)

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 51 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 49 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)

 Not done This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 48 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 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)

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Trimpops2 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This closure is terrible. There's no explanation on how the consensus was determined. 93.142.80.133 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 44 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 43 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)

 Not done no need for such a close ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 37 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 35 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 34 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 32 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Al Jazeera

(Initiated 4 days ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note, the second section is snowing harder than the first one. The second section is unanimous based on the time of this comment. starship.paint (RUN) 08:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Part 2 of the RFC has been closed. Thanks to ProcrastinatingReader. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
•  Done by ProcrastinatingReader and Hobit. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Does_the_community_still_want_moved_pages_to_be_unreviewed

(Initiated 31 days ago on 21 July 2024)Requesting a formal closure, initiated a while back, last comment 11 days ago. Sohom (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	37	37
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	6	41	47
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 265 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 10#What should the criteria of inclusion be for the state infobox?

(Initiated 99 days ago on 14 May 2024) Requesting formal closure on this archived discussion from three months ago due to a discussion on a sub-page of the main article. There is a claim that since it was never closed by an uninvolved party that it lacks consensus. As I have since been involved in a related discussion, I would not count as uninvolved under the criteria. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 88 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)

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

(Initiated 85 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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 83 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 73 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)

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)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 44 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

(Initiated 30 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 11 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_South_Korean_doctors'_strike#Requested_move_4_August_2024

(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 August 2024) Discussion started 4 August 2024. Last comment 8 August 2024. Except one editor who started edit in July 2024, others support move. Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Bazaan

Hello,

I am passing along a Standard offer unblock request from Bazaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This request was sent to UTRS. The user has requested that the content of the unblock request be forwarded to the noticeboard. The relevant content is as follows:

I agree to another Standard Offer if necessary, although it would be the second time. I would like the content of my unblock request to be forwarded to the noticeboard. I promise to never repeat the behaviour which led to my initial block, and the subsequent indefinite block.

Why do you believe you should be unblocked? It's been six months, please give me another chance. At least give me a rope.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Most South Asian, but wide ranging

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I purposefully brought a sock puppetry ban on my account. It's my fault. I have suffered enough, including tremendous personal attacks.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Plenty of accounts have been blocked in my name, although most aren't mine.

The ones used by me are Bazaan, Rainmaker23, Uck22, JKhan20 and Merchant of Asia.

The user has not received any additional blocks on the account and is therefore tentatively eligible for Standard Offer consideration. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• See Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. BMK (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• There were issues concerning Bazaan and his or her socks other then sockpuppetry itself, which the editor doesn't mention. Search on "Bazaan" in the noticeboard files. I'd like to hear what the editor has to say about that behavior. BMK (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've modified Bazaan's block to permit him to edit his talk page: if we're willing to consider unblocking someone, the situation isn't so bad that talk access should remain disabled, and it's easier if the user can post messages on his own talk page instead of relying on UTRS assistance. Nakon, would you mind sending Bazaan an email asking him to make further replies on his talk page? Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've sent User:Bazaan an email update regarding their talk page. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from the sockpuppetry, there was some copyright issues way, way back. Is there anything else, from a content perspective, that would merit a conditional unblock? By which I mean, an "unblock conditional on an acceptance of a topic ban in articles relating to XYZ." Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I may be unusually strict, but I oppose any sort of standard offer when there has been sockpuppetry/ I don't think that anyone who has engaged in sockpuppetry can be trusted at their end, at least not until the twenty-second century. That is my opinion. It just reflects a distinction between editors who make mistakes and editors who choose to game the system. I know that other editors are more forgiving than I am, and I am very forgiving of flaming, but not of sockpuppetryl Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Further note from Bazaan's talk page:

  I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.

  This was left as an unblock request, which I've declined because it wouldn't be right for me to unblock him as this discussion's still ongoing. It was a procedural decline (don't think of it as a frivolous request), and I've asked him to use {{helpme}} when writing future comments for this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Bazaan writes "I believe I have matured over time", but he also writes "The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further" and "I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences." These don't appear to me to be the statements of someone who has "learnt [their] lesson truly well", as they are still blaming others and not taking responsibility for their actions. And for an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to write "Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake." is not acceptable. Perhaps we can accept that one sockpuppet was a "mistake", but what about the other three they admit to? (That's assuming we can take their word that other accounts which were blocked as theirs were incorrectly identified.) I'm not yet closing the door on this, but, at least so far, I do not find the editor's comments to be persuasive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Although I'm often in agreement with BMK's opinions, in this case I do believe a few of Bazaan's statements are somewhat excusable. Articles about the sub continent can be very contentious considering articles about India and Pakistan ended up at Arbcom. Perhaps Bangladeshi articles should fall into that category given the nation's history with India, but that's a discussion for another page. The sockpuppetry issue is certainly of concern. Perhaps a quick check by a CheckUser would alleviate this concern. [Iff] no socking is revealed in the last 6 months, I could probably support a conditional unblock. Bazaan has admitted to having issues in Bangladeshi articles in the past and letting him back into this area may not be healthiest. If no socking is revealed, then I could support an unblock provided a 3 month topic ban from Bangladeshi articles is levied to encourage Bazaan to edit somewhere else so the community could regain some confidence and to truly prove that he has "matured over time". However, if socking is revealed within the last 6 months, then the offer is off the table. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have similar concerns to Blackmane; given how controversial such articles can be, and the past troubles this editor has had while editing them, Most South Asian, but wide ranging doesn't seem the best space to dive straight back into. Perhaps a 3-month topic ban from all sub-continent / South Asian articles would be a good place to start? GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• oppose unblock - I had edited with him and I would say that it was a bad experience. Yes he has evaded his block enough times for like a year, I can see that some of his nationalistic edits on Bangladesh subjects had been removed, a few more are still left to be checked. You need to read his unblock request, "My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV" or "I opened a second account after being blocked" and "I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system"[1] tells that he rejects that he was totally wrong with his blatant policy violations that he has made, which includes vandalism and block evasion. How he can be trusted with this? I understand that I had socked too but blaming others or failing to accept it is not good. Capitals00 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Cram101

Not sure were best to bring this up. Basically this group appears to has created 10s of thousands of textbooks based on Wikipedia content.[2][3]

They do not state the books are from WP.[4][5]

They appear to be created by artificial intelligence.[6]

Even the sample on their website is from us.[7]

We had a couple of dozen references to them which I have removed.[8] Have pinged legal to see if they are interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before [9], the official stance (in the form of a crafted template) that OTRS agents are directed to reply to tickets about reuse of Wikimedia content:

"Dear Stifle,

Thank you for bringing the reuse of Wikipedia content to our attention.

As you may be aware, we encourage other sites to reuse our content. Wikipedia contributors license their content using a license called the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), which allows reuse of text either in its original form or with modifications provided that certain conditions are met. There are hundreds of web sites that do this. A list of some of them is available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FORK

While we encourage all reusers to comply with the requirements of CC-BY-SA, including proper attribution for authors, we are aware of the fact that many web sites do not do so correctly. Thank you again for bringing this site to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Landry"

Just FYI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the difference here is that they're not just making $ selling WP content (which is fine), but grossly and blatantly ripping people off by misrepresenting what they're paying for. EEng (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy for them to use our content. These people also make textbooks based on Wikipedia content[10] but they at least attribute better (after I brought it to their attention).

The main thing is we cannot use derivatives of us to references ourselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We all know that we can't use circular references. And you shouldn't be happy for them to use our content -- not the way they do [11]. Commercial use is fine; repackaging WP's material in meaningless ways to rip people off isn't. I'm not saying we can do anything about it, just that it's not OK. EEng (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify I am okay with them using our content as long as they follow our license. It is unfortunate that Amazon and Google do not simply removal all these "books". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up and removing the uses. I've added them to the list of common book mirrors in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. Fences&Windows 01:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting login credentials for restricted online sources

I'd like to confirm if there is a consensus on posting credentials to access restricted online sources that are used as reliable sources. To me it somehow violates the spirit of WP:NOT, even if these same credentials might be somewhat readily available through other websites. It seems that Wikipedia would be aiding the circumvention of other websites' access restrictions.

I have warned a particular user about this in the past, but they have resumed this practice. Before taking action, I thought I'd get more feedback on this practice. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would expect that posting something that goes against the terms and conditions of another website (with potential legal ramifications from a non-lawyers perspective) wouldn't want to be something we keep here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I found essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, which also mentions that content should only be shared if it is legal, which would make sense for username/passwords as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If we're talking legal policies, I'm not sure an essay would cut it; seems like a policy or guideline would serve better, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about any particular database, it's very likely that WP:TWL has or is trying to reach an agreement with that database to provide access to Wikipedians. Someone posting login details for that database would potentially compromise those negotiations. I'm not sure of a particular prohibition against posting login/password information, but someone willing to do that is probably willing to share their Wikipedia account details somewhere else. See WP:SECURITY. It also sounds a bit like a WP:COPYLINK situation, except it's not a copyright problem but a contract problem. Finally, I feel like it probably violates the Wikipedia TOS, specifically the section on "Committing infringement", which covers more than just copyright. In fact, I feel like that's something you can hang your hat on, but I'd suggest asking for someone at WMF to look at the specific situation and, if necessary, enforce the TOS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The case I was initially referring to was a domain specific website, and not one of the more general repositories that TWL provides us access to.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, unless I misunderstand the concern you're addressing, I feel like this is a TOS-type issue which probably should result in a office action or something similar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of revision of two Arbitration motions

This serves as a notification that two previously announced Arbitration Committee motions ([12][13]) have been revised.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Bravo – that is much clearer than the originals. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Revdel requested

Can someone please Revdel this- I don't want company spam in the history of my talkpage, and it clearly meets criteria 3 for redaction- purely disrupted material. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable request to me, so consider it done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Could you also Revdel this as a grossly offensive edit summary? Thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is hereby disbanded. Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Complaints can be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-l). In the event of a committee member being the subject of the complaint, the complaint may be forwarded to any individual committee member. That committee member will initiate a discussion on one of the alternate mailing lists, with the committee member who is the subject of the complaint unsubscribed from the list for the duration of the discussion. Over the course of the investigation, the Arbitration Committee may draw upon the experience of members of the functionaries team to aid in the investigation.

Support: kelapstick, Doug Weller, Keilana, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, DGG, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, Salvio giuliano, Courcelles, Guerillero, Callanecc, Cas Liber

For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Committee by Kharkiv07 (T) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired

AUSC community members who do not hold CU and OS tools in their own right are given them during their period on AUSC. As their terms have now expired, the checkuser permissions of:

• MBisanz (talk · contribs)
• Joe Decker (talk · contribs)

and the oversight permission of:

• Joe Decker (talk · contribs)

are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.

Support: Doug Weller, DGG, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, Gamaliel, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Committee by Kharkiv07 (T) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired

Adding Template:Empty-warn-deletion and other post-deletion notices to Twinkle

Not sure about the rest of you, but I didn't even know these templates existed until recently. I have been doing a terrible practice of first using Twinkle to request speedy deletion, then deleting it (never mind if this was done too hastily, let's assume it wasn't). That way the user gets that important info they need about why the page was inappropriate, along with a welcome template, etc. I know of other admins who also follow this less-than-ideal procedure.

So, I thought this workflow should be incorporated into Twinkle. This would be a whole new interface change, that I figure would mimic the Block module. That is, you have a "delete page" checkbox, and another for "add deletion notice to user talk page". The latter would welcome the user if they haven't been already, and issue a deletion notice if they've haven't already received a notice about the page being nominated for deletion. We'd need to map each rationale to one of the existing post-deletion templates, or create a few new ones as needed.

Any thoughts or suggestions on this matter? Is this effort worthwhile - as in, would you use it!? =P

Related: Around midday GMT on 15 January I'm going to deploy a big update to the Twinkle CSD module. This will just make it so that admins can delete under multiple rationale, enter in URLs for copyright vios, etc, just like you can for requesting speedy deletion. More on that later! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cool! That sounds absolutely appropriate for certain types of speedy, like ones dealing with copyvio, since those almost never can be successfully contested. I'd be more concerned about enabling an instant A7 with no warning, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I had the same thought, however the page could have been up for a while with no modifications, in which case A7 without prior notice might be appropriate. I feel like Twinkle functionality can have a big influence on what users do, so maybe there should be an additional confirmation for certain criterion like A7 — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You wouldn't be "enabling an instant A7 with no warning", that option is available to every admin anyway, and some (many?) use it (I do, to give an example). Whether a page gets tagged for A7 by an editor and deleted two minutes later by an admin, or gets deleted straight away, won't make much of a difference for the user being informed / warned. I have no objection to the proposal, automatically informing the user isn't a problem, but this shouldn't be used to impose new restrictions on what can be deleted. Fram (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't want Twinkle to introduce any unaccepted restrictions. However there is a somewhat accepted norm to allow users some time to work on their article before deleting under less serious criterion like A7. I'm thinking once you hit submit to delete under any of the A-criteria (except maybe A2), Twinkle will check when the article was created. If was created say, less than 30 minutes ago, it will prompt if you are sure you want to proceed with deletion. This functionality should probably also be applied when requesting speedy deletion. The idea here again I think is not to enforce some practice, rather to recommend and/or make it easier to follow that practice — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Unless it's a copyvio / attack or something actually urgent, one editor should CSD tag it, and then another editor can delete it if they agree with the assessment. It's best to keep the "editor" and "administrator" roles separate. NE Ent 21:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Big update to Twinkle CSD module

I've just deployed a big update to the CSD module. You can now delete under multiple rationale, and the deletion summaries are generated by the corresponding speedy deletion template. This means they live in one place, and you don't need a Twinkle developer to update them. If a page is already been tagged for speedy deletion, the CSD module will presupply the edit summary created by the speedy template, just like it does now if you delete manually. You also can use the same parameters you can use when requesting speedy deletion. For instance, if you delete under G12 you can provide URLs which will appear in the deletion summary.

Other unrelated changes you'll notice are that talk pages now open in a tab by default, not a window. This change has been a long time coming, and I assume it will be welcomed by most. E.g. beforehand you needed to disable popup blockers!

Let me know if you have any issues. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This, and the section above, all sounds like good stuff to me. As a long-time Twinkle user, I thank you for all your hard work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, so to offer a promotional statement for those who haven't been using Twinkle to delete pages... Delete a page, it's talk page, and all of it's redirects, in as little as two clicks. If you have "When to go ahead and tag/delete the page" set to "As soon as I click an option" in your preferences, you can do all of this in one click. I don't really recommend that though, so as to avoid mistakes. Your choice! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff MA- have I also noticed a change in what happens in an edit-conflict- being able to save the changes without reloading the page? Or do I not know what I'm talking about??? Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm not sure, wouldn't have been part of this release — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well. Thank you for confirming I don't know what I'm talking about MusikAnimal. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I never really used Twinkle's CSD module as I thought t was a bit clunky. Just tried this out, seems much better, thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to community ban the "Best known for IP"

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

---

I think I personally have blocked the user described in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP about 15 times now, including several lengthy rangeblocks for chronic block evasion, edit warring and incivility, and I'm not the only admin to do this, and I'm now a bit fed up of blocking the same person for the same policy violations over and over again. Unlike most long-term abusers, he's never actually been community banned, merely repeatedly blocked ad infinitum after evasion. While this might seem like an exercise in pointless red tape, it does give us a firm consensus to say "you are banned, goodbye" without any possibility of wasting anyone's time arguing about it. Our banning policy does permit it, though it's rare. Your thoughts, please.

• Support as proposer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support their long term abuse page seems eminently justified. Any editor who is a long term abuser should also be site banned, in my opinion. Also, being an IP editor should not be a "get out clause" for chronic sockpuppetry. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support This editor has taken up far too much admin time. Any suggestions for long-term solutions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As is well known, I make only high quality edits, which are often reverted for no reason at all by a clique of editors who simply hate people without usernames. Ritchie333 has led a long term campaign of attacks against me, creating a policy violating page to coordinate them. He has a) blocked large ranges of anonymous IPs for months or years at a time in contravention of blocking policy, b) declared himself "involved" and unable to block me only to then block me, as he says, many times, c) abused the revision delete policy to delete my edits, with the claim that the word "idiot" is "grossly offensive"; d) encouraged others to revert my edits for no reason - see "Beyond My Ken"'s 200+ reverts last night; e) encouraged others to break the 3RR and to violate core policy; f) used his adminstrative tools to prevent spelling and grammar corrections being made to severely deficient articles, including acting to keep the word "should't" in an article for more than a year; g) encouraged a racist editor to remove sourced statements describing the reaction to a referendum, on the grounds that he finds them personally offensive.

I am not and have never been banned. I am not and have never been a "long term abuser", as falsely claimed here. An absurd block placed for spurious reasons by a subsequently desysopped admin is being used as justification for the most obscene attacks yet on my character and edits. It should be obvious who is causing the problems here. If you think that admin time is being wasted, then tell the policy abusing admins to stop wasting their time. If you'd only stop reverting and blocking for no reason at all, there would be no problem here. 85.13.238.124 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, stopping your attacks on me is the only plausible long term solution. I will never stop what I do here, because what I do here is write an encyclopaedia. 85.13.238.124 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying "I bet you pissed yourself laughing at the latest series of 50 or so pointless reverts, didn't you?" and then violating WP:3RR to edit war over it [14], [15], [16] [17] is not "writing an encyclopedia". I don't think I've ever done this, but I'm now going to formally ask you to stay off my talk page and never comment there again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment if you're so unfairly treated, can you explain all of your sock-puppetry? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never used sockpuppets. Why are you lying about me? Who are you, anyway? To the best of my recollection we've had no previous interaction whatsoever. 85.13.238.124 (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If have seen you keep the same IP for weeks, then switch within minutes of being blocked. You are not innocently changing IPs, you are deliberately doing it to circumvent policy. You sock puppetry is very real and intentional. You are not fooling anyone. HighInBC 17:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your LTA page makes it clear you have used IP hopping in a way that highly suggests it contravenes Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you disagree, to avoid doubt, you should edit from an account. If you were to do this I would support a fresh start. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Of course. Extremely disruptive editor. Actualy, the IP he's using now needs to be blocked for the same reasonm his other IPs were blocked yesterday. BMK (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You have made more than 10 reverts in the last 24 hours on more than 40 separate articles. You are engaging in extreme disruption. I only ever make high quality and highly necessary edits. You and your ilk don't like quality, do you? 85.13.233.118 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    • As a LTA, you are de facto banned and your edits will be reverted on sight. BMK (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Ritchie333 is entirely correct -- it is an exercise in pointless red tape Oppose NE Ent 14:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have no doubt that they appear "pointless" to you, but clearly other editors do not agree. We either have a blocking and banning policy, and we follow through with it, or we don't. Allowing long time abusers such as the "Best known for IP" to edit at will when they are under an active block, and are de facto banned as an LTA, is detrimental to the community, and an insult to those editors who actually try (obviously, not all of all always succeed) to edit according to the rules and policies of the space. If an LTA is given the freedom to evade their block/ban, why should anyone else feel obligated to follow any other policies? BMK (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Allowing this guy to continue is an admission that Wikipedia has no blocking policy. The fact that he improves articles by 0.1% on an occasional basis does not outweigh the interminable attitude, abuse and insults that he throws around and the incessant block evasion. He has even admitted on this page that he will "never stop". So can we effectively block someone or not? Contrary to his claims, his edits are moderately useful at best, very rarely "high quality" and he never writes anything anyway. He's 10% value, 90% tedious, disruptive childishness. He has sometimes been reverted for no reason, for sure, but if you revert him for a good reason, he will frequently tear into you with a tirade of disgusting abuse. Moreover, he has been allowed to do it for years and years. Unacceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban: I see nothing wrong with formalizing the ban. My understanding of the preference for leaving de facto bans as de facto is to avoid using noticeboard space in a formal ban discussion in a way that somewhat undermines the goals embodied in WP:DENY. Well, the die is cast: Ritchie333 made the thread. I'm not saying it was a mistake... it is certainly unusual to have someone on LTA who isn't banned, and maybe there's been trouble in dealing with this editor that isn't immediately obvious that would be aided by the mechanisms available for a formally banned user. In any event, as I said, I see nothing wrong with formalizing the ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban The guy's claim he only does quality edits isn't true. Its those occasions where his edits don't improve the encyclopedia that are the most problematic. He will return again and again, edit warring to impose his edits, whilst grossly abusing anyone who disagrees. He doesn't actually create content, never seen him create an article and the minor spelling corrections and grammar polishing he does do is not worth the problems he creates. WCM_email

15:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in several places, if any editor in good standing wants to restore any of this editor's contributions that I reverted (which are easily found by scrolling through my contribution list) and take personal responsibility for them, I have absolutely no problem with that. Several editors have already done exactly that, and I have not touched those restorations. BMK (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support ban LTA, edit warring, disruption, block evasion... A net negative to the project. Keri (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban Quality edits? Are you kidding me? That's a serious insult to those who are actually writing the encyclopedia. He's a negative to the project and a ban discussion is long overdue. Katie^talk 15:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban. All his edits at the moment are block evasion at this point, so even those that may be seen as constructive are problematic. Add the abuse makes the point perfectly clear for me. I'm not quite sure what difference a ban will make compared with the current situation (I don't think there are any tools not at our disposal that will become available if we get consensus), but it may be useful to make the position more unambiguously clear. Kahastok talk 16:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban Block evasion, abuse of editors, this guy needs to find another website. While the ban may not make much of a technical difference it will at least discredit his constant complaining that his blocks are unfair. HighInBC 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - while editing from different IPs, all by itself, isn't evidence of bad faith, doing so right after the old IP was blocked, repeatedly, is. If you add any other disruption bad enough to justify many of these blocks, then a ban is appropriate. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Persistent block evasion. It's well-known that this editor's IP has a tendency to change immediately after being blocked. That's block evasion, plain and simple. Having a dynamic IP is no defense. Blocks are levied against the editor, so switching to a new IP does not absolve them of the block. This is, of course, in addition to the personal attacks they spew when they don't get their way. Useful edits or not, this editor is persona non grata because of their behavior. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban If reverted, he will edit-war his own version, even if the article has subsequently been checked against the sources and corrected. See [18] (not to mention the edit summary). Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban After reading the LTA report, it is less about the nature of the edits and more about the extreme incivility that this editor has shown others. They repeatedly edit war, spew personal attacks whenever challenged, and from looking at the evidence they purposefully change IPs to avoid blocks. The personal attacks are enough to warrant blocks and the repeated block evasion and sockpuppetry is enough to warrant a ban. I also don't appreciate being duped into thinking I am helping someone with a problem and it turns out that the person is a LTA case (ie. Jimbo's talk page last night). --Majora (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose ban. This is an overwhelmingly positive editor on whom a long-term abuse page was originally made to correlate reports on their edit-warring. However, much of the edit-warring arose out of their being reverted on spurious grounds (I recall the report on Wind waves as an early example, where at least part of the disputed edit was correct), and the existence of the long-term abuse page was taken to indicate they were a vandal. Kww implemented very long blocks on the same basis, set up a filter to identify their edits from edit summaries, and rolled back all their edits. Kww is no longer a sysop but this editor continues to be blocked as if they were a major threat to the encyclopedia; meanwhile, their edits are overwhelmingly good. Yes, this person gets angry and abusive, but I and Drmies worked with them and they greatly reduced the amount of abuse; for some time, it has required diligent searching to identify this editor, since they are not habitually abusive. Meanwhile they have themselves initiated several AN/I reports in an attempt to get out from under this cloud. This is a positive editor determined to help Wikipedia who is being treated like Willy on Wheels. No basis for a ban at all. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is not some poor soul caught up in a bad situation. This person is a nasty[19][20][21][22] IP hopping edit warrior[23]. That is plenty of basis. And a lot of their edits are only good in their opinion. They are certainly not overwhelming positive, in fact they are so negative that they can only exist here by constantly changing IPs. I wonder if you have looked at any of the masses of evidence provided? HighInBC 20:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• They're no shrinking violet, but just at random, this edit they reinstated was perfectly fine - it corrected a grammar error and removed a peacock word. I would love it if they would start creating articles. I have sometimes found their copyediting exasperatingly limited (they miss other glaring errors in the article). And I'm ill-equipped to evaluate scientific edits, although my impression is that they're usually right in their corrections to science articles, too (re: Wind waves, what I recall was that the article defined them in the lede as very large and then went on to say in the body that they also occurred in puddles; the IP was being reverted removing the statement from the lede that they were always very large; within my scientific competence, I believe the IP was right). I note your first set of diffs are all slanging Ritchie; well, Ritchie's a big boy and an admin now, and can presumably take a certain amount of that, and the basis of the IP's discontent is that he stated he would not block the IP - and now does just that. As if the IP were community banned. I do not see any basis for such a ban. This emperor has no clothes. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Some of their edits are good, so what? They edit war, and are nasty, and evade blocks immediately and often. I see you did not look at the masses of evidence provided, they are not just nasty to Ritchie, they are nasty to every person who disagrees with them. Half of the conflicts they get into are with people who don't know who they are. This person creates their own trouble. HighInBC 21:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• We want to minimize editors being nasty to each other, but the way to do that is not to endorse the blanket reversal of good edits on spurious grounds. This is a circular mess. The editor is not banned, and who wouldn't react badly to knee-jerk reverts of positive edits? Those who "don't know who they are" are mostly reverting just because the edit was by an unregistered user - there is rarely any other reason per se to revert their edits. And that's harmful to the encyclopedia. So is treating an overwhelmingly positive contributor like a vandal by banning them. The better solution is to give only commensurately short blocks for actual instances of bad behavior, so that they don't get constantly caught for "block evading" when they fix grammar errors, eliminate peacock words, and improve science articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Given that they "evade blocks immediately and often" -- converting a de facto ban into a we-all-voted-on-it ban doesn't actually make any difference to anything. NE Ent 21:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. What Yngvadottir said. Most of their edits are high-quality, and they are not always unwilling to discuss--as long as they are not reverted on sight without any justification. Automated and unexplained reverts, which were routinely done, were justified along the lines of WP:BMB, to the detriment of the encyclopedia and the editing atmosphere. But I've said all of this before, as has Yngvadottir, and our claims that the editor was frequently provoked into edit warring and insults by way of passive-aggressively reverting with boilerplate summaries have always fallen on deaf ears. I've frequently edited as an IP, depending on location and circumstance, and I recognize the feeling the IP must have felt frequently--except that they never got the "Oh it's you! Sorry for reverting" apology. But this is all water under the bridge, I see. I'm sure someone will add this to the LTA page and everyone will feel much better about themselves for Having Done The Right Thing. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This looks like the same restless energy formerly used to dismember Eric Corbett, now seeking the next sacrifice. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Provoked into edit warring? Really? Do you remember this exchange from 2013 User_talk:200.104.245.226. He was claiming he was provoked but he hadn't been. People give too much credence to the poor little IP picked on by named accounts meme, it was a fig leaf he hid behind. WCM_email 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Drmies and Yngvadottir, and mostly Ent, although obviously too late, and my apologies for that. I do feel strongly enough about this to post after the close, though. Begoon ^talk 16:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Since this discussion was open only for less than half a day, rather untypically for ban discussions, and several substanial oppose votes from well-respected editors were added later, I have asked the closer to consider reopening the thread to allow these concerns a proper hearing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The opposers have prolonged this problem for quite some time, Fut.Perf.. They don't really have an argument beyond their personal distaste for the concept of reverting edits simply because they were block evasion. This particular editor is the subject of multiple blocks at this time: I think the longest currently running one expires sometime in 2018.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved to ANI — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Mystery Wolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=698914028#Mystery_Wolff

Indefinite Topic ban from the subject of Electronic Cigarettes, imposed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement%2FArchive187&type=revision&diff=699532847&oldid=699532827, logged at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016 -->

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Your_noticing_of_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

Statement by Mystery Wolff

EdJohnston is an editor whom I interacted with, and was involved with my editing. He asked that I respond to sockpuppet assertions on the TALK pages, which he ultimately used as part of his justification to ban me indefinitely. He was involved with another AE opened on me that was rescinded, and was the person who suggested as the first measure of any sanction or warning to me that I be topic banned for 6 months.

1. I was not part of the ARB that created the Discretionary Sanctions, however an involved editor to the ARB requested that an Alert be posted to my Talk page.
2. Prior to the first AE, and the continuation AE posted above I have not had any sanctions or edit warring notices, or any other formalized process violations.
3. Other editors who were part of the ARB (CFCF) have been brought into the AE, and been given warnings. However in my Case, EdJohnston asked for a 6 month ban of me, as an involved Admin, and that recommendation skewed and controlled the output of the AE.
4. The ARB decision provided that : "Enforcement of restrictions Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
5. EdJohnston sought and got sanctions against me that far outstripped the guides of the ARB. This was the ARB that EdJohnston as an involved Admin, said he was enforcing, however the enforcing is not using the ARB as a template. It reflects that EdJohnston is NOT assuming good faith, NOT avoiding biting genuine newcomers and NOT allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom.
6. EdJohnston posioned the well, when he assumed me to be a sockpuppet, in TALK, before the first AE, and before he recommended I be banned for 6 times the amount of time provided for by the AE.
7. This AE in question is highly unusual. It surrounds edits where I warned the editor reverting me to not engage in Edit Warring. My edits were then reverted by a known SPA indentified in the ARB, who was discovered and banned by DeltaQuad.
8. The AE surrounds a state where the AE was pointing to edits that were already reverted out, and all the pages were operating without issue.
9. The AE here in question should have been closed with no action taken. My edits were already out, and I was actively using the TALK pages to resolve the issues where it was a dispute of MEDRS quoting within articles.
10. More editors than not, had already said on TALK they agreed with my edits which were reverted out.
11. Multiple long term editors of the pages, tag teamed to have me removed. S Marshall has made many personal remarks about my editorship, something he had been previously been warned about. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S_Marshall#Mystery_Wolff
12. AlbinoFerret began intimidating me here, before he opened the AE https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=698086939#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F
13. I wrote on the Talk page of EdJohnston about his INVOLVED Administorship regarding me and this specific topic here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=698583165#Egregious_use_of_Admin_privileges.2C_and_your_involved_commentary_pretensed_as_.22Uninvolved_input.22
14. EdJohnston has refused to give me any insight to what actions I was taking that cause him to suggest first, and then him to judge me at the AE. Here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Your_noticing_of_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
    
15. This AE stayed open with me editing, and contributing for days and days, up to the point where EdJohnston came back to something he was involved with, and pushed for an indefinite ban.
16. No other editors of the pages involved with, MADE ANY REMARKS, on the AE. Again, I was editing properly and using TALK, and my edits were reverted out, and I was not edit warring....YET, EdJohnston pushes for an indefinite ban, premised upon his own actions. It is entirely circular and looks like bias.

Bottomline The AE has most of the information. The AE was created by an editor who wants me to not edit. I should be afford the opportunity to work properly and edit properly without having other editors act as owners of the article. I do not believe I should have been sanctioned at all. I was editing correctly. And I was using the Talk pages. The indefinite ban is overkill, by any measure and reflects the biases and true "involvement" with EdJohnston with this case. He recommendations poisoned the well with the other admins. The ARB he is enforcing does not specify that the first saunction would be a 6 month ban. In fact it says it should not exceed 30 days. I was not part of the original ARB, but its subsequent enforcement to other editors are nothing near what EdJohnston has pushed on me. EdJohnston has refused to point out my edits in a question. Long term sockpuppets were interacting with my edits, with no investigation by EdJohnston to why. His mind was made up
This should be reversed. And at a very minimum the TB should not exceed the bounds of the ARB, and go beyond 30 days. Without keeping to process, Wikipedia becomes a boys club where newbies are pushed out, without the means to appeal with any significance, or to just make the process of appealing be beyond that of anyone wanting to contribute.

This has been tremendously frustrating, I am able to answer questions asked here. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Mystery Wolff

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Sockmaster at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

All blocked, and then some. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Someone is creating multiple accounts and IP editing which is wasting the time of teahouse hosts. --Marvel Hero (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GenoCool2016 and take some preventive measures. --Marvel Hero (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman closed

"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."

The following remedies have been enacted

4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 2 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Requests_Case_Kevin_Gorman_closed

Deceased admin/Dreadstar

Here Dreadstar.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC))

Sad news, though the editor was not an administrator at the time of their passing. –xeno^talk 18:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)