Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Magioladitis: a ban on automated edits
Line 143: Line 143:
::I'm fine with this as NOTBURO and IAR. Strictly speaking, James can't do this, but if it sticks it will resolve a large part of the main problem. There are changes I'd like to see, but since the text (as I understand it) isn't being presented as a consensus result I think that can be done through the usual process, preferably after a short break to let tensions reduce. [[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i> 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
::I'm fine with this as NOTBURO and IAR. Strictly speaking, James can't do this, but if it sticks it will resolve a large part of the main problem. There are changes I'd like to see, but since the text (as I understand it) isn't being presented as a consensus result I think that can be done through the usual process, preferably after a short break to let tensions reduce. [[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i> 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
:::The problem is that he actually implemented it in MEDRS, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&diff=next&oldid=701874200 this dif], as though it is authoritative. I appreciate the BOLDness but it is not a solution that can stick, and the manner in which it was done is going to cause more trouble. In contentious things like this, we ''need'' good process. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
:::The problem is that he actually implemented it in MEDRS, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&diff=next&oldid=701874200 this dif], as though it is authoritative. I appreciate the BOLDness but it is not a solution that can stick, and the manner in which it was done is going to cause more trouble. In contentious things like this, we ''need'' good process. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

::::Don't get me wrong - I think the best decision would have been to simply close this as overturn. This action adds unnecessary complications to the issue, but I think that opposing it is likely to cause more confusion than not. I don't expect this to stick permanently, and I don't think it's authoritative or intended as such. The advantage I see is to finally end the discussion about the original close and the associated drama, including making the current RfC obsolete, so we can restart from the current (speculative) revision. Since this discussion isn't closed yet, hopefully it will just be recognized as a consensus to overturn. In the absence of that, I think the best outcome is to leave the text in for a few weeks, and then start editing to bring it in line with consensus - and I find that ''acceptable'', if not optimal. [[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i> 11:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

:::Thanks to all contributors. As the various processes are going nowhere at immense length, a little boldness may well be in order. I do suggest that Jamesday's specific examples are inappropriately speculative - I would hope for RS rather than supposition. As one example, you might like to consider [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9551280 Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R.] (China, Japan, Taiwan, Russia are mentioned.) I also suggest that all of the new texts proposed are at best examples of bloat, and that a better way of dealing with the problem is to take what RS say, and write the article properly. For example, a section on trials might appropriately start with the point that RS find them to be based on invalid work, and then outline what they say. [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Thanks to all contributors. As the various processes are going nowhere at immense length, a little boldness may well be in order. I do suggest that Jamesday's specific examples are inappropriately speculative - I would hope for RS rather than supposition. As one example, you might like to consider [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9551280 Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R.] (China, Japan, Taiwan, Russia are mentioned.) I also suggest that all of the new texts proposed are at best examples of bloat, and that a better way of dealing with the problem is to take what RS say, and write the article properly. For example, a section on trials might appropriately start with the point that RS find them to be based on invalid work, and then outline what they say. [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Revision as of 11:04, 29 January 2016

    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 three 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "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/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

      (Initiated 120 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --slakr\ talk / 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 94 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      new closer needed
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
      If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
      Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
      However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --slakr\ talk / 03:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

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

      Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 6 17 74 97
      TfD 0 0 2 1 3
      MfD 0 0 0 1 1
      FfD 0 0 0 3 3
      RfD 0 0 10 12 22
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

      (Initiated 76 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence

      (Initiated 140 days ago on 30 January 2024) This seems to just now be a forum thread about being banned elsewhere or something (in fact I am unsure it has ever been anything but a forum thread). Slatersteven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I am the main author of that thread, and I agree with this request. Initially, it was a reply to a Facebook post by Anthroposophists seeking to remove me from Wikipedia. At /r/WikipediaVandalism, the attacks against me were even more vicious. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done I had a look at the talk page and could not see what needs closing. I'd suggest deleting/collapsing anything about the dispute, particularly which isn't related to the content of the article, and leave only discussion relevant to improving content of the article. Happy to take input from others, Tom B (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed I closed the discussion as currently no consensus to reinstate the press source,Tom B (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 21 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]

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed I closed it last night as no consensus to move, Tom B (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Fiona Muir-Harvey#Merge Request

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 29 May 2024) Some1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done there was consensus to merge and i undertook the merge, Tom B (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June. 2 !votes in the last 5 days. Discussion, on the criteria, appeared to stabilise on 15 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor theleekycauldron. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Together (coalition)#Requested move 16 June 2024

      (Initiated 2 days ago on 16 June 2024) This is a combined merge and move request for two articles. At the very least, consensus seems to have been reached on one of those fronts, (that being to merge L'Europe Ensemble and Together (coalition)), while the rename discussion seems to be at a standstill. There hasn't been any major discussion or back-and-forth in over a day, and I think it would be worthwhile to at least act on the consensus to merge the two articles while leaving the rename discussion open. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @GlowstoneUnknown:  Not done One day is far too short a time to establish consensus, unless a massive pile-on of WP:SNOW occurs - which isn't the case here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How long would be reasonable for consensus? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      RFC review request: Request for Comment: Country of Origin

      Location:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable_sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country of Origin

      Specific question asked:

      "Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:

      Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.

      to

      Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions.

      This proposal is to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline

      Concerns over the closing of this RFC have halted its implementation. The question is specific to only High-quality sources.

      Discussion

      • Endorse The RFC was specifically about High quality sources and this was spelled out in the RFC question. The question had a very narrow focus. The closer rightfully discounted comments that were about low quality sources as off topic. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This is nonsense; who defines what a high or low-quality source is? There is no clear-cut process that is accepted by all, and actually the entire reason for the guideline. What if you define it depending on "personal" reasons — then you nullify the entire clause? The RfC concerns sources on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The guideline already gives reasons not to reject "high quality" sources for reasons like funding so that argument fails. But this is not a place to reargue the merits of the RFC. 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
        No, but it is important to note the actual coverage of the RfC, which is all sources that would go on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Not all sources, only high quality ones. Your statement is one of the reasons I endorse this close. The RFC was a very narrow focused one and the off topic responses were obviously discounted, and your repeating them here doesnt invalidate the close. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm kind of inclined to go with "this is nonsense", but because Albino has misquoted the guideline again, and therefore his objection is irrelevant (NB not wrong, just irrelevant). A high-quality type of study is not the same thing as a high-quality source. A systematic review is a very high-quality type of study, but it can be a remarkably low-quality source for any given statement. For example, a systematic analysis of whichever studies I have photocopies of in my filing cabinet would be a high-quality type of study and a low-quality source.
        The fact that the closer made the same mistake, not to mention also introducing ideas never mentioned in the discussion at all, are both reasons to overturn it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless if it is "type" or "source", I used source because thats what they are, sources. We are still talking about high quality, and simply because a high quality type or source is from a specific country is no reason to disqualify it. That premise, that just because something is from a specific country it fails, is troubling regardless of what criteria you are looking at. In any event this is off topic for a review as it is just re-arguing the RFC. AlbinoFerret 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      "Type of study" and "source" really are very importantly different concepts!
      • A meta-analysis is a type of study. They are often done well, but they can be done very, very poorly. All meta-analyses are high-quality "types of studies"; some meta-analyses are impossibly bad "sources".
      • A good textbook is a source. It is not any kind of scientific study at all. That doesn't mean that the textbook is a low-quality source. It just means that this particular type of source doesn't fall on the levels of evidence scales. A good textbook can be the best source for many medicine-related statements.
      The disputed sentence is part of an entire section ("Assess evidence quality") on how to tell which type of study is better evidence than another. A type of study is all about scientific levels of evidence. It's not "simply high quality" or the entirety of whether a particular source can support a particular statement; it's very specifically about "high-quality types of studies" (emphasis in the original). A specific source (=a specific publication) can be a very high-quality source despite containing no scientific evidence at all. Similarly, a source could use a very good type of study – something that rates high in levels of evidence – while still being a very bad source indeed. To determine whether a source is a good one, you need to look at more factors than merely the levels of evidence (="type of study"). "Assess evidence quality" is only one of six major factors that MEDRS encourages editors to consider, (mostly) in addition to the five major factors that RS recommends for all subjects (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a brief list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Interestingly enough, that argument failed in the RfC because editors were objecting to certain Cochrane Reviews simply because they had Chinese authors, and since Cochrane Reviews are prestigious reviews of reviews and meta-analyses, that means they are both the "highest quality source" as well as "highest quality study type". For the purposes of the RfC, there wasn't a difference, and editors who objected because of problems with lower quality references (type or source) missed the point and their votes were tossed aside. Objections were raised on the basis of potentially biased low quality Chinese published primary research (RCT's), which wasn't ever the point. Those are low quality sources and study-type . Naturally, the editors raising these objections weren't happy when their off-topic arguments were counted as such. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @WhatamIdoing You missed my point in again trying to explain type and source again. The point being that regardless if you are looking at type or source, country of origin as a basis for exclusion is troubling. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I think that if you're bringing this here at this point, you should present the entire context, such as the two subsequent RfCs about the same question. Sunrise (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I would rather start at the beginning and discuss one RFC at a time as it may not be necessary to review them all. The next RFC was closed no consensus and as a NAC I agree with that closing, but if someone disagrees with that close they are welcome to start a review for it. Though I dont know why a review for a no consensus close is necessary. There appears to be a current RFC that has recently started that I just became aware of today, but we are far from the close (about 3 weeks) of that RFC for a review, if it is necessary. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it should be clear that whether the other RfCs should be reviewed is not the point. The point is that you selectively omitted context in a way that favors your preferred outcome. With regard to the current RfC, if you're implying that you didn't perform due diligence by reading the talk page before coming here, then I don't think that helps you. And perhaps you forgot, but you did not "just become aware of" the current RfC, because you commented in it. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Link to related discussions:
      1. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Questions about RFC closure - Country of origin
      2. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover?
      3. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: How to Implement the Country of Origin Closing
      Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? was on a different topic and section of MEDRS. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Questions_about_RFC_closure_-_Country_of_origin. The closer wrote "Opinion in discussion appears evenly divided between Support for either 1, or 3, or 5 with No Consensus. In addition it is #3 which is the most contested. A new RfC which would rephrase the material as something like a choice between some version of #1 and some version of #5 would likely lead to an outcome." Fountains-of-Paris" The more recent RfC overrides the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      QG your comment is about the second RFC, and a no consensus closing does not override a previous RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes it does. You did not mention the other RfCs when you began this discussion. Do you stand by that decision. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure I do as posted above this is a discussion on one RFC, all the rest is off topic. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      There is a third RfC that rejects the use of country of origin. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC:_How_to_Implement_the_Country_of_Origin_Closing. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Overturn close. The closer neglected to take into consideration comments made by others.
      Revert 1.
      Revert 2.
      Revert 3.
      Revert 4.
      Revert 5. The closer was trying to force changes in.
      It is suspicious the close was on 18 October 2015 and months later it is brought up here. The other RfCs show a clear consensus to not include the language that is against MEDRS to use low quality bias sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the second editor to perfectly explain why the close should be endorsed. The RFC question was not about Low quality sources but high quality ones. Anyone replying with a low quality source comment was off topic. Also thank you for pointing out that the RFC was ignored and the only reason it was not implemented was edit warring, hence the need for this review. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Using low quality bias sources is against MEDRS. Confirmed bias sources are not high quality sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The RFC question specifically was talking about a section in MEDRS dealing with High quality sources and never mentioned low quality sources. Regardless of low quality sources, can you address why the close was wrong when closing on High quality sources without going off topic into low quality ones and rearguing the RFC? AlbinoFerret 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      MEDRS should not be used as a platform to include bias sources in articles. A high-quality is not from a country of origin that is known to be bias. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, that reasoning seems to exclude an entire nation's population for extraneous considerations relating to QuackGuru's subjective notions about nationality that should have no quarter here. (But the grammar problems make it less than perfectly clear.) @Kingpin13:: Do you think it's OK to advocate we reject all studies from a country even though surely some studies from all countries exhibit some bias, and no country is a source for nothing but biased studies? You've blocked users for overt bigotry before, Kingpin13. Where's the line? --Elvey(t•c) 00:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Overturn. I have never edited anywhere near this issue. A well intentioned but inexperienced closer got in the middle of an attempt to rewrite policy to win a content dispute, they gave a consensus contrary to a roughly two-thirds majority (which included some of our most respected editors[4]), and the close explanation effectively affirmed the majority concerns. The close had the good intention of saying people shouldn't baselessly reject reliable sources, but the proposed policy change is pointless once it's re-written to explain that closing intent. The community is now engaged in a clusterfuck of additional RFC's trying to respect that awkward close - by rewriting it in a way that almost no one is going to consider a meaningful improvement. This should not have gotten a consensus against the majority, not unless it's an experienced closer who knows how to send an against-majority close on a constructive course. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • If this appeal is going ahead, I'll copy my comment from the long discussion at WT:MEDRS about the original close: "I don't think there's a rule about NACs while under sanctions, but I'd consider it a bad idea myself due to the necessary level of community trust. In this case there are actually connections with the RfC - Elvey's topic ban followed some highly acrimonious interactions with User:Jytdog (one of the editors !voting Oppose), and the t-ban was supported by several other editors who also !voted Oppose here. I read the close as likely being an attempted supervote, especially after their subsequent actions - joining the edit warring over the RfC result, telling editors questioning the close to "drop the stick" and other less complimentary things, and ultimately trying to archive this discussion. But either way, the close unfortunately perpetuated the dispute rather than resolving it." To clarify the first part, Elvey is under a topic ban from COI broadly construed and the closure could easily be interpreted as a violation of that as well, because conflicted sources were one of the points under discussion. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What I find interesting is that Albino Ferret, who agreed with the close, is actually the editor endorsing its review. That shows character. Every editor opposing it, including those here, were well aware they could have Elvey's close reviewed at this administrator's noticeboard. I, other editors and even an administrator reminded everyone opposed to the close about this review process several times. But the editors who disagreed with the close resorted to edit warring to keep the change off instead of having it formally reviewed. LesVegas (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't actually surprising at all. The closing statement was so far from the actual consensus that editors have refused to allow its few supporters – namely, you and AlbinoFerret – to implement the alleged consensus. Getting Elvey's closing statement affirmed here is the only possible way to get MEDRS amended to permit you to cite studies Chinese journals that have been identified, in academic studies, as being biased due to government pressure to only publish results that support the political party line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      There are a couple of facts I need to correct. First, there have been many supporters beyond Albino Ferret and myself. In the original RfC there were 7 for the change and several more editors have come along since and voiced their support. Even DocJames said the sources in question (Cochrane Reviews with Chinese authors) were undoubtedly of the highest quality. And this isn't about the Chinese published journals you speak about and never has been, although even in the worst case scenario evidence shows that they are still more reliable than much research with industry funding, and we already prohibit rejection of these sources based on funding. That was a point that nobody refuted in the RfC and one that the closer commented on. The final tally was 9 opposed to 7 support (if you read Herbxue's in the misplaced section below), but all but 1 of those 9 votes opposed were votes that failed to stay on topic and didn't stay relevant to the actual question asked in the RfC. As Albino Ferret (who has closed many RfC's) said, an experienced closer would throw these out. The 1 vote opposed that did have a partially relevant point was Richard Keatinge's, and this point was rightfully mentioned in and became part of the close. LesVegas (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, MEDRS does not insist that editors use research paid through industry funding. What it does say is that you can't toss out sources with a higher levels of evidence because of your personal objections (i.e., something not widely supported in academic literature) to the funding source in favor of lower levels of evidence. You may not substitute a cherry-picked primary source for a widely respected meta-analysis merely because you believe that the author is a surgeon and is therefore gets paid to prove that surgery works (=real example, and the one that prompted the addition of that line to the guideline). That canard has indeed been refuted, by me at least twice.
      If you're interested in financial conflicts, then you'll want to read the section of MEDRS at WP:MEDINDY.
      I agree that you and AlbinoFerret are not the only editors to have supported this change. AFAICT, you two are the only ones who continue to push for its inclusion against the actual consensus there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      WhatamIdoing, I'm afraid this really isn't the forum to discuss this. We've already gone round and round about industry funded primary research making its way into higher levels of evidence many times, which was always the point. So I'll have to politely decline discussing this further here so as to not overburden potential reviewers with in-depth side arguments we have already gone back and forth on many times. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Overturn I am glad to see this here. The closer, Elvey, has a block log as long as my arm. The latest restriction (not in the log) was a community imposed TBAN from COI matters, imposed here on August 7 2015, due to disruptive behaviors, mostly directed at me, over COI matters. I am strongly identified with WP:MED around here, and I was dismayed to see Elvey close the subject RfC just a couple months after that TBAN was imposed. He doesn't ususally close RfCs, and in my opinion this was yet more disruptive behavior, clearly going against the established WP:MED editors who were uniformly opposed to the motion, and supporting the alt-med editors who were arguing on its behalf. (The origin of the RfC was the desire of advocates of acupuncture to use sources from China that present acupuncture in a favorable light, when there is a boatload of evidence that these studies are poorly done and controlled; these editors have continued even here to make the inflammatory argument that the exclusion is due to racism or bias, when the problems are well established in the literature as I pointed out in my !vote here) Elvey himself made thatthe "bigotry" argument just now in this dif with edit note: "Nationalist bigotry?"
      I'll add here that Elvey ignored the COI TBAN and is on the verge of getting a 3-month block for doing so per This ANI thread, with an additional TBAN for SPI matters added (per Vanjagenije's comment to him here.)
      And I'll close by saying that in my view the close did not reflect the policy-based arguments that were given, and again in my view it was just disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (redacted for clarity per markup Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment. The problem lies in part with the way the sentence is written (my bold):
      "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions."
      If it said "do not reject a high-quality study" because of country of origin, that would make sense – if it's a high-quality secondary source we should use it no matter what country it stems from. But what is a "high-quality type of study"? A secondary source (e.g. a meta-analysis) is not ipso facto high quality. So that implies that, when choosing a low-quality study (but a supposedly high-quality type), we can't factor in where it comes from, and that makes no sense.
      It would be better to say something like: "Do not reject a high-quality source simply because you do not like its inclusion criteria, references, funding, country of origin or conclusions." Discussion can then focus on quality, rather than origin. SarahSV (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors are trying to use MEDRS to include low-quality sources in articles from a country of origin that is known to be bias and of low quality and pass it off as a high-quality source. QuackGuru (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Diffs please, showing where my close is being used logically by at least 2 editors to support that. I bet guarantee you can't find any because it doesn't justify that. I don't believe I wrote it in a way that would allow it to be used to do so. --Elvey(t•c) 02:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      QuackGuru, yes, but I think the change of wording will help. It now says: "Do not reject a source that is compliant with this guideline because of personal objections to inclusion criteria, references, funding sources or conclusions." If you add "country of origin," it won't cause so much harm now, because it is only talking about high-quality sources, rather than implying that any secondary source (e.g. meta analysis) is high quality, and that therefore any meta analysis is fine by definition. SarahSV (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      SarahSV I think the wording of your actual edit is very well crafted. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      A decision of sorts from a previously uninvolved administrator

      As an editor and administrator who started here some twelve years ago and who has not previously been involved in these discussions I have reviewed this discussion and the past RfCs on the country subject and have come to the following conclusions:

      1. there can be legitimate reasons to reject the use of sources from a country but it is unlikely that all sources on all subjects will be unreliable.
      2. the underlying cause of dispute is trying to find an all or nothing wording when in fact in most cases there will be no concern but in some there will be grounds for legitimate concern.
      3. the requirement to reject based on country of origin must be made for the narrowest reasonable range of fields and based on established consensus.
      4. if required, consensus should be sought on what the narrowest reasonable range of fields is.

      As a result I have partially overturned and partially accepted the various RfCs and added this text:

      "Country of origin is sometimes given as a reason to reject a source. That is not generally appropriate but there are clear cases where it can be an issue. For example, studies of the effect of diet could well have been an issue during the Soviet-era famine in Ukraine and today it is legitimate to wonder whether studies relating to this issue from North Korea might not be entirely neutral or fully authoritative, both because the subjects are politically sensitive and might lead to political interference in scientific research. If you believe that a country is not a good source, before rejecting studies based on that origin you must:

      1. seek consensus that for the area of knowledge involved, that country should not be regarded as a suitable source.
      2. try to avoid an all studies from the country decision, even a country with poor standards and much political interference may have some good sources.
      3. after consensus is obtained, place that list in a suitable meta page location so that all of the restrictions are known and can be subject to revisiting as required."

      Naturally, I expect consensus-seeking on where such a list should be placed, if consensus is that an item needs to be placed on such a list.

      As with many disputes here, this is not a black or white decision but rather one with many different shades and it is desirable to consider specific cases, not reject outright or accept outright black or white.

      Please move on from the is it or isn't it a factor and on to trying to establish consensus on specific areas where specific countries as sources are concerns. If you think you can provide suitable references for rejecting everything from a country go for it and see whether you can establish that as consensus. I expect that you will have a far higher prospect of success if you seek a narrower consensus than that but if you want to try it you might be able to succeed.

      In essence, this is a recognition that it may be necessary and beneficial for the community to recognise that certain sources - publications or individuals or institutions, perhaps, not just countries - might be unreliable in certain areas and to move towards a process whereby the community might formalise such a list after discussion of each case.

      Do you disagree? If so, please explain here why you do not believe that it is possible or desirable for consensus to be sought that a particular source is in effect to be regarded as not of high quality in a particular area based on country of origin. Since consensus-seeking is how we decide most things, expect that to be a high bar to pass but if you think you can get others to accept it, no harm in trying. Jamesday (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi Jamesday. First, thanks for trying to take action and I understand the sense of what you wrote and the effort to solve the problem. However, there are a few problems with this.
      • First, it is out of process. An RfC was held and closed, and the close is being challenged. The only real options here are to uphold it, or overturn it. I reckon you could do a new close, but that would have to comply with WP:CLOSE, which leads to...
      • Secondly, it seems to me that you don't have the right to craft a solution not discussed in the RfC itself or the discussion and impose it. In my view nobody does - not in a close (or re-close) and not as you have done here. Your proposal can be put in an RfC to see if it will fly, of course.
      Therefore would you please withdraw your statement, or re-frame it? And I do thank you again for the BOLD effort. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm fine with this as NOTBURO and IAR. Strictly speaking, James can't do this, but if it sticks it will resolve a large part of the main problem. There are changes I'd like to see, but since the text (as I understand it) isn't being presented as a consensus result I think that can be done through the usual process, preferably after a short break to let tensions reduce. Sunrise (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is that he actually implemented it in MEDRS, in this dif, as though it is authoritative. I appreciate the BOLDness but it is not a solution that can stick, and the manner in which it was done is going to cause more trouble. In contentious things like this, we need good process. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't get me wrong - I think the best decision would have been to simply close this as overturn. This action adds unnecessary complications to the issue, but I think that opposing it is likely to cause more confusion than not. I don't expect this to stick permanently, and I don't think it's authoritative or intended as such. The advantage I see is to finally end the discussion about the original close and the associated drama, including making the current RfC obsolete, so we can restart from the current (speculative) revision. Since this discussion isn't closed yet, hopefully it will just be recognized as a consensus to overturn. In the absence of that, I think the best outcome is to leave the text in for a few weeks, and then start editing to bring it in line with consensus - and I find that acceptable, if not optimal. Sunrise (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks to all contributors. As the various processes are going nowhere at immense length, a little boldness may well be in order. I do suggest that Jamesday's specific examples are inappropriately speculative - I would hope for RS rather than supposition. As one example, you might like to consider Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. (China, Japan, Taiwan, Russia are mentioned.) I also suggest that all of the new texts proposed are at best examples of bloat, and that a better way of dealing with the problem is to take what RS say, and write the article properly. For example, a section on trials might appropriately start with the point that RS find them to be based on invalid work, and then outline what they say. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Check-in on Neelix G6 speedy criterion

      Hi admins! On November 24, 2015, the community endorsed the temporary usage of speedy criterion G6 to short-cut deletion of redirects created by Neelix: "Any administrator may delete any redirect created by User:Neelix as uncontroversial maintenance under the WP:G6 speedy deletion criterion, if they reasonably believe that said redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause." Multiple editors have been working at this problem for nearly two full months, and recently some Neelix-created redirects have led to time-consuming discussions again (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 18#Perfumedly for example). Supposedly Legacypac has again begun to receive flack for his work on this issue, and seemingly as a result there are more obvious deletes getting sent to WP:RFD again (see today's log for good examples). Because of this, and because the Neelix G6 amendment was meant to be temporary, I'm seeking to either reaffirm its endorsement, or else rescind it. Also, since the page listing all of the redirects created by Neelix is so long that it crashes my computer, I guess I'd like a progress update. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank-you for raising this.I assess that of the 50,000 redirects [5] created and only edited by Neelix maybe ten thousand have been deleted, but there are more then 20,000 that remain unchecked but appear very similar to the deleted ones. There are some distinct varieties such as 1. fake or extraordinarily rare words created by adding multiple suffixes [6] [7] 2. non-english words with no affinity for the target [8] and [9] 3. generic phrases that happen to be meanings of non-English names [10], 4. straight up stupid redirects of words and phrases that have nothing to do with the target, or are directed to an obscure target instead of the Primary one. 5. Sliding words together to create fakecompoundwords [11] [12] and I'm sure a few more types I'm forgetting. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for all your work getting rid of this garbage. If there is still that much of it we should certainly keep speedy deleting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Ivanvector (and yes, I did mean to ping you this time), Legacypac, and Beeblebrox - I'll be more than happy to slog through checking some of them out in my spare time. However, I don't want to create more work for folks, so here's a question. I checked out 2 just now, the first, Kayte, has a rationale on the page, which seems to be correct. The second, Mathyu, has no rationale, and seems to be simply a very bizarre variant of the name, Matthew. Would that second one be of the type that should be marked G6? Onel5969 TT me 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Kayte, to my surprise, survived an RfD [13] leading to the explanation on the redirect page. Turns out it is a rare enough spelling no other bio exists on Wikipedia with that first name. I'd speedy Mathyu [14] as nonsense. Maybe we should start posting "Looks ok" on the talk pages of redirects we have checked out to save others looking at them again? Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) My interpretation (and intent, FWIW) was, basically, if you have to ask whether it qualifies or not, it doesn't, list it at RfD. Speedy should be for very obvious cases, and the idea was for this to be a "delete-on-sight" criterion for the most obviously deletion-worthy of them, to save a whole bunch of time and hits on the database. It's working against that idea to be placing tags on the redirects that have been "checked", I think. Mathyu is a borderline case I think. If this had gone to RfD, I think you'd find that some editors endorse it as a phonetic redirect, while others would suggest deletion because of its limited utility, but I couldn't say for sure from here what the outcome would be. On the other hand, a redirect like Tradeunionistic should have qualified for deletion without Legacypac having had to identify it and list it at Rfd first (it was eventually speedied under different criteria), and there have been a large number of those.
      I have an idea in my head to make a list of the discussions we've already had at Rfd on Neelix-created redirects and look for common themes, so that maybe we can determine which types of these are not surviving discussions, and provide recommendations that are better than just my wild guessing. I might work on it tonight. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I've partly created the list at User:Ivanvector/Neelix RfD list. I've only done a few days' worth and don't have more time to work on it now, but I'll check in on it later. Feel free to edit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll ask again but why are people reverting to restore the entire gigantic list? It's in the archives if someone wants it with the original numbering. All that's doing is discouraging more outsiders from helping something when their computer hangs for no reason. I can't tell what's been reviewed and kept unless I check each blue link manually which is quite silly. Those rules are part of the reason why so few people are helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not understanding your question Ricky. There are two lists of Neelix redirects I'm aware of. One by target and one numbered to just over 50,000 - both linked at the top of User talk:Neelix The "by target" one is less useful today because links don't turn red in it. The 50,000 numbered list is better because deleted links turn red, but sadly it does not show what the targets are so each has to be manually checked. It is also a really big file! If anyone has a better list, please post it. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have WP:POPUPS enabled you can hover to see the target of a redirect from the link. That might save some time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Why not just remove the red links? See User talk:Anomie/Neelix list. I tried to manually remove some to shorten the page when it was started but that's been reverted without explanation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it would be nice if that list were broken up. My computer can't handle the full list, and lots of people are using computers with less power than mine. It seems to be about 1250kb as a full list. Even if we split it up by 10,000 redirects per page, that would be a significant improvement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I say make a bot request for a bot to just get rid of the red links. The original will still be in the archive, and it'll cut down the list. You could also ask for someone to split the list into smaller chunks but seriously just removing the red links alone will make the page manageable. Plus again the original full list is in the archive so why the absolute desire to keep a monster than is literally unusable by most people on the page? Look I'm just making a suggestion. If everyone here is intent on making this awful for anyone else to help, that's on them. I asked for help and got this 46k list into something manageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the good ideas on making the list more manageable - let's figure that out on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anomie/Neelix_list Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Good news - the list has been broken into 5 lists with editable sections so it is much easier to work on. Please help at the link just above. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I had forgotten how bad it was. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I found more stupid breast screening ones just for you Drmies. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't read every single word in the section (too discouraging) but to respond to the original question, I support the continuation of the special g6 CSD. Let's keep in mind the extremely low damage created by an incorrect deletion. It means if someone is looking for an article about X, and they enter X they will find it but if they enter Y they might or might not. And if they report that Y is a reasonable search term for X, it can be created in seconds. Literally.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly! Deleting a redirect with no incoming links that was created with NO thought is not going to damage the project. In the last few days I've CSD'd hundreds and hundreds of redirects based on 'non-words' and made up phrases with ZERO real word use. Put the redirect in quotes, Google it, and get results like 16 hits to wiki mirrors or a few French hits or finding the Neelix target list is the only result on Google for the supposed word! These fake words are just as harmful as building redirects like junkityjunk or nonsensively or Neelix should be banned forever and pointing them at random pages except worse because many look somewhat plausible. These get robotically copied into the free dictionary etc and escape into the wild.
      For my efforts the peanut gallery is voting on banning me in another ANi thread for my alleged Neelix crusade (could that be closed already?) in the case of WV - reverting some of the CSD's and disruptively voting in RfD with personal attacks against me for making the nominations. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Deletion backlog

      Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old has a backlog of ~370 items. I've just done 50 but while I did, about 50 more were added. If anyone has the time, it's relatively simple work and instructions are provided. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Is there a reason why these can't be deleted by bot?  Sandstein  13:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, there is a good reason: The tag might have been used in error, or maliciously. Manual checks are required.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Very much so. I watched this category for a couple months about a year ago, when the backlog was much worse. In my experience, about 20-25% need further administrative attention, running the gamut from nonfree images illustrating biographies, to mangled bot uploads, to full 1080p screenshots being passed off as sufficiently reduced in size, to not actually being non-free at all (typically for failing c:COM:TOO). If all you're doing is clicking on the "Rescaled per F5" link from the simple instructions, you're not doing it right. —Cryptic 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Backlog busted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Long term abuse

       – Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Future Perfect at Sunrise case request, integrated version I think we should start thinking about whether TW and the standard UI can be tweaked to provide a "long term abuse" flag, to help build best practice into everyday actions. For example, patrollers may be dimply aware of LTA and may revert edits linked to same (as was the case with Grawp and Willy On Wheels years back), but our structures mean that centralised data collection is difficult. I am not thinking of anything massive here, just a checkbox "possible long term abuse" or some such which flags all parties to step back and cross-check. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      This would probably be better at WP:AN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Twinkle feature requests belong here (and you need GitHub account). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Guy: I definitely agree that this should be reposted/moved to WP:AN where Admins can discuss it in more detail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Unsurprisingly, I think this is a good idea regardless of the fate of that particular motion. WT:TWINKLE is another good place for suggestions on-wiki. Having a consistent way of labeling actions as LTA reverts would also help in data collection about how much abuse comes from a particular case and how much time and effort is being spent dealing with it. I imagine it'd be more persuasive to show good data about a problem if/when we have to ask the WMF for assistance dealing with it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Seconded. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have LTA and had for years, the problem is 1) It is basically moribund, no one clerks it or does anything to new requests to update or add new cases and 2) It is not prominently linked from anywhere nor frequently referred to. I'm not sure if 1) is a cause of or an effect of 2) but those are major issues. I've noted twice in as many months on this very board that Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval has not had any action on it in quite some time, some pending requests have been around for many months with no one approving or declining addition to the main list. I've not worked on that particular task in the past, and it isn't really in my skill set, but there are users who ARE good at clerking similar boards (like SPA or ARBCOM) and it would just require people with that skill set for taking up the ball and running with it. I think it SHOULD be a working process that allows us to refer others to problem cases, and where we can keep historical data on problematic trolls and other badly disruptive users so patterns and the like can be more easily recognizable. The process exists, we just need a dedicated group of users who are willing to maintain it. Since no one is, it has basically died, but not for lack of usefulness, just for lack of anyone doing anything to keep it useful. --Jayron32 00:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be happy to spend some time to publish some of those LTA reports; are there any instructions anywhere that I can follow on what needs to be done? Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

      Need help from a bureaucrat or person with similar access

      In the context of my last entry on AN/I, I need both help and advice on how to proceed. At the risk of repeating myself: IP-hopping stalker reverts my edits every chance he gets, disappears for 6 years, comes back doing the same thing. My solution last time was to contact their ISP, making it known that I was doing so. And I got far in the sense that I actually received a response, this is also where I got stuck when I was asked by the ISP abuse department for "server logs", after which I found out I had to contact a bureaucrat here, which I then did, and was told that for all intents and purposes, the article history IS the server logs. Is there any other kind of information that you guys can provide me with or I can somehow get my hands on for when the ISP abuse team starts demanding evidence/data to corrolate IP activity with user activity? Eik Corell (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Bureaucrats have no special access to "server logs" or similar. –xenotalk 14:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want information that correlates IP addresses with signed-in users, only the Wikimedia Foundation has access to that (funtionaries like checkusers and developers may have access to that, but must defer to WMF when someone wants specifics). It's my understanding that WMF will only disclose such info when compelled to by a court order or similar warrant (due to criminal or civil proceedings). You can certainly ask the WMF for help, but they may tell you that you'd need to complain to the police if you think the law has been broken. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the contributions history for a page is the equivalent of server logs, and the WMF certainly won't correlate an IP address with a registered account without something like a court order. They've told me that in the past when someone was after my IP address. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's my understanding that with the modern ToU, the WMF reserves the right to voluntarily disclose the information to ISPs themselves when filing abuse reports. I'm pretty sure they still won't disclose it to third party filers without a court order or similar.

      However I don't think this has anything to do with accounts. From reading the linked discussion, it sounds like the editor isn't using an account, so their IP is already exposed via the contrib history. The problem is the ISP is asking for server logs by which I'm pretty sure they mean regular HTTP/S server logs. This is a problem because 1) the WMF doesn't log everything anyway AFAIK only a sample (like 1/1000), although I'm not sure if this applies to edits as well (possibly the CU data comes from such logs just in a more userfriendly format) 2) they're not likely to disclose it even though it relates to an IP editor.

      Unfortunately convincing the ISP that the contrib history is in fact better than regular server logs since they clearly and easily link the contribution with the IP is likely to be difficult. Particularly if you're a third party rather than the WMF. (Admitedly want they may want is the contrib history and server logs anyway, even though the later provides little advantage.)

      I guess the additional logged info that is accessible to a CU (like user agent) may be enough to convince the ISP regardless of the source or whether it's in a normal log format. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure the WMF won't disclose this to a third party even for an IP and CUs definitely won't. So I guess we do get back to the earlier point namely your only real hope is to convince the WMF to file the abuse report themselves. If the IP is only occasionally doing this, then disappearing for long stretches, I suspect it'll be difficult to convince them to intervene.

      Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Assuming the ISP took you seriously, and you actually got hold of the logs they require (unlikely, the WMF is not going to hand over connection logs to a private third party company absent any court order), the first thing they will do is talk to their customer for a response. That is the point where this ends. Reverting your edits on wikipedia is neither criminal nor harrassment - by design wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and allows non-registered users. Their customer will say to them 'Im having a dispute over content' and thats the end of that. Since they pay their ISP money, unless there is the likely threat of legal action an ISP will not take action against their customers. I say this from long experience of tangling with ISPs over genuine harrassment issues. If there are threats of violence etc, report it to the police, and they can request the info needed if they think its credible enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Enforcement of the ArbCom Arab-Israeli restrictions

      Hi, I'm a sysop on fr:wp where there are talks about implementing a similar policy than yours regarding the ability to edit the Arab-israeli conflict articles for accounts that have less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure. My question is technical, how do you make sure this type of accounts can't edit those pages ? RegardsKimdime (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Kimdime: Right now it is enforced by Special:AbuseFilter/698. MusikAnimal would be the person to contact about specific details. JbhTalk 13:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks--Kimdime (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kimdime: You may also want to take a look at this related proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter

      The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

      Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter

      NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight

      Recently the Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tag was TFDd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_6#Template:Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent) and replaced by User:Primefac as "replacing template use per TFD outcome using AWB". On his talkpage, Primefac was notified by User:Marchjuly that the images should be judged on a case-by-case basis, "many of the "Non-free Scout logo nocontent" tags were added a long time ago and either simply ignored by the uploader (and tus the problem remains) or never removed when the problem was fixed. I think many of the images you have tagged do have non-free use rationales; the question is whether they are valid nfurs.". The deprecated Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tags were bot-mass-replaced without review, vide https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Primefac&offset=&limit=500&target=Primefac for January 21, 2016, too many to diff-list here.

      Yesterday I went down the list and added appropriate text to several dozen of these images in article space.

      In several others I found that the old Non-free_Scout_logo_nocontent tag had not been removed even after the issue had been corrected years earlier; the tag should have been removed years ago as each issue was addressed. User:Gadget850, who placed the tags 4 years ago, retired in July 2015. It's easy to tag-and-forget, we've all done it.

      In yet others I found there was no justifiable reason for the image, so I did not remove the NFCC tag. I proceeded to work on all these images.

      Later yesterday, marchjuly undid all my edits, claiming "Re-added template. An administrator will remove it after assessing it". I have seen how the regular image-issue admins deal with images, almost always favoring deletion.

      Again today, marchjuly just follows behind me and undoes all my edits without concern for their merit, or following to see where the images actually link.

      I am asking for an impartial administrator to look at each of these images in turn. The only way I think these can be reviewed impartially is by an admin who does not frequently get involved in image deletions. Case-by-case may take longer, but it is much more honest than a steamroll mass deletion. There is no reason for them all to be deleted because they all have the same, often inaccurate tag.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I was pinged so I'll respond. It appears that as result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Template:Non-free Scout logo nocontent, files which had been tagged with the deprecated {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} were being re-tagged with {{di-fails NFCC}} by Primefac. I have quite a number of files on my watchlist, so when I noticed a few of these changes I posted at User talk:Primefac#Non-free files related to scouting/guilding and asked about it. I then added more of the files which were tagged to my watchlist so that I could go back a take a closer look. I saw Kintetsubuffalo removing the "di" templates often with the edit sum "old tag had improperly been left on" or "appropriate text commentary added". While it's true the templates were added by a bot, the non-free concerns in many of the files were not and have not been resolved. The template instructions also say "Note that if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image. You can also place comments on the image talk page." which I assumed means that only an administrator should remove them and that Kintetsubuffalo doing so was premature. So, I re-added the templates and then began posting comments on file talk pages, such as File talk:Druze Scout Association.png#Non-free usage, File talk:Scouts Polynesiens.svg#Non-free usage in Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien, File talk:Iraq Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Council 1980s.png#Non-free usage in "Iraq Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Council" and "Rub el Hizb", File talk:Catholic Scout Association in Israel.png#Non-free usage in Arab and Druze Scouts Movement or File talk:Scouting in Saint Martin-Sint Maarten.png#Non-free usage, explaining my take on the non-free usage of the image. My intent was to get to all of the files which were tagged and post similar messages on their talk pages. In the same manner, any editor including Kintetsubuffalo could also post on a file's talk page and comment on the file's non-free usage. My understanding of the template is that the administrator who eventually reviews the file will look at the talk page for comments and then decide what to do. If re-adding the tags was inappropriate on my part, then it was a mistake made in good faith and I apologize to Kintetsubuffalo and anyone else involved. I am assuming that the administrators know to look at the talk page and decide or suggest that further discussion is needed via WP:FFD. If it's more appropriate, however, to nominate them now for FFD instead of waiting for the speedy to be resolved, then I will go back and self-revert and add {{Ffd}} instead. I just want to add that I did not remove any of the images which were tagged by Primefac, I simply re-added "di" tags which I felt were inappropriately removed. The only scouting logo I have removed today was here per WP:NFCCE because it lacked the non-free use rationale required per WP:NFCC#10c and was being used in a gallery which is typically not allowed per WP:NFG because such usage is considered to be decorative and fail WP:NFCC#8.
      As for Again today, marchjuly just follows behind me and undoes all my edits without concern for their merit, or following to see where the images actually link, I think that might be in reference to this edit where I did revert Kintetsubuffalo, but only because they reverted here which actually re-added the incorrect article to the non-free use rationale and was unnecessary since Salavat had already fixed the problem here. I've tried to explain this at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo#File:Movimiento Scout Católico.svg so hopefully that particular edit is no longer an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless you've specifically directed the admins and interested parties to look at the talk page, there is no evidence to suggest that they do indeed look at the talkpages, and I have been involved in enough of these deletions over 10 years to see that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The template clearly says "Administrators: Check the image talk page for comments before deleting this file." I am not aware of any way to specifically direct an administrator's attention to the file's talk page other than by posting on the talk page itself. If a file is deleted in error, then it's undeletion can be requested via WP:REFUND, can't it? A post may also be made on the deleting admin's user talk page asking for clarification and whether they checked the file's talk page before deleting it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Some variant of {{Hang on}} seems to be needed here, like how {{Di-replaceable fair use}} has instructions to apply {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. (Template:Hang on immediately categorizes pages it's on into CAT:CSD, so it's probably not a good idea to use it directly.)
      Speaking solely for myself, though I don't usually monitor CAT:DFUI, I do do a fair amount of work in the other nonfree image deletion categories. I don't notice comments on file talk pages until after deleting their files mainly because they're essentially never relevant - out of the tens of thousands of images I deleted last year, I remember exactly one having a comment that wasn't either a Wikiproject banner or vandalism. —Cryptic 08:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      OK Cryptic. Is there another way to direct an admin to check the talk page before deleting the image since there seems to be no "hang on" for this situation? Can you just post something on the main file's page? For example, something like the following:

      Administrators: Please check the file's talk page because comments regarding its non-free usage have been posted there.

      Otherwise, I don't know how to tell an admin to look check a file's talk page any better than what the template currently says. Even if it's common practice for admins to not check file talk pages before deletion (thus making any talk page post basically pointless), there's still the "Note that if you think the image should not be deleted, please discuss the matter with the editor who placed this template on the image." Isn't that still more appropriate than simply removing the template before it has been reviewed by an admin? Once again, I only re-added the templates because I thought that they could only be removed by an admin after they had verified whether there was a problem with the file's non-free use. If anyone can remove them, then I will self-revert and nominate those files which I feel do not satisfy the NFCC for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Would that be an acceptable way to try and resolve this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|Please see the talk page and WP:AN#NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight}} at the very top would be more likely to be seen, and I don't think anyone who wants these images deleted would object to them moving to WP:FFD; but neither of those methods are going to fulfill Kintetsubuffalo's (entirely reasonable) request for an admin who doesn't normally work in image deletion to look at these. —Cryptic 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I just re-added the same templates that were removed. Your suggestion of "di-replaceable fair use disputed" seems workable, but that's mainly used for NFCC#1 issues, isn't it? As for a non-image admin looking at files, that's fine because I only re-added the templates so that the files could be reviewed by any admin. But, that review would be because the files are tagged for speedy deletion. Even if they do not meet the conditions for speedy, that does not preclude them being nominated for discussion at FFD, does it? I mean articles which are inappropriately tagged/declined for speedy or are de-prodded can still be brought to AfD, can't they? Doesn't the same also apply to files? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I was bold per Cryptic's above suggestion and went ahead and added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to all of the file's where I re-added {{di-fails NFCC}} tags. This is hopefully acceptable to Kintetsubuffalo since it will be pretty hard for any reviewing administrator not to see the new template. I believe I got all of the files I re-tagged, but please let me know if I missed any and I will add the template asap. Or, another editor can add it if they want. I did not re-re-add a "di-fails NFCC" tag to File:Scouts du Burkina Faso.png even though I still think there are still some outstanding NFCC issues which need to be resolved. I will discuss those at WP:FFD. I will also start a discussion at WT:NFC to and ask that the wording of templates such as "di-fails NFCC" cannot be clarified a bit to avoid any confusion and also make mention of "di-replaceable fair use disputed" or a similar template for those contesting such nominations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      MarchjulyFWIW, I appreciate your efforts to go back and add the clearer tag. We're still at cross-purposes, but that was big of you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries. I think we've disagreed about stuff in the past and probably will do so again about something else in the future, but I also think we are both here to try and improve Wikipedia and are acting in good faith. As I said in my above post, if I missed a file or two, or if there are other files which were tagged, then feel free to add Cryptic's suggestion to the file's page right below the "di-fails NFCC" template. The only thing you need to remember to do is to remove the "tlp|" from {{tlp|Di-replaceable fair use disputed|Please see the talk page and [[WP:AN#NFCC tagging by bot, and all of my changes after review being undone-request for admin oversight]]}} so that the template is not treated as a wikilink. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure why this tempest in a teapot can't be resolved. I support Kintetsubuffalo in his effort to fix the images and their templates. --evrik (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some time ago, users added {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} to file information pages, confirmin that the files violated WP:NFCC#8. The only thing which happened in 2016 was that the syntax was changed: one template saying that the files violate WP:NFCC#8 was replaced by another template saying that the same files violate WP:NFCC#8. If a file no longer violates WP:NFCC#8, or if the original template was misapplied, then I assume that the admin who evaluates the tags will remove the tag and possibly remove the file from some pages but keep it on pages where its use is appropriate.
      This matter also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Tidying up "di-XXXX" templates for non-free use. I left a comment on that page about talk pages and templates for disputing tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd just like to note that I'm about to go through all 163 files which are up for deletion as of today in Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 21 January 2016. Thought I'd point out that I am aware of this discussion. — ξxplicit 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I deleted 147 images. As expected, most did in fact blatantly violated WP:NFCC; I tagged seven talk pages with {{G8-exempt}} as some sort of discussion transpired, which I felt was reasonable to archive. I removed the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag from remaining the 16 images, as there was reasonable cause for a full discussion at WP:FFD. — ξxplicit 04:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Paul Robinson (footballer, born 1979)

      Could an Admin please semi-protect Paul Robinson (footballer, born 1979), it's being targeted by vandals for some unknown reason. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Gfoley4 following a request at WP:RFPP. Jenks24 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      FPAS case request

      A motion has been enacted in lieu of a full case. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Future Perfect at Sunrise case request

      Restoring warnings

      Hello, I wanted to advise you that user:BobKawanaka keeps restoring warnings on the talk page of user:166.173.251.120 after I told him that he needs to stop because user:166.173.251.120 unfortunately has the right to delete warnings on his own talk page. I do not know how to handle this one, so I need an administrator to make the final judgment. CLCStudent (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      That being said this looks like another one of the IP's that the 166.X troll uses (who has been banned). RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      His | edit summaries don't look very promising. I'm thinking a block would be good. KoshVorlon 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The IP has been blocked as a vandal, so that part's done. As to the warnings, CLC is correct, any user may remove almost anything from their talk page, and warring over it is not a good use of anyone's time. Hopefully that's all that needs to be said about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      "being ineducable"

      Blocked indef by Bishonen, whihc saved me blocking per WP:NLT. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Note: This section was mistakenly placed here by me when it should have been located at WP:AN/I. The discussion as far as 05:59, 28 January 2016 has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"being ineducable". My apologies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      @Miesianiacal and LilaTretikov: the term ineducable refers to mental disability. Unless you publicly disclaim this assertion with respect to me throughout Wikipedia, all rights are reserved. M Mabelina (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Bullying of Female editor by Shootingstar88

      Shootingstar88 has been given a warning that it is inappropriate to speculate about an editor's real life identity beyond what they have voluntarily shared on Wikipedia and attempts to pursue this would be a violation of WP:OUTING policy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I am a female editor and a female human. I have been personally attacked by editor Shootingstar88 accusing me of not being a female?? The gender biased personal attack on me is here. [15]. I retaliated to some degree on my talk page, but would never attack another editor in this way. I did believe that Wikipedia is trying to encourage female editors to participate, but this type of attack doesn't help that cause!!Charlotte135 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I am happy to prove my gender to any editor too. How can I do this please?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I couldn't figure out why it would matter to Shootingstar88 whether you were male or female, but after reading the diff you provided, I see that you have somewhat misrepresented what they said. The nub of their claim was not that you weren't female per se, but that you are a men's rights activist masquerading as a female in order to push a men's rights POV on articles about women, and not get negative feedback for it. That's really quite different from what you reported here. Shootingstar88 is essentially claiming that you are not editing from a neutral point of view and are hiding your bias and philosophical conflict of interest bu pretending to be something you're not. So proving that you are female (which I'm not sure you can do - although someone from the WP:OTRS team can correct me on that if I'm wrong) doesn't really solve the perceived problem of bias and lack of neutrality. I would say you need to address that question, and not the other - and Shootingstar88 actually has some good advice for your there:

      When I came here, I had trouble with the other editors too. But I discussed the issues and got over it, because in the end if you cite good studies that reflect the majority consensus in scientific literature then no one can revert your edits. Good research means you have to read a lot of scholarly reviews or replicated primary studies from pubmed or sciencedirect.

      I think you should consider that. BMK (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi. I am specifically talking about me being accused falsely of not being a female and extreme gender bias!! Wikipedia talk of how many men are editors compared with women and I am accused of not being female. This is extreme sexism. So, who is the WP:OTRS team? I am desperate now to prove my gender!! Why the hell should i have to though is the point. And here you are Beyond My Ken dismissing this personal attack. What type of sexist culture exists here??? Charlotte135 (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You are supposed to notify Shootingstar88 of this thread so that they may participate in the discussion.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't looked into the underlying dispute at all, but that remark is definitely inappropriate on Shootingstar88's part. For the record, Wikipedia:Harassment is a policy (so are Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Non-discrimination policy, but we'll leave those aside for the moment...). You don't need to prove anything about your identity. Nor could you, because gender identity is self-determined; we have to take your word for it by the very definition. — Earwig talk 04:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      So, this was stated by Shootingstar88 four days ago and you followed with attacks against them and Flyer22 Reborn. What is this? Is this some kind of tactic? You seem to launch your own attacks (edit summary - "Leave me alone Flyer22 and shootingstar you are just cheap, nasty bullies.") But now you show up four days after and wanting something here? It is called a boomerang. Your heat-to-light ratio isn't looking good so far.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment: Anyone wanting to know why I, Shootingstar88 or others feel the way we do about Charlotte135 can see this topic ban discussion. They can also see this and this section at Shootingstar88's talk page. And, yes, Charlotte135 commonly misrepresents people's comments, views and behavior. And even if one were to prove that Charlotte135 is female/a woman, it doesn't negate the disruptive editing and POV-pushing that Charlotte135 engages in when it comes to gender topics. Furthermore, as noted by me, Montanabw and CFCF, Charlotte135 was WP:Hounding Shootingstar88. I stated the following to Charlotte135 at Shootingstar88's talk page: "You saw Shootingstar88 editing domestic violence articles, and you even complained about Shootingstar88 editing the Intimate partner violence article. You stated, "Disturbingly though, while this witch hunt goes on and on, much to the pleasure of Flyer22reborn and her colleagues, editors are quietly continuing to quickly delete significant sections of the intimate partner violence section, basically in an attempt to convey to readers that men are the only perpetrators of IPV and women the victims. As anyone here can obviously see that is just not what the science says! Is this what Wikipedia represents? I'm a woman, but I'm also a scientist, and it is clear that the frantic additions to support a topic ban above, is about this censorship and agenda on Wikipedia and it appears.'" Charlotte135 has denied stalking Shootingstar88, even though the evidence is clear. Charlotte135 plays the victim when called out on violating Wikipedia's rules, and then asserts that Montanabw, CFCF and Gandydancer are a part of a gang (are my gang) intent on making things difficult (for Charlotte135). Quite frankly, I'd rather never interact with Charlotte135 again in my lifetime; that is how frustrating an editor Charlotte135 is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The reason I posted here is that I am a woman!!! And I am more than willing to prove it. I thought Wikipedia encourages women to join Wikipedia. Flyer22reborn you keep bringing up my editing at the domestic violence article because I dared, as a scientist to stumble across the article and saw extreme bias of you and a few editors However I've moved forward. How would you like your very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry between you and your brother in your parent's place every time you try to edit an article??? I just want the accusations that I am not a woman to stop! Full stop. I have periods each month, I have breasts and a vagina, but still I get accused of being part of some mensrights group and that I am a man. I want it to stop. That's it. Nothing more. No tactics. No bullshit, just stop the gender bias.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is another example of shootringstar88 and flyerreborn accusing me of not being a woman. [16] I'm just sick of it and want it to stop. I am not a man and I am not a bloody mensrightsactivist!! Show some respect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is what another uninvolved editor who noticed the bullying going on, wrote to Shootingstar88. Shootingstar88. I have never met Charlotte135 but I have no reason to believe that she is a man masquerading as a woman. I am in favour of having more women contribute to Wikipedia. Does that make me a woman masquerading as a man? Biscuittin (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I very much appreciated them standing up for me.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I think there are two things to look at here:
      The first of them of them is the pov-pushing Charlotte 135 has been accused of, and Charlotte 135 has accused others of, to look if it is really POV-pushing or not.(on both sides, ofc).
      The second of them are personal attacks on Charlotte 135 regarding gender... and the follow up incivilites by all involved editors.

      I'll split it up in two sections.--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Charlotte135, you asked, "How would [I] like [my] very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry between [me] and[ my] brother in [my] parent's place every time [I] try to edit an article???" I'd respond the way I've already responded to you on the matter; Alison saw that comment, by the way, judging by her thanks via WP:Echo. I already told you that if you have doubts about my innocence with regard to sockpuppetry, ask her. Otherwise, you just look desperate every time you try to mention my block log, which includes clear edit summaries about unjustified blocks and one block to protect my account when it had become WP:Compromised. I don't have a long history of blocks. Why don't you actually count them? You can keep misrepresenting my block log and trying to divert the attention from your bad behavior as much as you want to, but it will not work. Now do stop obsessing over me. And, oh, I wasn't living with my parents. My teenage brother was living with me. I'll go back to ignoring you now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      No, I was just sick of you and others trying to drag me back into the domestic violence article. I've walked. But you and Shootingstar won't let me go. Here you and Shootingstar actually posted a separate section on domestic violence on another article's talk page. Then you Flyer22 went ahead and deleted it from the record! Here is the entire conversation [17]
      Why do you and shootingstar keep dragging up the bloody domestic violence article. It is an extremely biased article which is filled with POV, but I don't care. I've walked and got on with editing. Nonetheless I'm a big girl and promise not to bring your sockpuppetry and history of blocks up again, albeit in reaction to your constant attempts to continue beating a dead horse. Just stop the accusations over my gender and your mensrights crud. Please!Charlotte135 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Possible POV-pushing

      Personal attacks and incivility

      This is clearly inappropiate. Don't speculate on any editors gender. Accusing someone of representing a wrong gender based on their views is unacceptable. User:Shootingstar88 please tell us why you did that. And please promise not to do it again. An apology would be good as well.
      This is already a very angry post...
      and no matter how someone attacks you personally, you must not tell anyone to grow up, User:Charlotte135. Editors at Wikipedia are asked to respond to personal attacks with civility. Not with other personal attacks, which just puts oil into the fire and makes the situation difficult to resolve(and can lead to sanctions against you as well!).--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Müdigkeit, that sounds fair. I'm a big girl and accept that my reaction to these comments was not ideal. I have read the policy you pointed out too. I apologise for my reaction.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      'Totally agree Müdigkeit, speculation on who someone is, which is what shootingstar88 did (not just gender, but in particular who they are ) is edging very close to outing, I'd request that edit ( the first one you mention) be revdel'd and ShootingStar88 needs to back off Charlotte135 unless proof of his accusation (through the appropriate channels on Wikipedia) can be offered. KoshVorlon 11:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well the thing is, Charlotte clearly *is* an MRA (directly or indirectly) from perusing their editing history. While it is statistically unlikely such a person is female, there are highly active male feminists, so I wouldnt concentrate on their gender. Just focus on their POV-pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Is that an attempt at a joke at my expense Only in death? And what exactly is "an MRA" by the way? And what is a female MRA? I actually do identify as a feminist, by the way, as did my mother, but what the hell has that got to do with anything either?? What business is it of yours?? How is this gender bias, gender attacks and extreme incivility tolerated by administrators?Charlotte135 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think User:Only in death is making a joke. “MRA” is an abbreviation for "Mens’ Rights Activist," a movement with which you would appear to hold some sympathy. The overwhelming majority of Mens’ Rights Activists are men, but of course women might support that movement just as many men support feminism. There's no bias in that observation, no attack, and no incivility that I can see. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It is certainly true that nobody should be demanding that anyone else reveal or prove their gender. Who someone "really" is is irelevant. My username implies I am a two-headed alien who is president of the galaxy. I've never been asked to prove it. I once met a black nazi sympathizer. These things happen. Edits people, it's the edits that count. Comment on the edits and leave the personal stuff out of it. And yeah, everybody please just calm down. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      But MarkBernstein I am a female feminist! I have a vagina, breasts, bleed once per month, have 2 biological children, one step child, a dog and a cat, and believe in rights for men, women, children and animals. I'm a scientist and believe in equality. None of my edits have evidenced POV. Only that some people like you and Flyer22, Shootingstar and others seem to know a whole lot more than me about thinks like the MRB! So...? Not all feminists are man haters Mark! But some men are misogynists and treat women with disrespect!Charlotte135 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Beeblebrox, who can I contact in Wikipedia paid management team please, to discuss these attacks and bias against new female editors and provide some personal details to verify all of the factual, personal information being demanded of me, including my feminist beliefs? I thought Wikipedia were encouraging and welcoming of new female editors?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      And MarkBernstein could you provide some diffs here to illustrate the exact edits to actual articles which show why you believe I am a male rights activist and not a fair minded adult woman in her 50's? That would be appreciated.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems to me that all these editors who know so much about these types of groups are perhaps not neutral? Just an observation. For example if one were to carefully look at the entire editing history of shootinstar88, they seem to have only edited gender topics and hold extremely strong, even passionate personal points of view in these gender articles, very similar to the ones you and flyer22 also talk of so confidently and personally MarkBernstein. Is shootinstar88 showing a POV I'm wondering? Could some experienced editors (who importantly, are not as familiar with male and female rights movements) look at Shootingstars edit history and determine if there is a POV in their actual edits to actual articles as Beeblebrox pointed out we should only focus on. Would that explain the attacks on any neutral, good faith editors, (male or female) who try (tried, in my case) to show what the reliable sources actually say?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      (ec)

      Charlotte135, you have already had editors support you in your assertion that it was improper to question your gender. You don't have to list all of your womanly qualities with exclamation marks. WP:AN is a noticeboard where editors can request administrator action and I don't see what else you are requesting besides the demand that other editors believe you are who you say you are. But this is not a discussion board where editors debate your identity. You can only change editors' opinion of you by making productive edits that abide by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Focus on the work, not on other people's opinion of you.
      Administrators can only take action against misconduct, not what other editors think and believe. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Liz. Understood. Just wanted to ensure all editors now clearly understand the reality that I am a woman and I am a feminist and back off! It is very clear that these editors are incredibly passionate about these mens and womens rights groups. However I'm not, so, yes please back off and show some respect Flyer22reborn and co. Now, as for the significant personal attack on me by shootinstar88, I am waiting for administrator action against Shootingstar88's misconduct for their blatant and personal accusation that I am not a woman?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Disruptive RFC needs closing

      An excavator driven by a climate change denier, still digging industriously.

      Biscuittin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently unhappy with the tone of the article on Climate change denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because he thinks we do not give enough weight to the denialist viewpoint. This has resulted in a long series of conversations at various venues, which have as usual supported the scientific consensus view. Since Biscuittin seems unwilling to accept the answer no, I proposed that he take one of two courses: walk away, or start, and abide by the outcome of, an RFC. Sadly his attempt at an RFC is simply to rehash the same nonspecific and unactionable WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See Talk:Climate change denial § RfC: This article is unencyclopedic and does not comply with NPOV. I think this RFC needs closing as obviously unactionable and Biscuittin needs counselling on how to start an RFC that can actually yield any kind of result. Either than or the whole thing needs to go to WP:AE, since people are losing patience with the constant demands to be "fair" to climate change denialists. 10:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Guy (Help!)

      Addendum: some bizarre choices of location for canvassing.
      WikiProject meteorology, arguably valid
      WikiProject earth science, arguably valid
      WikiProject cosmology, WTF?
      WikiProject solar system ditto
      WikiProject physics srsly? And twice?
      WikiProject chemistry also twice
      WikiProject plants also [18] twice
      WikiProject animals
      WikiProject geology
      WikiProject soil.
      I think this looks like disruption and a case of WP:RGW. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have changed the RfC heading to Talk:Climate_change_denial#RfC:_Is_this_article_encyclopedic_and_does_it_comply_with_NPOV? and struck out part of the RfC to accommodate objections from other editors. I have not been canvassing, I have just followed the advice at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. I have posted news of the RfC on several Wikiproject science talk pages because I want to get comments from a broad range of editors with an interest in science. So far, the same small group of people have been making the same assertions over and over again so it would be useful to have a wider range of contributors and this is the reason for the RfC. Any disruption has not been caused by me but by a small group of editors who want to maintain the article as it is, in spite of its unencyclopedic tone and failure to comply with WP:NPOV. Biscuittin (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Two editors appear to be trying to prevent me from publicising this RfC. [19] [20] Biscuittin (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Agree with Guy. And this isn't the first waste-of-time from this editor. This is within the area of climate change; what about some sanctions? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I should point out that it was Guy who suggested that I start an RfC. [21] Biscuittin (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this a trap? Suggest I start an RfC and then sanction me for following the suggestion? Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's not a trap, but you treated it as if it was: rampant canvassing in completely inappropriate venues for an RFC that is of no use whatsoever other than as a venue for you to continue making vague and nonspecific demands to change the article because reasons. RFCs are supposed to be specific and actionable. The only likely action from yours is a trip to WP:AE. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @William M. Connolley: The user was alerted in December. If you believe sanctions under ARBCOMCC should be applied, WP:AE is the appropriate venue. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Martin Hogbin

      Also see Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin, December 2014

      Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

      The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
      He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([22][23][24]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find [him] some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [25], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.
      Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [26],[27],[28]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [29] and a couple dictionary definitions [30] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition.
        For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, [31] having already suggested it at great length in 2014. [32] See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions,[33] the majority of his long Wikipedia career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've encountered Martin Hogbin in a few places covering topics such as probability, mathematical physics, Midway, and a third opinion response. He devotes a lot of energy to his positions, but that can be good or bad. I agree with some of his positions, disagree with some others, and am out of my depth in still others. I don't see anything outrageous in the diffs above, and the talk page dialog does not appear disruptive. He can be pointed, intense, and demanding, but it takes two to tango on a talk page. If someone responds to Martin, then he will respond. If the other person stops responding, then Martin will stop responding. It might be annoying, but trying to revisit a topic 6 months later does not seem outrageous. Martin can be difficult and he can be wrong, but I don't see the behavior here being actionable. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many months ago, I interacted with Martin Hogbin, around British articles. I found him to be quite pleasant & easy to collaborate with. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments from Martin Hogbin

      I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Wikipedia or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      "There has been considerable support for this article being a lipogram, not just from JJB. I think you should assume some good faith on his part. Just that he wants one thing and you want another is not a fair fair reason to assume bad faith on hos part. So, why should this article not be a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) ". You kids are adorbs.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Break

      • De-archived January 28. Martin Hogbin continues to be a disruptive presence. He comports himself in an overtly polite manner while manipulating the system to disruptively push his idiosyncratic points of view, which have ranged from climate change skepticism to counterfactual history to the opinion alluded to by Dan Murphy above - I didn't know the half of it. In present case of veganism, where for the past six months he has been pushing the idea that calling animals "commodities" is rhetoric - in defiance of all sources - he refuses to drop the stick. He has been soapboxing about the issue on other pages, for example here and here, in the hope of persuading other editors to support him in the ongoing RfC. Notice how in the second diff he even discourages the other editor from taking the issue to the appropriate talk page. He also abusively AfD'd commodity status of animals, offering nothing that approaches a valid deletion reason. And he has now gone back to fighting over a related issue with the lede sentence which was raised and resolved six months ago:[34]. Individually, his actions may seem minor or harmless - collectively, they form a campaign. Too many editors have sunk too much time into dealing with this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want to clarify that when I write "manipulating the system" I am referring to his way of using multiple fora over the long term, avoiding overt rule-breaking behavior, and appealing to others who may be sympathetic because they don't know the context of the problem. There is an essay on this: WP:Civil POV pushing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I am in the same position as Martin Hogbin. I am constantly being accused of POV-pushing by people who want to push their own POV. Biscuittin (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment/request@User talk:Sammy1339 Sammy, please can I respectfully suggest that you drop the references to other editors being "overly polite" or WP:Civil POV pushing. I am also on the receiving end of such name calling (not from you, of course) and it is really unpleasant and inflammatory. When has it ever been a crime to remain civil? Please take this message in the way it is intended.DrChrissy (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @DrChrissy: I can understand how this essay can be misused, and that is probably why it is not policy. From what I've seen I think the accusations against you are without merit. However, the contents of this essay describe Martin's behavior almost to a T. The crime isn't remaining civil - the purpose of mentioning civility is to alert people to the fact that his politesse is superficial. It is impossible for me to imagine that all his endless needling objections are genuine. I don't claim to know why he's doing it - to be generous to him, maybe there's no ulterior motive and he simply enjoys arguing for its own sake. However it's not constructive and he is pushing particular (and often peculiar) points of view for months and years on end. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Sammy - thanks for the reply. I think your much greater long-term experience of editing in this area makes you much more qualified to comment on this than myself.DrChrissy (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems clear at Veganism that Martin's aim is to disrupt. Just one example: he complained that the first sentence seemed to describe only one form of veganism. Sammy noticed that someone had removed the word both: that veganism is "both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." So Sammy restored the word both. Martin removed it again, [35] even though it solved the issue he had raised.
        So now we may have to devote weeks to discussing that single word with him. When that ends, he'll start another about an equally minor or obvious issue. It has been going on now for over a year. He is the 4th highest commentator on talk, with 234 edits since October 2014. The three editors with more talk-page edits than him – Kellen (390), myself (295) and Viriditas (272) – have all been editing the page since 2007. [36]
        I would mind less if he were reading the literature and bringing himself up to speed. But there is no sign of his having read any of the sources, even when people type up what they say on talk. SarahSV (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's worth reading this AN/I from December 2014: Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin. He decided that "Scottish" is not a nationality, and would not let it go. There was extreme repetition, forum shopping, RfCs, canvassing, etc. The proposal for a topic ban failed, but it was exactly the problem described above. SarahSV (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Backlog at UAA

      There's a serious backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for any admins who can find a few minutes to stop by and help out. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Posting about it every week on AN is hardly necessary nor helpful, especially when the latest post is only a few days old. Everything is a backlog by definition. It'll get done eventually. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate your...help? ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It is, indeed, helpful, and should not be discouraged. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Magioladitis

      Magioladitis (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and his bot Yobot (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have been blocked many times for issues relating to violations of the bot policy and AWB's rules of use. The most common complaint is that he makes many trivial ("cosmetic") changes which do not change the appearance of an article but clog up editors' watchlists. The most recent block was for one month. He was unblocked three days ago on the back of strict conditions that he would not perform any automated or semi-automated edits for the duration of the block length (see User talk:Magioladitis#Unblock request for details). However I have just reblocked because he was not adhering to these conditions.

      In usual circumstances I would remove access to AWB, but as Magioladitis is an administrator this is not possible. I have suggested to him in the past that it would be better to cease all automated editing from his main account. However he has not acquiesced to this yet, and judging from recent events I wonder if he is able to restrain himself in this way voluntarily.

      I would like to stress that I believe Magioladitis is acting in good faith, his non-automated edits are beneficial and his administrator actions are not concerning. However the automated editing is proving problematic and we should find a way to manage this.

      I'm here to propose to the community that Magioladitis be topic banned from making all automated and semi-automated edits from his main account indefinitely. Any bot jobs approved at WP:BRFA may continue, and we gain from his experience as a long-term editor, admin and BAG member. If this does not achieve consensus, then let's brainstorm other avenues to deal with this.

      I am notifying the following editors who have been involved in the past: xaosflux — Materialscientist — The Earwig — GoingBatty — Frietjes — Fram — Bgwhite — intgr — JohnBlackburne — GB fan: and I will notify Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Perhaps Mag could be unblocked only to participate in this discussion? I'd like to know why he is so persistent in applying cosmetic changes, whether he's trying to climb a leaderboard or is just slightly obsessive about articles being "just so" in terms of whitespace, bypassing harmless redirects, etc. No matter the reason, it's not setting a good example as a member of BAG. And it's a significant annoyance and timesink as people review the edits and have to determine what the reason was (when there is really, none). –xenotalk 21:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have reminded Magioladitis of WP:COSMETICBOT bot several times over the years, more than anyone else, so I'll join the crowd here. These pointless edits have to stop. I'm fine with the occasional bot malfunction, or the occasional misclick on 'save' when you meant 'skip' with AWB. But there's a larger issue at play with Magio's bot in that the bot logic rarely seems to be tested to prevent trivial changes before being unleashed on the wiki. As a BAG member, Magio should understand that WP:COSMETICBOT is not an optional rule and has to be anticipated and tested for just like one needs to test their bots against replacing [[www]] with [[w[[WW (album)|''WW'']]]] on all pages when you wanted to replace [[WW]] with [[WW (album)|''WW'']] on some pages.
      I'm not going to say Magio should be removed from BAG at this point, but it's certainly an option I'm willing to consider if Magio keeps running their bots without making sure they first comply with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:COSMETICBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I second xeno's suggestion to allow Magioladitis to participate in this discussion on this page. GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not oppose an unblock on condition that he only edit this page and his own talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping, I do recognize the positive contributions that Magioladitis brings to the project, which is why I tried to work with him on a limited topic ban as his unblock condition (see WP:EDR#Final_warnings_.2F_Unblock_conditions). As clearly stated in the unblock, condition violation may lead to additional sanctions including re-blocking. As one of the WP:AWB developers, I would expect he would need to make minimal AWB edits (possibly via LEGITSOCKS) for testing and troubleshooting purposes even if he ends up under a long term editing restriction, possibly under specific conditions? — xaosflux Talk 22:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a real shame and sad to see energetic editors who like to make mass-fixes get blocked for it. Though the fixes I see here would be so low on my priority list that I couldn't envision them ever rising in my work queue to get even close to approaching the top of the list. Is there any real concern here, though, besides cluttering up watchlists? Can't you just scan or skim the edit summaries in your watchlists and just disregard or ignore "Cleaned up using AutoEd"? If Magio needs something more important and substantial to clean up, then I have several tasks in my overloaded work queue I'd love to outsource to him. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, thank you for the ping MSGJ. I'm not sure what to do. As people have said, he makes positive contributions. Since he was unblocked, Maigoladits has probably done ~2,000 semi-manually edits via Yobot's account. Most of this is due to the latest dumpfile via CheckWiki. This is the first dump since ISSN checks were added, which contributed to this message on Yobot's talk page. So, ~2,000 good contributions vs ~20 pointless ones. I don't want to see him blocked because of his overall contributions, but on the other hand, something must be done.
      MSGJ, AWB's CheckPage does allow for blacklisted names. I'm not sure if a blacklisted name takes precedent over an admin. Rjwilmsi is the person to ask. Plus, as the main AWB programmer, he could come up with suggestions.
      WPCleaner and AutoEd don't have a permission system. But, AutoEd needs to be added to a person's common.js/vector.js file to work. Removing this from the .js file and making it sure it isn't added back should be easy. WPCleaner doesn't make the "trivial" changes or general fixes as the other two programs do. I don't see a problem in not letting Magioladitis keep using that. Bgwhite (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      This is refreshing because it's the first time I've seen you accept that there is a problem. In the past you have steadfastly defended him. I'm hopeful we can work together to find a solution. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I interacted with him on this issue several times when I was an administrator. The problem has been going on for years, both with edits from Magoioladitis' main account and from his bot, Yobot. For example, search for "cosmetic edit" on Magioladitis' talk page [37], or look at the block log for Yobot [38]. The responses that always seem to be given are that the edits were a mistake, or are from bug in the software that is being used, or are necessary because of some other bug in the software that is being used. I would expect to see these same excuses again if he comments on this thread. After years of seeing them, I have yet to see Magioladitis take responsibility for his errors by making the changes necessary prevent them (e.g. fixing the years-longstanding bugs in his software that allow cosmetic edits to be saved, making his edit summaries more descriptive, etc.). I believe that any long-term resolution to the problem will require very tight edit restrictions on both his main account and his bot account. Otherwise, you will be back here again soon enough. Good luck, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      There is also the repeated violations of WP:BOTREQUIRE, in particular for bots to be conservative in their edit speeds. Non-urgent tasks such as the bot does should be done at the rate of no more than once every ten seconds, so six a minute. But only yesterday it was making edits several times faster than this, with dozens of edits per minute. This has been raised before, and is surely easily fixable – any code on any computer can query the system clock to at least second accuracy. It is just he thinks WP:BOTREQUIRE does not apply to his bot and can be ignored, as well as the above problems with cosmetic edits and edit descriptions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 05:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      (Non-administrator comment) Based on the circumstances outlined here, I really think the only solution is desysopping, followed by loss of AWB privileges. Adminship shouldn't be a "shield" which protects one from the kind of restrictions that a "regular" editor in the same circumstances would see. I suspect Arbcom could handle this by motion, though they might want to make a "full case" out of it... But, ultimately, this is boiling down to "trust" and "judgement" (and it's come up repeatedly) and Admins that display neither probably need to lose the bit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I have raised this issue with him several times in the past. Lots of pointless AWB edits that add no value whatsoever. He stops for a time, then restarts after the dust settles. Thankfully I'm not alone with these concerns. Rulez iz rulez for AWB, but this user seems to be "untouchable" due to their so-called admin status. Once again, it's one rule for AWB running bots and one rule for the rest of us. At one point I put my foot through my laptop and sent him the bill. PS - Do I win a fiver? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have till now held back from calling for his administrator status to be removed, and am still hopeful this won't be necessary. Obviously I expected the issue to come up, and I acknowledge the apparent inconsistency in the treatment he is receiving. We are looking for the best solution for the project and there is absolutely nothing wrong with his admin actions. (Okay he unblocked his own bot once, a long time ago, but I don't remember the exact circumstances.) Personally I'd like to have a try with some editing restrictions before we turn to Arbcom. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      So far we have lots of editors pointing out the problems, but not many solutions being proposed. It might be useful if you could indicate whether or not you support the proposal in the first paragraph. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Remove AWB and ban from operating bots. Problem disappears. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support a ban on automated edits, meaning both tools such as AWB, AutoEd and through a bot, as the problems occur on both accounts.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zordon (2nd nomination)

      I'm looking for some advice. What's the best thing to do with this AfD? The nominator is a sockpuppet and was blocked before the end of the AfD; one established editor participated, as did two IPs, one of which belongs to the same sockmaster. In light of that, the result is potentially unsound. Is it worth re-opening it or re-closing it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The sockpuppetry is not good. However, the article should probably have been merged anyway. There doesn't seem to be an independent notability for the character. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      AFD is not required anyways for merging. Merging can be done unilaterally, as it is part of the normal editing process and reversible without the use of admin tools. I see no contradiction with closing the AFD as bad faith/sock abuse, and just enacting the merge anyway. --Jayron32 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The AFD had been NAC'd as merge, but I reclosed it as a bad-faith-speedy-keep with reccomended merger discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=702246819"