Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 113 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)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 87 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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) 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) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 67 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 64 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)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 63 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)

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

(Initiated 63 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)

 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)

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	8	17	5	30
TfD	0	0	14	0	14
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	1	20	2	23
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 69 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 68 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 65 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 64 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)

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

(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 58 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 56 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 53 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 44 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 35 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)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 83 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 55 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)

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)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 7 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)

Stop to following me or ban that person from my editing

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

---

I already wrote this kind of request, but I can't find it, so I try to repeat my request. I'm asking to stop/ban Joseph2302 who followed me in my editing during Draft, or when the article was already submitted, and demanding that the article would be deleted. Instead of my request to you, he and another editor wrote you that I harassing them with the personal attacks (archive 925), which is not true. I understand that you will believe them more because they are a part of your "team", and even my prev. request looks is deleted, so I can't see the result of the dispute. I don't know Joseph2302 motive, I don't know him personally, but his action of asking for deleting my article by any course is done not in the good faith. And it does not make a good face for wikipedia as the organization. If you will find my prev. request, I have more details there, but here I just asking you to stop/ban Joseph2302 from any of my inputs. My article was deleted, then moved to the article, and now is moved back to the Draft, as Draft:Natalia Toreeva. From 10 pages in the beginning of the article, it was reduced by another editor to several lines, but still it was moved back to the Draft. If Joseph2302 will not be banned from my input, I don't see any reason to continue on the article, since it will be deleted without reason again. Do you have some independent editors who can look into this matter, and make the reason to define the article. Some of the editors told, the article is Autobiography, another told about notability discussion, and another editors including from Teahouse, notability is OK just need to clean up. Now, it is only several lines, but still..

So, I'm asking you to ban Joseph2302 from any of my input, so I can continue working on improvement of the article and put aside my struggling. Hope you understand it. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your request is unlikely to happen, but it certainly isn't going to happen unless you provide diffs as evidence. Also, since you seem to be writing an article on Natalia Toreeva, and your use name is Toreeva, one might surmise that you have a vconflict of interest, a policy you should read. If the article is about you, you should also read WP:Autobiography, in which writing your own autobigraphy is strongly discouraged. BMK (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I would consider that likely given they uploaded File:Natalia Toreeva End of USSR 1992.jpg describing it as created by Natalia G. Toreeva and they claim to be the copyright holder. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Before writing an autobiography it is critically important that you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Toreeva: If you can't find your own past edits, then how can you expect others to? You need to provide some form of evidence, diffs, links to previous discussions, or concrete foundation for others to go and find out what happened. Furthermore, it will be extremely difficult to prove that someone is following you when 80% of your article edits are to one page and almost all of the rest of your edits are to a single page draft in a related area and your own user talk page (WP:SPA) -- maybe they just disagreed with you in two instances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the editing history of Draft:Natalia Toreeva, it seems as if quite a few editors have had a hand in editing it, and many of them reduced your text down to a manageable referenced article. Joseph2302 tried to get it speedy deleted [1], but was turned down by RHaworth[2], who then took it to AfD [3], all of which is perfectly legitimate if, in their opinion, the subject did not fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. At AfD, the community decided to delete the article [4], so it was moved back to Draftspace.

I'm not seeing how any of that adds up to a sanction for Joseph2302. BMK (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva provides some of the necessary background.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose that in order to reduce the community's general blood pressure, and to preserve any WP career User:Toreeva might have remaining to her, she is indefinitely banned from working on articles relating to her and her work, broadly construed. As noted above, lots of editors repaired that article, and it had been returned to draft space in order to continue that work. Her assistance in doing so is supremely unrequired and wholly of a negative impact. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment That's why I asked for help in editing and also the Teahouse editors, since I understand I can't do it on my own. The article was edited by some editors, including "Ymblanter" and "My very best wishes", for which I appreciated, so it should not be as autobio anymore, but still it was moved to the Draft. Now what? If it will be there, and I don't permitted to edit, and no one is willing to improve the article, what is the next step for it? It is obviously to me. As the bigger picture: I'm doing my input to the "Soviet Nonconformist Art" (unofficial art in Russia), specifically St. Petersburg art groups such as "School of Sidlin". which I was part of that movement, "Sterligov Group", and "Arefiev Group". I feel it is my obligation to write about that time of the 1970-1980, because the time is ticking, and the legacy of that historical art movement could be missed. For example, in Arefiev group, only 1 artist is still alive, in our group, Yuri Nashivochnikov is 92 years old, etc. That's why they asked me to make my input, and also to include the article about Natalia Toreeva to show that the description of the groups was done by the "real" person. And if this small article will not get any approval, I am not going to waste the time and working on the bigger project, that in my opinion will be lost for the art history.

• Another question I have: about the collections in museums. When I looked other artists for the structure of the article, for ex., Alek Rapoport, A. Belkin, A. Ney, V. Lisunov, etc, they mentioned the museums that have their art work in their collection. And the references are only the photos of those museums. But when I included 5 museums, where my art work in their collection, this input was deleted, since it should be the website of that museum, where you (editor) can read the name of the artist in their collection. I have the official docs of the museums, where my art work in their collection, but your editors told me it should be the references to those museums to see your name is there. Is it the big hole in your acceptance in notability of the artists? Why another artists were accepted just naming the museums, but my input was deleted? I asked, for example, Spertus museum (in Chicago), if they have any websites where your editors can read the info about specific artist in their collection. He sent me email, that my art work indeed in their collection, but they don't have any websites for it, may be in future. So, what I should do in this case? I have an official docs from them (in 1978) about my art work in their collection, but no website any museum has where they would mentioned the artists. I also have the official docs from Dhiagilev museum, the State "Tsarskoselskaya Collection" museum, who send me the official docs about my art work in their collection (2014-2016). It could be another interesting fact: I have my art work (sculpture and graphics works for the films) in "Lenfilm" film studio museum, 1976-1977, St. Petersburg, and I asked them also about if they have any Website about their artists and the art works in the museum. Yesterday, I got an email, that after the falling of Soviet Union (1991), their museum started from ZERO. Everything was lost due to the political or financial problems, so they just started to gather info about the museum. It will take probably several years to restore or re-build the museum. Same with the Lenfilm film studio itself. I also have my Posters in the Washington museum of Russian poetry, and I gave the references of the website. But the editor told me you don't accept the "blog" info. I understand it. But the work is there, so you can't just delete any info, so looks like the artist's art work are not in the collection. Should be some easier way to accept the info, or accept the email where you can see the real doc, but not in the website of the museums, which currently don't exist? Why another artists info about the museums were accepted but my info was deleted? Something wrong is here, or your policy should have some acceptance rules others than just easy acceptance to delete. I don't talk about other countries, but since the falling of Soviet Union, and the Underground of Russian art, it should be done some correction on acceptance the info about that struggling time. So, please give me advice what is the next step with the article which is now Draft:Natalia Toreeva. Thank you for your time.Toreeva (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the next step is that we don't have the article. Unless the concerns brought up at AfD are addressed somehow. The AfD found "a strong consensus that COI editing has made the current state of the article an unsalvageable mess. I would strongly recommend that if a future article is created, the individual who is the subject of the article stick to participation on and suggestions on the talk page rather than direct article edits."

So unless somebody who does not have a conflict of interest decides to create the article we probably just won't have one. If this happens your role would be best limited to discussion on the talk page rather than direct editing. If you just create it again in draft space then the AfD reasoning still applies. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 16:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly- which is why I suggest that Toreeva, for her own good (or, at least the good of the article) is banned from editing it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment All my references I gave in the Talk page, and the participated editors chose whatever references were appropriate for the article. That's why from the 10 pages, the article was reduced to several lines and 29 references, that supports the material, which I have no objection. All the drawings (5) were approved with no copyright problem, and I received the approval long time ago. The problem I can see that the article is about Russian (and American) artist, and some references are in Russian. So the "judging" editors should understand Russian lang. AND have the knowledge of the Nonconformist Art movement of 1970s in USSR, political instability, that forced many artists to emigrate. Without these "small" knowledge, any decision about the article (or as now, Draft) would be bias, that shows one more time, it is hard to find anyone with this knowledge, who would find time to improve the article and to pass the "judgement", not for the article itself, but for the history. ("Thanks!", "Спасибо!", "Danke!") Thank you again.Toreeva (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you find the community ill suited to judge your article, nonetheless it is the community that makes these decisions. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• HighInBC, it is your own interpretation. I very appreciate to the editors, who helped me with the article, but even though I'm disappointing with the result, I have a good lesson. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Ymblanter: and @My very best wishes:, mentioned by Toreeva above as helping with the article, to let them know of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not revealed my interpretation, I have just described the community's interpretation as they are the ones who came to the conclusion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

If I'm understand what I'm reading correctly, then I believe there are two issues:

1. Is Natalia Toreeva Wiki-notable?
2. Should editor Toreeva, who admits to being Natalia Toreevea, edit the (currently draft) article.

The first question seems to be difficult to answer for non-Russian speaking editors. Ymblanter seems clear that she is not, and Vellela seems to be saying that she is not. Editor My very best wishes !votes that she passes notability requirements, but I'm not sure of their fluency in Russian. The "delete" close of the AfD appears to me to be a correct determination of overall community consensus, and in this case we may have no choice but to lean more heavily on the opinions of those who can read the citations in their original language. So at this point, the consensus is mixed. of both the overall community and of those who can read the citations in the original language agree that Natalia Toreeva is not Wiki-notable. The Draft article should stay as a draft so that it can be improved until it satisfies those requirements, and deleted if it doesn't do so after a reasonable time period.

The second question appears much clearer to me: we're none of us particularly objective about ourselves, but Natalia Toreeva, in the guise of editor Toreeva, seems to be incapable of separating her role as an editor of Wikipedia, and her desire to have an article about herself that is as extensive as possible. I suggest that this is a textbook case for formally imposing the WP:COI protocols and banning Toreeva from directly editing the draft article, limiting her to making suggestions on the talk page. Further, if she cannot control her tendency towards wall-of-text comments, she may need to be banned from the talk page as well, leaving the draft article to the care of other editors. Again, if it's not improved in a reasonable amount of time to a form which will survive an AfD, then it should be deleted and salted, in both Draftspace and Articlespace.

Oh, and, of course, no sanction for Joseph2302 as requested by Toreeva. BMK (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I actually think she is most likely wiki-notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make that correction above. BMK (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. BMK (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as having said something similiar above. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment BMK, it seems to me that both (Ymblanter and My very best wishes) editors speak/know Russian lang. and they both told positively about the notability. Look Ymblanter's comment after your input. So, please correct your comments, and I didn't see any comments before of Vellela you mention. And secondly, I asked independent judgement to see my request to ban Joseph2302, and instead the same editor (Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi) who voted already to delete the article, and who already supported Joseph2302 from ban in 2015 from someone, and who received "Thanks you" from Joseph2302 for that. And my prev. request to ban him was deleted somehow and by somebody. And my request to Teahouse for help to improve the article was also deleted by Joseph2302, but then restored when I asked him why he deleted it? Instead you are voting to ban ME. Is it independent judgement with a good faith? ("God did not come to judge the world but to save the world" (John 12:15)).10:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Toreeva (talk)
• Support I think limiting their contributions on the article about themselves to the talk page is the best way forward. If nobody else is ready to make this article, it may just be that Wikipedia is not the place for it. If anyone without a conflict can make an article up to standards then all the power to them. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Toreeva You're obliged to notify me when you report me to this noticeboard. I haven't interacted with this user for a week or two, but support the user not being allowed to directly edit the draft. Without her intervention, I believe this article could be notable and written in a tone appropriate for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry Joseph2302, I thought it is going automatically to the person mentioned by name. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, you need to manually notify the editor on their talk page. Even using the notification function (i.e. "ping") is not a substitute for that. Can I also give you two tips about writing comments on Wikiepedia? (1) Break up your comment into smaller paragraphs then you're using now. Big paragraphs bring on the MEGO effect (i.e. "My eyes glaze over") and make comments much harder to read. (2) Indent your comments. Add a series of colons before the comment, with each colon generating a tab. So, I added a single colon and an asterisk to your comment above so it would appear indented from Joseph2302's comment, and my response (which you are reading now) begins with 2 colons and an asterisk, so it is indented from yours. In this way it's much easier for readers to follow who is responding to whom. BMK (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestions, BMK, I will try to use colons and asterisk. But in case of using Joseph2302 talk page, on May 27, he BANNED me from using his talk page. And this is my 2nd request to admin. Since the article was put on Draft with the improvement possibility, I see that no way the article can pass, independently who is helping to improve it, if he follows me with only one goal, to delete. So I asked admin. what is result of my complain, should I continue, or stop and get out from this unhealthy communication, and he said there is no my complain, so looks someone deleted it. Therefore, I open again this one for the discussion. I included this note just for your info, and not for the fighting again. I'm tired of it. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• My talkpage, my rules- I didn't want to be involved in this article anymore, but you keep dragging me back into it. Also the fact admins have already dismissed your complaints about my conduct shows you won't get the outcome you want. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oh and the discussion being referred to is this one, which was started by another user because you were harassing me. It got closed because everyone said "Let the AfD run its course and then re-evaluate". That turned out well, you're still harassing me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Toreeva & Joseph2302 - I am a person who is not shy about banning people from my talk page if I find them too bothersome, and the community has decided that that is within the rights of the talk page's "owner" (scare quotes because no one truly owns their talk page, the WMF does). However, no talk page ban can prevent a user from posting a notification that they are required to make, such as the notification of the filing of a noticeboard complaint about the person. That is required, it says so on every edit you make to those pages, and a short neutral comment such as "There is a discussion which concerns you at WP:AN (or WP:ANI). You can find it [URL-goes-here here]" fulfills the requirement and is also non-objectionable from the POV of the talk page "owner". I believe you'll also find a template in the orange box you'll see when you go to post a comment which you can use for that purpose, {{subst:AN-notice}} BMK (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment BMK, I hope I will not need to use it in future. I understand you would ban person, if it's "too bothersome", showing already your side of the discussion. But did you personally check his talk page where he accused me with my "bad behavior"? Objectively? NONE are there. I'm not going to interrupt you in this discussion, though. Previously I opened discussion to ban the person, and instead the discussion was switched from the helping to improve the article to deleting the article and putting it to Draft, and now discussing about to ban ME from the article, which shows the power of judgement the editors have in this system, independently from their knowledge of content. This is sad.. Thanks for your time. Keep Calm and Enjoy the 1st Day of Summer!Toreeva (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Ymblanter that the BLP page passes our notability guidelines, although not by a large margin. That was already said by me and by a few other participants during the AfD. The draft is not really a "mess", at least in its present state. On the other hand, the COI is very much obvious. I agree that COI guidelines (which are already in place - no need for anything special) must be respected. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to quickly note that the COI protocols in WP:COI are expressed as a suggestion of how to edit with a conflict, and that this proposal, on the other hand, would formally impose those protocols on Toreeva as a community sanction, which can be thought of as a ban on editing the article, but not the talk page. BMK (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I had no problems with fixing this page, as should be clear from editing history [5], no problems communicating with T., and no problem with reverting her edits on several pages. However, this AN request does look disruptive to me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Personally I believe the COI "best practices" should be mandatory but I know that is not the view of the community at large. However, I tend to base a large portion of how much AGF I am willing to extend to a COI editor on their willingness to follow those "best practices". If a COI editor becomes disruptive requiring them to follow those practices is a reasonable step. Jbh^Talk 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: This was archived without closing and has been moved back here per request for official closure. Per request below that this receive an official administrator closure (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Archived without admin ruling), I moved it back to this board. Softlavender (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Request DYK topic ban

I would like to request a topic ban for User:LavaBaron from Wikipedia:Did you know (shortened DYK) and all associated pages and processes. The problem is not that he or she introduces errors: this is a common occurrence at DYK, and most editors react constructively when real or perceived errors and problems with their hooks (the one-liners that appear on the Main Page) are pointed out and hooks get temporarily removed from the Main Page or the preparation areas to deal with the issues.

With LavaBaron though, the problems are not only too frequent (two articles he created were on the Main Page with an incorrect hook on 21 June 2016, and one article with an incorrect hook he had reviewed was set to go on the Main Page this week as well), but his reaction to the situation is very worrying. The discussions are at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Removed_staircase_hook_from_Main_Page (first article), Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Aplets & Cotlets (second article), and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_fourth_installment. He also commented on two other discussions I started, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_3:_the_many_awards_of_Roya_Sadat and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_village_of_Oxfordshire.

In the first discussion, it is best if you read it completely, no single diff will indicate the problem but in total it becomes very clear that LavaBaron is unwilling or unable to either admit that he made an error (which isn't a problem), or support his claims that he was right and why with precise sources. The only source he claimed as support was in this edit (which also contains the false claim that I demanded him to quit Wikipedia; a claim he repeated at User talk:Coffee): after I linked to that source and quoted the part that supported my reasoning and contradicted his claim[6], with a request to indicate which page or quote supported his position, he didn't: he didn't reply to that post directly, and when I asked again[7] and again[8], he only claimed that I was wrong and he was right without any explanation how or why, and finally gave some non-apology apology[9]. The article itself was of seriously below-par quality and should never have been proposed or accepted for DYK (my cleanup).

The exact same thing happened at the Aplets & Cotlets discussion, where I asked " which source supports the hook (perhaps give us the quote that does), and is it reliable?", and no reply as to what source actually supported the hook (and how) followed), despite LavaBaron repeatedly replying in defense of the hook.

Instead of leaving it at that, he decided to escalate the matter by applying his failed standards to other discussions about problematic hooks I started. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat, I indicated how the hook was not supported by the refs given for it, with explanation of why (per ref).[10]. LavaBaron clamied that the hook was sourced after all and shouldn't have been removed[11]; but again gave no indication of where he found that information. I again asked him "what sources?"[12] but got no reply.

When discussing a hook he reviewed and which contained an error, his reply[13]: "I see no problem whatsoever with it". Not because it wasn't an error, but because it wasn't the main point of the hook.

Someone who believes and defends that knowingly putting a hook with an error on the Main Page is "no problem whatsoever" is not acceptable as an editor in or around DYK. Someone who creates errors which are put on the Main Päge, and then continues to defend these errors against demonstrated facts, claiming to have evidence for his position but never producing it, is disruptive and a net negative at DYK. Other solutions are welcome, my preference would be to simply topic ban him from DYK. DYK is already often enough time-consuming for many editors, and too frequently introduces errors to the Main Page. But most editors agree that this is a problem and try to avoid it. Editors who actively try to defend errors with false claims (or even not seeing the problem with having an error on the Main Page) are not contributing to the process but create an additional timesink. An additional warning that disruptive edits like this (a rather transparent attempt to remove a note about his incorrect DYK on the article from the talk page, while leaving the DYK template in position) will not be tolerated is also welcome.

My apologies for the lengthy post, it is not easy to put problems like this in two sentences and three diffs, it's more something one needs to read completely to fully appreciate. Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• oppose suggest Ritchie333's idea of a two way IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron may be a better idea LavaBaron (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the only interactions we have is me pointing out DYK errors, and you defending them, I don't think such an interaction ban would be beneficial for WP. The only result would be that more DYK errors would get unnoticed. Fram (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since you've only raised an objection to two of my 148 DYKs and DYK reviews, it's statistically unlikely that would occur (if, indeed, it has occurred at all at this point something, as you know, about which you and I disagree). Ritchie333's suggestion that you "drop the stick" [14] and a two-way IBAN be applied seems in the best interest of the project and community. LavaBaron (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Also an interaction ban would be ludicrous since Fram is one of the very few people preventing the error-ridden crap being visible on the main page. An interaction ban would effectively allow LavaBaron to continue to degrade the front page at their leisure. Given they have shown very little indication that they are in error (despite the overwhelming evidence they have been), removing LavaBaron from DYK until such time as they can demonstrate competence is the fix that actually improves the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Away from DYK, LavaBaron can't learn how to do better. I suggest that for a certain period, every article by LB needs two reviews, and an approval by LB needs a confirmation from a second reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Let's see: as you note, LavaBaron introduced the idea that someone ran 1.3 miles of steps in 1:44 (Mile run world record progression says that the record for one mile, presumably on flat ground, is 3:43.13). As you note with the award-winning: if sources A, B, C, D, etc say that someone has won an award (different award for each source), it's is obvious mathematics (WP:CALC), not a problem, to say that the person has won several awards (not good for DYK, which demands that the claim come from a single source, but not dishonest), but introducing such a claim based on sources that don't say this at all is a hoax, because presenting those sources as citations is a claim that the information came from those sources. Together with the unsourced claim that you're trying to get LavaBaron to leave the project (per WP:WIAPA, unsourced claims about bad personal behavior are considered personal attacks), these are sufficient reason for a significant block; the rest of the stuff you bring up is relevant to the topic ban idea, but I'm not going to offer an opinion there. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment As Fram has noted that two of my 150 submissions and reviews (75 each) are, in his opinion (but not those of the promoting reviewer, apparently), lacking, it is probably germane and non-canvassing - since a TBAN is reflective of an editor's holistic contributions - to courtesy-ping editors who have reviewed my 147 other DYKs and DYK reviews to weigh-in for either the LB "Remain" or LB "Leave" campaigns. As per the note that's been on my user page for a week [15], I'm OOT ATM and am typing via phone, so can't ping everyone but will hit a few regulars, and leave it to Fram to ping the rest - @Wilhelmina Will:, @Notecardforfree:, @David Eppstein:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Epicgenius:, @Georgejdorner:, @Northamerica1000:, @Nvvchar:, @EEng:, @Coffee:. LavaBaron (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite. [16] 130.157.201.59 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an alternative to a block. Making factual errors is common and easily corrected - that's why hooks are reviewed. But repeatedly ignoring requests for the most basic verification? That's not acceptable. Honestly, I don't really care how many DYK's LavaBaron has had approved - we don't (or shouldn't) keep score. But the fact that it happened twice in rapid succession is troubling. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is hardly the first time LavaBaron has had issues with DYK reviews, including approving problematic hooks. A few examples are this one, where the originally approved hook as stated does not appear in the article, one of many incomplete yet passed reviews, and this lengthy one with a disagreement that is reminiscent of the current one. There are more, but I don't have time to look for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • To provide fuller background, BlueMoonset had previously engaged in what the esteemed Prhartcom described as an "unwarranted attack" in GAN [17]. When he was rebuffed by other editors he moved to DYK where he began characterizing my reviews as "incomplete," a characterization that was not endorsed by the community when he subsequently put it to them (thread linked by Maille, below). However, I look forward to the promised examples, when he has "time to look for them." [sic] LavaBaron (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Prhartcom, were you indeed saying I made an "unwarranted attack"? LavaBaron has made this charge twice here, and it seems most unlike you to have said any such thing. As for the rest of LavaBaron's post, since I have already listed three examples of problematic DYK reviews that LavaBaron is ignoring, I'm hardly going to spend further time finding more for him to ignore and give him further opportunities to recast past events in reply.

Per Casliber below, I'm registering my opposition to any IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron while the latter participates at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. These issues date back to Oct 2015 this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and things have not gotten better. And his attitude is often snarky, which troubles me. When I flagged a number of reviews he did as inadequate, and listed them at WT:DYK as is standard practice, his response seemed to be that the best defense is a good offense. Instead of the much quicker route of just doing adequate reviews. He argued on those nomination templates about review details not being necessary. I ended up doing some of the reviews myself, out of sympathy to the nominators. When things weren't going his way, on the DYK talk page he tried to get RFCs going to do away with the very guidelines he didn't feel like following. And then there was a laughable (to me) "threat" from him regarding an issue that really had nothing to do with him. He just used the opportunity to try to bait me, I guess. I personally have stayed away from him since then, but being active in DYK, I have noticed the attitude problem with others that just never ends. And this is all very sad. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Support TBAN, but oppose IBAN between LB and Fram. Here's why:

1) Fram doesn't sugar-coat his messages, but his intent at DYK is to clean-up multiple issues. He has a zero tolerance for errors, and can be blunt in how he delivers that message. You can agree, disagree, or not get involved.

2) With LavaBaron, it's not just the errors, and not just Fram. It's a poor attitude that goes beyond DYK, but this is the one project we're dealing with here. I first noticed LavaBaron after his dust-up with another editor at GA that I was not involved with; and he has a practice of banning editors from his talk page which seemed kind of bizarre to me. The second thing I noticed about LavaBaron is that for someone whose account was, at that time, less than a year old, he certainly seemed to have figured out the mechanics of WP pretty well, including SPI and AN. LavaBaron as a new edittor was already lodging disputes with other editors. So, it isn't just Fram.

Therefore, my opposition to the IBAN. There are too many other editors who have been subjected to LB's attitude. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note LavaBaron has been blocked for reasons related to this thread. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's a 1-month block that is currently being appealed by LavaBaron on his talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Admin note - Reopened this thread, as the block is currently in question. Any requests for a topic ban may continue freely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Block has since been rescinded. Blackmane (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I attempted to review the editors entire talk page history. It is long, and in some cases, I scanned rather than read in-depth. I see some things we would expect - minor short-comings early, pointed out and apparently not repeated. However, while the history is not pristine (whose is?) there's a gulf between identifying some shortcomings that could use some advice from experienced editors... and a topic ban. I am troubled by the Howe Street situation. There were too many warning signs to shrug it off as an understandable mistake, though I think "hoax" is quite an over-reaction. (I'm also troubled that the DYK was approved, but that's a matter for another venue). I don't think a topic ban is close to warranted, although I would urge the editor to take a deep breath and take on board the fact that bad DYK's on our main page are a black eye, and strive to be part of the solution, not the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who originally approved the Howe Street Stairs hook. As a catalyst for these events and for advancing poorly sourced or downright wrong information, I'm sorry. While reviewing the article for approval, I had some of the questions that Sphilbrick raised at my talk page but figured that I just wasn't understanding information that was confusingly worded (what qualified as a staircase or a flight of stairs, for instance). Of course, I should've asked for clarification instead of assuming that I would be the only one who had trouble with the article. I'll step away from reviewing others' articles on DYK for a week to get a little perspective and take my mind away from the process. In future, I'll go by the rule of trusting my gut–if I'm confused about something, it's couth to ask the nominator for clarification. I'm sorry to have played a part in this and thank everyone for their continued vigilance and good faith. All my best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Edit: As of 4JUL2016 I've cut-short my wikibreak to address this. Request Suspension of Discussion until July 13 - I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated for the following reasons:

• (a) though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive [18]; I remain out of town and it has been extremely difficult for me to be pulled back into these issues ... it is virtually impossible for me to do a bulleted defense of a WP:WALLOFTEXT accusation. I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue.
• (b) this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk. So far, most of the editors who have opined here are those who !voted "support" in that one. The core issue here deals with interpretation of written reviewing criteria of DYK, and it is a long term issue involving a vocal minority and a less active majority, that latter including myself. In interest of balance, since this is a similar TBAN proposal to the recent failed one, editors who participated in the majority of the last one should be notified it is being re-run at ANI. It is beyond my bandwidth (figuratively and literally) to do that while out of town.
• (c) on top of all this, this TBAN has attracted the attention of the sockmaster of 11+ socks [19] tightly coordinated to a professional WP sanitizer operating on the Frank Gaffney article. For several months I have been the subject of a coordinated railroading effort by a professional sanitizer due to my singular efforts fixing and de-sanitizing the Gaffney article, which have been denounced by Gaffney himself on C-SPAN (the first in a flurry of socks and IP editors who will soon land here have already done so, in the form of IP editor 130..., above). Doug Weller can confirm the veracity of this situation if asked. I have, on holiday here, had to deal with such malicious and persistent vandalism at my Talk page since this TBAN was opened that my Talk page is now in lock-down and protected by action of Huon. To expect me to simultaneously defend myself against (1) a TBAN that has attracted (and will soon be attracting more) socks and IP editors to stuff the ballot box, (2) a (successfully retracted) bad block, and (3) Talk page vandalism from a professional full-time firm, is just far too much to process during a time period I was supposed to be "dark". As an occasional, part-time contributor to WP, I can usually avoid railroadings, but even I can't deal with three trains at once.
• (d) immediately after this TBAN was opened I was blocked for 30 days sans warning or caution (on the same charges leveled in the TBAN) - blocking someone immediately after opening a TBAN on the same topic castrates their ability to mount any defense or explanation. Even though a heroic outcry from fellow Wikipedians resulted in the lifting of the block after less than 24 hours, it burned through the short time I have free to deal with this; I will be unable to access the internet again after this post for at least several days

LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is IP 130.157.201.59. I encourage LavaBaron to provide the evidence he claims to have of a relationship between myself and any "sockmaster" or "professional sanitizer" or "professional full-time firm". There is none. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [20] LavaBaron (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• As a contributor, I'm reluctant to close this myself, but in view of LavaBaron's comment, I think it would be wise to close this for now, and revisit, if necessary after 13 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would first like someone to post a link to the discussion referenced by LavaBaron above, "this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk." I can't immediately find such a proposal (and can't remember being involved with one), and if it happened, then the fact that another editor (me) now also starts such a topic ban proposal points to a continuing problem and is an extre reason to have the ban, not a reason not to have it of course (as the current proposal is for current problems, not an attempt to get a different result for already discussed issues). We can suspend the discussion, but I'm always wary of people who have time to respond for days and many posts (even inserting themselves in other discussions with me, a strange thing to do if you don't even have the time to properly defend yourself in discussion about your own actions), but then no longer can reply the moment it becomes clear that a restriction seems to have support. Avoiding restrictions by being unavailable is too often misused. Impose a topic ban now, and let LavaBaron start an appeal when he has the time to do so properly. Fram (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Fram I think what he is referring to was not a TBAN, but two editors wanted him to be "warned". Click on this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and the wording is "I propose that LavaBaron should be given a final warning that further slapdash reviews will lead to a ban (of an initial month's duration?) from submitting or reviewing any further DYKs." proposed by Prioryman. LavaBaron opposed, and BlueMoonset supported it. But as far as I know, that's all it ever was. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • ErrantX and Jakec seemed 2 reject idea NE "slapdash" reviews were occurring but didn't !vote (presume on grounds that can't !vote to warn someone 4 something not happening?) - sry for brevity, typing from phone LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - in the above, an anonymous IP 130.157.201.59 wrote (in regards to LavaBaron) "A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite". I think this comment needs to be ignored and even considered biased. The off-site link the IP provides connects to a tirade on Reddit.com, which character assassinates LavaBaron. Clicking on the Frank Gaffney "Before" and "After" links and the same for "Center for Security Policy" links shows a previous status and the current status of both Wikipedia articles. It appears the "Before" in both instances was most likely POV editing by an Anon IP as discussed here: --> [21].

The Reddit.com tirade also links to this that discussion in an attempt to put LavaBaron in a bad light. However, providing this link does the opposite and shows a side of LavaBaron that is in agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. LavaBaron intiates a thread at a Wikipedia discussion board questioning the IP's POV editing and even takes a stand against the IP later in the discussion - that resonates with standing up for editing according to Wikipedia standards. It is very different from the LavaBaron who has engaged in problematic editing at DYK. Maybe someone can provide insight into this matter? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• What Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow us to call a defense analyst a "conspiracy theorist" and the think tank he heads an "Islamophobic hate group" and how does this possibly pass BLP? I see a slew of hit pieces that came out when Gaffney became Ted Cruz's national security advisor. They all crib from the Wikipedia page which is LavaBaron's opinion which is a curated selection of opposition opinion pieces. Wikipedia established BLP protections to prevent this from happening. Compare the handling of Frank Gaffney's BLP to that of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Is BLP a Wikipedia policy or not? The prior promotional state of the pages does not justify breaking BLP and NPOV as badly as is humanly possible. LavaBaron's work is like replacing the description of John Oliver as a "comedian" or "TV host" with whatever nasty names Ann Coulter decides to call him in her next column. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [22] LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support After reading the above commentary, and then the background information provided by User:Fram via the provided links, I think a DYK topic ban for LavaBaron is warranted. From Fram's comments and the DYK admin participating in the discussions that involved a number of DYK editors I can see that it is very important to have accuracy be the norm at DYK. User:LavaBaron seems unable to see the need for accuracy via sourcing or as a norm and so on. He also continually defends this position in discussion after discussion, and seemingly attempts to talk his way around the issues. I think LavaBaron needs to take a time out from DYK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Errors are fine. We are all human. Sticking by your errors when people point them out to you? That is not fine. Refusing to even reply when asked for proof? That is definitely not fine. At this point in time, I have no confidence in LavaBaron's ability to contrib to DYK in an error free manner. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban is the only alternative to protect the integrity of the main page. As a side note, I also oppose the suspension of this thread as LavaBaron has already broken his promise (I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13). --Majora (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated" - my simple request was rejected, so I will not cede my right to speak on my behalf - at great personal expense & inconv & no ability to mount an effective defense via mobile phone edits ... to recap: OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page, I was silenced by an (admitted) bad block [23] for first 24 hours of discussion doubly ensuring i couldn't speak on my behalf, & we have probable socks !voting in this thread - after all that my only simple req. was for a suspension of disc until i could get 2 a comp. & off my phone and it was rejected by OP - this monstrous pile-on is utterly shameful LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When you stated above " though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive " I let it pass because you added "I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue." because, while it sounded cynical, you could aalways claim that you meant what you wrote. It now turns out that you were indeed cynical: "OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page". No, OP (me) started a discussion on the 21st (about one DYK hook, not about a TBan) because that DYK was only promoted the 19th (a Sunday, and I very rarely edit on Sundays) and hit the mainpage the 21st, the day I noticed it and started the discussion. The second one was also on the main page the 21st, and the third one was only promoted the 23rd. Meanwhile, you still found time to incorrectly criticize the pulling of another hook, and responded freely and at length (but without much substance). The TBan discussion was started here the next day, the 24th. No special delays were made, no effort to catch you when you were unavailable. The actions I took wrt your DYK hooks are actions I take all the time when problematic hooks hit the preps, queue or mainpage, regardless of the editor. I don't first check their userpages to look for their availability. Fram (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. LavaBaron (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved editor try to find a consensus in this and close it as such before it gets auto-archived? Discussion seems to have died down. Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose DYK has a formal review process for each article plus additional layers of oversight as the article passes through preparation to the queue to the main page. There is therefore plenty of opportunity to detect and resolve errors in a collaborative way per WP:IMPERFECT. If LavaBaron's work is error-prone then he should be encouraged to put it through such peer-review as DYK. Banning him from such peer review would have the perverse effect of encouraging him to work in isolation where any errors would be less readily detected and corrected. As his work seems to be good faith and the errors seem minor, it would be best to leave matters as they are. The attention given to this matter should naturally cause LavaBaron to be more careful and that seems quite adequate in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Andrew D., the problem is not that LavaBaron makes errors, the problem is that he doesn't care or doesn't recognise them even after they have been pointed out to him. DYK is a collaborative effort, and it has become clear that LavaBaron is not really interested in such collaborations, only in getting his articles on the main page. DYK has trouble enough stopping errors from appearing on the main page, and letting known liabilities continue to contribute articles to it is just making things worse. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I know LavaBaron, he/she is a hardworking contributor, though his/her work appears to be error-prone at times. I do not feel a ban from DYK will do LavaBaron any good, and I agree with Gerda Arendt's suggestion above. The need is to be able to communicate with LavaBaron, who says he/she is away till mid-July. Better keep an eye on their work for a certain period of time and let them know their flaws, as Andrew opines above; I am sure someone who has good faith will not miss an opportunity to improve oneself. As for LavaBaron, he/she needs to understand that you can't ignore the demand for providing sources, and a defensive tone all the time does not do one good. All in all, a ban or a block definitely does not look a solution to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Has anything in this discussion given you the impression that he cares in any way about the errors or understands the problems with his edits and comments? This just seems like postponing the inevitable and forcing a second discussion in a few months, for little or no benefit. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Sainsf, there have been problems with LavaBaron since he or she first arrived at DYK, and unlike you I don't see that anything but a ban will stop the problems from happening, since there have been no signs of improvement over the months to a seemingly reflexive resistance to correction. Even now, he's misrepresenting the facts: "between 1 to 3 errors", which he keeps repeating like a mantra, is demonstrably untrue and significantly understating the problem: I noted three more in my original "oppose", and they aren't the only ones. If I thought LavaBaron was indeed voluntarily leaving DYK per this typically worded edit below with two subsequent emendations, I wouldn't have bothered writing this, but past experience renders me skeptical of such posts. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
        • BM, as we're good friends I don't wanna appear like I'm trying to Boomerang you, but IIRC you previously engaged in what the esteemed Prhartcom described as an "unwarranted attack" in GAN over a content disagreement [24]. When rebuffed by other editors you moved to DYK where you began characterizing my reviews as "incomplete," a characterization that was not endorsed by the community when you subsequently put it to them (thread linked by Maille, above). In light of that, it would be good if you could clarify if this is a genuine issue you're expressing or an instance of you going into the "attack mode" that has caused other editors concern? I hope all is well with you - best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
          • My goodness, LavaBaron, what on earth possessed you to add that belated false claim that we were good friends? You banned me from your talk page last August (it ended up being effectively permanent, as witness your false IBAN claim several weeks later), and then blatantly lied about me and my motives. To be clear, the issues in my posts here are genuine, just as Fram's have been. Your continuing actions speak far louder than any words could. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
            • • I consider all other WP editors friends, and try to deal with them all as I would deal with a friend, with honesty and pleasantness. If you choose not to reciprocate that's beyond my control. And no, I did not "lie" about you. As a friend I need to ask you to please police your accusations better; you've already been cautioned by another editor once for "unwarranted attack" [25]. LavaBaron (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
                • OK, I looked carefully at the discussions once more. I see the point Fram and BM are trying to make. LavaBaron, I understand you are good at heart as a Wikipedian, but your reaction to the situation looks far from a collaborative approach. I find you too defensive and sometimes close to hostile, please don't get me wrong but I find it hard to believe that only you can be fully right and the others are mistaken in their allegations. Your response is worrying, not you. I'm sorry but if you continue with this attitude I will have to switch to "Support" on this proposal. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment While a certain "version of events" has been advanced in which I am unable to process WP:IMPERFECT collaboration without erupting into a Desmond-esque tirade, smashing the WP:TEAHOUSE's china and screaming for Bon Bons, the fact is I happily collaborate when suggestions for improvement are put to me in a polite and constructive way. Like many people, I do have a personal failing in sometimes having clouded judgment, or becoming defensive, when the first note directed toward me is in the form of attack or belittlement. On my userpage I've linked 15 GAs I've authored and have been passed. I certainly invite anyone to view the GANs those went through to see just how pleasant of an editor I am with whom to collaborate and the fact that 9 times out of 10, I accept suggestions from other editors without a moment of hesitation. However, I pledge in the future not to let personal feelings get in the way and to do a better job collaborating on occasions when suggestions for edits come in the form of a full broadside against my literacy. Moving forward, I will be the model Vulcan editor: emotionless, stoic, indefatigable. LavaBaron (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Translation: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT—nothing said by the people concerned about DYK issues has any merit, and LavaBaron has no intention of deviating from their chosen path. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Indeed. For reference, this is that first note directed towards LavaBaron. Fram (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • So now I'm an enemy of "the people?" My wickedness knows no bounds. It's clear my one recent sourcing error and one failure to catch an error made by another editor has established me as one of the worst Wikipedians in history, and just a terrible human being generally. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's a few of my most recent DYK's where, like just about all my DYKs, I happily and unhesitatingly accept suggestions when offered with kindness and construction: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. But, of course, I understand it's more exciting to keep laser-focused on 1-2 minor errors in my 150 reviews/submissions. No biggie. Frankly, I honestly doubt I'll submit to DYK again after this shellacking. It'll be easier to just continue generating copious quantities of articles sans the self-confidence destroying nature of this particularly cruel form of quality control. LavaBaron (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban LavaBaron demonstrates the problem immediately above—the bull-in-a-china-shop approach may be great for derailing discussions and dismissing unwanted opinions, but it is very unhelpful for DYK on the main page. There is no need to spend a month of repentance if a mistake is made, but the blanket dismissal of those who do the work to reveal the problems shows that a DYK topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This TBAN originated from an editor whose fixation on an error by me prompted a warning by Ritchie333 that he should "drop the stick" [32]. So, just to keep this in perspective, as my gut feeling is that your !vote may have been because you were possibly feeling chuffed by my forthright reply to your previous missive as opposed to having studied the facts of this case, "the errors" referenced that have actually been diffed involved one (1) sourcing error I made (and accepted correction of without protest), and one (1) error by me in not catching another editor's error (for which I've apologized) - out of 150 DYK reviews and submissions I've made.
    

As for your rather surprising charge I have been "dismissing opinions", I think I'd like to try diverting the emotion and empowering you to take a diff-based, fact-oriented view of the situation. In that vein, I see your one (1) example (which, respectfully, I'm not sure most reasonable editors would consider an example at all - all I said was "whatever" and then stopped discussing / editing the article in question ... I was out of town and unable to accent my response with additional pleasantries, as exhaustively explained elsewhere), and raise you thirteen (13) recent examples of me pleasantly and promptly accepting others opinions in DYK and GAN: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43][44]. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• • One sourcing error and one error in a review? Template:Did you know nominations/Howe Street Stairs was wrong and pulled (as endorsed by Ritchie333 and everyone else), Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets was wrong (and should not have been featured on the main page), Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro was wrong (and pulled), and your retaliatory comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 124#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat was also wrong and only helped to prolong the problems. In the Howe Street Stairs discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 124#Removed staircase hook from Main Page you simply made up what the sources said (either you totally didn't understand them or you flatout lied), and refused to back up your claims. In the Aplets & Cotlets discussion, you again couldn't or wouldn't provide any source that supported your hook and position, but also couldn't accept that you were wrong. In the Aispuro hook, you claimed "As everything prior to the comma is a preamble, and the hook-proper comes post-comma, I see no problems whatsoever with it." So, you specifically admitted in seeing no problems in having factual errors in a hook a long as it wasn't the main focus of the hook. You then struck it with "In interest of avoiding the threatened TBAN, I hereby strike my previous opinion. I apologize to the community for expressing WrongThought. My opinion is hereby refactored to RightThought and I agree, in total, with Fram on this issue. I affirm that I agree with anything Fram has said now, or will say in the future, about this issue, and do so without hesitation or mental reservation." which obviously was not meant at all. Fram (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So now the TBAN is because I agreed with you when you pointed out an issue, but I wasn't "sincere" enough? I didn't bow low enough when I admitted my error? Is this discussion even really happening? I feel like I've just been sucked into an alternate Wikiverse. Good lord.

And why do you keep trying to puff up your case by blaming me for articles I didn't edit like you just did above with José Rosas Aispuro? As the article history shows I've never made a single edit to it [45]. This assertion by you has already landed one admin in hot water after they relied on your version of events to impose a block that had to be immediately yanked as a bad block. It's concerning you're willing to sell other editors down the river by continuing to peddle this. Your TBAN nom comes down to 2 errors in my 150 DYK contributions. Full stop.

Ritchie333 told you to "drop the stick" - I really think you should heed his, and other editors/admins, words to you. Your conduct is unbecoming. LavaBaron (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I linked to Template:Did you know nominations/José Rosas Aispuro, a DYK review you performed: "Apologies for my delay. ALT-1 hook is supported by references and is interesting. Thank you to Yoninah for adding it. All other factors have previously been cleared. GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)" Alt-1 hook was not supported by the references, and should not have been approved. I did not link to the article, nor did I ever claim that you edited it. This DYK topic ban proposal, and your defense, is based on your DYK nominations and reviews, and this is a DYK review you did, on 22 June 2016 (so right in the middle of all this, and after your break started). One would expect you to get these basic things right by now. Fram (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I can see that the hook said 'September 1" and that wasn't in the source, and in actual fact it is Sept 15. Ok got it. The situation at Template:Did you know nominations/Aplets & Cotlets is a bit of a grey area. Both blogs that Fram cited as problematic appear semireliable with listed authors and structure, and the facts they cite are pretty banal, so I am on the fence with that one. oops, forgot to not the tenuousness of the East/West Washington issue. So, yes is a problem. Agree LavaBaron's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_3:_the_many_awards_of_Roya_Sadat and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_village_of_Oxfordshire were not helpful. Ditto Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_124#Prep_area_3:_the_fourth_installment, Lavabaron, the date was wrong pure and simple and needed changing - sarcasm there was not helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose an IBAN as Fram's corrections are important - I need to digest these diffs and will comment shortly. A little busy now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Appealing a Past Offense for a Clean Start

Hi. I recently created a new account with a new name, since this one was created when I was back in high school and reflect my immaturity if you will. Shortly after creating that account I remembered that I had a topic ban from a long time ago. FYI, before I realized that I only added bullet points (as in the symbol itself) on two pages where it was missing. So, I checked for Wikipedia Help pages to see what is the right thing to do. I realized that while we, members, can have a Clean Start, we still need to take care of past offenses. I consulted with the administrator that issued the ban which I figured was the most direct way of knowing what to do.

My consultation with the topic ban admin here and here. Per that discussion, I chose AN for going forward with it. My goal is to have a complete clean start. I was supposed to do this long time ago but work and life in general got in the way. An empty Sunday afternoon seems to be good enough to give it a try. I looked for a template about such a process but couldn't find one.

Looking back at my history, the topic ban was issued somewhere mid-2010. I believe I appealed it at least twice (1 and 2), which both failed. Since it's been so many years I can't really rely on my memory at all. I'm as much of a stranger to it as the next person. So, everything I can say about it will be based on my User contribution page. There isn't much I can say as well. If I've offended anyone in any way that broke the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia back then, I am sorry. I'd like to have the chance to move on with a clean start. There isn't much I can add to that as I believe that's the essence of it.

If I'm missing any information that should have been here, or any action that I should have performed, please let me know. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something... your first problem is that it appears your still subject to an indefinite block by the Arbitration Committee on your old account... @Risker: @Guerillero: @Hersfold: Was that sanction ever lifted? Monty₈₄₅ 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, it has not been lifted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. As far as I'm aware, it was never lifted. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

He was indef banned from Armenian Genocide topics to be sure, and that was 6 years ago. I hadn't , to the best of my memory seen any SPI's on him, his contributions show no posting of anything related to his ban. I'd say give him a chance, especially in light of how many years have passed. KoshVorlon 11:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not so relevant question. What's an SPI? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  WP:SPI. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh, gotcha. Thanks. I never ever made multiple accounts in my life if I wasn't leaving the older one for good. If there needs to be an investigation I can provide the necessary information for that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with regard to the block, but my question is whether we can, or whether that is something only the Arbitration Committee can do in light of the block message. Monty₈₄₅ 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth: If everything you've posted above is accurate, I doubt that anyone will try to stop you from registering a new account because you edited immaturely in one topic-area six years ago. The problem is that since I assume you don't want to publicly link your old account to your new account, there is no way for this noticeboard to reach a final resolution. The solution is for you to e-mail the Arbitration Committee using the instructions here and explain the situation to them. You might also want to explain whether you actually want to edit again on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, and if so what you will do differently now from in the past, or whether you are just raising the topic-ban to make sure you are compliant with the clean-start guidelines. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, that was never mentioned to me before. I've been considering whether I would publicly reveal my older account or not though. Would that make a difference here? Nonetheless, I don't really have any immediate plans to edit in that particular topic, though I would like to be able to in the future. I'm usually a minor edit person at best. Most of my edits were about adding a bullet point here and there (as in the actual bullet point symbol) or fixing syntax and stuff like that as far as I remember. I would prefer to bring an important or considerable edit to people's attention in the Talk page and then go forward with it. That's pretty much what I learned especially in the controversial topics. I might as well do what you propose. However, I would prefer if it could be dealt with here. Is that decided by consensus here? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Guerillero: @KoshVorlon: @Newyorkbrad: Hi again. Given the inactivity, I guess the path Newyorkbrad suggested is the right one to follow. Can I get a show of hands confirming that? Thanks. 62.248.29.111 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Guerillero: @KoshVorlon: @Newyorkbrad: Sorry, forgot to login when I signed that one. It was me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth: Yes, if you want to pursue this, the path I suggested is the best way. To save time, you can include a link to this thread in your e-mail and mention that you're sending it at my suggestion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Standard Offer request for Wackslas

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

---

Hello, I am submitting a Standard Offer request on behalf of Wackslas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wackslas has requested the Standard Offer through UTRS Request #15994 and has provided the following rationale: "I want to be unblocked because I've waited nearly 8 months now and also I've put forward a few suggestions on improving articles while I've been unblocked. And they should copy that onto the noticeboard.". I have no opinion regarding granting or denying this request, aside from a confirmation that Wackslas is eligible for the Standard Offer as the last reported sockpuppet was from October 2015. Please discuss and let me know what consensus develops so that I may notify Wackslas. Thanks, Nakon 00:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty slim rationale to hang an unblock request on - basically, just time served. Don't we generally require the editor seeking on unblock to talk about what they intend to do, and perhaps even show some history of uncontroversial editing on another Wikiproject? This really seems like "OK, I've waited for 8 months, so that's enough, let me loose." Would someone please post the discussion in which they were blocked? BMK (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry block. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with BMK. Not much that would convince me to support an unblock. Blackmane (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - unless something more comes down the track. BMK (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• I would like to note that while the user has indeed been blocked for a good length of time, he has repeatedly trolled helpers on various IRC channels and has been told this will be taken into account when applying for an unblock. Really, the "eight months" means nothing given he is still disrupting various offwiki processes. — foxj 00:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel

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

---

While browsing CAT:RFU as I often do, I came across this unblock appeal by Stadscykel. They have been given a 48hr block arbitration enforcement block, per WP:ARBBLP by Coffee, who I will notify shortly. Stadscykel has requested that their appeal be posted here. It bears noting that Stadscykel has not been given the discretionary sanctions warning at any time relating to WP:ARBBLP. Browsing their contributions, it also worth noting that they have not contributed to any talk page discussion and would not have noticed the warning posted there. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel notified

Coffee notified Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy unblock: Terrible, terrible, block - one of the worst I've ever seen. No warning given at all, no way of the editor to know what was expected. The editor in question made a single edit, was warned, but then got slapped with a block after not doing any more. User:Coffee has some serious explaining to do. StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Sppedy unblock -with the exceptions of likely bots working at high speeds, sockpuppetry, legal threats, and blatantly bad usernames (none of which apply here), we absolutely never block an account over an edit without the user having been warned and having continued the bad edits after the warning. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: in fact, the wording in question was previously discussed on that page, and Stadscykel was, in fact, merely adding back the consensus wording. StAnselm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and the blocked user's reasoning, I have now unblocked User:Stadscykel. Should further discussion here lead to the conclusion that User:Coffee's block was correct I have no objection to a reblock being carried out, but that seems unlikely. WaggersTALK 09:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Definetly a bad block After one non controversial edit he was blocked ? I also vote speedy unblock KoshVorlon 16:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Blocking administrator comment - I'm glad none of you have any experience with page restrictions (WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions), which this user had violated. Click edit at either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and see for yourself where the warning is. Waggers I suggest you reverse your unblock immediately. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And @Waggers: you also may want to familiarize yourself with the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal, specifically:

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

And:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. (emphasis added)

Either you didn't know there needed to be a "clear and substantial consensus", or you actually think 3 editors with no experience in enforcement actions constitute one... either way, those aren't acceptable answers and I don't think you should be making administrative decisions in this area. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The block can't be a DS block as the editor was not aware per awareness and alerts. Per Awareness and alerts

"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

1.The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or

2.The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or

3.The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict."

--Kyohyi (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions, which is the relevant policy when dealing with page restrictions. Page restrictions have a different warning system than other DS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee:, that page also says "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." Is there any reason why you failed to log this at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2? StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The page restrictions were logged, and one can easily see that in the section. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the page restriction, but about the sanction. But I think you're right - the sanctions don't have to go in the log. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

While you were allowed to block him under page restrictions, you were not allowed to make it a DS block without the editor being aware. Since it's not a DS block, any admin can unblock per normal unblock rules. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Waggers: You should voluntarily reinstate the block until there is consensus. I'm aware of at least two admins that were desysopped specifically for reversing an Arbitration Enforcement block out of process. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it is necessary for Waggers to reverse the unblock at this time. I'm familiar with the rules about reversing AE blocks out of process, but I am not sure whether they have been applied to blocks that, while based on an arbitration ruling, were never the subject of any discussion at AE. In any event, while we can debate how much of a consensus for an unblock is required, I see support for an unblock here from at least two uninvolved administrators and I am going to be the third.

There is indeed a warning that comes up when an editor seeks to edit the Clinton or Trump articles, to the effect that: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." I can understand why this editor did not perceive this warning as relevant to the edits he was going to make, if indeed he noticed it at all. He did not make more than one revert (indeed, it is not alleged he made any revert). And, from the unblock request, and Stadscykel's limited editing history in this area, it is apparent that Stadscykel had no idea that he was making a "potentially contentious edit."

The purpose of requiring warnings before invoking discretionary sanctions against editors who have not been sanctioned before—which is a requirement that I personally wrote into the sanctions procedures when I was an arbitrator—is to avoid having good-faith editors entrapped by requirements they are unaware of. When an editor knowingly violates revert restrictions, edits against consensus, and the like, that is one thing and perhaps in clear cases of such things, a generic warning in an editnotice might possibly be sufficient.

In this case, though, we have a good-faith editor who thought he was making good-faith improvements to two prominent articles. If counseled that his edits were impermissible, I'm sure that he wouldn't have made or repeated them. This is not an editor who is trying to weasel out of a sanction by making a technical argument about warning levels. This is not an editor with some POV to push, about American politics or Trump or Clinton or religion or anything else. Rather, this is a good-faith editor who tried to make what he thought was a good-faith improvement to two high-profile articles, got caught up in the bureaucracy, and must now be wondering "WTF?" at all of us. The unblock should stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on. There's a reason why that wording was chosen in the page restriction, and I'm literally the only active enforcement admin I know of on these articles. Perhaps if you reviewed the many months long discussions that have gone into religions being, or not being, in the infoboxes you'd understand why such a seemingly trivial edit was block worthy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: I know and you know of the long discussions about these candidates and about religion in infoboxes. The point is that Stadscykel clearly didn't. If you wanted to "discuss this with the editor," then as an uninvolved enforcement administrator (which I appreciate), you had every right to discuss it with the editor. You accomplish that by discussing it with the editor, that is, by posting a note on his talkpage explaining what the issue is and how he should edit differently. There is no reason to believe he would not have taken your guidance into account in future editing. Even in discretionary sanctions areas, blocking should very rarely, if ever, be the administrator tool of first choice in response to good-faith edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write the requirements for page restriction warnings, ArbCom did. If you feel that an editnotice is not sufficient, you need to take that up with ArbCom and get them to change the policy. But, right now, the policy states that an editnotice is all that is needed. Whether their edits were good-faith or not is something I refuse to presume, that's why the warning was made so absolutely clear. If the editor had shown that they intended to discuss such edits in the future, (which what the restrictions are intended to force on these articles), then yes I would have unblocked them myself. But, I didn't even get a chance to do that before logging in today to see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you and I disagree on what would have been the best approach to this situation. Rather than repeat myself or even amplify, I'd be interested what others may think, particular admins with experience in contentious areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee:, I really you need to step back from things here. The fact that you can't see how your block was out of order is very disturbing. As I mentioned above, the edit was actually in accord with the specific consensus on that page. Even if Stadscykel had read and understood the warning, he might still have gone ahead. He did not make any reverts; he did not make a controversial edit contrary to consensus. He was not given a warning. Instead, he was slapped with a 48-hour block. As I said, one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. But perhaps the worst thing of all is that you can't see this, won't apologise, and won't back down. And that makes me wonder whether you should be making any blocks at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh go find some other pot to stir StAnselm. You literally say this every time I have a block review, and it's getting old. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You know, I'd forgotten about previous interactions here, but now I see that I said in 2013, "I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the banning policy." Also in 2013 was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#User:Coffee, which was also about your misuse of the admin tools. I think they were the only ones, but they do suggest a pattern. The question is, what are you going to do about it? And if nothing, what should the community do about it? StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The honest answer, getting past your hyperbole, is that I need more admin support on these articles. This could have easily been avoided if I knew another admin would be online to enforce the page restriction when I logged off. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but it seems like this sort of thing could easily happen again, and that's not an acceptable outcome. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It won't happen again if more admins start volunteering to watch these articles (which have been subject to abhorrent violations, which caused the restrictions in the first place). It's really that simple of a solution. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that these and related articles have been subject to "abhorrent violations" does not, by any possible rationale, justify blocking for inadvertent minor violations (much less for edits that arguably are not violation at all). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on the how much of a consensus is required to reverse a DS block, I do agree with Newyorkbrad that Stadscykel probably didn't know that this was a contentious area. To anyone not familiar with this particular mire it would seem a very routine change. I do think that a more articulate back and forth of words could have prevented this block.

I also think Coffee should have been given time to respond here before action was taken. In my experience they are very receptive to the concerns of the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have likely handled it without this even making it to AN, this block was for purely preventative purposes - nothing more. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• The block was a monumentally bad one, as sanctions should not be applied to a good faith editor making one edit that it is reasonable to assume they might not have known was controversial. Speaking to the editor on their talk page to explain the problem should have been the first step here, not stomping straight in with a block to stain their untainted record. Also, I find Coffee's complete inability to hear what multiple experienced editors (including a number of admins and an ex-arb) are saying here - such intransigence reinforces the bad image of admins that so many people have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not that I don't hear them, it's that we disagree on our approaches. Like I've said above, if more admins volunteered to be enforcement admins on these articles I wouldn't worry about having to block for first offenses at all (outside of obvious libel or vandalism of course). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Trying to blame others for not being there doing the same work, and claiming that that forces you into blocking for good-faith first offences, is shameful - do you really have no sense of self-awareness here? Your block was wrong and your continuing arrogance in defence of it is wrong, it's as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Not blaming anyone, just stating a fact. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • You're saying "If X, then I wouldn't have to do Y", where there's a very clear consensus among your peers that Y is wrong and you should not do it regardless of X. Yet you refuse to accept the consensus and accept your mistake. That is not how admins are supposed to behave. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Looking over Coffee's block log, a see a similar (but slightly different) situation happened a couple of weeks ago - User:Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. What makes it different to this situation was that Aaaaaabbbbb111 had introduced a (presumably) controversial edit here, it was reverted without comment or discussion here, and then Aaaaaabbbbb111 reinstated the edit with a reference. For this, Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. I realise that this comes out of an ArbCom decision, and the talk page warning is a strong one, but again there is no evidence that Aaaaaabbbbb111 even saw the talk page. This sort of blocking has got to stop. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Further comment: In any case, I really don't think Coffee is blocking "according to the rules". If these blocks are made per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, then the rule stated there must apply: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Now, does the warning that appears when you click "edit" count? Apparently not: An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months... the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Wait? Isn't the article warning an alert? No, it is specifically defined as follows: these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message... is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. So there you have it - Stadscykel and Aaaaaabbbbb111 did not receive the necessary DS warning. Am I wikilawyering? Perhaps. But what Coffee is doing is against both the spirit and the letter of the rules. The only question that remains is whether we should ask ArbCom to rule on this. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel's comment

It's probably my turn to say something here. To answer all the questions here, let me go through the bullet points:

• No, I had no idea that there is some controversy regarding religion in infoboxes. All I've seen is a number of articles on politicians all across the political spectrum, from Newt Gingrich (by the way, how could I guess that his former religions were somehow more notable than Trump's or Clinton's current ones?) to Elizabeth Warren, and I presumed that the articles simply lack that information - well, Wikipedia is not complete yet, isn't it?
• Let me quote the warning: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." And let's go through it:
  • "not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" - obviously not applicable.
  • "must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits" - how does one exactly expected to know what "potentially contentious" means? Well, I would say that claiming that Trump is not a Presbyterian (I'm sure there's a lot of speculation about it out there) - now that's something contentious, and I would never write anything like that.
  • "are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page" - alright, let's read Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions then:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

• The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
• The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
• The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

Obviously, neither of that applies to me. Which brings us to the following point:

• "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware [...]". The application of "arbitration enforcement" to me was never allowed from the beginning, and User:Coffee's reference to the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal is therefore invalid - I was never allowed to be sanctioned from the beginning. Because of this, Coffee's idea to "reinstate the block until there is consensus" cannot be seriously considered.

Now, let me answer to some other comments made by Coffee.

• "I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on". Wow, thanks for the provided ability by blocking me e.g. from this discussion! After I've done my edits, User:Guy Macon has indeed left a comment on my talk page (User_talk:Stadscykel#Controversial_edits) so it became known to me that the content of the infoboxes is that controversial. By the way, I actually thank Guy Macon for the warning - I guess if I unknowingly proceeded with making similar edits I would have blocked by Coffee for a year - or probably indefinitely? You never know what punishment is sufficient for such a vandalizing editor like me.
• "this block was for purely preventative purposes" - and once again, I have received the warning and never continued to make similar edits. If we try to follow Coffee's logic, every editor should be blocked just in case they suddenly decide to break the rules of the project - that's probably not such a good idea? (Coffee should really read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals, by the way.)

Conclusion

I do not intend to provide my opinion in this discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be a part of the infoboxes (nor is it relevant to this discussion), but it is now known for me that there is a consensus against the religion field. Meanwhile, I have spent a lot of time finding out how to make an appeal to unblock, read the rules regarding blocking, unblocking, and arbitration enforcement originally written for obviously disturbing edits and not any good-faith edits like mine (Wikipedia:Assume good faith anyone?) - and I could have spent that time editing actual Wikipedia articles instead. Instead, I have seriously considered quitting the project altogether, because volunteering under such vague rules ("one can always expect an instant block following any edit") just did not seem right.

It is now clear for me that User:Coffee's actions can only be described as misuse of administrative tools, and I urge the community to seriously consider applying sanctions to Coffee. I have no opinion on what kind of sanctions can or should be applied to Coffee, and this is absolutely not some kind of personal revenge for me, but a necessity in order to protect other good-faith users from Coffee's unjustified rulings. Best regards, Stadscykel (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this long note, Stadscykel. These edge cases can be hard to deal with, and we sometimes screw up. I think everyone is sorry about the way this turned out. It seems that User:Coffee was technically following "the rules" as written, even though, in hindsight, everyone can see a better way to approach it. Rather than sanctioning Coffee for making the effort to work in a complex and dispute-prone area (and it is very hard, with people ready to scream at the slightest less-than-perfect outcome), I think it might make more sense to fix up our procedures. If we don't address the gap between "the rules" and "best practice", then this sort of thing will just happen again in the future, with the only difference being a different admin and a different article and a different editor being completely surprised by a block. With your recent frustrating experience, I would not be surprised if you better understand the importance of preventing a recurrence of this situation, than anyone else in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I agree that a clarification of the rules is needed in that case, for example it would be logical to assume that there should be a clear list of violations for which blocks without an initial warning can be issued, otherwise editing any article e.g. on Eastern Europe (another "area of conflict" according to the rules) turns into a minefield for new editors. My problem here though is Coffee's unwillingness to recognize their wrongly (as per opinions on this page) issued block, instead it has been suggested by them that my block should be reinstated. Stadscykel (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am entirely open to discussing anything about the merits of the block itself, but it is simply not correct to state that sanctions were not allowed. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions (the relevant piece to that ArbCom policy) clearly states: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. ... Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The policy page does not state anywhere that the "Page restrictions" section somehow invalidates the rest of the page. Besides, if there's an explicit consensus prohibiting the addition of the religion field, it should have been mentioned in the mentioned template, Template:ds/editnotice. The idea that stating "Religion: Presbyterian" in an article stating as a matter of fact (Donald_Trump#Religious_views) "Trump is a Presbyterian" should be seen by any editor not aware of the previous discussions as "potentially contentious" is ridiculous. The rest of the page says e.g.:

• "The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion"
• "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict"
  • I could comment at the same time that in this case the area of conflict most definitely is not American politics (since the statement that Donald Trump is Presbyterian has neither been added nor removed from the article) but the style guide for infoboxes in general (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes), so one could question whether any of these rules apply.
• "[...] administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum"
• "For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans"

As far as I understand from the page, the section you mention simply allows the administrators to choose to which pages the rules descripted in the rest of the policy would apply. I see no source confirming that the rest of the policy is invalid in this case. Stadscykel (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, that's just plain wrong. Stadscykel was not allowed to make uncontroversial edits without consensus. Quite apart from whether or not what he added was "controversial", and whether he not he was aware of various previous discussions, there was indeed explicit consensus to include the words, per Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 11# Donald Trump Religion. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware here. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of that page cannot override the total community consensus that was established at the village pump to depreciate the religion parameters. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, once again this raises the question as to how Stadscykel could possibly have known all that. But religion parameters are still, it seems, allowed in some infoboxes (under certain conditions), so there is no reason to believe that the local consensus is being used to override the total community consensus. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Just saying that perhaps the best course of action would be to actually enforce the community wide RfC and remove the parameter from the infobox options. That way, this "contentious" edit would be technically impossible in the future. --Majora (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, we have a parameter in the template with a capital punishment for use? A big red button with an obscure, hidden instruction, "Do not push!" ??? That sounds like an ANI waiting to happen. <Joke>Let's leave it in the template and see how many others we can catch! </joke> Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: The language you cite still leaves some room for interpretation. In my view, the key phrase is Editors ignoring page restrictions.... In my view, to ignore a restriction requires that you know of the restriction's existence, and violate it anyway, thus ignoring it. To me, this fits with the general design of discretionary sanctions, which require prior knowledge of the existence of the sanction. That said, I can also see how you could interpret it differently. In fact, the definition of ignore includes both interpretations, though according to Wiktionary, yours is obsolete. Perhaps Arbcom should clarify the language to avoid this type of issue. Monty₈₄₅ 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no serious ambiguity requiring clarification. An interpretation suggesting that an editor may be blocked for a first-time good-faith edit made with no knowledge that it was in violation of any policy or sanction would be so contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia that no one can have intended such an interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

NYB as you well know, this place has a lot of rules, and it is difficult to make broad pronouncements that don't have an exception here or there. For example, your broad pronouncement that we could never possibly intend to block an editor for a good faith edit without knowledge of a violation of policy sounds eminently reasoanble, except... it isn't true. If a brand-new editor creates the user name XYZ corp and edits XYZ corp, they get blocked. No notice, no warning no anything except a block. And it appears we intend to do this as it happens every day. I clean up after literally hundreds of these cases. They get an explanation which is often not understood. You and I both know why they are blocked, and know it is not a big deal but they don't know that until I do some hand-holding. My point is that we do impose rules that sound reasonable, then have actual cases that follow the rules and we realize we need to rethink the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Well, that's obviously a different situation from what I have in mind, but I take your point. (I happen to think that the way in which we interact with new editors in the circumstances you describe is very troublesome, and I've said so for years, but let's not divert this discussion in that direction.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The relevant part of the username policy is: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." I assume you are talking about the above section, however the policy does not provide for blanket blocks of promotion/corp usernames that edit the 'corp' article. Merely creating a username "DavesHardware" and editing "Dave's Hardware" absent problematic editing is not blockable by the policy as written. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to the admins, many of them will not agree that a user "DavesHardware" who is editing "Dave's Hardware" is engaged in non-problematic editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page restrictions are limited to "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." Coffee has at least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for random content restrictions, not less. Very disturbing that the interpretation was no notice about the list of "certain content" needs to be provided. --DHeyward (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on User:Coffee

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

---

In light of the bad block and Coffee's inability to see how it was bad, there seems to be competence issue here, as well a need to protect new and inexperienced editors from these sort of blocks. I therefore propose that User:Coffee be prohibited from blocking editors for a period of six months. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not We don't restrict admin tools. You have a problem with Coffee? Take it to ArbCom. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't think I've seen a blocking prohibition be requested against an admin! The issue has been discussed here, and I will echo Majora's comment above that if you would like to take this further, please contact ArbCom -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not realistic This is not how we handle things. If you think you have a case take it to arbcom. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• OK, I'll withdraw this proposal, and possibly take the issue to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • See now I thought (hell, hoped) we were finally getting past the need for hyperbole in our discussion above, and then I see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm totally uninvolved here, but I usually always follow discussions that I find interesting across the three noticeboards (AN, ANI, ANEW), and that what I've been doing here. Coffee was not acting in bad faith, so I don't believe any sanctions against them or even an Arbitration Committee case are warranted. Let's all just move on and go on about our business. If something like this ends up happening again, it can be dealt with then, but mistakes happen—though note I'm not saying anyone made mistakes here—to the best of us and bringing out the pitchforks over something like this is rather unproductive. If something of this nature, for anyone, becomes a pattern, then yes, start off with a discussion and go from there; however, if it's just little mistakes every now and then, it's really no big deal—though just to make it clear again, I'm not saying anyone here made any mistakes. Amaury (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not just the mistake, of course - it's the inability to see that it was a mistake that puts other new and inexperienced at risk. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose No way. It's either ArbCom or nothing. Blocking is a fundamental tool for admins. Coffee was acting in good faith, there is no reason. I'm not sure if it was a mistake at all, or the right thing to do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Back to basics

The bottom-line issue here is that User:Stadscykel didn't know about the sanctions in place on those articles, so made good faith edits and was blocked for the privilege. From this conversation and others it's fair to surmise that Stadscykel is now aware of those restrictions and is very unlikely to repeat those edits - so a preventative block is no longer necessary. There are then discussions around whether or not User:Coffee was correct to block Stadscykel in the first place and, to a lesser extent, whether I was right to unblock the same user, and what sanctions either of us might face as a result if our actions were wrong. As mentioned above, those are matters for ArbCom, should anyone feel sufficiently strongly to raise a case there. My own view is that that would be a gross overreaction but the way is open should anyone wish to go down that route. Finally, Coffee mentions that these articles are under-patrolled from an admin perspective and that's something I'm sure we can all help out with. Unless I've missed anything in that summary, it seems there's nothing else to be said here. WaggersTALK 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to notice that User:StAnselm has asked the Arbitration Committee about the issue (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_American_politics_2), and I would welcome any comments on this matter from other editors. Stadscykel (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say, except that when you're wrong, Coffee, you need to put your hand up and say "sorry, I've made a mistake". I think the reason this has carried on a bit and is now at ArbCom clarification is because there was clear agreement here that the block was a poor one. Then, instead of accepting that and apologising, you first tried to wikilawyer your way out of it and then when people still disagreed with that you tried to pass the buck by saying that the area is understaffed by admins. That may be so and it may even be a reasonable answer for why you've made a mistake, but you are responsible for your decisions and to try and pass the buck without admitting fault is not on. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on these points. I dropped a statement at the Arbitration clarification request, but will reiterate part of it here. A page restriction should not replace an individualised DS notification. Even if it did, given their sporadic editing history which should have been taken into consideration, Stadscykel should have received a warning on their talk page to remind them that DS was in force. Stadscykel made one edit to Donald Trump and one more to Hillary Clinton. In neither case could any reasonable, or even strictest, interpretation of the page restriction could this be viewed as "ignoring page restrictions". Blackmane (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

New Tool to Help Transfer Files to Commons: MTC!

Hi all, I have created a new tool, MTC!, to help transfer files to Commons. I'm looking for some victims beta-testers to help test and/or provide feedback about the tool. Any help would be appreciated! :) Thanks in advance, FASTILY 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When I open it, it asks for username and password. Is it looking for my WP info, my Commons info, or something unique to the program? BMK (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's asking for your WP info. -FASTILY 22:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Danke. BMK (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a try. Much easier to transfer than before and pleasantly surprised that it also automatically tagged the image as CSD F8. I'm curious what is the purpose of creating a transfer log. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear you like it! The transfer log lists the files you most recently transferred using the tool. Useful for statistics, or if you would like to manually review each file you transferred -FASTILY 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you offer an option to disable this? Not everyone wants this feature. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll include this feature in the next release :) -FASTILY 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily: I plan to give it a try, but before I do, can you clarify whether feeding a category into this will automatically transfer every page in the category without further review or whether I'll be able to manually give a yay/nay to each file as it comes up? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it will transfer every eligible (the built-in filter skips over Commons-ineligible and files nominated for deletion) file in the category, because it assumes you have already completed a manual review (e.g. flagged copyvios for deletion, and fixed licenses for any file that may be ineligible for Commons). Think of MTC! as a dumb assistant that performs the grunt work after you've completed the paperwork :) -FASTILY 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright. That's a bit tricky for large categories, especially since files could be added while you're working through the "paperwork". I'm more likely to use it file-by-file as a result. Not sure if that fits in with your intended use or not, but thought you might want to know. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I typically use it to transfer a user's uploads, which is pretty manageable given that most users don't have an insane number of uploads. I've included Category and Template selectors for those who like a challenge, and because it was easy to implement. -FASTILY 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Archived without admin ruling

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

---

This discussion was archived without ever being actioned by admins- the consensus seems to have been for a topic ban, but we need an admin to rule on it, or unarchive it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed. I would unarchive it and close it myself but I was involved in the discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody wants to close this? Geez now I wish I did not comment so I could close it. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: I've moved it back to this board now, up above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Stop to following me or ban that person from my editing. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: Keilana has now closed the thread and informed the user of the result. Softlavender (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Standard offer : Drmicrocap

Drmicrocap (talk · contribs) was blocked back in February 2013 for sockpuppetry, a conflict of interest on Daniel C. Ferguson, and making legal threats. He is considering the standard offer, and I have agreed to start a thread here on the condition he takes an indefinite topic ban from Daniel C. Ferguson, which he has agreed to. He has also dropped the legal threats. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Drmicrocap is a sock of Drofmicrocaps (talk · contribs) who was blocked for making legal threats. Shouldn't the original account be unblocked rather than this one? More importantly, his serious and persistent BLP violations on Daniel C. Ferguson under both user names mean that he should be officially topic banned indefinitely if unblocked. He should not be unblocked on the basis of agreeing to a voluntary topic ban. He seems to think that it would simply be lifted at any time in the future upon his request. I am the one who dealt with his edits (and was the recipient of his legal threat). In my opinion he should never be allowed near that article or associated subjects again. I note also that he doesn't seem to have any other subjects in mind which he plans to edit. So why does he want to be unblocked? Before he was blocked, his edits under both those accounts were entirely to Daniel C. Ferguson and related subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Appears to be an SPA in dispute with a living person, created an attack page about that person, appears to not understand the BLP policy, issued legal threats... - think we can safely decline his contributions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much my impression and why he must be officially topic banned if he is unblocked. Admins should look at the contents of the original attack page he created to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reading just a bit, I found this: different topic, but the same problems as noted above, - how would we know the attitude changed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's the same topic, Gerda. He was making the bizarre claims about Daniel C. Ferguson to the admin who had deleted the original attack page. I am also less than thrilled with this SPA with a pseudo-legal username who re-added a spurious net worth figure to the infobox last year and never returned. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I just did some heavy culling on Daniel C. Ferguson - a good half of the article was about Newell Rubbermaid and completely irrelevant to the biography. Not being familiar with the notability criteria for business people, no comment on his notability. I also un-orphaned it and removed the 'short lead' template as it accurately reflects the body of the article now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's editing history is disturbing. The entire editing history revolves around creating and editing one BLP of a marginally notable person in an obviously unacceptable way. (The sock allegation is less significant as he says it just reflects a lost password for a similarly named account and I find that credible.) Obviously the editor will not be allowed to edit about Mr. Ferguson and says he has accepted that. Therefore, it would be important to know what he is planning to edit, but in the unblock request on his talkpage that information is not provided; he just says that he is willing to provide it at some unspecified future date. I therefore oppose any unblock at least until the editor outlines useful, policy-compliant edits he intends to make unrelated to Mr. Ferguson or any related subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, the original account Drofmicrocaps was registered on 4 October 2012 and blocked on 28 November 2012. The second account Drmicrocap began editing on 7 February 2013, i.e. 3 months after the block, and went to quite a lot of trouble and deceit to do so. This was not "lost password". This was block evasion. Otherwise I agree with you. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Total agreement with NYB. BMK (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Until info relating to point 3 is provided as well as a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. This can only be appealed to the community and will not be lifted upon request. Any support, from me at least, requires both points to be fulfilled. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Reblocks are cheap. I agree that banning him from Mr. Ferguson will be necessary; if it's true that he's the real power behind the throne for the LDS Church, and capable of choosing apostles at will, other editors can always add sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reblocks are only cheap if admins are willing to apply them without making the community jump through hoops to justify them. The rule of thumb should be that even a hint of improper editing or behavior from an editor recently unblocked with the standard offer should be enough to send them back to the woodshed immediately. That's generally not the case, we usually have to have another one of these AN or ANI discussions to convince an admin to do what should have been done automatically right off the bat. Until that changes, reblocks are not "cheap", they're a drain on the community's time, energy and patience. BMK (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blackmane and my comments above. Any support for an unblock would require both a credible description of what he plans to contribute and a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocked per NLT - I don't see the threat rescinded, so we could stop here and say that they should remain blocked on this point alone. That is defacto is our policy. Socking, and honesty concerns per @Voceditenore:, and @Newyorkbrad: as well. And as per BMK, blocks aren't free. I see every reason to leave this user blocked / banned, and no net positive here. SQL^{Query me!} 06:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

SQL, in his amended unblock request, he states It was agreed that I would utilize Wikipedia.org forum and thus fore include this withdraw any further threat of legal action in order settle any differences. It's rather incoherent but I assume that's a withdrawal and that he won't be reporting me to the US Department of Justice after all. He was also fond of threatening to report editors to the press as he did to Calmer Waters here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That being said - I still don't see the potential for a net positive here. SQL^{Query me!} 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. Voceditenore (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The "incoherence" is bothersome. All it takes to withdraw a legal threat is saying "I withdraw the legal threat", whereas what this editor has written looks more like making potential loopholes for later use. BMK (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Signing again to delay archiving. The user has still failed to provide any indication of what he plans to contribute if unblocked. Perhaps it's time to close this as unsuccessful? Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose because of NLT, socking and block evasion, disruptive BLP-violating SPA, and NOTHERE. Moreover, he wrote in his unblock request that "i request permission to have it [topic ban on Daniel C. Ferguson] lifted at any time in the future upon request". Plus has never rescinded his legal threat or indicated any sort of articles/topics he would be editing if unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC); edited 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as per Blackmane's rationale. LavaBaron (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK and Brad. Reblocks are cheap but the discussion that leads to them isn't. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Noting that Drmicrocap has not edited in more than a week and hence has not responded to the observations in this thread. Let's wait a little longer to see how he addresses the concerns raised, some of which are very serious. If he doesn't post anything else, we can consider the request dropped for now. If he does, we can resume the discussion at that time. Depending on the way things go, there is also an aspect of the situation I may want to refer to ArbCom, as I have become aware of some non-public information that may be relevant. Hence I ask that no one unblock without first consulting me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Squeak, said the wheel

I'd like to request some administrative attention to the backlog at WP:ANRFC. It's really dragging out in some cases. I realize some of the RfCs and RfC-ish discussions listed there are tedious, but most of them could use an administrative close or they'll simply get archived without resolution and be re-raised as new RfCs recycling the same thing a month or 3 or 6 later. It's already been established that one listed there that has been archived can either be pulled out of the archive for closure (after which the archive bots will re-archive it again later), or closed in the archive page (though the latter tends to mean some interested parties will not notice the closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Have we started enforcing the provision that it's only for things that really need an admin's intervention to close? Have we banned Cunard from spamming it yet? If so, let me know and I'll be willing to help. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll ban Cunard for spamming the day we ban admins for being bone fucking idle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion on managing entries to the list of pending RfCs is being held. It should be on track to be added to the list in just over a week :-). isaacl (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone can give me a good explanation why Talk:Potato chip#RFC: Should the caption include "crisps" as well as "chips"?, Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)#RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"?, Talk:John Carter (film)#RfC: Which figure should go in the budget field in the infobox? and the like are really intractable disputes which require admin intervention, I'll be glad to do so. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to go back to closing RFCs unless and until Cunard and George Ho are banned from using WP:ANRFC as their personal playpen. I'll point out that the last time I wasted a sizeable chunk of my life closing a contentious RFC (filed by a certain SMcCandlish, as it happens), as best I can tell not a single one of the participants took the slightest notice of the closure and everyone carried on as before. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Which one was that? I agree that alternative snack terms, when both are valid per ENGVAR, and which figure to use, when a basic source reliability examination answers the question for us, are kind of pointless to list at ANRFC. But some of these discussions are policy/guideline disputes that could affect large numbers of articles, and which no one will considered closed with a clear result unless it's an admin closure (i.e., editwarring will continue indefinitely). As an example, the move to try to effectively ban using disambiguation for anything but cases of direct article title collisions, despite the fact that even some of the naming convention guidelines prescribe use of disambiguation to resolve naturally unclear titles, as just one example. If I ever list what appears to be a frivolous request at ANRFC, please tell me. Anyway, just because something's on ANRFC doesn't mean a non-admin can't close it if the answer seems clear-cut. Maybe there should be something of a recruiting drive for NACs? Could even set up a section into which admins shunt ANRFC requests they're pretty certain do not need admin closure. This would even give admin hopefuls something to work on that's both productive and admin-training-like. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I did link it—"Religion in biographical infoboxes", to which I gave a very clear "only if it's demonstrably relevant to the article subject" close, which is being resoundingly ignored. I do like your idea of a separate "this is unlikely to be too hard to close and is unlikely to trigger a swarm of abuse directed at the closer" holding pen—it would be very good training for admin wannabees, since it would give them hands-on experience in moderating conflict between people having vocal disagreements. (An even better proposal would be a throttle on listing RFCs; let's not beat around the bush, this backlog is almost entirely the product of a single editor who thinks it's funny to try to gum up Wikipedia's workings by dumping dozens of routine tasks which don't require any kind of admin intervention into the admin backlog.) ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That discussion has has wide-reaching ramifications, stretching all the way up to arbcom. Saying it's being ignored seems like a bit of a stretch even if it hasn't been implemented perfectly. I think User:Cunard's work is valuable, but that is not for me to decide - there is currently an ongoing discussion about that topic here. If you don't think that a discussion merits a formal close, then you are, of course free to simply delist it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't work: remove stuff that doesn't need a closure, and Cunard simply reverts you by putting it back. I can't imagine a more blatant type of adminshopping. Until Cunard is banned from this board, I will not waste my time there. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

While I support getting more non-admins involved with ANRFC, I think creating a separate bin for NAC will just serve to restrict non-admins from closing difficult discussions - even if they have the ability to make a good close and the technical ability to implement it. I do not think this is a good thing or your intention, but it seems virtually bound to happen if your idea is implemented. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I just closed two out of those three. The potato chips/crisps one was a contested discussion which was somewhat difficult to close. It also required someone to step up, and say I'm closing this, and actually making the article reflect the discussion's consensus. The John Carter one was a straightforward close, but it still required me as the closer to implement the consensus. I was more than comfortable closing both of these, but they still both needed someone to come in, and implement the results of the discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course the discussions (like almost all of them) required someone to implement the consensus, but I'm not convinced that it required "a closer" to do so, nor am I convinced that the participants in that discussion couldn't have figured it out on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I encourage you all to look at the RFC mentioned above. Cunard says that "This proposal will effectively ban me from WP:ANRFC", which I take as an indication that the proposal would actually change how that board is (or isn't) functioning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, 1) it won't pass, and 2) I believe that if Cunard is to be banned from ANRFC it should be done through the front door, not sneaking in through the back door. I appreciated what Ricky81682 is trying to do there, and I believe it's entirely a good faith effort, but even I am skeptical about writing that proposal into "the rules" even if I believe it would generally be "best practices" to have direct RfC participants take RfCs to ANRFC... But if Admins want to reign in ANRFC, it needs to be taken head-on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what IJBall says. If a particular editor is problematic but the process is otherwise working, the appropriate course is a topic ban discussion regarding that editor, rather than reconfiguring the process in an effort to keep that editor out. (If you do want to go down the "RFC and policy change" route, a "nobody can add more than three items to WP:ANRFC in any given month" throttle would probably be the way to go, since it would still allow people to raise genuine cases while drastically cutting the frivolous nominations.) ‑ Iridescent 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Difficult to develop and cite article "Criticism of the Quran" when users desire to minimize critique

The two articles in question are Criticism of the Quran and Jabr (slave). At the latter, I simply added a citation since the page's heading asked for references. I had not edited that article previously (as history shows), yet this user accuses me of doing so along with other nonsense.... I've also received accusations to adding unsourced material at the larger article, being called a liar and such by this editor (see history at talk page). Regarding the larger and exhaustive article "Criticism of the Quran", the user has challenged a few paragraphs that have been unsourced prior to me paying attention to the effort to find and provide proper citations.

A previous user (User:CounterTime) who challenged the very same paragraphs and had the same argument went back and forth with me, to which I flagged them for edit warring. Now that user is gone, but the user User:Alexis Ivanov seems to have picked up where they left off. I find this interesting to say the least. Now an admin User:NeilN is involved and calling me out for edit warring again within a short period of time, and I find the entire ordeal quite tasking (having to revert vandalism and then having to go back and forth with folks who don't seem to read citations but only desire to add their view of what something means). I've enjoyed my time on Wikipedia for the most part, and some of the subjects that are highly contested should be page protected or at least those who disrupt article development should be monitored or swiftly dealt with.

User:Alexis Ivanov seems to use a veiled approach to contesting certain portions of an article they do not like. And being aware of the rules, they first begin a discussion contesting past edits of users (my personal recent experience). After going back and forth on two pages regarding citations and not the content initially, I found proper citations for contested content. This user then proceeded to discuss (which is proper), but then simply deleted and rewrote portions of the article while omitting what was previously in the article and noted in the reference (and which are part of the subject matter within the paragraph, which the history shows). -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you're feeling worn out, but it's almost certain no-one here is going to dig through the entire recent history of two pages to find what you're talking about. Help us out and post links to diffs showing what you think are the problems. GoldenRing (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Need somebody with better template-fu than I have to respond to a user request.

In User_talk:RoySmith#Userfying_template, a request was made of me to restore and userfy a template which had been deleted, per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_18. I'm really not up on the technical issues around templates, so I'm afraid I'll mess something up. Thus, I'm requesting that some other admin who knows more about templates do the restore and userfication for me, and then respond on my talk page when it's been done. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the template page, blanked it (to avoid causing a mess somewhere by accident), and am about to move it to the requesting user's userspace. Is there a way to get the names of deleted subpages of a deleted template? I found the doc page by checking the deletion logs for the admins who previously deleted this template, Opabinia regalis and Czar (OR didn't delete any related pages at the same time, but Czar deleted the doc at the same time), but if anyone else deleted any subpages, I haven't a clue how to find them. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, you can search using Special:Undelete, e.g. [46], which just shows the template and doc page. But then, the log for Template:Pro gamer achievements/doc shows I deleted it, not Czar, so it seems like there's still another puzzle piece missing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see. Czar deleted and then restored the parent template, and then I deleted it again later. So it looks like it was just the template and doc page, and there weren't any subpages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Since when is there a search feature on Special:Undelete? WMF ran a poll at Meta, asking community members for their opinion on which features would be most important, and I remember voting for a search feature for deleted page, but if this is what I was voting for, I had no idea that they'd completed it. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been around for a while, it's the browsearchive user right, which is part of the admin bundle. It's a pretty crippled "search", though; it only looks at the beginning of the title of the deleted article. So it's not even a proper search of the titles, never mind the deleted content. (I'm pretty sure I discovered it doing the same thing - looking for subpages of a deleted template.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Bot Approvals Group notification

As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy

Just to let everyone know the RFC is live. Let's get this settled. Katie^talk 00:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

www.poolq.ee

Hi!

Unfortunately, our IT manager left among us, and we will not be able to log on to our website. We do not know the username or the password. We need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.249.58 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. However, we at Wikipedia are not able to assist you with your website. You might be able to find contact details using the search tool at http://internet.ee. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

HISTMERGE help needed

Resolved

At Choga, a new user seems to have replaced part of the old article with new. I think we need to split this article into two new ones and create a disambig, and the admin help is needed for proper history merge. This is the old article to restore. What followed was an apparently uncaught blanking vandalism that gutted the content for three months, and then a newbie replaced it with the current revision. I hope this mess can be sorted. I have made some minor c/e, so that this version is ready to be copied to a new article. I suggest ending up with Choga (disambiguation), Choga (garment) and Choga (architecture).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Completely agreed with your assessment, I've histsplit the two articles and created the dab so everything should be sorted now. Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, looks good! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CSD question

Is a 6-day wait for a CSD unusual? Peyton Meyer (originally created at Peyton Meyer (actor)), a page created by a now-blocked socker, has been sitting in the WP:G4 queue for over 6 days now. I know it's a holiday weekend in the U.S., but I can't figure out why this has taken so long, as it clearly qualifies for G4. Could an Admin take a look at this, and either grant the G4 CSD request, or deny it so that I may then boldly move the "proper" version of the article, at Draft:Peyton Meyer, to this location, and convert the socker's version into a redirect? Thanks in advance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think G4 is just one of those categories that many admins don't take a look at. I've noticed similar wait times sometimes with WP:G6 in my work at XfDs. It's not as glamorous as A7/G3/G10/G11, etc. Six days is on the high side. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've declined the G4, it was not substantially identical the version that was deleted. No idea about whether or not they're a sock, will leave the G5 call for someone else. On the more general question, that is a very long wait. From my perspective (an occasional CSDer), I dislike G4s because most of them don't meet the actual criteria for G4 but are in crap shape/on obviously non-notable topics. If I decline the speedy I feel a responsibility to follow up with a PROD/AFD which you then have to keep an eye on for the next week or so – not really what I'm after when I'm looking to speedy delete a few pages. Jenks24 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt the WP:G5 applies in this case, as the socker was blocked for socking after creating the article (though multiple different socks of that same user certainly did post revisions to the article (mostly edit-warring in violation of WP:BLP), if that makes a difference...). In any case, I just needed the CSD granted or declined, so I can determine what to do with the Draft article, which is basically the "best" version of the article. If the G5 is also declined, I'll commence moving the Draft to mainspace, and convert the socker's version to a redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

G5 declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please replace the Talk page of ANI?

The ANI talk page is for whatever reasons a hard redirect to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but there is no visible edit history so no way for civilians to undo that. ANI has more extant watchers that AN, and thus needs its own talk page. I'd like to put the message about avoiding too-soon archiving on its talk page. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just a redirect (Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) although it is fully protected. It was last edited in March 2008. I think it should be left as-is, but you might raise any WP:ANI archiving issue at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#Please do not One-Click Archive threads until at least 24 hours after close with a ping to the editor. Thanks for your efforts: I agree with the idea of keeping a closed section for 24 hours, and there should not be a race among editors to see who can be first to archive sections. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a question: If someone has ANI on their watchlist, but not AN, do they see edits on the AN talkpage? Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Watchlist notifications would be for changes to the redirect not for changes to the redirect's target. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain why ANI does not have a dedicated talk page, then? Softlavender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Almost certainly because there is or was a desire to centralise discussion about the noticeboards. See WP:TALKCENT. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't delete pages

I'm attempting to delete Wikipedia:Ahmet Tan, Wikipedia:Admerasia, and Wikipedia:Adil Rasool, so I selected G6 from the dropdown and copy/pasted the same rationale into the "Other/additional reason" box: Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace (in all three cases, someone moved a page into the WP namespace by a misunderstanding or by picking the wrong option from a dropdown), but I can't delete anything: in all three cases, I clicked the "delete" link from the redirect's entry at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 4, modified the deletion reasons, and then hit the "Delete page" button as normal, and in all three caes, I got an HTTP 500 Internal Server Error message upon clicking that button. Any idea what's going on? I'm not having trouble performing normal edits, or I wouldn't have been able to leave you this message. If you're able to delete any of them, please leave a note at the relevant discussion section(s) at RFD. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: related to this error? Give it a moment and try again, as another admin has been able to delete a page they were struggling with. If it continues, may be worth a phab report? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been deleting pages for a hour or so and other than it being slow (then again, I've been admin for only a few hours now...) there have been no issues. Nyttend, does it still not work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed a database issue with a recent edit, so I'm guessing it was a short-term glitch.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Works for me - I'm guessing temporary database error as well - I deleted one of the referenced pages above, you should be able to do the rest. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You both were right, see my comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28technical%29&type=revision&diff=728587327&oldid=728542501 --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comey recommends no prosecution

Heads up to anyone monitoring relevant articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy for non-Yanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

And for some of us Yanks, as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding WP:INVOLVED

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

---

At Draft talk:Main Page#Warning User:Edokter claimed that WP:INVOLVED does not prevent him from using the tools in an RfC that he is heavily involved in.[47][48] May I have some clarification as to what is and is not allowed in such a situation, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I reserve the right to remedy any incursion of policy that is intended to undermine, frustrate, sabotage or ohterwise derail any ongoing discussion. So pot, meet kettle. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we as a community do not trust you or any administrator to correctly identify "any incursion of policy that is intended to undermine, frustrate, sabotage or otherwise derail any ongoing discussion" in discussions -- including RfCs -- where you are heavily involved and have expressed strong feelings. That's why, as a general rule and a good practice, you should ask an uninvolved administrator to take action in such cases. If there really is a policy violation, the uninvolved admin will see it and deal with it. Doing it yourself gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Add the bizarre edit-warring here as well. Edokter, I get that you're feeling stressed but please calm down; Arbcom has desysopped for much less blatant admin abuse. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter is completely incorrect when he says "WP:INVOLVED governs content disputes, not RfCs." He needs to look at the first sentence. "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." Comment in the RFC? Don't use the tools monitor it, shape it, or affect it in any way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, I don't think he's listening. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Edokter shows us the path forward, "Don't like it? Go to ArbCom." I see a couple people involved in the discussion who won't be shy in doing that. He really needs to take heed of, "...pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) If editors arbitrarily start moving the pages under discussion and breaking the the new main page gadget (over 2000 users!), then nominating it for deletion to make a point, I regard that as sabotage, nothing less. Tell me how I am supposed to handle this? Should I just come here and ask nicely for assistence and wait while the mob keeps derailing the entire discussion? I will, but only when anohter admin will take control and monitor all pages involved. Don't expect me to have to accept any further disruption while others are allowed to vandalize it; I will take any involved party to ArbCom myself. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Should I just come here and ask nicely for assistence Yes, that is exactly what a clearly INVOLVED admin is expected to do. Now that this matter has the attention of multiple un-INVOLVED admins, please step back and let them handle it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Law of holes applies here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired of arbcom being the only resort to putting a stop to adminsbehavingbadly(TM). I don't understand the issues involved here, so I can't do anything about it. Arkon (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter I think that INVOLVED very much applies here. Please allow other admins to make decisions on how tools should be used in this area. If you insist on handling this yourself it will end badly. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I am involved, but only because no one is backing me up. The is one simple solution: Stop sabotaging the the pages being discussed. Really folks, I will happily delete it all if that is the outcome. There is no reason to pre-empt any action. So, Which admin will step in to ensure that? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A key reason for not allowing INVOLVED admins to use the tools in situations like this is that you (generic and personally) are not able to objectively judge when something is or is not being sabotaged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED is very clear on this "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Suffice to say, the bold part is the important bit. There is no way Edokter is not involved, and threatening to block users to get his own way is clearly designed to chill discussion and intimidate others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Once again, I feel I am completely ignored. I JUST FUCKING ADMITTED I AM INVOLVED!!!!!. I askied for assistance, but again, no one is offering! SAY THE WORD and I AM OUT! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If you know you are involved, why are you threatening to block other users? Perhaps no one is offering any assistance because they dont feel it is required. You have been throwing around the word 'sabotage' however there is little evidence of such. Also 'the word'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter other admins are looking at the situation, trust me you have gotten a lot of attention. Their goals may not be to further your cause or to prevent people from objecting to it. Surely you must have realized going in that changes to the main page have historically been an uphill battle. Without a consensus for your changes you may just have to accept that they may not be adopted. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

All I want is that everybody plays by the same rules. I am asking for assistance, but I get no affirmation of any kind, only the past being rehashed. All I need to hear is "OK, I keep an eye on it and make sure no further disruptions take place while the discussion is ongoing." Is that so much to ask? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It may be, if you expect others to strictly adopt your view of what is disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

What is disruptive is pretty obvioushere; moving pages and breaking gadgets are the main examples here. Are you telling me those are not disruptive? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It depends. Did your own actions ensure something would break if these actions were reverted? Is the move undoing a prior undiscussed move? Is the move breaking anything or does it have support? Not always clear-cut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It is disruptive to take any action after the discussion has been initiated. Had I not started it, I believe no one would even bother about it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It is similarly disruptive to misuse administrative privileges in order to promote this to the gadgets page, and to create gadgets without proper discussion — luring innocent editors to enable the gadget for what is a one-man project. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If that was disruptive, why haven't I had one single complaint in the one year it has been up? No, that is a pathetic argument. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter, please give it to us straight. You have read the comments here and elsewhere. Realistically, is there a reasonable chance that you will voluntarily stop doing the things that others are complaining about, or do we have to (in your words) "take it to Arbcom"? I don't want to revisit the reasons why you think you are right and I think you are wrong; I just want to know whether I should suggest that this be closed as being unlikely to be resolved at ANI, thus saving everyone a bunch of time and effort. So what say you? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have stopped since this thread started; that should be enough. It is almost if you don't want me to stop. It will be resolved when someone tells me that I no longer need to be afraid of the few opposers that think they can get away with disrupting the discussion that I always had every intention of following through, and sworn to abide by its outcome. But that is apparently not enough. I would like to know why I am held to higher standards then other editors (and not necesssarily as an admin), and why it is OK for ohter to disrupt, and not for me to correct. In simple terms, I am MORE then happy to follow procedures; all I ask is that others show me the same respect. And by that, I mean to just let the discussion run its course wihtout any premature action of any kind. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edokter, you've made two threats in this thread alone[49], [50] and have yet to retract your threat on Talk:Main Page to abuse your admin bit to enforce whatever changes you want regardless of opposition. I concur with David below that unless and until you specifically retract all your threats, you shouldn't be trusted with the admin bit given that (regardless of whether you intend to follow them through) your threats and bluster are clearly intended to create a chilling effect. ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Already rescinded below. All I expect in return is that you respect policy as well. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The actions about which Edokter is complaining were disruptive, but they stemmed largely from misunderstanding. Unless and until Edokter explicitly retracts his threat to block any user who "sabotages" his proposal, I no longer trust him with the admin bit. —David Levy 21:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

And I only made that thread because the rest of the admin core failed to step in. I will retract my blocking threat. I still ask for some confirmation that further disruptions are handled by someone else. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, did you just unconditionally agree to not use the admin tools in any RfC that you are involved in, or was that conditional, based upon some other admin agreeing to "step in"? I do apologize if it seems like I am giving you a hard time, but the distinction is important. If the answer is "unconditional" I am going to recommend that this and all related discussions be closed as "resolved, No admin action required". If the answer is "conditional", then I am going to start the process of opening an Arbcon case, starting at User:Guy Macon/Work In Progress#Draft Arbcom Case. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This report is misguided (IAR, NOTBURO). Edokter is one of the good guys who is working towards improving the main page, although some people think the main page is fine—a discussion for elsewhere. People started a move and a deletion discussion no doubt with wonderful intentions, but with a result that is 100% disruption. The subject is the main page—it's an important issue and should not be sidetracked with lame debates about the namespace or the letter-of-the-law at MfD. Now people have scented blood and are doubling down to force Edokter into submission—that is not helping anything at all. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I made some stupid mistakes which caused much of the above, so I'll not comment much beyond this post. I just want to ask someone uninvolved to undo Edokter's involved actions at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-NewMainPage and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage, and to make it clear to him that an edit summary like here is uncalled for (whatever errors I made otherwise, in that case I was turning a redlink I created into a correct bluelink again; blocking me (or threatening to block me) for that edit was totally out of line, as it was one of the few edits I made in this episode which were actually good). Fram (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

But why should those edits be reverted? What purpose would be served other than to establish that rules are sacred? A fair guess would be that Edokter is the only person here with a good understanding of gadgets, and it would be reasonable to assume that his statement is correct. Of course in the heat of battle there was not an opportunity to ask him what he meant, but now that some reflection can occur, is there an urgent requirement that MediaWiki:Gadget-NewMainPage be deleted? Is it so abhorrent that someone who has improved the use of CSS and JavaScript at Wikipedia for years should have a page to draft ideas relating to the main page? Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have undone both since no admin tools are required. WP:MFD explicitly states under what may be nominated here both Mediawiki and Gadget pages can be nominated there, so there is no procedural reason to not let the discussion run its course. Any discussion on the merits of the deletion needs to take place at the MFD nomination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• This fallout has been a long time coming, and I doubt it will stop here without serious changes to Edokter's "my HTML & CSS way, or the highway!" approach (a much longer-term problem), especially now that he's using threats of administrative action against anyone who gets in his way. Repeated threats, with hostile, temper-tantrum screaming, and repeated dares to take him to ArbCom, are unbecoming. If something like this happens again, someone will likely take him up on it, and might now anyway. The stark obvious fact of the matter is that threats to abuse administrative power when WP:INVOLVED are themselves an abuse of administrative power when involved. If a cop pulls you over and says "give me all your money or I'll shoot you", they're still abusing their authority even if though they did not shoot you or even put the gun to your head. I have no doubt whatsoever that ArbCom will see it that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

After reflecting on this a bit, I have decided to retire. I will delete my user page, the gadget, and the new main page (they are private pet projects after al), and request on meta that my admin bit be removed.

This is not the first time an RfC has blown up in my face, each time by a few rogue editors who thought they could oprate outside process to derail the discussion, which after all is precicely what they intended. Both times I was left hanged to dry by the everyone else. So it is clear to my that volunteering is not possible because of those rogue forces, that claim to speak for the community, while the real community isn't allowed to fully participate by means of sabotage.

Congratulations to the rogue force: you won. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone should immediately de-sysop him before he goes on a deleting spree. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't grave dance. He asked to have his bit removed and hasn't done any deleting but his own creations. Rebbing 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: I realize it's not my place, but I'll have my say anyway. This—all of this—was unnecessary: we have processes for calmly handling these things. Had your draft main page been deleted at MFD, you still had DRV, and, failing that, nothing kept you from working on it in your user space like any other user until it developed more interest. Still, it grieves me to see a valuable editor departing the project on these terms: I don't think you have to do this. I wish you the best. Rebbing 19:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Could an admin review the discussions at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals?

There are a couple of gadget proposals at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals that have been stale for months now. It would be good to have an admin close them. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A million times yes. Furthermore, whoever decides to take this on should also check the archives of that page; since so few people look at it, many deserving gadgets have been archived without proper discussion. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 19:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not know it existed. I have added it to my watchlist. You folks should have a bake sale or something to drum up attention. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 19:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with trying to resurrect some of that stuff, and promoting the page more. I had no idea it existed either, and I've been here 10+ years, and am a templateeditor. Its like I just discovered elves living in my garage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is what happens when experienced admins decline to close RfCs

• So yeah, the RfC re WP:FAMILY at WT:SOCK was closed by an editor editing since... 19 March 2016. The closure was inexpertly done; the time and thoughts and efforts of multiple editors were erased in one thoughtless swoop by a lackluster job closing. And no one wants to go through another RfC, so the crappy close will stand. And all of this is because experienced admins just, you know, couldn't be bothered. So yeah, thanks and keep up the good work! Cheers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the consensus is correctly judged, but the close probably ought to have established also whether there is a a consensus for or against rewording the policy. This is however also partly because the wording and contents of the rfC itself is unclear (and somewhat non-neutral). I think in any case a second RfC will be needed to establish which potential alternative wording to use. So the closure is in fact fine I think because it doesnt preclude an alternative wording to be established subsequently, it only establishes that there is no consensus to remove (which there clearly isnt).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The close lacked nuance, and it should have included an evaluation of whether there was consensus to revise the section with slightly softer wording. The exact wording would probably need another RfC anyway, though. What the closer did write is accurate, in my opinion. There was clearly not a clear enough consensus to remove the section entirely. Has anyone tried talking to this editor? I fully support non-admins being molded into proper closers and I'll reach out to this editor if no-one else has yet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If you consider berating them and then adding a mocking welcome template to their talk page to be "talking", then yes I suppose you could say that Lingzhi tried talking to them first. Jenks24 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Berated yes, then harsh remarks struck through. If any admins wanna make themselves useful, you can take this editor under your wing. I strongly support that idea for positive action. But this whole problem was caused by admins not doing their jobs, and fobbing the job off on newly-minted editors.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • The real problem is admins not fobbing more of their "job" off to experienced editors, in my opinion. Closing doesn't require the mop for RfCs, but plenty of people consider it admin work because that's how it's always been. Given the shortage of admins and increasingly shrinking numbers, it's time to aggressively expand the role of experienced non-admins. But I'm on my way to NYC (fingers crossed for Hamilton lotto tickets!), so I'll get off my soapbox for now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I would also like to point out, that the closers first day of editing included fairly advanced editing like creating new pages, using userboxes etc. The chances of them *not* being an experienced wikipedian (even if all their previous editing was as an IP) are slim-none. So relying on the user registration date as a method of discrediting them is a waste of time. Had I not commented, I would have closed it the same way. No consensus to remove. No consensus to change the wording (although it was stronger than the remove faction) etc. If you can think of a re-wording that people might find appropriate instead of the current, you are free to propose it on the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Disclosure: Lingzhi performed this edit on WP:SOCK and I reverted it. Came here after this exchange on my talk page). I noticed that User:Music1201 closed this RfC and yes, Music1201 is a newish user. Overall, I agree with the closure, although this could be because my vote was aligned with the closing decision. Since we are here already, it would be good to hear the opinion of other editors about the close - if it was incorrectly closed or if it could have been better worded or if the decision should be overturned. Personally, I still think the close was generally OK, although Music1201 could have phrased and explained the result better (For example, "No consensus to remove WP:FAMILY. No consensus for any change to the existing wording. Any changes for existing wording, should be taken up in a new RfC". A bit more of a nuanced explanation would have helped. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Admins are janitors. You don't need a janitor to close an RFC, you need any capable editor. It would have been preferable for the editor in this case to have explained their reasoning to give some indication that they had considered all sides of the debate before calling the consensus. But the actual outcome (maintain status quo) is not outside the realm of credibility given the multiplicity of views put forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• I, like others, agree that, although the consensus was definitely not to remove the section, at least some attempt at addressing the possibility of changing should've been made in the closing rationale. Note that this isn't the first time that Music1201 has made a poor close, their talk page archives are full of complaints about their AFD and RM closes. However, I'm sure the edits were made in good faith, and so Lingzhi's comments were incredibly WP:BITEy, and giving them a sarcastic welcome template was inappropriate. I'm honestly surprised that they weren't blocked for personal attacks, as their behaviour here has been, to put it simply, well below the standard expected of editors here. I'm almost inclined to slap a {{uw-npa4im}} on their talk page. Omni Flames (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, has anyone even notified Music1201 of this discussion? As far as I can tell, no. Lingzhi, since you've failed to do so, I have left a notice for you. Omni Flames (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• If I can add my non-admin $.02 here, I'd like to share my thoughts on this. I'd consider myself an "experienced editor" being here over 10 years and having a good working knowledge of policies and procedures here. With that being said I would not feel appropriate as a non-admin to closing RfCs. Whether right or wrong, having a non-admin close an RfC does not give the closure the "legitimacy" as the closing by an admin would. Simply put, an admin's closure carries much more weight as editors would feel less likely to re-open a RfC that an admin closes versus one a non-admin experienced editor would. As stated above, it's become almost an "unwritten policy" that admins have to close RfCs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @RickinBaltimore: Non-admin closures have, for some time now, applied to RFCs. See Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Closures_of_RfCs. Omni Flames (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh I'm quite aware of it, however having it in writing there and actually APPLIED in practice tend to be two different things. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @RickinBaltimore: RFC is a place where we desperately need more closers. Just take a look at WP:ANRFC, it's pretty backlogged. I do agree that the tough and large-scale discussions should be left to one or more admins, but the idea of not allowing non-admins to close RFCs at all is quite absurd considering the fact that most are very easy closes. The fact is that a large number of straightforward RFCs are done by non-admins, as there aren't enough admins to handle them all. Omni Flames (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Well I may have to dab my toe in the waters there and see what I can do to help out then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: This has been waiting for you, Billy Ray! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, talk about diving headfirst. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Chilcot & Premptive protection?

Chilcot is giving his statement now on the Iraq Inquiry and the full text will be released in about 30 mins. It is likely to cause disruption at a number of articles (Tony Blair, Bush Jr etc) so would it be worth an admin pre-emptively semi-protecting the relevant articles? Or wait and see? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait and see... how thick the whitewash runs ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the text is up here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have most of the potential hot spots watchlisted anyway. If it does get bad, yes we'd want to protect - but doing it preemptively shouldn't be option A. In the same vein - I'm also expecting shenanigans at Gretchen Carlson and Roger Ailes, on a totally unrelated matter - perhaps worse, given that it involves a sexual harassment lawsuit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Kvng DEPROD redux

Pursuant to the last time I was here at ANI regarding User:Kvng, I have been reviewing his DEPRODS and AfDing as I have seen necessary. Not everything gets deleted, and that's not the point; the point was to get a consensus on the material. Nevertheless, This was the latest keep rationale from Kvng, which is nothing more than a personal attack, and I'm not interested in being subject to that because Kvng doesn't like the fact that his actions as a PROD patroller are questionable at best. So here we are, and I've got some data to back up my earlier statements.

Of the approximately 576 articles Kvng has DEPRODDED over the last few months (of which he keeps a record), there have been:

3/3 subsequent deletions in February (on an incomplete list) 22/58 subsequent deletions in March (on an incomplete list) 50/183 subsequent deletions in April 40/233 subsequent deletions in May 13/90 (approx) in June - there are a number in process, and Kvng has stopped numbering the list at this point.

123/576 is just over 20% of the DEPRODs subsequently being deleted. That's a lot, and it's far too high. Not every AfD was started by me, either; quite a few were AfDed by others by the time I even saw them. However, who AfDed it is irrelevant; there was a community consensus saying that these articles should be deleted over 20% of the time.

Moreover, of those deletions, Treponema spirochetes was an obvious error (clear from the sourcing) that should not have had to go to AfD, and one of the radio stations was an obvious hoax that was a CSD via ANI (I can't recall which one, as there are about six that are problematic, most of which have been or will be deleted), but I do know I brought it to ANI because it was a sock creation of a banned user (some sock of Pinoybandwagon). If it's hugely important, I do remember Jenks24 deleted it, so he might be able to figure it out. Captiva iii was also a hoax, notably being cited to a WP page on GM of Uzbekistan and an owner's manual for a different car, and its existence wasn't even supported by the Chevrolet Captiva article we do have, and a basic look at the sources would have shown that. Due diligence should have shown all of this.

I will note that I am not dealing with redirect outcomes here, of which there are at least another 20-30% of the total, if not more. So we are talking about an error rate on PROD, insofar as "the article was not suitable to be kept in whatever state it was found in", of 40% or more. Part of the overall issue is that Kvng has a habit of reading policy in a vacuum, such as citing WP:BCASTOUTCOMES for every radio station AfD, even when RS do not exist, such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planet_FM_94_Islamabad, and actually, most of the radio station articles. Kvng also constantly repeats his earlier prod arguments at AfD, such as "notability by X and Y" where X and Y are sources in the article already, often don't establish notability, and clearly were looked at by the original prodder. So he skews keep votes with no substantive content or policy-based reasoning, using material that was already deemed not substantial enough. He also called for a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newt Syrup because "Material doesn't have to be referenced to be eligible for merge." I'd also note I redirected Ben-Gay for lack of sources, and Kvng sent it to AfD instead claiming I wanted it deleted. Meanwhile, here, someone asked him to participate in something related to what he has been doing (in this case redirecting song prods to albums), and he refuses.

These are not appropriate statements or actions, and they're only examples of a larger issue. The basic fact of the matter is that over 123 articles have gone to AfD that did not have to go to AfD, and the deprodding continues to the tune of 6-10 articles a day. It literally looks like whatever he sees that is in the list gets removed, period. So this situation is neither going to change nor get better with time, and sending articles to a weeks-long process when they simply don't need to be is a problem. I'm simply not seeing the requisite level of understanding and ability being exercised here.

Therefore, I propose that Kvng be prohibited from PROD patrol. MSJapan (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The last ANI thread on this issue may be reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive926#User:Kvng, and I had to reread it twice to make sure that your report here wasn't just a copy of that one. The discussion was closed with no administrative action, and with the recommendation that you should go to WT:PROD to propose changes in policy. Instead, you posted a vague complaint about Kvng (at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#PA on AfD by PROD patroller Kvng), in which you proposed no new policy. I don't even see where you participated in the discussion - you seem to have posted the complaint and left it be. That was about a month ago. I don't see anything here to suggest that you will be any more successful now than you were a month ago. I strongly suggest you take the concerns raised last month on board and consider how PROD policy might be changed to address everyone's concerns. Or, alternatively, consider that consensus might not be in your favor on this issue. Either way, there is no administrator action warranted here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

When you say 20% of the articles I deprodded were subsequently deleted, you're also saying that 80% of the articles I deprodded were inappropriately prodded and I prevented good material in 453 articles from being deleted. I'd be satisfied with 50% and I'd call 80% a huge success. The number would be even better if you hadn't been systematically submitting my deprod lists to AfD. Why are you unable to see any value in this? P.S. I have added the numbers to my June records. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see what has changed. Policy still seems to allow Kvng to deprod articles they think should be deproded. If the deletion rate of what they are contesting is 20% then it sounds like their accuracy is reasonable. I am of course willing to be convinced otherwise. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Source creation request

I would like to request creating source for the upcoming 2016 Paul Hunter Classic professional ranking snooker tournament, as it has been restricted to administrators. Vinitsky14 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems this is due to a title blacklist. I am not sure if this is the intended target or not. It will take some doing to figure out who added it. I can't find it in the blacklist talk page archive. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The same thing was with the article on the 2015 event, however it was created also after my request. Vinitsky14 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If you start a draft then an admin will be more likely to move it for you than to create a blank page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The title blacklist entry appears to be the first entry in the "ATTACK TITLES AND/OR PAGE MOVE VANDALISM TARGETS" section. The only relevant discussion I can find is at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive 3#David Beals which is from September 2013, but the filter predates that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I am thinking this is a false positive. We do have an article on the tournament in general: Paul Hunter Classic. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)