Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po

(Initiated 1450 days ago on 22 July 2020) Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on 22 July 2020, with the last vote occurring on 12 August 2020. It was bot-archived without closure. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done – as said above, this has been archived, and there is obvious consensus for one of the four options, so there is no need for a formal closure. Editor Amigao, feel free to close this if you want to. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be closed either, but not because I think there is an obvious consensus. Four-year-old RfCs shouldn't be closed, particularly for an RSN discussion, where relevant facts regarding a source might have changed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1948 Palestine war#RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?

(Initiated 125 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Soni (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 94 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)

 Done. There's a new RFC on the page, so closed this as no consensus. Soni (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 91 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:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

(Initiated 74 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chrhns (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 69 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 67 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 67 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 62 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

(Initiated 48 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 May 2024)

Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

(Initiated 40 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Still looks closed to me. In any case, we'd need the close appeal to close before a new closure is requested, so I'm marking as  Already done. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now reclosed pending review at the Administrators' noticeboard. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	12	5	17
TfD	0	0	5	5	10
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	4	0	4
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Danny (2015) into 2015 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 166 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 1986 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Newton (1986) into 1986 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 162 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2004 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Lester (2004) into 2004 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

(Initiated 68 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 36 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brighton_hotel_bombing#Requested_move_11_June_2024

(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 DoneDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rallying#Requested move 12 June 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 12 June 2024) Requested move is failing to attract new participants to the discussion despite the proposer's relistings.Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024)#Requested move 21 June 2024

(Initiated 19 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 7999 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Zionism 2024-07-11 04:39 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute: Time to stop editing the article and discuss on the talk page. Just noting that I've made this indef to prevent the article auotmatically becoming unprotected and it's a normal admin action so any admin can change it back to ECP. Callanecc China–Israel relations 2024-07-11 00:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 1st Tank Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-10 22:05 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Death of Nex Benedict 2024-07-10 19:31 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Module:WritingCredits 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3656 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Non-album single 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Fa bottom 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Film lists by country 2024-07-10 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2789 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Al-Awda School massacre 2024-07-10 17:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Pppery Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts 2024-07-10 16:44 indefinite edit Move warring Robertsky Channel 14 (Israel) 2024-07-10 15:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP CambridgeBayWeather June 2024 northern Gaza City airstrikes 2024-07-10 14:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather 9 July 2024 Gaza attacks 2024-07-10 14:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Tim Sheehy (American politician) 2024-07-09 23:36 indefinite edit,move Per AFD discussion Liz Mostafa Momeni 2024-07-09 22:40 indefinite move See Special:Permalink/1233594577#Administrator needed. Robertsky Mostafa Momeni (geographer) 2024-07-09 22:38 indefinite move Robertsky First Balkan War 2024-07-09 21:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/EE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Operation Azm-e-Istehkam 2024-07-09 17:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Talk:Wikilink 2024-07-09 16:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Talk:WBD 2024-07-09 03:35 2024-07-12 03:35 edit,move Apparent (i.e., fairly obvious) IP sock puppetry BD2412 8 July 2024 Ukraine missile strikes 2024-07-09 02:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq 3rd Assault Brigade 2024-07-08 23:45 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Robert Ford (outlaw) 2024-07-08 19:40 2024-07-22 19:40 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather 128th Mountain Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 07:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C 47th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 06:08 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C 59th Motorized Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 06:08 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Noodle and Bun 2024-07-08 04:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Noodle and Bun 2024-07-08 04:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Felicia Fox 2024-07-08 03:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine 2024-07-08 03:10 indefinite edit,move General sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR.; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1233247791#China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine Red-tailed hawk Adnan Hussain 2024-07-08 02:03 2025-07-08 02:03 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Late Ottoman genocides 2024-07-07 22:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:GS/AA Rosguill July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes 2024-07-07 22:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:GS/AA Rosguill Draft:Dr shajahan basha 2024-07-07 15:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Vandals are cool superheroes 2024-07-07 14:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Soke Sam Gervasi 2024-07-07 14:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD

CSD Backlog

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

---

We are starting to get a bit backed up at CSD. There are currently more than 200 articles waiting for admin review/action. I am going to start at the bottom of the alphabet, if someone else wants to start at the other end or somewhere in the middle...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It was mostly G13s, which have been taken care of by Fastily, many less to look through now! Sam Walton (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That helps! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Daily Mail RfC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC

When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Careful there. Outrage causes cancer. I know that this is true because I reads it in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The trash tabloids sold at US supermarkets called. They demand an apology for being compared to The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if you need a third (fourth? fifth?) opinion/voice on the close. As much as I hate to say it this might actually involve some 'crat-style discussion about which steps to take. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, if folks don't mind and want it I can bring my own assessment in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [1] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

As in RFAs where oppose votes gets heavily discussed, here in this RFC, the oppose voters are subjected to replies, objection and comments. The support votes are not getting too much questioned, why they support ban of Daily Mail. The oppose votes, where editors oppose ban of Daily Mail are getting badgered. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. First, many of those in support of a ban are among the most vocal of editors/admins on WP and seem unable to behave in a way that does not lead to the treatment you describe above. Second, very, very few opposers have been able to indicate that the DM is a reliable source, however, opposers believe for their own various reasons that a "ban" is objectionable. This means the "supporters" have nowhere to go in terms of discussion, other than attacking the opposers. There may also be an element of frustration here. If the closure is in favour of a ban, how will this happen? There is currently no blacklist of newspapers and I think forming one would require a change in WP-policy. I'm wondering if the supporters have seen this eventuality and have decided to attack the opposers hoping they will not return to any future debate. For the record, I have not voted either way on this matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please restore full version of this image

It is likely public domain and eligible for a move to commons: File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.jpg. The rationale for this is based on commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright, namely that "works by presumably Polish anonymous artists published in Poland before 1946" (this image is from 1935) are PD. Granted, there is an illegible signature that nobody was able to properly decipher, but illegible signature are logically no better than anonymous and should be treated as such, and for that rationale see for example this Oxford catalogue of works, were works with illegible signatures that can be only partially deciphered and couldn't be traced back to a proper person are categorized under anonymous: Roger White; Robin Darwall-Smith (2001). The Architectural Drawings of Magdalen College, Oxford: A Catalogue. Oxford University Press. pp. 147–. ISBN 978-0-19-924866-7.. If anyone can find a better legal precedent/explanation about such signatures, do let me know, but if not, I repeat: this is an anonymous work, and should be treated as public domain until a moment someone can decipher the signature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a signed work becomes legally an "anonymous" publication just because you or I can't read the signature any more. Ignorance of authorship is not the same as lack of authorship. To me this signature looks pretty distinctive and to a contemporary reader who knew what cartoonists were active in the field, it would clearly have signalled: "this work is by me, cartoonist so-and-so". Have you researched the archives of the publication in question to see who their cartoonists were? In any case, you should have provided the actual source; it's from here: [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, you can find other cartoons by the same author in other volumes of the same paper, where the signature looks more readable, like here [3]. It looks like "St Rydygier" to me (which would seem to be a plausible name in Polish, right?). This [4] Google books search points to something (in Polish) that might suggest there was one "Stanislaw Rydygier" working for Mucha in the 1930s. Can you verify this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(Here [5] is a small copy of another cartoon with what looks like the same signature explicitly credited to "S. Rydygier". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC))

More: Would "Stanislaw Rydygier" be a frequent name? This [6] website gives birth and death dates for a person of this name as 1872–1943, in which case we'd be clear of the 70 y.p.m.a. It doesn't identify him as the artist though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A 1943 death-date would make the author‘s works public-domain in Poland now (since 2014), but not as of the 1996 URAA cutoff, such that a work published in 1935 will remain under copyright in the US until 2031.—Odysseus1479 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Wonderful job finding the author! How did you find the source for the image? I must have uploaded it long ago when I wasn't that well-versed in citing sources properly, so thank you for fixing my mess!

User:Odysseus1479: Are you sure about that URAA interpretation? Have you checked commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright? I am pretty sure works by Polish artists who died 70 years ago are PD. PS. In case of pma 1943, this would have entered PD in Poland in 1994, and would be still PD by 1996, so it should not be copyrighted in the USA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Finding the source was surprisingly easy: just type the words of the caption into Google and it finds you that digitalized archive at uw.edu.pl [7] From there I just had to randomly browse into some of the neighboring volumes to find more from the same author. Maybe you should write an article on that magazine, Mucha, by the way. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I guess I was thrown off by the mention of 70 ypma above; if the applicable term is actually 50 years (according to the law in effect at the time) then yes, the Polish copyright expired before 1996 so was not extended by the US under URAA.—Odysseus1479 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: The least I can do considering you identified it so nicely: Mucha (magazine), based on the Polish stub article.

@Odysseus1479: Ok, so you'd support restoring the full version of the image and moving it to Commons? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I would not object, assuming the description & licence are updated. Although the dating for the artist would ideally be more solid, it’s plausible enough for me, given that I believe the PCP should be combined with a ‘balance of probability’ approach to provenance (as opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’). However, on technical grounds I would rather see a fresh upload in PNG format. The image at the cited source appears to be some 30% larger in pixel dimensions than the “full version”, and despite not being able to see the latter I’ll bet that it suffered somewhat from being JPEG’d. I’d be happy to prep the image (crop, straighten, & convert to monochrome) and either send it to you or upload it myself.—Odysseus1479 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: In that case, since you seem to have already located a better souce, could you upload it to Commons? Than we can tag this one with {{NowCommons}} and/or delete it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: nope—same source as linked above, but possibly a more effective method of capturing the available data. Anyway, there’s now a version of the picture at File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.png. Please check the licensing: because I don’t know what template to use for the Polish side (PD-50 having been deleted for some reason), I just added a note to the “Permission” section as rationale for the US template. I also took the liberty of editing the description a bit and adding a few categories.—Odysseus1479 23:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: Thank you. I think the template is sufficient for both Poland and US, I just added few more categories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal

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

---

Over the years that Andrew Davidson has been voting at RfA I think he has shown himself to be one of the most disruptive and disagreed with RfA voters. He has been described as having an “ongoing crusade”, casting votes that are “observationally equivalent to trolling”, and “making lazy assumptions that are not supported by hard evidence”. He is regarded as the “persistent ‘oppose everyone’ participant”, who makes “token opposes with whatever rationale he could find”, with one such vote described by a user as “the most useless and off-base oppose” they had ever seen. According to Snottywong’s tool Andrew has voted on 74 RfAs, matching the final outcome 50% of the time. Of those 74 votes: 53 (72%) were oppose, 15 were support, and 1 was neutral. More recently, Andrew has matched the request outcome closer to 30% of the time.

I looked at Andrew’s most recent votes and found the following, which I have attempted to summarise without injecting my own opinion:

Extended content

Primefac 2 - Opposed regarding one recent AfD nomination. Cyberpower678 2 - Opposed based on not wanting to give bot creators administrator rights, resulting in an extended argument unrelated to the candidate. K6ka - Opposed based on lack of content creation. Also opposed due to not having a userright that the candidate actually did have (at the time). NinjaRobotPirate - Opposed because the candidate voted to delete an article in which a particular song was listed, because that song is now no longer in a Christmas list article on Wikipedia. Debated to the extent that the discussion had to be moved to the talk page. Ad Orientem - Opposed based on quality of content creation. Boson - Neutral based on some concerns over content creation quality, but also because they edit articles on rude words. Yash! - Opposed because the candidate’s self-declared ability in English was less than their self-declared ability in other languages. Discussion had to be moved to the talk page. Godsy - Opposed because the candidate created the article grease fire which was not up to Andrew’s standards. Samtar - Opposed because the candidate nominated an article for DYK that wasn’t up to Andrew’s standards. RickinBaltimore - Opposed due to “lack of experience”. Rehman 4 - Supported Vanamonde93 - Opposed primarily because the user had cited research in an article that was published too recently.

My personal thoughts on Andrew’s voting history are that even when he places an oppose vote that isn’t completely ridiculous, it’s rarely indicative that the candidate shouldn't be trusted with administrator rights, and such votes are far outweighed by the ones that cause other editors to spend time and effort arguing with him. Other highlights include implying that not using your real name or disclosing your gender is a reason not to be an admin, by the way. If many of Andrew's votes were made by new users they would be reverted on sight as outright trolling.

This isn’t to say that every vote Andrew makes at RfA is a bad one - he has made plenty of sensible votes over the years - but I believe that his participation in this process, especially recently, is absolutely a net negative, draining the time, effort, and goodwill of the users who argue with him, and contributing heavily to the atmosphere that drives users away from RfA. I therefore propose that Andrew be topic banned from voting at RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support- yes, I've long been of the opinion that this guy's votes are subtle, pompous trolling. Opposing people for such crimes as being a fan of Hunter S. Thompson, or editing articles on topics that don't interest Andrew Davidson, or not being a native English speaker, are utterly ridiculous. Reyk _YO! 19:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment this opening statement is completely unsupported by any comparative evidence. "Over the years that Andrew Davidson has been voting at RfA he has shown himself to be the single most disruptive and disagreed with RfA voter." It is POV at best and is a non-neutral, lead to a very important subject - banning someone from an area. It required Arbcom sanctions the last time such a Tban was proposed - and it was a partial one at that. I can think of several more notable contributors - names that will be far more familiar to those with half decent memories. Sanctions have to be based on more than POV and guesswork. Leaky Caldron 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If you disagree with that sentence, then please ignore it and read the rest of the post instead. I've reworded to be less objective at any rate. Sam Walton (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It couldn't be any less objective. Leaky Caldron 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose My !votes are all in good faith. I look at the candidate's user page and edits and then !vote based upon what I see. Sometimes I oppose and sometimes I support. Here's a good example. Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm torn. One one hand, it's depressing to see people saying, essentially, "Help! We are completely incapable of ignoring someone who clearly spouts nonsense, and are forced against our will to argue incessantly with the one vote out of 179 that we disagree with! Protect us from ourselves!" My gut warns me that this is kind of the thin end of the wedge, and it won't be long before other people use this precedent to start targeting people who use more defensible, but not mainstream, rationales. I still remember how out-of-proportion angry people got with Kurt's silly but relatively harmless "self noms = de facto power hungry" opposes (I'm not linking user name solely to make the young pups do research if they're curious, so please don't link it anywhere. Make them work for it!). Seems like it would be easier to create Template:Don't bother arguing with AD, no Crat is going to pay attention to this vote, and the first person to see another silly oppose can slap it on the page.

On the other hand, AD's RFA opposes are really, really obnoxious about 75-90% of the time, and as someone (Brad?) said, often functionally indistinguishable from trolling. There comes a time when you just have to say "Come on, man." Or at the very least, when you just have to say "I don't really want to spend political capital defending this silliness".

So, borderline oppose, but I will lose precisely 1.34 minutes of sleep over this if consensus doesn't go my way. But I reserve the right to oppose much more vigorously if RFA bans start to become a thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Andrew opposed my RFA, and I respect his reasoning for it. I don't see his opposes as "trolling", but of a mind as to what he believes to be needed for an admin. That being said, I have to agree with Floquenbeam, his opposes can be very irritating, and generate enough unneeded drama during an RFA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Andrew/Colonel can be incredibly annoying, but if I were compiling a list of the most obnoxious "regulars" at RFA he wouldn't even make my top ten (and most of that list would probably actually come from the serial supporters who regularly descend on anyone daring to raise an objection to a candidate). I really don't like this recent trend of declaring people personae non grata from various Wikipedia processes—either someone is problematic enough that they warrant some kind of sanction, or they're not. Either find enough evidence of misconduct to ban him from Wikipedia, or leave him alone—the RFA participants aren't such delicate flowers that they need to be protected from anyone faintly critical, no matter how silly the criticism. ‑ Iridescent 20:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this vindictive attempt to silence opposition. Mr Davison always does his research on candidates. Sometimes his opposes are for reasons that I consider strong; sometimes they are for reasons that I consider quixotic if not idiotic. But they are always well-researched, and that sets Mr Davidson out from the crowd. So what if he is often in a minority of one or two. Live with it. Welcome the diversity and obvious love for wikipedia that he brings. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I respect the nominator, but, his examples don't show anything near the functional equivalent of trolling.About the only one I saw that I would have chided him on (if I held the mop) was NinjaRobotPirate's AFD. That was a patently ridiculous rationale and he did get promptly shot down for it on the discussion page. Further, there are others who have agreed with his reasons on the AFD's. I don't see a reason to TBan him for this. KoshVorlon} 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stupid votes can be ignored, and frankly the scheduled events of tomorrow raise my tolerance for all forms of dissent to an all time high. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guy and Martin Niemöller. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose while it's tempting to support this, it's better to allow the Colonel to continue to make his unique contributions to the RFA process. They make no difference whatsoever to the actual outcome, especially more recently. They do, however, tend to create a considerable amount of heat without creating light, and lend to a more hostile atmosphere. So, it'd be better for people to ignore these edits if they find them irritating and meaningless, rather than get worked up and seek a topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely per several of the above and many of the following. I have read comments from some Admins “hinting” at some sort of “RFA deform ” to “deal with the likes of” AD. If this is it, it is a horse that will not run. Maybe a trial gallop? If so, an unimpressive one. If it was an RfA - WP:SNOW. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• oppose I don't care for a lot of these opposes because I think they are poorly reasoned, and they remind me of some past editors who would always find some reason to oppose no matter how terrible. That being said, if you actually look at the RFAs linked above, in almost all cases the candidate was promoted, and when they weren't it ws not because of this users' stated reasons, so we can probably just ignore their comments at RFA instead of barring them from participating. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Andrew will know that I have/had a lot of issues with some of his editing in the past, but his RfA opposes have in the main been reasonably well researched (there's some that have been a bit flaky. OK, very flaky.). If you're going to ban someone for that, I can think of a lot more RfA regulars that ought to get the boot first. And the other thing is - it's one vote. I would hope our crats are perfectly able to distinguish good opposes from nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose although I don't always vote at RFA, I tend to follow them, and I cannot think of a case where an unjustified oppose vote from Andrew has caused a significant trend towards opposing. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. While I understand the viewpoint that there is a culture of hostility at RFA, I don't see how topic-banning Andrew is going to have any positive impact outside of eliminating a bunch of back and forth policy discussion that has little, if any, impact on the RFA. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Personal (non-bureaucrat) opinion: It's probably best if people who are annoyed with Andrew's participation at RfA to view him as a form of 'official opposition'. Take it as likely that Andrew will oppose the candidate using the strongest reason they can find, and if that reason doesn't compel you to oppose or withhold support, you can rest assured in your support or non-opposition of the candidate. Except in a potential case where his oppose rationale is actually misleading (and thus should be challenged for the benefit of other participants), it can probably be left without reply. –xeno^talk 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. His !votes are observationally equivalent to trolling. Opposing someone for operating a bot properly and within community standards? Ludicrous. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I will not be helping to set the precendent to evict dissent. This is a slippery slope and one which has already been trod upon a couple of times. The rule of law has always been thus at RfA; vote. That is the law. There are few rules that enforce any sort of "quality" upon the RfA process. Aside from the occasional sockpuppet vote few are struck and those that are, often end up being unstruck. I'm not so concerned with who the topic ban is being aimed at, as much as I am concerned that a topic ban on this subject is being suggested. For that matter, Andrew Davidson is not going to be topic banned from RfA. Yes, some of their votes are "shaking my head" worthy, but, then when I see "why not?" as a support rationale I shake my head just as vigorously as I do at even the worst of AD's votes. To quote another editor; "Well, why? would be a good start." Mr rnddude (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've disagreed with all of Andrew's RFA comments that I've seen recently. In fact, I think some of them are pretty daft and give the impression that his motivation is to find any possible reason to oppose, however lame. However, I don't see any incivility or personal attacks, and I really hate the idea of excluding people who don't fit in with an 'approved' mindset - wedges, thin edges, and all that, as someone said. If Andrew makes a silly-looking !vote, just ignore it! People replying and kicking off arguments about his !votes are as much a part of the problem - crats aren't stupid, and can be trusted to evaluate it properly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I oppose censoring RfA participants in this way. I disagree with almost all of Andrew D.'s opposes des jours but I don't think they are just trolling. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I recently discussed this with some other admins via email and I wrote : "The problem I've got is I can gather together a large number of RfAs where he opposed; but of those I don't think there are too many where nobody agreed with his opinion and it led to a screaming match. Yash's RfA was a good example, and had he passed I would have probably used that. But generally, I think the community pays little attention to his vote, and where more than 2-3 people do agree with it, it's probably something somebody else might have mentioned anyway." I was not against starting a discussion on ANI, but going straight for the topic ban was premature, I'm afraid. Full disclosure btw; Andrew supported my RfA Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Reyk and Rob. I find it very hard not to see a pattern of subtle trolling. NinjaRobotPirate and Cyberpower 2 are clear examples of "oppose for the most ridiculous reason just because I can". Before anybody says: "he opposed your RfA"—well, I pre-empted you. BethNaught (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. His opinions are not outside the boundaries of reasonableness, and he limits his participation, unlike some others whose signatures appeared a dozen or two times in my RfA, Andrew's only appeared once. Though I thought his grounds for opposing my RfA were weak, occasionally I see him opposing an RfA with a newly-mentioned rationale which has some good basis behind it. Anyone who would be intimidated from running because of Andrew's presence at RfA probably is too thin-skinned to be a good administrator anyway. wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. In a way, I find Andrew's ridiculous opposes to actually be useful. I know that he will bend over backwards to find a reason to oppose an RfA, so if the best he can come up with is, "not enough content creation", then I know the candidate will be a good administrator. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Well I wrote a pretty long reply last time and ended up conflicting with the closer here so I'll keep it short this time - I disagree with Andrews !votes and IMHO it seems like they're simply trying to find a fault with anyone and everyone ... however they're entitled to their opinion and if they wanna oppose everyone then fine - He does research candidates and he does provide detailed answers (they're not one liners like "I think this candidate would be shit" etc etc), I mean no disrespect to Andrew but most of the RFA !voters tend to more or less ignore his !votes and I don't see why we shouldn't continue ignoring and I don't see why we should topicban someone for simply opposing no matter how irritating it may be. –Davey2010^Talk 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support This user's opposes in RfA has been on my radar for some time. Some of them are so off topic or way off the mark (e.g. Cyberpower's RfA) that it's borderline disruptive to the RfA process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We are not in the habit of scrapping votes against someone's RfA because we don't like them or because they're wrong, except for in clear-cut cases of vandalism, disruption, etc. Doing this preemptively is even worse. I have disagreed often enough with Andrew Davidson (if we agreed in one out of a hundred interactions I'd be surprised, and we must have had hundreds), and this includes many of their RfA contributions--and whaddayaknow, earlier today I saw one of his comments, on a recent RfA, and thought he was right on the mark. Either way, no; any disruption caused by his votes is easily manageable (just let admins or crats remove stuff!), and you can always choose not to pay attention to his comments. Closing crats should be trusted to have enough sense to value things properly. No, leave him be. I welcome his critiques. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. I might consider a lesser restriction (such as no replies to comments). --Rschen7754 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I generally think Andrew is a net negative at RfA, and pretty much ignore most of his comments, but I baulk at censoring RfA in this way, and am concerned, like others, that this is the thin edge of the wedge. 'Crats can ignore him as they should in most cases, but he does occasionally raise something useful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I always read Andrew's opposes and often disagree (but not always). They always appear to be made in good faith with some research behind them. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose Having recently woken up at 06:00 Japanese time to find an ANI discussion of whether I should be blocked for something I had done several days earlier having already proceeded quite a bit while I was asleep, I fully sympathize with the concern expressed by Kudpung in the message linked below. But the whole point of SNOW closes is that, regardless of whether people who live different time zones than the majority of contributors to English Wikipedia have had the chance to contribute, they are extemely unlikely to sway the closer's decision even if they can. This isn't like one of those AFDs that received universal opposition before someone realized the article was a COPYVIO (I would link it, but can't for the life of me remember which it was). Lots of similar discussions get closed in very short lengths of time, and I don't recall ever seeing an exact hour figure put on it in WP:CLOSE or any PAG. Even if it were, one rotation of the earth seems pretty arbitrary, as on any given day there are probably a lot more North America-based editors who go out after work and and don't get a chance to login for more than 24 hours than there are editors in Asia who work eight hours, sleep eight hours and have eight hours in which they usually contribute to Wikipedia -- 48 hours would be safer, if the point was to play it safe. Yes, maybe a newly anointed admin shouldn't be making that decision, but it's not like CP678's RFA was one AD supported and CP678 was "returning the favour" by prematurely closing the TBAN discussion. I honestly can't see this discussion going anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Closure

Just to briefly note here that this thread was closed by Cyberpower678 as a WP:SNOW close. It was reopened after Kudpung left CP678 a message. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Time to remove Tristan noir's (interaction) ban?

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

---

Hey, I think it's time my IBAN against Tristan noir (talk · contribs) was removed. It's been over three years since he last violated it, and he hasn't edited at all in 11 months, so it's really just a formality at this point.

The ban was originally put in place in February 2013 (as a modification of an earlier two-way restriction from December 2012) and the wording was modified in April 2015. It is now logged at WP:RESTRICT.

As for why I'm bringing this up now, a recent remark on an unrelated ANI thread has convinced me that the fewer times my username appears on WP:RESTRICT, the better, as even one-way restrictions that were put in place to protect me from abuse can apparently be used against me years after they served any practical purpose.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Clarify Damn. Forgot to mention this. I am not proposing that the Tristan noir entry on RESTRICT be removed outright. It also includes a separate and largely unrelated TBAN. I'm neutral on whether that one remains, but only because he's inactive, and I wasn't the only one being hassled by the edits that led to the TBAN. The other users who supported the TBAN would need to be consulted. Pointing this out because several of the "support"s below are !voting based on my statement alone. This makes sense for a one-way IBAN, but BMK's original "oppose" rationale would make a lot more sense for a community sanction that doesn't affect only one user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: The clarification directly above is what I was referring to. The users who posted their "Support"s below did so largely because the IBAN was put in place to protect me and I was the one requesting it be removed; the TBAN was put in place to protect the project from disruptive editing, and it shouldn't be lifted just because of a mix-up with a separate sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support due to a philosophical disagreement with interaction bans in general. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rob, you, of course, can support or oppose the proposal for any reason that makes sense to you, but I do have to point out the irony that you can make a comment like this here, a support for a specific proposition based on general principles, and no one bats an eyelash, but if I do the same thing on an RfA, oppose a candidate on the basis of general principles, I get messages telling me that my !vote is harmful to Wikipedia, or that I shouldn't base my !vote on general principles, only on the specifics connected with the nom. I wouldn't think of suggesting that the closer of this thread should put less weight on your comment because it's based on your personal philosophy, but people regularly suggest that Bureaucrats put less weight on my oppose (or even discount it altogether) because it's based on my personal criteria. I suppose that one could make the argument that RfAs are different from every other kind of discussion on Wikipedia, but, frankly, I ain't buying such a contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: RfAs genuinely are different from other discussions because they have hard number cutoffs to them. The numbers matter far more than in actual discussions, which is why many editors attempt to persuade editors opposing for silly reasons. Having said that, I actually would expect my support to be discounted somewhat here. I recognize that my opinion is far disconnected from the community's here, and so I would expect it to be given less weight. That's proper for a closer to consider. I personally believe that interaction bans tend not to solve the root behavioral problems, are more of a pain to enforce than they're worth, and seriously damage the collaborative environment of the encyclopedia, but that's not (yet) the consensus view. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I understand your thinking, but the "hard cut-off" isn't really a hard cut-off per se, since all it does it say that within a certain range the 'crats are expected to treat the RfA in the same way any closer is expected to treat any other discussion. However, the 'crats aren't forbidden from denying the bit above that range if no legitimate policy-based reasons have been provided, just as any closer is expected to evaluate the comments per policy in any other discussion. That being said, I take your point that the hard-coded "disretionary range" does make RfAs a little different from other discussions, just as I hope you took my point that the hassling of oppose !votes in RfAs which are based on reasonable personal philosophy is antithetical to the general POV in other discussions that sees no problem with such comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just don't see it as hassling. I see it as objecting to/challenging, just as you've done here, which is an important part of any discussion. As a closer, I find any bits of interactions between the two "sides" in a dispute to be most helpful in evaluating the discussion. When people stay in their respective "sections" and don't consider the viewpoints of others, it's very hard to gauge how discussion participants perceive strength of arguments. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• But you and I have had a polite discussion. Believe me, that's not been the case on some RfAs. One really does get the impression from some people that the simple act of opposing an RfA is seen as disruptive. It's also clearly the case that support !votes do not get objected to or challenged the way opposing !votes do.
  Anyway, this is a sidebar to this IBan-removal discussion, one which we should probably end. I just wanted to point out what I saw as a bit of irony. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Ten edits in almost three years, and no edits in most of a year, means that we're not likely to see any interaction of any sort between the two of you, whether or not it's disruptive. Interaction bans can be useful, but nobody familiar with your (plural) history would call for one of them to be imposed on you (plural) right now, and if we shouldn't impose it, we shouldn't continue it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bans and other sanctions are not generally removed simply because the editor is not currently editing, for the obvious reason that if the editor returns to editing, we would want them to do so under the same conditions until they could show the community that the sanctions are no longer necessary. Removing sanctions during a fallow period would also encourage people to edit under another ID or with IPs, waiting for the sanction under their previous ID to be removed. This request would create a bad precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• But we can always reimpose it — get blocked or banned for X, get the sanction removed, and go back to doing X, and the sanction is routinely restored with a "bonus". Removing sanctions during a fallow period might encourage that for a more short-term absence, but we're talking a nearly total absence from the project for just almost three years; most people who are gone for that long will never return to significant activity, and the likelihood that anyone else would say "I'll disappear for a similar long time in hopes of getting my ban revoked, and then come back" is miniscule. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• True enough. OK, Support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - If the individual protected by the one-way IBAN requests it to be lifted, then there should be no reason not to grant that request unless there is evidence of baiting, trolling, or other malfeasance. As Tristan noir has not made any edits in almost a year, I don't see how there is any malfeasance on the part of Hijiri88, nor do I foresee any interaction between the two. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - If the person protected by the IBAN wants it removed and the user isn't active, why not? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - it's a one way interaction ban intended to give Hijiri88 relief from being pestered. If Hijiri88 now feels it's doing them more harm than good, then it ought to be lifted. Reyk _YO! 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support If the user who was causing the disruption asked for this in these circumstances I might feel differently, but since it's the user who was being protected by this restriction I can see no reason to oppose granting their request. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support — I don't really like the idea of permanent bans, and in this case the ban seems to be solely to protect someone who wants it revoked, so there's no reason remaining to keep it. And it doesn't look like anyone will be opposing, anyway. Κσυπ Cyp   09:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - given the low editing of the other party this no longer seems necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Could someonean admin close this? Unanimous consensus for a minor procedural change. The (false) claim that I am subject to multiple IBANs as a result of my own disruptive behaviour is still being made on ANI, so the sooner the words Originally, a mutual IBAN between Tristan Noir and Hijiri88 (who was named Elvenscout742 back then) was in place. Following an incident initiated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IBAN for Tristan towards Hijir88. [...] also [...] are removed from WP:RESTRICT the better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I have reverted your good-faith close and change to RESTRICT. The change you made was not in accordance with this discussion, and I think it would be a bad idea to give this a non-admin close. I hope you don't take offense at this; I really appreciate your effort to close this, and your contributions elsewhere on the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88, ah yes, I forgot about the TBAN. Was not meant to remove that. No matter, I'll leave it to an admin - per my "shaky grounds for NAC comment" - to re-close and enforce. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

RFC close review at Talk:Silicon Alley#RfC: Should this article discuss the biotech industry

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

---

Formal challenge placed now. I request three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure specifically to look at the sources quoted toward the end of the discussion to adjudicate whether it is reasonable to include a small passage in the discussion (one or two properly sourced sentences) on biotech, specifically pointing out that several sources lump biotech into Silicon Alley albeit as a minority viewpoint. I believe that as many times as I quoted these sources in the discussion, they were not seen clearly until too late, after !votes had been cast, since I was specifically not allowed to post these refs in the text of the article pending the discussion, where in plain sight would have provided fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by actual and potential !voters. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANRFC to here verbatim so that a review can begin. I am the closer of the RFC Tazerdadog (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I think my closure was fine, but I welcome comments on it from anyone. The closure was discussed at my talk page before coming here. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• From what I can see the issue was given a fair and thorough hearing and need not be discussed further at this time. It's important to be able to realize that sometimes the community doesn't do what you think it should and you need to able to accept that. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. Seems like most of the sources were presented before about half of the !votes came in, so the later !votes (which followed the same trend as the earlier ones) did have access to them. And what Beeblebrox said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closing in line with the voting consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What do User:Only in death, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, and User:Beeblebrox think of the actual refs themselves, tough? Don't you think they merit at least passing mention of biotech in the article? Castncoot (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not the topic of this discussion. AN is not for re-litigating content issues. Please consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that the people who thought that they don't justify a mention were right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What Jo-jo said. The point of a closure challenge is to see if the closer correctly assessed the consensus. In my opinion they did. (My opinion on the refs is irrelevant to this). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that someone is "right" or "wrong" here, I am saying that there is a "reasonable" option which the closer declined based heavily upon, per his closing statement, the actual content of the sources themselves. But this exchange indicates that even he wasn't aware after going through the RfC that I had indeed brought these sources up repeatedly earlier in the discussion, simply because he (naturally) didn't notice them through the muck. So if he didn't notice these within much of the discussion even after close examination, I can reasonably infer that many others wouldn't have seen them at all until too late, if ever. Once people !vote, it takes heaven and earth to get them to revert their vote, and that's really not a fair expectation. Castncoot (talk)

Not true. If there were reasonable sources presented that discuss the role of Biotech in silicon alley then I would support its inclusion. But the fact is the sources are weak. There were several discussions had on the talk page about sources. Polyamorph (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. It didn't go your way. That doesn't mean the close was improperly done, and it's not the end of the world either way, it's just some words on a page. If you're going to get along well here you need to learn to let go of these things even when you just know you're right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This user is unfortunately continuing their disruption at Silicon Alley by edit warring (they want a link kept to Biotech in the See Also section) and have attempted to start a new RfC about said link. This is getting disruptive.Polyamorph (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the See also section was specifically exempted from the scope of the RfC by the closer, whether you want to admit it or not. Castncoot (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Put the stick down.Polyamorph (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made a slight amendment to my closing statement, reverting to my initial version. This hopefully renders the see also section moot. I apologize for my error and the extra confusion it has caused. The change should be minor in the context of the entire close. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a minor change, and I really have to question your judgement and competence here in this particular decision-making process. First of all, you rushed the process. Secondly, perhaps in that rush, you didn't even notice that I had indeed mentioned strong sources earlier on and instead told me it was my problem that I didn't express them earlier when I did,[8] in the middle of a muck of discussion by many which obscured these refs from !voters, rather than being allowed to post these in the article in the first place. Thirdly, you implicitly allowed biotech to potentially remain in the See also section with your initial closure amendement and then decided you had a change of heart once I took this point to task. I request that three senior administrator closers examine the whole case again, including the content of the refs expressed at the end of the discussion themselves. This is too critical a discussion to ignore. Castncoot (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It didn't go your way. Get over it. Move on. Take a break (I think it's needed). Insulting the closer and demanding more and more input from sysops who are just going to tell you the same thing is not going to change the result of the RfC. Polyamorph (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It went your way, but through manipulation of the reader by steadfastly refusing to allow refs to be placed in plain sight in the text and thereby depriving them of the right to fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication. That's where I see a major problem here. I challenge you to re-open the original RfC with the refs in the text, and I can bet you'd see a different result, one which allows some mention of biotech. Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The refs were very weak. They were discussed in the RfC. What will it take for you to accept the result? Polyamorph (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You say that after the fact that you !voted in the way that you did but then had a change of heart once I finally pointed these refs out to you to prompt you to say this, if not enthusiastically, and User:Boghog to say this. Clearly it is a legitimate viewpoint, if not the majority viewpoint, and a sourced statement attesting this should be included. Forget that, however; if this RfC had been conducted entirely transparently, I wouldn't be here now, even in the event of a similar result. My primary objection is not that it didn't go my way (obviously I wish it had), but that the process, had it been performed fairly with the refs clearly displayed to source already-existing text being adjudicated, would very realistically have led to biotech being retained in the article, at least as a "passing reference", which even you were OK with. Once !votes are cast, very rarely does anyone even amend them with caveats. Castncoot (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You're just repeating what was already covered in the RfC discussion. Drop it. Polyamorph (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Really? Was yours just a rhetorical question [9] or did you actually expect me to answer it? What will it take for me to accept the result, you ask? Transparency. Meaning re-opening the Rfc with biotechnology referenced in the text by the strongest refs available for everyone to see in plain sight and adjudicate on that basis, rather than the way it was actually carried out, by intentionally handicapping biotech with weak sources in plain sight, keeping the strongest sources buried in discussion until it was too late, and then asking for adjudication under these rigged conditions. Castncoot (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The burden of proof was on the supporters of the proposal to provide adequate sources and they did not (see for example this analysis). Your refusal to accept consensus is become very disruptive. Move on. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried throughout, including here, but you and Jytdog kept reverting my attempts to source the text. Reverting text is one thing, but reverting the refs being used to support the text being adjudicated? That's unconscionable. And since when is refusal to accept a process disruptive if I truly believe the underlying process itself was faulty? I will repeat myself for the nth time, it's not the result that I refuse to accept per se, it's how that result came about, through reader manipulation and lack of transparency which really bothers me, leading me to refuse to accept the closure specifically on those grounds. Castncoot (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Total BS. The only reason you appealed is because it didn't go your way. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the process.Polyamorph (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, as an uninvolved observer, I hope that you will accept I have no dog in this fight and my advice is freely and honestly meant. That said, you really should let this one go. In almost every debate of this nature, the holder of the minority opinion gets to the point that they have two choices: "Do I want to be right, or do I want to be effective?" At this point, your point of view has gathered no support. Short-term effectiveness is therefore a moot point. If you keep insisting on making other editors concede you are right, however, you will be sacrificing the potential for effective consensus-building for your possible positions in the intermediate and long term. No person can make another person see a situation as they do. Another way of phrasing it would be: Is this the hill you want your wiki-reputation to die upon? Because, at least for some editors, it will. I echo the advice you've been given above. Take the "loss," recognize that a distributed effort doesn't always see things your way, and move on to some other issue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about my reputation, if that's what you're talking about; there are enough people who respect my work on Wikipedia, not that I need anyone else's affirmation. I do care tremendously about editorial integrity on Wikipedia, and if irregularities have occurred in the discussion and adjudication processes, then some difficult questions need to be posed; that's the only way to keep Wikipedia journalistically honest and to avoid cronyism and corruption. It's also not true that nobody has supported my viewpoint. User:CuriousMind01 and User:Chrisvls supported inclusion of biotech in the article, and there were others who were OK with the inclusion of biotech in the article at some point, including the people most vehemently protesting it now, such as User:Boghog ([10]), User:Jytdog ([11]), and User:Polyamorph ([12]). The other thing I realize only now is that the closer User:Tazerdadog didn't even comment in his rushed closing that User:Jytdog actually closed the RfC with the compromise ([13]) and that User:Jytdog then reverted himself and reopened the RfC using a ridiculous argument about another edit made on another article; I wouldn't be surprised if User:Tazerdadaog wasn't even aware of this. The process was improperly carried out from wire to wire, and definitely creates a blemish on the editorial integrity of Wikipedia that can only be cleared by an unbiased examination of the case, including the refs clearly visible only at the end of the discussion, and even there only after the section is uncollapsed, by an impartial panel of three administrators. Castncoot (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

With regards to your reputation, if you continue to edit war at Silicon Alley or elsewhere then I will request sanctions be taken.Polyamorph (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Castncoot, you asked at the start here for ...three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure... and got exactly that. They didn't agree with you, hence my stating that your position (specifically, your position that the RfC must be reversed) received no support. Now you are basically saying that that review didn't count because you now want three more editors, specifically admins, to perform the same review. There is a lot of problems with this. First of all, the first two editors to chime in are admins, secondly, the one who isn't is very experienced in closing discussions, thirdly, by saying that there still needs the same review but with different people reviewing, you are moving the goalposts.

Most importantly, however, you are saying that there is intellectual dishonesty in this discussion, and your only evidence for such dishonesty is that your references weren't accepted as persuasive. Just because you think that something should be included doesn't mean that editorial integrity is threatened. Leaving a subset of information out of an article is a normal part of the process and editorial integrity is a resilient thing.

Every time I have seen an editor say that grand things like the very integrity of the project is threatened by the inclusion (or lack thereof) of some subset of information in an article, I have seen it end badly. The project is huge. One article isn't going to make or break the integrity of it.

Care as much or as little about your reputation as you want, what I am talking about here is: what course of action is going to get you what you want? No matter how much this information's inclusion on that page matter to you, you can't get it to happen without other editors agreeing with you. Rational cost-benefit analysis would suggest it is only worth arguing a position when it is important and you have a chance of persuading others.

You have been arguing for this point for over a month now. You have made the same arguments, albeit with some new references, for that time. You have again argued about those references and their inclusion on Tazerdadog's talk page and here. Do you really see that you are changing anyone's position? If you think that beating that same drum is going to save Wikipedia from itself, then, by all means, keep beating it.

It's your choice, and, just as you cannot force anyone else to agree with you, neither I nor anyone else can force you to choose one way or the other. My advice is only meant to raise awareness that you are sailing towards rocky shores, and your course is in your hands. There is deeper water available to you, say, at Biotech Industry in New York or List of biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. As an involved editor, summoned by bot into a roiling thread, and who put forward a compromise, my read is that there was a brief moment where the compromise could have taken hold. But the insistence that the compromise sentence be in the lead section kept the compromise from gaining support. That, and the long history of very harsh language all around, kept the sides from finding a more nuanced consensus. Learning opportunity for all involved. Chris vLS (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Revised comment. Actually, re-reading the RfC, I'm not that sure what happened without spending a lot of time climbing through it. Chris vLS (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Actually ChrisVLS, what ensued after your involvement is that soon thereafter, I became amenable to your compromise and requested a proposal from User:Boghog, who then took it a step further and proposed his own compromise, which I also agreed with, which included biotech in the body of the article. User:Jytdog then agreed to that compromise and closed the RfC ([14]). Jytdog then reverted his own closure using the reason that I, shortly after he had closed this RfC, transported the same content to which he had agreed over to the Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area article. He got incensed by this and then immediately reverted my material on that page, which I reluctantly let go, but also reverted his closure of the RfC at the Talk:Silicon Alley page. You can't make this stuff up. This is a debacle which was never addressed by User:Tazerdadog, the three senior editors near the top of this section on this page, nor User:Eggishorn, and this is downright unsatisfactory and unacceptable – I'm not sure that any of these editors were even aware of these shenanigans having taken place. You're also right that the discussion was highly voluminous, and I believe that the proposed refs didn't have a fair chance of even being seen by enough !voters. Castncoot (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually Eggishorn, with all due respect to your eloquently stated passages, you're chronologically mistaken about the sequence of events. The three senior editors you're referring to above never commented after User:Tazerdadog re-amended his closure. When a closure is amended twice, probing questions need to be raised about this definite irregularity, and the entire discussion and closure need to be re-reviewed with a fine-toothed comb, regardless of intention, in order to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Castncoot (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually Polyamorph, that was an inappropriate and highly offensive prophylactic threat. Edit-warring is edit-warring, regardless of the perpetrator. Did I threaten sanctions on you or User:Jytdog for this action, which was expressed at a critical point in the discussion and demonstrated, at minimum, poor optics and poor judgement? Jytdog's explanation of this off-wiki e-mail, if anything, the more I think about it, reinforces in my mind the possibility of collusion per meatpuppetry and personal familiarity between these two editors, as such a comment should rightfully and objectively have been placed on-wiki, not off-wiki. I request that the RfC be re-conducted, or at minimum, reviewed from top to bottom, including its discussion and closure. Otherwise, a significant number of editors are going to be disappointed and lose faith in the promise of Wikipedia to maintain due diligence and journalistic integrity. Castncoot (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

😲 Shock! It's all a conspiracy! Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The usual way these discussions tread after a few days....Conspiracy....Loss of integrity of the project....So many editors will be disappointed.....Winged Blades ^Godric 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Castncoot:---I think it's the precise time to invoke WP:DROPTHESTICK.Save your time as well as the community's.And may be come back later when there is a probability that the consensus of the community/majority has changed substantially w.r.t to the topic of the RFC.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but I have sequential facts to back me up. Do you? This RfC should be re-conducted from the beginning: 1) with biotech restored and fairly referenced for fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by the reader in advance of !voting, 2) with a commitment by all editors not to engage in off-wiki communication regarding any aspect of the RfC process during the RfC process, and 3) with a panel of three senior closing editors, preferably administrators, adjudicating the closure. Castncoot (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

STOP! Stop making these false insinuations of off-wiki collusion. Any admins reading this please make them STOP! You lost the RfC. This is one of the worst cases of bad sportsmanship on wiki I've had the displeasure to witness! Chill out and take a break. Polyamorph (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

To all reading, I've no choice but to take this to ANI. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

For those interested here is the link to the ANI.Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol! Who's the one who needs to chill here? Hey, I'm not the one who engaged in off-wiki correspondence about the RfC process during the RfC process, and Jytdog has admitted as much. This fact offhandedly caught my eye, and otherwise would not have even been brought to life. Did anyone force the two of you to correspond as such? To what extent did it affect the RfC? After all, the two of you constituted the most vocal opposition in the discussion by far, and seemed to go hand-in-hand with your comments and edits all along. This RfC has been conducted as far from conventionality as I have ever seen. That should bother the majority who care about the project. Call me obsessive-compulsive about the truth, but I call it as I see it. Castncoot (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You're making baseless accusations. You've been asked to stop many times. Unfortunately I've had to take this to ANI as you don't seem to get the message that everyone is telling you. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm... look again at how many are protesting bringing up the off-wiki e-mail correspondence issue. Seems like just you. I stand by my statements unequivocally. It's now up to the administrators to decide how to deal with this awful mess. I have nothing else to say. Castncoot (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't sent any off-wiki communication with anyone. The accusations are baseless and unacceptable. That is why it is at ANI.Polyamorph (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Duolingo has dropped its Immersion translation system; perhaps Wikipedia can get it; it's far better than machine translation

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

---

I know that there's been problems with Wikipedia's current translation system and the overuse of machine translation. Duolingo had the model of crowd-sourcing translations. I have often contributed to Duolingo translations from non-English Wikipedias and found that crowd-sourcing can lead to high quality translations. Perhaps Wikipedia can look into getting Duolingo's system. Lots of Duolingo users are upset about the loss of Duolingo's Immersion translation system. I think Wikipedia has an opportunity to step in and offer a crowd-sourcing translation system (either get Doulingo's or develop our own). This is also a win-win situation both for Wikipedia and the fans of Duolingo's Immersion tool who spend a lot of time translating articles for free. Duolingo's system was very general and went between any two languages they supported. This system had some features that encouraged people to think through their translation. --RJGray (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. I don't know anything about Duolingo and its system but since this idea should get more feedback I dropped a link at the Village Pump to get a broader audience. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't an "administrator" issue, suggest venue changing to the inbound link from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Translation_of_non-English_articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Need some additional information and understanding, possibly extend a block

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

---

I've had an off and on battle with the IP address 152.131.14.7 for about 2 years now. This IP address has been frequently going into college basketball season article, specifically whatever the current season of Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball is, and changing around things that are untrue, for example, what started my initial discussion with them was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Kansas_Jayhawks_men%27s_basketball_team&diff=595207525&oldid=594934184 this] which was replacing verifiable material with something that could not be verified. The most common thing is messing with the heights and weights on the roster. I've reached out to this IP address on multiple occasions and every time my attempts to communicate go unanswered, as most IP address do. Every time this IP address does this, I go to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Each and every time, this IP address has gotten blocked, currently its been blocked 6 times (current block is #6) as you can see in it's [block log. Considering the fact this is obviously the same person doing it since its the same thing each time, shouldn't this warrant a permanent block? Or maybe I just don't understand when permanent blocks are used on IP addresses. I'm not complaining about the admins that have block this IP address at all, I'm just trying to understand this a little bit better. If this isn't the right place to take this issue, please let me know and I will take this discussion there.--Rockchalk717 05:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The indispensable Materialscientist has blocked 152.131.14.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for two years which is as close to permanent as possible with an IP. Please report any similar abuse, for example if the user returns on a different IP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Sandbox (band) editnotice

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

---

I have added template:not a sandbox to the page Sandbox (band). Please could someone also add it to the same page's editnotice, as with other pages whose names include the word 'sandbox'? Olidog 13:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems a bit overkill to place that massive, ugly and intrusive tag onto a fairly obscure article. If there had been dozens of test edits on the article, I might agree with the need for it (or better still, semi-protection), but this has had fewer than 50 edits in the last seven years. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I just checked the history of that page back to December, and I don't see where anyone's tried to use this as Wikipedia's sandbox. I do see a diff where someone's attempted to add a disambig to this article stating that it's not the sandbox, but other than that, ordinary editing. I'd say that template's not needed KoshVorlon 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, essentially for the reasons given above. If, and only if, test edits intended for the sandbox start popping up on a consistent rate, theb maybe the notice could be added back. Until then, it's not really necessary. JudgeMR (talk to me) 01:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

ACC backlog

Currently +/- 730 requests, some waiting 14 days. Any and all will be appreciated. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence

Please unblock wrongly identified socks

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

---

While reviewing the activity of my former students, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtaejoon/Archive. Sigh. Yes, they have a similar IP and often edited the same article at the same time, because they were students in the same class (Education Program:Hanyang University/Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)), collaborating on a single article, often from the same computer lab. So the block is clearly unjustified. Now, they were warned near the end of the course, probably never saw nor understood the warning (they are ESL students anyway), they were blocked after the grades were submitted, at which point like most students they never even bothered logging back to the Wikipedia account, so no harm presumably done, but to set the record straight, it would be nice to unblock them, restore their userpages, and leave a note on the sockpuppet investigation. A final note: it seems that no admin/checkuser bothered to look at the logs of the actity for those editors, which would clearly show something like " March 7, 2016 Yeong Jae Kim (talk | contribs) enrolled in course Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)" and "June 11, 2016 Yeong Jae Kim (talk | contribs) added article Ryu Gwansun to their list of articles at course Education Program:Hanyang University/Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)". Minor WP:TROUTing for some people may be advisable, along the lines 'check the logs next time' :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Unblocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note here that I don't think a CU was actually run since the block reasoning was not {{checkuserblock}} but the more vague, "abusing multiple accounts". Whether or not this is true would be in the CU log. It looks more like a DUCK block which obviously wasn't do duckish after all. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI to @KrakatoaKatie: — xaosflux ^Talk 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for an uninvolved admin to close

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

---

The AN/I thread "Page ban move" concerning the actions of User:Dicklyon was originally posted on January 7. It's now January 22 where I am, and the thread has generated about a gazillion words, but started to become repetitive some time ago. Could some brave-hearted admin take it upon themselves to donate to the project the time necessary to read all that verbiage, consider the various POVs, and render a decision? Thanks, and good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Cheers! bd2412 T 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please fix my error

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

---

Hello, I am an admin on Commons. By mistake - I didn't notice I was on en.wiki - I moved the category Jews in heavy metal to Jewish heavy metal musicians. I apologize for the mistake, could an admin please revert my error? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Looks like it was just the cat-page itself moved, nobot/nobody had recategorized the pages in it. DMacks (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I warned you right after moving the cat -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WP admins: more fast than Yom Kippur. DMacks (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Blackcat and DMacks, in my opinion the accidental move was beneficial, so I've nominated it for renaming. Your comments in the bottom section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 24 would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Close an ANI thread?

WP:ANI#Canvassing Opinion

Content dispute between two sides who don't get along. I'm the only outsider to have commented in three days (Cordless Larry is also largely uninvolved, but had commented before the ANI thread was opened). At least one of them appears willing to take the dispute back to the appropriate venue, but also appears to want to wait until the ANI thread is closed.

Despite my apparent involvedness I could probably get away with NACing the thread myself, but I think it would be better accompanied with a warning about canvassing and TLDR-filibustering, I've already done this to no effect, and maybe an admin would be better.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your involvement is significant, much more than superficial, so I do not agree that you could "get away with" closing it yourself, and I would advise that you do not try to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if anyone wanted to challenge me for NACing because I am already involved, they probably could. My point was that I don't think anyone would challenge it, as I seem to have successfully convinced most of the participants (at least the ringleader on each "side" of the dispute) that nothing is going to come of the thread no matter how long it stays open. That's why I said "get away with": technically, my NACing a thread I've already posted in multiple times would be a violation, but I don't think anyone would challenge me on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that you are incorrect in your assumption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If you've actually read the discussion and disagree with my assessment that it is a content dispute and doesn't belong on ANI in the first place, then you should comment to that effect yourself. Although I may be wrong in this impression, I'm sure plenty of off-topic threads get closed by users who have already commented that they think they are off-topic.

(edit conflict) The above was originally written as a response to And I'm telling you that you would be challenged, as you are deeply involved in the discussion, and your violation would not be merely a technical one.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

May I point out that you have a habit of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you "hasn't actually read the discussion"? As in the editor who expressed an opinion in the discussion in question who you told to "Buzz off". [15] You are one of the primary people involved in the discussion in question, and have expressed strong and definite opinions about it. That makes you totally involved, and therefore any close by you would be highly inappropriate. I'm rather surprised you don't see that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up, it is a logical fallacy to say that because I haven't expressed an opinion in the AN/I discussion in question, that I can't have an opinion about whether you should close the discussion, which is a totally different question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop wasting others' time and effort with these pointless hypotheticals about what they "should" and "shouldn't" do; I already said I wouldn't do it (hence my making this request that you have for some reason decided to filibuster). If you want to waste your own time with pointless hypotheticals, do it in your own user space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess this is something about which we differ. I am always happy to learn something new from one of these discussions and, amazingly enough, even to change my !vote, action or opinion based on the new information. You, for instance, might learn the correct meaning of "filibuster", since nothing I've posted here should get in the way of an uninvolved admin closing the discussion you posted about, given that my comments were all about your suggestion that you could "get away" with closing it yourself, not with whether it should be closed or not. In any case, I think it's been well-established that your closing would be a bad idea, so there's really no reason to continue this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I too am always happy to learn new things, but I already knew that it would have been technically out of line for me to close the thread myself, similarly to how ot was technically out of line for Drmies to do this but no one ever challenged him because it was an obvious close that all the legitimately involved parties who might have complained had already agreed to. I apologize if the above seemed kind of aggressive; I just really don't like discussing policy minutiae on AN or ANI (where a speedy close is usually what I want and the longer the thread is the less likely anyone will close it) unless they are absolutely relevant to the point of the thread. I'd be happy to discuss minutiae with you on your talk page or mine (assuming neither or us is still holding a grudge after that unpleasantness two years ago; I'm not, partly because in my mind it's overshadowed by our somewhat-indirect-but-positive interaction from three years ago), or on, for instance, WT:INVOLVED or WT:CLOSE. I open AN threads to get an admin's attention when I want something closed and I think it's pretty clear-cut (and you haven't changed my mind on that point) or when technical reasons make it the best place (the above thread about another user's IBAN for example), and having general discussions about policy points that are peripherally related is usually not on the agenda. I don't think this is going to work for its original purpose at tis point, even if we collapsed all the discussion about whether I would be in violation if, hypothetically, I had performed the close myself, and the ANI thread in question is already one foot in the grave that Sigmabot has already dug for it (technically the latest archive page was created by SwisterTwister, but you know what I mean). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd case

Sock laundered. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

@!hellao!: We have a new editor who has added single characters to the Chess.com article and reverting them multiple times. A few of this editor's contributions have been constructive, the majority not. I left a mild warning, the behaviour continued. What to do now? MaxBrowne (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Their initial edits weren't that bad so it's unlikely that their most recent edits were just testing the page. My impression with this edit is that they're Macer75 evading their block, so I've blocked them for sockpuppetry/block evasion. I think that they might have been trying to sneak themselves back on again and then decided to just cause mischief until they were caught - it's not unusual for some blocked accounts to go that route, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Requesting a close from an uninvolved admin

Here please. Discussion has gone way beyond being productive and is basically antagonising one of the parties to no benefit at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I second that request. Consensus seems clear to me, but I'm involved so my interpretation can't be trusted. Let's get an uninvolved admin in there, please. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Bot to delete emptied monthly maintenance categories

In order to save the time of editors who tag emptied maintenance categories for speedy deletion, and of the administrators who process these deletions, it has been suggested that these deletions be performed automatically by a bot. The bot request at WP:BTR was marked as "needs wider discussion". Hence this post here. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Are you looking for support? I don't see why such a bot would be controversial. Once a monthly category is emptied there ought not to be new pages added to it, so it's just clutter. Unless the admins who regularly process these category deletions (I'm not one) really want to hang on to this task, which I doubt. Could the same or some other bot also check new maintenance tags for being placed in the correct month? We occasionally have clueless users or vandals reverting old tags with old dates, which could be problematic if the monthly categories are deleted. But I guess that's a problem whether it's admins or bots that are deleting the categories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Once a monthly category is emptied there ought not to be new pages added to it, so it's just clutter. Your statement is indeed an "ought not", as such categories are routinely added to as a result of page restoration from history. Users do so innocently (and I can say I've probably done it at least once)--calling them "clueless" doesn't seem very good-faithed. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno and Ivanvector: It is a non-concern, it is not problematic. When new pages appear in formerly emptied monthly maintenance categories, the category is automatically recreated by AnomieBOT (and formerly, this was done by Femto Bot) For an example, see this. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Innocent is what I meant. I didn't mean to imply malice but couldn't think of synonyms before coffee this morning. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Even if these deletions are not very frequent or a major workload, it makes sense to hand it over to the bots as it is something they can do. At a time when we know that the numbers of editors and admins are in a prolonged decline, mundane tasks which do not require any human intelligence or judgement should be performed by bots. Human editors should rather spend their limited time at places where their judgement is required. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support. For pages that have only edits by AnomieBOT and no talk pages, it makes no sense to require human intervention to delete them. If they have talk pages or nontrivial history, it might be good for a human to have a look whether any of the history is of any use. (Note: I have deleted some of these pages, and the workload to delete them is pretty minimal in my opinion, but very often really nothing requiring human eyes). —Kusma (t·c) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • All monthly maintenance categories are listed at Category:Monthly clean up category counter. It doesn't seem as if any have talk pages. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Usually they don't, and usually the category pages themselves have no edits by others. I am only proposing to keep the unusual cases from bot deletion, while the usual cases should be bot deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - a human adminstrator will delete these on sight without any background checks, so it may as well be handled by a bot. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Saves time, totally uncontroversial. It should hold 4 days after a category is emptied before deleting in keeping with WP:C1 and to allow for possible undeletions at WP:REFUND for various reasons. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support. As long as the contents of the page are identical to the "basic" contents, i.e. any edits made since the creation of the page have been reverted. All the vandalism in the world, if reverted, won't be noticed by the normal human admin, since nobody checks the histories of these pages. However, if the page looks different from normal, the human admin may well refrain from deleting it until he's checked and convinced himself that it's okay to delete. If it's harder for the bot to identify no-net-changes-since-creation than it is to identify no-edits-since-creation, I'd be fine with the bot ignoring pages that have been edited after creation. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, BU Rob13, we don't need to wait four days, because C1 isn't the criterion that's being used; it's G6, which has as one example "Deleting empty dated maintenance categories". As noted above, the category will get recreated if pages get added to it, and we don't do a WP:REFUND for pages that haven't been deleted yet. I can't imagine a good-faith undeletion request for one of these pages being denied; it's not as if these are controversial deletions that someone would have a good-faith but bad-idea reason for requesting undeletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fair enough, as long as another bot would recreate the category if an undeletion caused it to be repopulated with a page. As for screening out bad/mistaken actions, we have to be especially careful to prevent a situation where a page can be moved to a new category title for deletion by the bot by a page move vandal. Skipping any page with 2 or more revisions would be a good idea. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Page moved without consensus

I've taken the liberty and moved this to WP:ANI, see this. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

SvG cleanup and deletions

A discussion started at User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Flagging problematic articles for deletion about how we mark SvG articles (now drafts) for deletion. Since a proposal will need admin understanding and acceptance, it was suggested to be discussed here.

If an article of SvG is not salvageable I.e. None of the information in it is sourced and no sources can easily be found, what should be the correct procedure for deletion? I suggested maybe speedy deletion tag with custom rationale "SvG article not supported by sources". Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As someone involved with this, I would support such a temporary CSD criterion similar to the one for Neelix's redirects.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As the person who started that discussion, I would also support a temporary CSD criterion. Keeping completely unverifiable articles around is not only wasting the time of everyone who tries to fix them, it's creating the risk that someone will move the article back to mainspace even after it's been found to be unverifiable. (Hopefully nobody involved in the cleanup would actually do that unless they found new sources, but it's not a risk I really want to take.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, echo all of the above. Can we be bold and start a WP:X3 below this? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:, you never notified the user of this discussion, so I did it for you. Sro23 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Any help with this so we can get rid of BLP violations a bit quicker? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm trying to delete BLP violations and a couple of non-notable people, but my CSDs are getting challenged. Unless something gets done, people will start using MfD, which is slow and will cause that to get bogged up. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yordano Ventura

Not quite sure I'm on the right noticeboard, but could an admin please visit Yordano Ventura and delete this offensive edit summary by an IP? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, I've struck the summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Involved block by User:Ian.thomson

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

---

It's my understanding that admins should not block those they're involved with. But that is precisely what happened. I got blocked by Ian after being in a dispute with him plus he also did not put a notice on my talk page. That's two things he should know not to do. I posted two unblock requests that got denied. Ok, fine. I'm no angel. It seems the second unblock denial resulted in the block being extended. No big deal though. If admins aren't supposed to make blocks with those with whom they have a dispute and should post block notices, why hasn't Ian been admonished in any way? Admins should follow the rules too. I'm notifying Ian too.2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement to place a note on the block-ee's talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 02:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see where this is going already. I won't editing wiki anymore. No need for anyone else to respond. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request Admin assistance

In trying to make this a short summation: I am requesting an Admin reopen an AfD [16]The closing Admin says he does not have a problem with another Admin reopening the AfD [17], and I think this is the main point. The AfD was closed after only two days as a "speedy keep". [18].

Disagreement for this action led to a discussion by two dissenting editors (including myself) and the closing Admin on the Admin's talk page [19] For brevity I supplied the last diff pertaining to the discussion - it is just a matter of scrolling down to see the entire discussion.

The reason why I am requesting this be reopened is because other views were not given a chance to Ivote for the AfD. The other dissenting editor also says this is so.

To illustrate my point: This article itself has been contentious for months off and on. This is one of the most recent RFCs [20] and the previous related discussion [21]. This is the most recent from BLPN [22] (click on link in edit history for "Seth Rich" to see discussion). Here is a very intense RFC that occured in August 2016 [23], with a very good close (by the way). And these are of course just samples of the contentiousness.

So, hopefully it can be seen are other views not represented in the closed AfD, and therefore, consensus has not been properly represented.

Full disclosure: This type of premature close is new to me, so I first went to ANI a few days ago with this [24]. Three non-admins responded, I actually thought two of them were admins. Mention of DRV came up so I requested a close for the discussion with that in mind. Afterwards I realized the closing Admin himself said it was OK to find another Admin to reopen this [25].

And I realized that no Admins had responded at the ANI. It occurred to me, this is a simple matter that can be resolved easily and allow all views to be represented in this AfD discussion. So, here I am. Thank you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add this diff [26] which is the AfD 2nd nomination. This also demonstrates the contentiousness of this topic and that other views are involved. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

While you're perfectly entitled to do this, of course, can I ask why? I'd never heard of the man or his murder until I came across the previous discussion you opened, but it seems an obvious 'keep' to me, and it did to at least seven other editors at AfD. Two previous discussions closed as 'no consensus', largely because the event was too recent to judge its enduring significance. Is there actually a realistic chance that the article will be deleted now? It seems very unlikely. Why not get on with something productive? GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That was a pretty clear consensus to keep in that last AFD. Yes, it was only 2 days, however that was a WP:SNOW keep if I ever saw one. I'd suggest at this point to move on, as the event is notable enough to remain, with coverage in multiple areas. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This was nominated for deletion , and kept 5 months ago, then 3 months ago, now this. I realize consensus can change, but that's too soon. The admin's close is correct, as far as I'm concerned. Leave it as it is. ƘƟ SĦ 13:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to Yunshui [cross-post]

Yunshui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), voluntarily retired in November 2015. Their checkuser and oversight permissions were removed without prejudice against requesting reinstatement in the future. They are reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.

Support

GorillaWarfare, Mkdw, Doug Weller, Kelapstick, Newyorkbrad, Opabinia regalis, Euryalus, Drmies, DGG, Casliber

Not voting

Ks0stm, Kirill Lokshin, Keilana, DeltaQuad, Callanecc

For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw ^talk 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Cross posted for the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to Yunshui