Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:34, 10 November 2011

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 72 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 69 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 69 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 46 days ago on 28 May 2024)

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

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 43 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)[reply]

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 42 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)[reply]

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 38 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No longer able to close, another closer should look into this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"?

(Initiated 9 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	11	6	17
TfD	0	1	3	4
MfD	1	0	1	2
FfD	0	0	15	15
RfD	0	4	13	17
AfD	0	0	1	1

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

(Initiated 52 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)[reply]

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 141 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done Soni (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 47 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#When can titles contain "massacre"?

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Requested move 13 July 2024

(Initiated 0 days ago on 13 July 2024). Per WP:SNOWPRO, might want to take a look at this one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by JPxG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears to been established. LJF2019 ^talk 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is already listed in the "other types of closing requests" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Village pump (proposals) closures needed

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Closed the Account creation one also, changed timestamp to today. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DQ, for closing and summarizing this lengthy debate. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla request to enact the consensus found in this closure

Would an admin or editor who is experienced with Bugzilla file a request to enact the consensus found in this closure? Please provide a link to the Bugzilla request at the Village Pump as a postscript to DQ's closure. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Future timestamp to prevent archiving.~~ Cunard (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

mediazilla:32234. Don't hold your breath. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, This, that and the other! Would you provide a link to mediazilla:32234 at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts and remove the future timestamp I placed there? In March 2011, I moved Ruslik0 (talk · contribs)'s post-close comment about the Bugzilla filing directly below the close: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 69#Transferring over "filemover" tool. Cunard (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the addition, This, that and the other. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A bit of background can be found here, amongst many other troublesome interactions between User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser found throughout ANI and Wikipedia.

In the link above, there was pretty consistent belief that both a topic ban and a interaction ban would be needed between these two editors. Both edit in highly provocative areas that ~~are subject to~~ closely border AE enforcement. Due to an WP:AN/3RR report, I have blocked both for a 2 week period (matching blocks).

At this point, I think it is important to formalize the rather informally-closed (it faded off the page) discussion of topic ban/interaction ban.

Proposal User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are topic banned from all Israeli/Palestinian topics, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are also indefinitely banned from interaction with each other on Wikipedia. Violations will be met with escalating blocks as per the blocking policy

Note: Both parties have been advised of this thread, and how to make their comments to this thread even though they are blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this is related to "Israeli/Palestinian topics", at least what that phrase is commonly understood to mean. It is in motivation, at least I think so, but not in execution. Whether a 12th century rabbi in Safed should be called a "Palestinian" is not in the scope of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". nableezy - 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of the long running conflict between these two is that it is theological in nature within the realm of Judaism, and not directly related to the IP conflict. It may be best to have an interaction ban alone. Either can edit whatever they want, but neither should approach, follow, or engage the other. Any sort of provocation or gaming should be met with a block to enforce the prohibition that Wikipedia not be used as an ideological battlefield. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's not IP related; I am concerned with just an interaction ban alone, as that gives first-mover advantage in areas they both already participate in. I don't know what the best solution is off the top of my head, though. I think that pausing the specific proposal while some thought goes into how to pose it in a most constructive and effective manner is a good idea, personally. This is not a rejection of the basis for the proposal (I support doing something at this time), just fine-tuning what we try to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for some fine-tuning. We have two weeks while they're both blocked :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying across from talk page) I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Debresser was advised more than once to leave Chesdovi alone, and an interaction ban should have been implemented the last time this was at ANI. Debresser knew he would be blocked if further conflict between the 2 of them occurred. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 343 articles (not including talkpages, categories, etc) that both have edited - someone is clearly following someone - indeed, probably both are following each other, which they were both told to stop (hence the blocks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Copying across from Debresser's talk page)Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Debresser, if you're trying to paint yourself as the "defender" in your point 3 above, contrary to even a cursory look at your edits and your interaction with other editors, good luck getting anyone to swallow it. pablo 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool though the intersect tool is, since both editors are active in the same area, assuming that "following" is going in is a slight leap. Moreover we know that historically (WP timeframe, not South Levant) category deletions were involved in this dispute, so we should not be surprised to see this overlap per se. Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I've been involved here before as well. Whilst both editors are productive and a block is unfortunate, we do need to sort the issue out. The problem is that you can't have an interaction ban without a topic ban, as mentioned above that would just give the first person to edit an IP (or any other) article the immediate advantage; also it's too messy and vague - what would be the delay between both editors editing an article that would be acceptable? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't this be resolved by them agreeing to refer disagreements to WikiProject Judaism? Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
(copied from usertalk) I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
- I think Debresser has made a very good suggestion here. As far as I can tell, the entire dispute stems from a single issue. Chesdovi's previous attempt to solve the problem was an RfC at Talk:Palestine, which I believe was undertaken in good faith. I agree with Debresser that this issue needs a centralized discussion. (I offer no opinion about lifting the block.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the entire dispute runs for months (if not years) ... a simple search above for Debresser or Chesdovi on either AN or ANI provides a wide range of issues, accusations, concerns, problems, poor interactions all brought forward by both sides. I'm not saying that any of the editors is worse or better than the other, it has to be resolved so that future BS does not occur. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from user talk page) BWilkins, unbeknowst to yourself, I am currently topic banned from I/P for a year (on some spurious basis), and I have a self-imposed interaction ban with the "other" annoying, arrogant and despicable editor, as I indcated to you a while back. So your proposal in in fact truly ineffective. This will never be resolved until some willing Admin actually involves themsleves in the knitty-gritty issue at hand, instead of implementing useless blocks. I have tried everything possible, two RFCs, two DRNs, appeals at wikiprojects, etc. etc. So don't blame any of this on me. While consensus to keep Palestinain rabbis has been reached umpteen times, Debresser will not accept it. It is further just not possible to concrete that "consensus" while Debresser reverts each time! Debresser thinks he is right. I know I am right. Now you sort it out. Threatening us we blocks and sanctions will not get the project, or your reputation as an effective and fair Admin, anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For well over 24 hours nobody has looked into my unblock request. Where I think I make a strong case that my block is based upon a misunderstanding, unjust and overkill. I am quite unpleasantly surprised that nobody, including the blocking admin has yet replied to the arguments I mention> Just saying that the situation is problematic, is not a reason to block me. In reaction to Pablo: if you'd care to do some research, you'd find that I am indeed the defender. I have, with very rare exceptions done nothing but protect this project from the aggression of Chesdovi, who has been trying to push his opinion with hundreds of edits throughout all namespaces. Just check all those 349 pages that Bwilkins mentions, and see for yourself, who made the first edit on them. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) copied by Jab7842 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Your unblock request was declined two days ago by a wholly uninvolved admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, in general, (ie not just in relation to Chesdovi), you probably do see yourself as defending articles. The problem is, that you appear to be displaying ownership of these articles. pablo 12:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think unblocks with broad six month AI topic bans along with an interaction ban for both of them would be the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction bans—by all means. But the problem isn't related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. It has to do with whether to refer to ancient and medieval rabbis as Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't ancient rabbis just be Israelites? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they'd have haggled over this for so long if not for the IP/AI conflict. Only as an aside, Jewish and Palestinian folks lived side by side and mostly peacefully in Palestine for more than two thousand years. I understand why someone might want to call the rabbis Palestinians and I understand why someone might want to call them Israelites, let the sources have sway and if there are sources which say either or, let the editorial content echo that too, it's not hard. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with letting the sources have sway is that the word "Palestinian" changed meaning considerably in 1948. Before that time, it was frequently used to refer to Jews who lived in Palestine. Today the word is used almost exclusively to refer to Palestinian Arabs.

The only topic ban that would make a dent here would be one that prohibits either editor from adding or removing the words "Palestine"/"Palestinian" or "Land of Israel", pending a centralized discussion. I think that's the only thing, short of banning one editor or the other, that's going to put an end to this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so let editorial content echo that too. A narrower ban on them making edits carrying any form of the words Palestinian or Israel, broadly construed, along with an indef interaction ban, may be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from user's talk by User:Bwilkins) Malik is correct in saying that the meaning of "Palestinian" has changed to refer soley to non-Jews nowadays. But when discussing history, we use historic terms. The words Palestine still is used to refer to pre-1948 Israel. That will never change. It is therefore valid to term people from that period "Palestinian". The more I read on this subject, the more I see the term is used to refer to such people. The latest book I read was published in 1978 and was a collection of scientific discourses. It was editied by two leading Orthodox Jewish personalities, Aryeh Carmel and Cyril Domb, and ancient rabbis are called "Palestinian". Now Debresser may want to burn this book due to that offending word, but it is crystal clear that the term "Palestinian" is used by contemporary mainstream neutral Jewish RS, just as "Palestine" is used to describe the historic region. Who can claim to the contrary? Even the chief rabbi used to term to refer to Levi ibn Habib. But Debresser will just not accept these facts. As he so idiotically stated: To use such a word to describe a Jewish person is, wait for it: "anti-semitic". Can you now begin to understand his mindset? He said he would "fight will all his might" to stop the word being used. Is that normal expression for a wiki-editor or does it indicate a strong POV related to the I/P conflcit? For Debresser, this indeed is associated with the conflict, but for me, coming purley from a historical viewpont, this has little to do with it. Debresser's opposition to this is a clear case of politically inspired POV which has no place here and I find it very hard why other editors do not recognise this. Debresser can state as much, and as hard as he wants, that there was never a place called "Palestine", but any person with a grain of intellect will just smirk at such a stupid assumption. The Encylopedia Judaica calls Daniel ben Azariah "Palestinian", but God forbid for us to use it here. I find Debresser a disruptive, arrogant and foul-mouthed menace. He has lost any credibility in my mind. Wikipedia should not be pandering to the views of such people. Every fickle argument Debresser has forwarded on this subject, I have refuted. As far as I am concerned, the majority of the communtiy concede usage is valid, but Debresser continues to reject it and enforce his own opinion. There have been enough centralised discussions on the matter. The conclusion, believe it or not, is that "Palestinian" can indeed refer to people of historic Palestine, be they rabbis or christian monks. Any one who wants to help out here should try and convince Debresser of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs)
Well, as far as I can see, within certain temporal boundaries, there may be synonyms (Palestine and Land of Israel, Palestinian and Israelite) which would be invalid outside those temporal boundaries. That doesn't mean that the choice of terms is arbitrary. If one term is clearer than the other then that should be used. If one term is more accurate than the other then that should be use. If those two edicts are in significant conflict then accuracy should be followed with appropriate explanatory text. We are not writing WP primarily for the historical scholars who will have their own sources, but for a far more general readership. This is not so hard to resolve, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Reading through Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis it appears that terms both more accurate and more clear exist. I also think that discussion will inform anyone trying to take a view on this situation, although of course it is only part of the wider context which is very TLDR. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(Copied over from User talk:Debresser by User:Gwen Gale: Yes, adding the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" or "Land of Israel" - in general not adding any ethnic or geographic description - to articles (main article namespace only, I mean) about Jewish sages - and more generally Jews - should do it. There simply is no reason for a broader ban, because Chesdovi is already topic banned under WP:ARBPIA, and I don't edit such articles, as my contributions show. The ban should last until centralized (really central, not like before) discussion has reached a consensus. I think that discussion should be opened by somebody other than us. Perhaps Malik Shabazz would agree to open it. In order to avoid that discussion turning into a debate between the two of us, I think we should be restricted to 1 edit a day in that discussion. In addition I'd ask for my (or our) block(s) to be lifted, because from that moment on the block(s) would be only punitive. (That is in addition to the arguments I have mentioned before. In all earnest, I would really like to know how editors like Bwilkins and Pablo think I should have acted to defend the project from Chesdovi's edits in a way that would not have lead to my being blocked here repeatedly. You are invited to write me on my talkpage about this.) into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you might consider editing only subjects and articles in which you have less of an investment, and on which you able to work collegially with other editors, tather than feeling that you have to defend "your" articles quite so much. pablo 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (copy/pasted from User talk:Debresser by User:Bwilkins Pablo, please be a little less hostile and accusing. The accusations of WP:OWN are strange in view of the fact that I hadn't edited almost any of those articles before Chesdovi came along and made his usual (read tendentious) edits on them. Did you do your homework? I recommended you to check all those articles and see who of the two of us made the first edit. Perhaps after that, you'll change your tune. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er...so, you're just admitting that you're following a user around, even though you have been told in the past to not do that? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(copied by User:Bwilkins) No, Bwilkins. I ran into his edits in various places. Some of them he posted triumphantly on WT:JUDAISM, until people told him in no fine language that they had enough of that. Other articles I had on my watchlist. His talkpage was (and is) on my watchlist as well, since I posted there a few times. Sometimes I would notice an edit in one article, and check his contributions to see whether he made any more such edits. But I would not regularly check his edits, no. I have a distinct feeling there is a lack of assuming good faith from a few editors here... And in view of your lack of good faith and the unjustified block (you have not replied to any of my arguments), let me add. When will you understand I was (and am) only trying to protect the status quo on this project from the onslaught of one disruptive editor who has made many attempts to push his tendentious edits, but never gained consensus for them? Have you checked that such is indeed the case? Please do. Never in all the discussions he started (and I won't even go into his behavior in those discussions) has he gained consensus for his point of view. Always a majority of editors have preferred other expressions. So why did WP:ANI admins allow him to go unpunished when I posted here all those times before now. So in a way you yourself (including a few of the other admins who have partaken in this thread) are responsible for this escalation. So please be so kind, and do not turn me into your scapegoat. I have posted a fair proposition above. Let's go with it, and move things from their present unfortunate state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

If I was a prosecuting attorney, I'd blink and say "wow, you proved everyone's case better than I could have myself" :-) Thank you for proving the block was necessary, valid, and just. WP:NOTTHEM might just be a good thing for you to read while you're blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied over from User talk:Debresser by User:JohnCD: Have you checked what I asked you to check, or haven't you? Instead of asserting you did the right thing blocking me, perhaps you start looking into what happened. You have never defended your decision to block me, although I have been implored you to look into the facts, point you to the relevant places. After all, admins are supposed to give account of their actions as well, when asked to do so. Other admins are likewise invited to see the facts for themselves. Also I find it less than helpful that you do not reply to my proposal about how to get out of this mess. That is what I would expect an impartial and wise admin to have foremost among his priorities, rather than gloating about his blocks. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied over from User talk:Chesdovi by User:JohnCD: Why can we just not rely on RS to use the word "Palestinian" to describe medieval rabbis? Claiming that the term is confusing holds no credibility in the face of widespread contemporary usage in mainstream RS. Further, 3RR reports on Israel ben Meir di Curiel. He is described at Palestinian rabbis, as "a rabbi who lived in the region known as Palestine", yet the region he lived in is removed by Debresser because it is "controversial". What is that supposed to mean? Why is it "controversial." Is adding "Israel" not "controversial?", besides from being a absolute untruth. The AFD and rejection of two "potential renames" supports the fact that using such a classification for such rabbis has been accepted. It is now up to the community to impress upon Debresser that any removal of the word "Palestine/Palestinian" from any "Jewish" pages will be dealt with accordingly. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(de-archived (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Copied over from User talk:Chesdovi by User:Excirial) : How unfortunate Dweller suggests we are "unsuitable for editing in a collaborative system like Wikipedia." Instead of castigating editors who are locked in a dispute over term usage, he should try suggesting a resolution to the dispute in the true spirit of Wikipedia. The community is marvellous at suggesting bans and implementing blocks very swiftly. There’s never a dearth of Admin input in those situations. But when it comes to sorting out sticky points to help the project move forward, that’s a different matter. DRN’s are closed without comment. RFCs are left “unclosed”. CFDs are closed with the wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, I can provide a list here of a majority of editors who have commented about this and have supported using “Palestinian” for rabbis. So what more is there to discuss? To gain consensus, one has to make edits and see if they stick. How can I go about doing if every time I do, Debresser comes along and reverts immediately? I cannot come to an agreement with him because his arguments are in my view irrational and I know very well indeed this this is not about “confusion” at all, but rather about not mentioning the supposedly offensive “Palestine” on “Jewish” pages. What clearer evidence is there that this is a thinly veiled “pro-Israel” manipulation? It is not “anti-Semitic” to call a rabbi “Palestinian”. Neither is it inaccurate or offensive. It is 100% correct and proper. That is why its use is so widespread in reliable sources, many of them written by contemporary Jewish academics. Now, unless there is a rule on wiki that we not use terms which are deemed offensive to certain individuals, I see no reason why unless those editors provide a convincing argument not to use such accepted terms, they cannot be used. Ed suggests: "Both editors should be banned for six months from any naming issues concerning 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' in both articles and talk pages." Why is this necessary? I am quite capable of not using the word while the matter is "sorted out." On numerous articles, I purposefully blanked out the offending word, pending the outcome of the discussion on the matter: [3]. When the outcome was clear that using the term was okay, I added it. There is similarly no reason why I cannot edit in pages such as Palestinian synagogues, Palestinian Patriarchate, Palestinian minhag and Palestinian Gaonate. An uninvolved editor should try explaining why we cannot use "Palestinian Rabbi" on bio pages even though Palestinian rabbi exists as a self-contained article. That is a very intriguing question, don’t you think? Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to acknowledge a problem with Wikipedia: we do not have a large enough numer of editors who are well-informed and interested in these articles to produce stable consensuses. Whenever an article, or in this case a pretty specific issue (the proper name ro use), is of interested to n<3 editors, we invariably end up with an unstable situation.

In this case I think there are two problems: an interaction poblem etween Debresser and Chesdovi that calls for some cooling-off period (which a topic ban can also serve — the important thing is to give both editors a chance to cool down). But I also think there is a content issue.

I admit I have had conflict with Debresser in the past; also I generally like Chesdovi's reasoning. But not in this case. I think Chesdovi is wrong to favor systematically Palestine/Palestinian. I agree with Chesdovi that when refering to historial events we should use historically appropriate terms. The problem is, we should not do this in a way that will mislead our readers, and I think Chesdovi is applying this good principle inappropriately. First, it is not quite accurate to say that Palestine was the name for the place back then. As shown by the piece of evidence provided, even at the time Jews in their own language efered to it as the land of Israel. Calling it "Palestine" is correct, but incomplete; to do justice to the sources the articles must explain that the place was identified in different ways in different languages. There is a Hebrew word for "Palestine" and it is not "Eretz Israel;" this means that we are not looking at a translation issue, we are looking at two names contemporaneously. Second, even in cases where I would prefer to identify the lace as "Palestine," it is misleading to identify Jews as Palestinians. The contemporary meanings of these terms are so profoundly distinct that to do so will only cause unnecessary confusion for our readers. In short, Chesdovi is mistranslating terms. In the first instance, she is suggesting that Palestine is the English translation for Eretz Israel, when it is not, it is not a translation, it is a case of two different names in two different languages. In the second instance, she is refusing to translate when translation is called for: "Palestinian" back then mant something different, so it needs to be translated into its contemporary meaning in this case anything other than "Palestinian" - there are multiple choices, "Jerusalemite," or "resident of Palestine" for example. I have no questions about Chesdovi's good faith and intentions, but in this particular case the edits cause unnecessary confusion and are bound to be reverted. But what do we do when Debresser is the only person willing to make corrections?

AN/I is not the right place to resolve this, but whnever the number of well-informed editors is so low, content problems invariably become personal conflict problems, and WP does not have a good clear mechanism to handle this. I would support a cooling off period, but this will be pointless unless we can also suggest to Debresser some constructive suggestions for how to fix these mistakes without getting into a personal conflict, or suggest a mentor for Chesdovi, or mandate mediation between Chesdovi and Debresser after the cooling-off period. Unless we suggest some mechanism for handling these edit conflicts, the cooling-of period is pointless. Perhaps eventually it would go to ArbCom, in which case the sooner they find a mediator, the better. But there is a content issue that won't go away and I do not think either Debresser or Chesdovi should be banned from editing these articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

So, are we going to enact an interaction ban or a topic ban or are we going to pass the buck? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's fine-tune the topic ban:

Both editors should be banned for six months from any naming issues concerning 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' in both articles and talk pages
In general, they can make no edits that assume any particular answer to the following question:
What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?
These editors may add no categories to articles that assume that either 'Palestinian' or 'Israeli' is the correct answer. They are allowed to pose neutral questions to others as to the tagging of articles that *they create themselves*. Except for that, they must be silent on the subject.
If this ban is adopted either by consensus here or by voluntary agreement, the blocks on these two editors might be lifted at that point. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to slightly disagree: this does need to be a combination of topic ban (or agreement as per above) plus an interaction ban. Debresser has admitted to following Chesdovi around. When that happens, stupidity (not people-wise, but action-wise) ensues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. I'm tired of these WP:LAME edit warriors. But I do worry what they'll turn their attention to next, as both seem to me to be unsuitable for editing in a collaborative system like Wikipedia. I suggest that the threat of community ban be made explicit if they rescind or enter new fields of fray. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If others believe that a six-month interaction ban is also needed, I'd be OK with that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal; and also with Wilkins' suggestion that an interaction ban be proposed. Since the others are for six months; this one should be too Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support EdJohnston's topic ban proposal as well as the proposed WP:IBAN between these two editors. If these measures fail to be adopted by the community, the matter should probably be kicked upstairs to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with interaction ban. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Offwiki canvassing alert: Chesdovi emailed me, alerting me to this thread and asking me to contribute to it. I've been generally supportive of Chesdovi's side of things at DRV in the past and he may see me as a sympathetic editor. No such luck, I'm afraid, Chesdovi: I'm a mean, nasty editor who doesn't approve of offwiki canvassing at all. But with that said, I don't think the answer will involve blocking either of these two otherwise-productive editors. I like Ed Johnston's idea.—S Marshall T/C 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
neutral I do not think that a topic ban is the long-term solution, even if it is necessary in the short term. And I definitely owuld support a cooling-of period. But as I explain below unless the block is followed some better mechanism (e.g. a combination of mentoring and mediation) I don't see a point to the cool-off period. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(copied across from users talk by User:Steven Zhang)(moved down from the previous section by User:John of Reading per talk page request) This post is very unfortunately belated because I made a typo in the adminhelp template. This is more or less what I proposed as well. With one exception. I see no reason to exclude us from talkpages. To the contrary, I think a centralized discussion about this subject should be started by some editor other than us. And after that discussion has come to a conclusion, the topic ban can be lifted. The only restriction I would think fair is that we should not be allowed to post more than one post a day in such a discussion, to avoid it becoming a discussion of two people only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request and protest

A notification of unblocking and bans has been posted on my talkpage. Please see there that I ask to reconsider, that the ban should not include talkpages. Arguments there. See also my protest against an additional injunction against me in comparison with the injunctions against Chesdovi. Since the notification was posted on my talkpage, not here, I have replied on my talkpage, and kindly ask you to see there. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion back from the archives per Debresser (talk · contribs)'s contesting of the close. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent this is an appeal of a discretionary sanction, it must be appealed to WP:AE and not here. T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. In the mean time, all who care, please feel free to read the gist of my problem with this sanction on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that protesting against a sanction preventing you from calling others "anti-semitic" by claiming that the restriction itself is anti-semitic was not the brightest thing you've ever done; however, as T.Canens says above, this is the wrong venue. Black Kite (t) 11:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did appeal to my sense of humor. See also Jewish humour. And of symmetry. In any case, if I think it is true, I have a right to say it on talkpages. Restricting this right because I might (stress that, since I admit to no such thing) have misused the term once, is unjust. And I find that especially strange (and that is a very large understatement) in view of the fact that none of the proposals above included such a clause. Anyway, your interest in this case is appreciated. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Debresser. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't want to play within the rules, indef him and be done with it. This is a rabbit hole that none need to go down - we've wasted enough time on an editor who fails to see/accept the repercussions of their own actions. How frustrating to see a reasonbly good editor implode. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only your opinion of me that has imploded. As has my opinion of you. But I say, let things be. You don't like my behavior, I don't think you handled this case well. I deplore this, but hey, I like editing on Wikipedia, and that is the main thing.

There is no such thing as blocking an editor because he disagrees and appeals a sanction. I am within my rights to go to WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is: what does an interaction ban between Chesdovi and me mean. To give a likely example. What if one of us posts or reacts to a post on WT:JUDAISM, where we both are active. How should the other one behave? Debresser (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would clearly have been better to topic ban the both of you indefinably in regard to anything to do with Arabs and Jews then you wouldn't need an interaction ban with the other user. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the wording of WP:IBAN, Debresser and Chesdovi are allowed to edit the same discussions so long as they avoid one another. They can't reply to the other person in the discussion. If they find this advice too tricky to follow in a specific case, I suggest avoiding the discussion completely. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, thank you. This is clear to me, and doable by all means. Off2riorob, thanks forthe hostility. Why should anybody be banned from a whole WikiProject because of some small disagreement? Debresser (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Chesdovi

Isn't this edit a violation of the interaction ban? In addition, by what right is Chesdovi slowly removing the usage of a template which is in use on hundreds of article, calling it in the edit summary "rm clutter"? See also this edit. (And no, Bwilkins, I am not following him around. These pages are on my watchlist.) Debresser (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks suggested

Debresser has clearly violated his ban against interaction in his edit above. Chesdovi has clearly violated his subject ban. Unless I'm missing something, we will all be better served by immediately blocking their accounts per the terms of Gwen's decision above. Rklawton (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing somwthing. But I will only speak for myself: By which edits have I violated? Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on discretionary sanctions

Resolved

– sanctions retracted, N/A Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long post - I'll try to keep the wording simple:

I would like some feedback on discretionary sanctions regarding Genesis creation narrative. I noticed a lot of edit warring there, some of it from editors who have been blocked in the past for edit warring on Bible related issues. In this specific case, the edit war appears to be about defining creation account in genesis as a "narrative" or a "myth" (the latter term being more controversial, as the term "myth" in modern parlance often connotes an event which never occurred).

Thus I was planning to give out some notifications about possible sanctions under the guise of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, which includes creationism vs. evolution. In fact, I have already given a warning to User:PiCo. I was also considering giving out warnings to User:Til Eulenspiegel and User:Obsidian Soul, all for having three (not more) reverts to the article within a 24 hour period.

However, this may have been a stylistic edit war more than a scientific one. PiCo and Til Eulenspiegel are more concerned with the history of the Bible, rather than the scientific merits surrounding it. As such, this may technically deal with an issue covered by pseudoscience, but only by accident, in that the two fields happen to overlap in this area. Were I to apply sanctions to the editors in this case, it might open up the possibility of applying the pseudoscience sanctions to all debate regarding the history of religion (e.g., did Mohammad really bless God immediately upon birth? Did Samson really kill 1000 men with a donkey's jawbone?)

I would appreciate some thoughts and feedback. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: PiCo informs me the edit war was not even surrounding the term "myth" but was entirely stylistic. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite (but thanks, Magog/Ogre) - so far as I'm concerned the question is stylistic, but others have been more concerned with the meaning of the word "myth" and the need to include, or not include, it in the first line of the lead. This article is a notorious minefield. PiCo (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I have already declined from making further reverts or edits to the article itself, though I still find myself drawn to the discussion. I was unfortunate enough to have been one of the first people to see the edit by the original author of the proposed change and found myself drawn to what apparently is a long-standing issue with the article.

I admit I reported User:Til Eulenspiegel by mistake to WP:3RRNB as I thought he had reverted four times, but it seems I miscounted and accidentally included an earlier revert by User:PiCo. I objected to the fact that the three editors were acting against the current discussion and changing the wording despite being the obvious minority without any valid policy-based arguments in the discussion. And I obviously disagree with User:PiCo that it is merely stylistic (if it were, the attempts to change "myth" wouldn't be this concentrated). It is quite obvious that the attempted changes result from objection by Christian (creationist?) editors about labeling something they believe in as literal truth as a "myth".

A myth in academic usage is a specific type of story (narrative) that involves the origins of man and the world in religion and folklore, obviously treated not as literal truth but culturally and religiously important nonetheless. A "myth" in common usage however means an untruth, and that is perhaps what they are objecting to. The question here is due weight, not mere semantics. "Narrative" implies a possibility of being literal truth, and that goes against our policies on neutrality and our adherence to the scientific consensus.

That said, the current RfC in the talk page is reaching consensus, and I think any further action is unnecessary at this point. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a strictly personal opinion, I think that applying the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions to that dispute is a stretch I'd be hard-pressed to support even though I understand and agree with the intent. Efforts would be best focused, I think, on the RfC in progress (which seems the be the case). — Coren ^(talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm marking this resolved, as sanctions retracted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two university projects

Project 1 -- Wikipedia Bhutan

I happened across these when investigating 12 user accounts creating 10 userpage drafts with near identical content within a narrow timespan. These are below:

Extended content

Rigsum01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum01/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum02/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum03/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum04/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum05/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum06/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum07/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rigsum09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum09/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum10/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Rigsum11/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rigsum12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See here and here. I don't know who is in charge here, but it's prudent to note this somewhere just in case there's a flood of crap related to Bhutan.

As a Regional Ambassador for the US division of the Global Education Program (see my comment, project 2 immediately below), I checked into this a bit, thinking it might be a US University class in my region. Not so. As far as I can tell, it is not related in any way even to the Wikipedia Global Education Program (WGEP). This is good news, actually, as it's further evidence of an international interest in Wikipedia being taken by institutions of higher education. I think the appropriate staff person of the WGEP about this Bhutan project, and I'm sure she'll do what needs to be done. Again - is all good new, across the board. Go Bhutan! Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project 2 -- University of Washington Info 101 - Social Networking Technologies

I poked around Special:Newpages in the user namespace (to find more Rigsum\d{2} related accounts) and identified another university project by the creation of very similar userpages. The external project is here and the coordinator is User:Bob Boiko. I have several concerns with this including the unit name ("social networking technologies"... really?) and the project seems to encourage nonsense like User:Jonas nocom/My sandbox, User:Babak Dabagh/My sandbox and User:Grace jang/My sandbox. The page creations seem to be concentrated at midnight UTC on the 8th of November. MER-C 11:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, find the professor's accounts and leave them a message, asking them into dialogue to clarify their assignments, and refer them to WP:SUP and WP:WOA for additional guidance. Beyond that, what extra administrative help do you need? --Jayron32 14:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a bona fide course that has been registered as part of the WP:United States Education Program. I've left a pointer to this discussion for User:Tomcloyd who is the Regional Ambassador. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm the aforementioned Wikipedia Regional Ambassador for the Wikimedia Global Education Program's United States Education Program (whew! what a mouthful - but it's the full specification). It's understandable that not everyone is aware of the Global Education Program, or of its US Branch. It's an important project, promising both to bring substantial new quality content to Wikipedia and also some new, quality editors (we hope!). Pro. Boiko's class (150 students!) at U. of Wa. was introduced to Wikipedia yesterday. You can expect a herd of new account registrations, and then editing activity, as a result.

The USEP is shepherding this class, along with many others, and has a trained Campus Ambassador specifically assigned to it. The students are learning the ropes, and there will be problems, to be sure, but the account creations, etc., are legit, I assure you - these folks are all college freshsmen who are brand new editors. Just respond to them as you would any new editor - that's part of their learning experience. AND remember - we do want to have a good experience, to learn how to edit well, AND to hang around and contribute. The survival of Wikipedia depends upon it, yes?

The WGEP has a few other very large classes, in other parts of the world (including Canada, and other parts of the English speaking world), so mass invasions of new account creations may be seen on other occasions. Most of our classes are not this large, however. In the case of Boiko's class, we have one Campus Ambassador (but would like to have 3-4), and will be immediately asking for help from our Online Ambassadors, who will be most helpful in doing quality monitoring, etc.

Until then, expect things to be a bit rough. But...we'll steady things out and move forward as quickly as possible. I thank you in advance for your patience, and for notifying me of this whole matter so that I could appear here to explain it.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being involved in cleaning up after the utter trainwreck that is WP:IEP (zero community consultation, not checking CA/OA's prior edits for copyright violations before appointing them, inaccurate and hence useless student lists, etc.) has dashed my confidence in the WMF's ability to run these programs competently. The three userspace pages and the unit title do nothing to counteract that. I'm hoping that this is only a notice and calls for a spare bulldozer or five will be unnecessary. I wish you success in this program. MER-C 10:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The India program is a foundation project, running beyond the scope of any one language WP. But for people working on the enWP, though the foundation started the project, I think it is basically up to us here to deal with it and support it, as we would support all new editors here. This is only the second year--they are continuing support for it at this point and apparently are prepared to do so next year also, but I think they had hoped we would be handling it ourselves by now, as indeed we ought to. It does take work--I'm involved with three (possibly 4) classes now, which is too many for one person to handle, The students are the people who will be involved with Wikipedia in the future, at least as users, and normally we can expect about one from each class to become an editor after the class is over. Compared to some of the things we spend immense amounts of time over on various project pages, this is a more important thing we should be doing. My experience is they are initially very puzzled, but respond very well to a little attention. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom RFC Threshold Change

I am sure I am going to upset some folks, but it has been brought to my attention that I misunderstood the consensus on the threshold for Arbcom. I've made this edit to correct the mistake and lower the threshold to 50%. I'm sorry to cause the confusion and the drama that I am sure this will cause.--v/r - T P 14:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"88.2% of Statistics are made up on the spot" - Vic Reeves Chzz ► 06:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of admin help template - is it useful, and can it be more effective?

I've started a discussion regarding the {{admin help}} template here. In short I am concerned that it is not as effective as it should be and/or as editors who invoke it may expect it to be, and what steps can be taken to make it more so. Any thoughts are appreciated. Doniago (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion backlogged again

If someone has the time, can you stop by and consider closing some of the old discusions? The oldest are from October 3. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little help - history merge

I closed and moved an article to Sega Genesis based on WP:RM. Sega Genesis was a previous title with a history. History preserved at Sega Genesis/History. Tried to follow instructions on History merge but got stumped. How to proceed from here? Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look... 28bytes (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this was a tricky case because Sega Genesis had too many revisions to do it the normal way. Normally, we'd move Sega Genesis/History to Sega Genesis, deleting Sega Genesis in the process, then restore the deleted Sega Genesis revisions. In this case, I had to do things in reverse: move Sega Genesis to Sega Genesis/History with redirect (deleting Sega Genesis/History in the process), then restoring the deleted Sega Genesis/History edits, then moving (without redirect) Sega Genesis/History back to Sega Genesis. It should be all sorted now. 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Nola Darling (Music Duo) is a blatant copyvio. Tell me why it should get to rot in C:SD for more than 12 hours. Isn't a copyvio something we should, you know, be kinda QUICK about?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —EncMstr (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer, be glad you're not tagging Commons images for deletion as copyvios; I've often seen a gap of several days between when I tag an image as a copyvio and when it gets deleted or challenged. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs), one of our most prolific editors with over 100,000 edits to the mainspace, turns out to be a prolific copyright violator as well. At first, I noticed that two very recent articles, Job Male and August Howard, were copyright vioolations, and speedy deleted them (and noted this on his talk page). His only reaction was a request for userfication at my talk[4], and after I refused on the talk page of Fuhghettaboutit, who refused as well.

Meanwhile, I did some spotchecks of other contributions, and found worrying trends of copying or too close paraphrasing of sources, and of excessive quoting of (copyrighted) sources. Not sure how to proceed, I started a discussion at User talk:MER-C#Advice on whether a CCI or other action is needed, which was joined by User:Moonriddengirl (both probably our most active and well-versed copyright violation investigators). I learned here that there already was a CCI about Richard Arthur Norton's images at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822. After they checked my findings and made some additional checks, a new CCI, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 was set up. This, while only barely started, revealed further copyright violations strectching from 2006 to 2011, and (when using older sources) failure to properly attribute things. But considering that Riachard Arthur Norton created or expanded many, many pages, and that even that lenghty CCI only lists his largest additions, and not many smaller ones, this appears to be only the tip of the iceberg.

Bad as all this is, I wouldn't have brought it here if there was any indication that Richard Arthur Norton sufficiently cared about the problem and would give some help in cleaning up the older violations, and some realistic assurance that no new problems would occur. However, apart from the two requests for userfication, Richard Arthur Norton has not made a single reply to either the talk page discussion or the CCI, and has not attempted to check any of the pages on the CCI. All he has done is immediately recreate any pages that are deleted or blanked (recreated without the copyright violations of course, or he would have been blocked by now), indicating to me that all he cares about is having the information on Wikipedia, no matter if it is done by violating copyright (or attribution rights).

I don't believe that an editor who creates dozens (hundreds?) of copyright violations over five years or more, even continuing after a CCI is opened for his images, and who gives no indication at all of caring about the problem and of being willing to work on it (reactively and proactively), should be left around any longer. If someone believes strict mentoring has a chance and volunteers for it (and Richard Arthur Norton accepts), then that might be a solution. Otherwise, I suggest an indefinite block (not a time-limited one, as long as there is no indication that this will stop). Fram (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

having interacted with Richard in the past, I'd be interested to see his response to this. Yes he is one of the most prolific editors so fully understands WP rules. One thing I'd note is he never ever admits he is in the wrong, and plays fake innocence when presented with evidence of wrongdoing or gross incivility or clear bad faith assumptions especially of inexperienced editors.This stubbornness is reflected in his non ability to reply on this copyright issue. He knows it's wrong but still continues. This is not in WP spirit. I don't think Richard can be mentored, he is too proud and stubborn for that. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of supporting Libstar's point, this is nothing new. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he autopatrolled? --Kittybrewster ☎ 10:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled status revoked. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with LibStar that I have doubts that Richard will work well with others in addressing these problems. I began working with Richard after his first CCI was requested, and LibStar sums up the attitude I have encountered well. I assumed at first that he may be hostile due to the way in which copyright problems were approached (see these, threads), but by the time he filed this complaint about CCI processes realized this may not be situational. He brought a complaint against the editor doing the heavy lifting at his CCI for not giving him notices when files were tagged for problem, even though I had twice explained why notices are not generally given in CCI ([5], [6] - in the second instance, I even asked him to let me know if he'd like notices, but he never said a word about it until launching his vitriolic complaint about the CCI cleaner at ANI). During that conversation he referred to the CCI as "harassment" and made false accusations. (I've never touched that image) It seemed from that certainly that he's unwilling to work directly with those attempting to do mop up. I believe Richard takes an adversarial stance to others, and I think his userpage may reveal part of the problem, where it says, "Every Essjay on Wikipedia thinks they are an expert on copyright law, and knee-jerk delete everything and anything." As Mkativerata points out, I tried to explain the issues with text to Richard months ago, but he evidently paid no more attention to that than he did any of my other efforts to work with him. (ETA) I don't believe I have ever seen Richard proactively work to address any problems with his uploads or edits unless these were tagged for deletion or removed by others, and (as the ANI complaint I linked above shows) he seems strongly instead to believe that others should clean up after him. I'm not sure he understands the seriousness of this issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its very frustrating when the four images of me used on my user page get deleted. The current image of me in Sweden was tagged for deletion twice. The argument was that if I appeared in the photo, I could not have taken the image, and therefor I cannot claim a copyright. That is the frustration when everyone is an expert on law. While some images needed an updated license tag and others needed the newest FUR template and a longer FUR, most images were kept. Over 500 images were tagged as violations by Treasury Tag after he and I argued at an AFD. Those included images I took, or images that were from the Library of Congress and in the public domain. Most of the images that were deleted just needed an updated license or an updated FUR template and could have been saved if I was notified on my page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the work can be frustrating. It is frustrating for all involved. However, with respect to notices, you were explicitly asked to let me know if you'd like notices, even though these are not the norm at CCI (as you knew [7]; [8]), but you never responded. Instead, you launched an unfair accusation at ANI against a good-faith user trying to help make sure that the images were all sorted and straightened out. We have tried to be accommodating. I have tried to be accommodating. The lack of communication makes that quite difficult. There is cleanup to be done; it would be great to have you part of that, in both CCIs. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is copyright a problem for him other than images? If so, I fear that Fram is right. If not, why can't we ban him from uploading images? I don't see a reason to get rid of a good editor of text if he is one. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It has recently been verified that Richard has been violating copyright policies with text he has placed on Wikipedia from 2006 to the present day. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with his images was his refusal to use FURS - he would add the template, but without any content. I did (as you'll see from the exchange Moonridden girl added diffs to) accidentally delete images of himself for which he had provided no licensing information so I assumed they were not free, I also spent many happy hours writing rationales for images he had uploaded, which he refused to do. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard has edited Wikipedia since being notified of this AN discussion, but has not replied here. The case for an indefinite block appears strong. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've poked him [9] to try again to get some sort of response. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues editing without response here, I'll indefblock him myself later today. The further in I look the worse it gets; unacceptable on all levels. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give him 24 hours. --Kittybrewster ☎ 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As people point out things that need to be worded differently to avoid copyright infringement, I am making the changes. Please continue to point out things that you feel are too close to the source document and I will change the wording. Some sources that on first assumption appear to be public domain by age, or by government creation and not eligible for copyright protection, or seemed like uncopyrightable facts, can be incorrect on my first look and closer scrutiny is always welcome. I will be more careful to paraphrase and cut down on long quotes or enclose them in quotation marks. I will also work to use more sources per article, a single source, even when paraphrased and reworded can still have the same look-and-feel as the original material. Most obituaries are a chronological list of facts and even when reworded will still retain the same look-and-feel, unless disparate sources are combined. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've created a gigantic problem, this does not seem to be an adequate response. How about offering to work through the CCI item-by-item and do the fixes that Moonriddengirl would recommend? There are 660 entries in Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just the first page, I'm afraid. There are actually 6,539 articles involved. If nothing else, it would be fabulous if he'd go through to identify which of these were splits or merges and make sure they are fully attributed. (There are plenty of other ways that he could help substantially lighten the cleanup work there.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats quite a big ask and I dont think RAN should be under any preasure to do that unless he wants to. Its simplistic to say RAN created this mess. RANs learning period was years back when community norms were much more concerned with sticking closely to sources and avoiding OR - concerns which conflict with the need to avoid copyright infringements. Part of the reason for the mess is the way the project has evolved. Most of us are volunteers and ought not to be accountable for not keeping up to speed with changes in policy, even less so if we failed to anticipate future changes. Blocks in these cases should only be needed if someone keeps creating further problems once policy has been explained. Clearly RAN has got the message about the need to avoid copyright infringement and will be more careful in future, plus up to a point he's willing to help fix previous issues. We are very lucky a talented scientists like RAN spends so much time improving our content, please dont risk making him want to leave the project by pushing too hard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you've read through all the material here. Richard was well aware of the need to avoid copyright infringement and has been notified of this repeatedly throughout the years. He was told as recently as December of last year how to avoid these issues (given a clear example of the problem and pointed to several documents meant to help him learn to avoid them), and yet on 3 November 2011, he produced this:

Extended content

August Howard:

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	Source
He was a public affairs officer of the National Council of Boy Scouts of America from 1928 to 1970. In 1934 he founded the American Polar Society for people involved or interested in polar exploration and research.	Mr. Howard was a public affairs officer of the National Council of Boy Scouts of America from 1928 to 1970[...] In 1934, Mr. Howard founded the American Polar Society as a forum for people involved or interested in polar exploration and research.

Job Male:

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	Source
Job Male was born in Somersetshire, England on August 24, 1808. He came with his parents to America in 1816 and worked as a toll collector on the turnpike between Jersey City and Newark, New Jersey. He worked for the Union Ferry Company to build their ferry houses in New York and Brooklyn from 1838 to 1845. He was the superintendent of construction for the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company from 1853 to 1859, and built their docks, ferry houses, and depots at Jersey City. He was a member of the board of education in Jersey City from 1803 to 1807. For twenty years, he was a director of the Hudson County National Bank and president from 1873 to 1878.	Job Male was born in Somersetshire, England on August 24, 1808. He came with his parents to America in 1816 and began to earn his livelihood by attending the toll gate on the Turnpike between Jersey City and Newark. [...] He was employed by the Union Ferry Company to build their ferry houses in New York and Brooklyn from 1838 to 1845. He was the superintendent of construction for the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Company from 1853 to 1859, and built their docks, ferry houses, and depots at Jersey City. Mr. Male was a member of the board of education in Jersey City from 1803 to 1807. For twenty years, he was a director of the Hudson County National Bank and its president from 1873 to 1878.

Besides the explicit explanation I left him in December of last year, he had been told in October of last year. There are more. (Some of the human notes I see in a casual scan of his talk page history: June 2010; December 2007; July 2007. There are others, and there are plenty of CorenSearchBot notices, not all of which may be accurate but each of which offered him a link to the copyright policy. I see copyright concerns being raised with Richard (text and images) at least as far back as 2006.

To say that Richard should be excused from assisting with cleanup for not knowing policy is, well, simply extraordinary. People may in fact be required to help clean up as a condition of continuing in such cases, as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." I would much rather Richard help with the cleanup voluntarily. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just today, i.e. after the CCI started, you made this edit: [10]. Your full text: "One of the largest food recalls in United States history.". The sources text: "one of the largest food recalls in the nation’s history". That doesn't give me any confidence that you really understand (or care about) the problem at all. Fram (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot copyright that fact. You either are "one of the largest food recalls in United States history" or your are not. Facts cannot be copyrighted. While some of my earlier edits used too much text as fair use and sometimes I have applied government public-domain to quasi government organizations incorrectly, this is not an example. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, how many different ways are there to state that something was one of the biggest food recalls in US history? I don't think that edit is problematic, especially given that he links to the source and includes the quote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Fram, please read the section 'What is not plagiarism' in Wikipedia:Plagiarism. It makes exactly Sarek's point: the advice on fairly direct copying of simple sentences being allowable as long as one includes a cite also seems applicable to copyright concerns. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>*I'm not a great content editor, and I must say these copyright discussions are part of why I've been leery of doing much in the way of significant edits in mainspace. That said, are we really claiming that is a copyright problem? It's pretty clearly fair use and it's certainly clearly cited. Would "This recall was one of the largest in the United States" have been acceptable? Does the fact that he included the exact quote in the cite matter? I did look at RAN's contributions and saw some serious problems (large amounts of text more-or-less taken word-for-word). But I really don't see a copyright problem with the quote you give. It's well within fair use. And I'm not sure where the line of "not being too close" falls for such a short bit of purely factual text. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat sympathetic towards Hobit's and RAN's position here. I also think there are two issues. A the past and B the future. I suggest we lean heavily on Moonriddengirl's views on this. What I don't like is the failure to recognise and respond to the problems. --Kittybrewster ☎ 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney/expert help needed? Does an attorney need to evaluate the alleged violations here? I see everyone talking about obvious copyright violations, but when I looked at the August and Male examples at User_talk:MER-C#Advice_on_whether_a_CCI_or_other_action_is_needed nothing tells me that slight changes to the few sentences of sampled text from a source for the article is actually going to be considered a copyright violation. When I write articles I personally try to avoid any 'copying' at all, but frankly sometimes there is only one or two good ways to relate basic facts. This is an art, not a science. If whole paragraphs are lifted word-for-word (though single paragraph attributed block quotes are surely fine), I agree that is likely a problem. When I research articles on historical events, you often see how the various authors who wrote on a subject over time all relied on many of the same original sources (as well as any subsequent sources which predated their addition), and you see how they do the same basic thing as is alleged to be a problem in RAN's August and Male examples, i.e., fragments would seem to come directly from the original sources. But the ultimate product was not the same due to minor changes. Of course, it was almost impossible to catch such activity in the pre-Internet age, I suppose, but it is far from uncommon. Also, when one endeavors to alter text by simply dropping in potential synonyms and reordering of phrases, sometimes you change the meaning of the original sources in unintended ways, and thus introduce error in your product. This is also seen in scholarly writing, where you can tell that the subsequent author clearly relied on a prior source for a particular fact and then made clumsy word substitutions to make it sound different when ultimately the intent was to convey the same exact piece of information. E.g. if I wrote, "Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809 in a log cabin in Kentucky." Now go look around and see how many sources say the same basic information. In fact, the same exact text appears here [11] in a book (lucky me, I hoped that would happen!). I could rewrite the sentence to say "In 1809, in a log cabin in Kentucky, Abraham Lincoln was born." But that's just bad writing. Or I could say "Abraham Lincoln entered this world in 1809 in a log cabin situated in Kentucky." Also not as good. So my point here is we need to be reasonable and calm in doing this examination, and apply the same standards that apparently apply to writers outside Wikipedia. If anyone can find examples where RAN wholesale used identical paragraphs word-for-word, I would like to see that because that is wrong. But to extent there is agreed to be a problem, I will help volunteer to correct any problem articles. Because I am armed and dangerous with a thesaurus and the passive voice.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your help would be certainly much appreciated. :) But I'm afraid that direct copying is not the only way to infringe copyright. Minimally altering text so as to create a derivative work is also potentially a problem, as the right to authorize derivatives is reserved to the copyright holders. Wikipedia's copyright policy requires that content be written from scratch, aside from directly marked quotations used in accordance with WP:NFC. This is the same standard applied to all of us. Certainly we may sometimes find ourselves producing text similar to that used in other sources; the problem comes in as the amount of taking increases. One sentence that coincidentally resembles something in a book one has not used is not likely to be marked as a problem. Multiple sentences that follow closely in language and structure on the accessed source are. For example, it's unlikely that Richard inadvertently produced a list so similar to this one (which most definitely predates us). The greater the proportion of this content to the article or the source, the more likely we are to have a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well this certainly sounds like a legally grey area where most editors are not competent to judge anything outside clear wholesale copying. If we over-enforce U.S. copyright law, we are affording more protection than that intended by the U.S. Constitution, which stifles the free exchange of information. If we under-enforce, I guess at some point we are risking legal action. Frankly, I highly doubt in a million years that any of the content RAN works on would generate more than a gentle request to amend if he did do something wrong. As to the (somewhat concerning, I admit) list example, for instance, he made minor modifications but essentially adopted a list of key dates. One might argue that the significant events on that list are obvious and not copyrightable. So, though there may be some problems here, I hope editors don't make this into a drama-fest against RAN as if he's destroyed the whole project or something.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do routinely over-enforce U.S. copyright law. This has been written into our policies since well before I became involved with copyright cleanup. WP:NFCC notes that policy is constructed "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." For one huge example, we are a non-profit organization and could accept content licensed for non-commercial use, but we don't, because this is inconsistent with the mission of Wikipedia to generate free content that can be used by anyone, anywhere. Furthermore, this is built into the model to the point that we do not have the option to change this by simple consensus; this is a Board level decision.

Whether or not content constitutes copyright infringement is a legally gray area; it is highly subjective. But Wikipedia's copyright policies are a bit more clear: information taken from copyrighted content must be written from scratch except for brief and clearly marked quotations used transformatively. (I think anyone arguing that list was not copyrightable would be way off base and can explain why, but this is probably not the best place for it. If you want to know more about copyright in lists, please drop by my talk page.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional detail. Clearly you are well-versed in these issues!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've still got the OrphanBot code from the first time RAN's images came up on AN, if anyone wants me to run it. --Carnildo (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose an indefinite block for such a dedicated and knowledgeable editor. Edison (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And how do you suggest that we solve the mess he has created? He is clearly not interested in actively helping to cleanup up after himself, and with admins basically supporting him like you did here (we shouldn't delete a massive, 7K identical copyvio because the subject is notable? Notability is irrelevant for copyvio discussions), this isn't likely to change. Being dedicated is no excuse for severe policy violations stretching five years back. Opposing a suggested solution is fine and good, but perhaps you could offer an alternative instead? Fram (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have cooperated fully and changed the wording where it has been pointed out, and rewrote the four articles where the wording was too close to the original referenced source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion about RAN's moves

Moved to a separate section so as not to distract from the bigger issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is may be a slight aside but it adds to the mix. Last year I noticed and undid this user's move of Willie Hoppe to William Frederick Hoppe with no explanation. This was not a close call. Willie Hoppe, known almost exclusively by that name, is one of the more dominant figures in sports of the twentieth century (though sadly many of you may not know of him today). When I moved it back I left a note on Richard's talk page which was not responded to. I now see a dispute on the talk page with Good Olfactory about his many poor moves. Having just taken a quick survey of his move log, this user appears to have moved a vast number of pages with little or no regard for our naming conventions, and yet at the same time seems to be aware of them. For example, here he moves Thomas J. Scully to Thomas Joseph Scully specifically citing the common naming policy. After being reverted he moved it back, again citing common names and says it "is the commons name in the most reliable sources, take it to talk page if you disagree". Normally you might think the users are just looking at different sources but the margin here is so wide that this just appear to be a lie: Google Books and News Archive combined return 3 results for the moved title and about 48,000 for the original title. Spot checking, I just moved William Weaver Bennett back to William W. Bennett, which suffers from a similar overwhelming disparity when checking reliable sources for the common name. This user has over 5,000 page moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem with that. Good Olfactory blocked me when we each decided on a different name for an article. His argument is that moves must be discussed at WP:RM, yet he does not use WP:RM as can be documented on my talk page. In this case when you search for "William W. Bennett" you pick up all the other people with that initial like William Wallace Bennett and William Walden Bennett and William Woods Bennett. In each case we are both arguing what is best under commonname policy which suggests to rely more heavily on what other reference works use rather than a Google search which picks up everyone with that name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with that but it should be discussed on the talk page where bold is contested and this issue seems peripheral. --Kittybrewster ☎ 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)While this problem is subordinate to the copyright violations one, and I'm wondering why you chose to answer to this one first, I still wanted to point out that this (fairly non notable) person gets 9350 Google hits for "William W. Bennett" Teaneck[12], and "William Weaver Bennett" Teaneck gives, well, 6[13]. Normally I rely more on Google books and the like, but due to the non-notability of the person, comparing 1 and 2 hits is meaningless. Fram (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Richard, I'm sorry but that doesn't even begin to pass a smell test. Nothing I've seen leads me to believe you are not smart enough to know how to do the most basic due diligence. Here you make a positive assertion that one name is more common than another and move a page based on that. Do you really need me to point out that on an amended search, as compared with the three total results for Google Books and New Archive for the name you took action on, a search of Google Books for <"Thomas J. Scully" "New Jersey" democrat> returns 1,140 results? What about the other moves? As for your dispute with Good Ol’factory, I have not looked at any other page than yours, but from what I see, you don't have a leg to stand on. He's taking action on these utterly improper moves to revert them and asking you to use WP:RM before making such moves in the future. As a party reverting your unilateral and patently bad moves, he does not need to use WP:RM for his reverts, as you argue. This implicitly equates the unilateral move with the revert. They are not equal acts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You've made blatantly incompetent insinuations that RAN has been lying. Then you make sweeping judgements about a complex dispute while admiting you only looked at Richards talk. And you have the gall to bleat about due diligence! Jesus wept! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence speaks for itself. If you have something of actual substantive to say, as opposed to snarky assertions, I'll be happy to address that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried working with RAN on the moves issues and have come to conclusion that one of two things must be true: (1) he does not understand WP:UCN and there is no perceptible chance that he will figure it out any time soon; or (2) he understands WP:UCN but chooses to ignore it after many, many requests and several blocks. I honestly don't know which is the case. For a long time I thought it was probably just a confusion issue—a more hopeful version of (1)—but now I'm leaning towards (2). When he states that "Good Olfactory blocked me when we each decided on a different name for an article."—well, that's just a blatant misrepresentation of the facts behind that incident. He either does not understand at all why he got blocked or yes, he is lying. Take your pick. And to suggest that I need to use WP:RM to reverse his controversial moves to the status quo ante is near the height of either stupidity or chutzpah. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We all have the best interest of the encyclopedia as our goal. As I have argued early, I have been giving more weight to the most reliable sources such as how the name appears in other reference works such as their official congressional biography for congressmen. A simple Google search for "John Smith" picks up all the people with that name, but when you search "John Aloysius Smith" you find just the one question so Google searches can give skewed results. I am not moving articles to nonsense names or moving J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. I have very rarely opposed someone moving the article again to what they feel is the best name, and have not overridden, that I am aware of, a !vote taken to decide the best name. If deciding the best name for an article was easy Wikipedia would have a program that did it automatically. But since there isn't an automated naming program, good people will always disagree on the best name. As in the examples on my talk page, what we have are two people deciding the best name, and one cementing their choice by blocking me. For example: User:Good Olfactory has trouble here deciding on a name change for an article I moved. He moved the article on Andrew F. McBride saying "moving back: it looks to me as if he is most commonly known as "Andrew McBride"; the initial was not and is not now commonly used" He then moved Andrew F. McBride to Andrew McBride (politician) and then moved Andrew McBride (politician) to Andrew F. McBride (politician) and then finally moved Andrew F. McBride (politician) to Andrew F. McBride. If article names were easy to decide and clearcut Good Olfactory would not have to move the article multiple times. What we have in this example are two people using their best judgement to find the best name for an article using the same resources and coming up with different answers, but one has the ability to block the other and cement in their choice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess he needs to be prohibited from making page moves until he satisfies the community that he gets the point and will abide by consensus. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pages moves is a minor tangent - If he isn't prepared to help at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108 he should be banned immediately . Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page move issue is minor when compared to the copyright violation issue. When it's all rolled up together, however, it makes a convincing case for an indefinite block until he figures things out or chooses to do so, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban?

Obviously this is a wide-ranging set of issues. Given the scope I wonder if a topic ban on creating articles and performing page moves is in order so that the problem at least does not get any bigger. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- User:RAN should be banned from any further content additions on en wikipedia and picture uploads until he has assisted in resolving his previous copyright violations. When he has resolved those he will have a clear understanding of where the en wiki policy line is and moving forward won't create the same issues. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What would that leave him to do, besides removing his own copyright violations? Not a criticism: I just want to know what (if anything) you'd like him to be able to do besides cleaning his own past problems. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal reverts, discussion threads and suchlike would be no issue, but no content additions or uploads at all while working with the copyright investigation until its all resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I thought it useful to have the clarification, because someone might construe "content additions" to include adding significant chunks of text to a discussion or un-blanking a page that a vandal had attacked. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment anyone noticed that Richard still refuses to admit any wrongdoing. if people want to give him a chance to continue on the future, there needs to be full admittance of a range of improper practices and an acknowledgement this will never occur again. Until we get this unambigious guarantee from Richard, how can we trust him in future? LibStar (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Richard Norton Richard, in the interests of knowing where you stand. Would you be willing to admit that you have deliberately flaunted WP rules despite repeated warnings especially relating to copy violations and page moves? And in doing so, would you be willing to cease all such violations in future and respect warnings from other editors for future transgressions if they occur? LibStar (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Off2RioRob unless Moonriddengirl proposes this. It does not incentivise RAN to cooperate or help. I would like her to propose a schedule of constructive things for him to do, including acknowledging past transgressions and an apology to the community for de-dusting. Don't rub his nose in his stuff because it won't benefit the pedia. Alternative may be that we lose an editor whom some might prefer to keep. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users come and go - but their copyright violations remain. Perhaps your his wiki friend and don't want to hear what MRG said - seems to me to have been quite clear as to the seriousness of the violations from User:RAN - Personally I doubt if he can survive and carry on adding content while the copyright team trawl through his copyright violations over the next months - and why should he if he is not prepared to help them. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not his wiki chum; I think we have never rubbed noses. But I don't think he is a vandal and I would like to keep him aboard to help in the de-dusting. I think blaming him and finding fault will not help much. But he needs to take responsibility for past deeds and what happens from now on. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright violator or even someone that just either doesn't understand or refuses to accept the projects copyright policy is on another level from a vandal - copyright is a legal issue. If he is not to be blocked he needs to be banned from adding any content at all until this and his previous violations are fully resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we need him to stay with us, constructively helping to launder the doilies. Without pay. And even lawyers eat honey; it encourages them. This is not about crime and punishment. I have 3 questions. 1 Is MRG prepared to work with him and create s plan for the past and the future? 2 Is he prepared to agree to it? 3 Will the community buy it? Kittybrewster ☎ 02:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to weigh in on whether or not he should be topic banned at this point, but I do want to say that I would be happy to try to help Richard work within our approach to copyright. Particularly in images, he's done some excellent work finding rare and usable materials and getting them online, and it would be great to keep him as a productive contributor. I can also draft some suggestions for how he could help with the CCI, since this is going to consume a lot of time from other volunteers. I don't have time to monitor or work with him closely, though; I am only able to work on Wikipedia as a volunteer generally for an hour or so in the mornings and weekends at this point, and I'm trying to keep up at WP:CP as well as pitching in at WP:CCI. Prior experience mentoring prolific contributors with similar issues suggests it can take quite a bit of time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both measures as extremely premature. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment towards Richard - Massive copyvios, image issues, refusal to acknowledge the issue... this could be you. In fact, if you don't bust your ass to fix this, it probably will be. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General question about WP:CCI. For example near the top there I found Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche, right next to the one for RAN, in the other column. The investigation appears pretty old and rather stalled. But the user in question seems to be happily editing elsewhere. Is this how CCI usually works? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who have been subject to a CCI and are not blocked are informally "on probation" (so to speak), any more copyvios will typically result in an indef block. The stalled investigation is a direct consequence of the lack of manpower in this area. MER-C 08:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this. There are a few cases where editors were blocked at or just before the CCI started, but it is separate from the CCI process which is only about cleaning up past mistakes. They've either been blocked by consensus at AN or ANI or by ordinary admin intervention. I have blocked several editors who continued violating copyright policies after the CCI began, as by this point people are well informed of the issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even as we speak Richard's belligerent I know best attitude continues. [14]. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say there, two people deciding the best name for an article. One has the power to block the other, the one with blocking power always wins. That isn't community consensus, or winning the argument by force-of-logic, it is winning the argument with overwhelming force. If the rule is we should be using WP:RM for moves, then set an example by using it too, when you do not like the name of an article I created. Editors respect other editors that follow the rules they are enforcing. The examples there are well documented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~When did he rename an article you created, RAN? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Lib, anyone paying a little attention knows you loathe RAN. E.g., User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Barnstar. So its comical to see your glee in this thread.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread should come to a definite result. So far four editors appear to support a topic ban while one is opposed. The situation can't go on forever as it is now, with the copyright people struggling to keep up with RAN as he creates more problems. RAN has made no concessions, criticizes those who see a need for cleanup, and seems oblivious to the damage done. One editor, User:ASCIIn2Bme has opposed a topic ban as extremely premature. I hope he will explain what further steps have to occur before the situation becomes mature. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban until, with RAN's assistance in rewriting, the whole mess of his CCI is cleaned up, and he then understands the line between copyvio and non-copyvio and commits not to make further copyvio contributions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any form of ban. In various recent edits including to this board RAN has clearly conceded there have been issues, displayed a good understanding of what he need to do to avoid further infringements, and said he is willing to help with clean up efforts. The mutliple comments in denial of this blatant fact seem a little surreal, to put it politely. Suggest closing down this whole thread and giving him time to consider whether he wants to actively assist with the CCI or just help with individual articles as others point out the need. RAN is far too excellent an editor for us to risk losing by not showing due consideration and respect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilmar eddy hilberg-jacobsen

Could someone please sandbox Vilmar eddy hilberg-jacobsen for me for a moment? The article was speedied almost exactly at the same time that its editor asked WHY WAS THIS DELETED on the talk page, and I'd like to have the courtesy of telling them what they did wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied last version to User:Onlinelondon/sandbox. Number 5 7 19:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you can re-delete now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Number 5 7 20:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting evaluation of consensus (if not premature) for an ANI topic ban thread

The thread is Wikipedia:ANI#User talk:Ludwigs2 on Talk:Muhammad/images. The topic ban sub-thread is Wikipedia:ANI#Topic Ban Proposal. Thank you, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some support. Some oppose. There's no consensus; that's obvious. Rklawton (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that, with 20 support !votes and 7 opposes. Just on the numbers that's 74% support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polling is not a substitute for discussion Chzz ► 05:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I wasn't suggesting that it was, merely pointing out that, superficially, without evaluating the quality of the arguments, there does appear to be the possibility of a consensus. That, in itself should be enough to have an uninvolved admin do a thorough and serious close of the proposed topic ban, taking into account the entire secion and L2's history as described there, not simply the comments in the topic ban sub-thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Deletion on Gilbert Gottfired

Boing! Said Zebede deleted Gilbert Gottfired, a redirect to Gilbert Gottfried, stating that it was an implausible typo. The fact of the matter is that it is a common misspelling. I believe that the page should be recreated, and policies be reviewed before such deletions are made. 17:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusyBlacksmith (talk • contribs)

That redirect got about 2-3 hits a month on average, Gilbert Gottfried gets about 1200 hits a day. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to and agreed with a Speedy Deletion request stating that as the reason - it seemed like a silly name to me ("got fired") rather than a likely misspelling. But I have no objection to its resurrection if that's the consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd rather get fried like KFC than fired like Joe Paterno.--v/r - T P 18:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Paterno didn't get fired, he resigned. Gilbert Gottfried got fired though. BusyBlacksmith (talk)

User Durneydiaz

Durneydiaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an innumerable number of articles that fall outside guidelines. Someone ought to decide whether the user should receive special counseling or a final warning. Thorncrag 18:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old AfD

I opened an AfD on October 27 and it still hasn't been closed. Would an admin take a bit of time to close it? Thanks. HurricaneFan 25 18:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 416: / Line 416: @@
 ::I responded to and agreed with a Speedy Deletion request stating that as the reason - it seemed like a silly name to me ("got fired") rather than a likely misspelling. But I have no objection to its resurrection if that's the consensus. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 18:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 :::<small>I agree.  I'd rather get fried like [[KFC]] than fired like [[Joe Paterno]].</small>--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 18:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
+Joe Paterno didn't get fired, he resigned. Gilbert Gottfried got fired though. [[User:BusyBlacksmith|BusyBlacksmith]] ([[User talk:BusyBlacksmith|talk]])
 == User Durneydiaz ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards