Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 32 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 99 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 96 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 96 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 36 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 33 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 31 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 29 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 29 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	9	0	9
TfD	0	0	6	0	6
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	84	10	94
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 253 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 76 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 73 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 71 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 32 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Range blocks

Could an admin familiar with range blocks take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer and see if anything can be done with blocking this person? I'm concerned that what we're catching of his vandalism might be the tip of the iceberg, and articles are being distorted with his misinformation without being discovered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

From which IPs has this vandal most recently been active? AGK [•] 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• 71.183.177.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.183.182.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.224.19.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.224.16.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.224.17.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

are some that I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also

• 71.183.183.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and
• 71.183.191.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Knowing nothing whatsoever about filter construction: is it possible to block certain key words only if they came from 71. or 96. addresses? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the edit filter question, so I've asked here. Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the answer is yes, you can have edit filters limited to IP ranges. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The latest IP used by this vandal is:

• 71.183.177.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Only two edits so far, but it's clearly him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Next in line 71.183.181.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• The listed ones appear to be coverable by 71.183.176.0/20 and 96.224.16.0/22, but if there are others these can be narrowed down a bit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• You'll find a full list here, if that's helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I created Special:AbuseFilter/506. We'll need to let it run log-only for a few days to be able to see what kind of edits it's catching and thus determine how we need to refine it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's excellent news. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to assist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule"

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

---

Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ANEW report

I need some help from those more knowledgeable about these sanctions and what discretion admins have to impose extra restrictions on articles (not editors). Apparently, in 2010, User:WGFinley, whom I've contacted but who hasn't been around for a couple of months due to more exciting things in his personal life, imposed an extra restriction on the Golan Heights article that not only limits editors to 1RR (typical) but also requires every content reversion to be explained on the article talk page. Guy added a separate notice to that effect on the talk page and changed the edit notice so editors are also warned when they edit the article.

My first question is can Guy do that? If the answer is yes, how is such a restriction removed? I'm struggling to see what authority an admin has to impose a restriction on an article that doesn't appear to have been supported by the ArbCom decision itself. Imposing it on editors, which has been done, makes sense to me, but much less so on articles. It's a fairly onerous restriction on all editors who edit that article. I seriously doubt it's being followed or that editors are being even-handedly sanctioned for not heeding it, but I haven't researched that. Even assuming we (admins) have the discretion to do such a thing, there must be some guidelines as to when it's appropriate and when it's not. After all, here, it's been in place for over 3 years. Ironically, the editor who's been accused of violating it was at one time under such a restriction as an editor, but that restriction expired (or was lifted).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he can't. That's not the intent of discretionary sanctions -- I'd fix the editnotice if I could but I ain't got the bits for it. NE Ent 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll investigate the specifics, but those sorts of restrictions can sometimes be implemented as a result of AE threads; we did it some months ago at Nagorno-Karabakh. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It was done as arbitration enforcement in this thread. It can be removed via a thread at WP:AE. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Such restrictions have been allowed for some time. Mass killings under Communist regimes was actually placed under article-specific restrictions through AE. The success rate and practicality of these more nuanced restrictions would be another matter for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, ArbCom has been asked several times about such restrictions, and they have, without exception, been seen as valid uses of the discretionary sanctions system. Whether this one would be upheld if appealed to AE or the Committee I do not know, but the idea of article-level sanctions is pretty much been settled. Courcelles 06:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified Guy both on his talk page and by email. He still participates in MedCom mailing list discussions, so I wouldn't be too surprised if he drops by to leave a message. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing that; I should have at least notified him on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• So, let's see if I can crystallize this a bit based on the above comments:

1. Any admin can impose an article-level sanction like the one Guy did.
2. Such a sanction can be appealed to ArbCom.
3. Can an admin remove such a sanction without going to ArbCom, or would that be viewed in the same way as unblocking a user who was sanctioned?
4. Are there any guidelines for imposing such a sanction or for the duration of the sanction?

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The standard rules governing appeals of AE sanctions apply; you can either go to ArbCom or try to get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to lift the sanction.

There is no special guideline for article-level sanctions that I'm aware of. T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Timotheus, particularly for the link. The lack of a guideline is disturbing because I don't even know how to justify a request to terminate the additional restriction if there's no guideline for its imposition in the first instance. Perhaps a trip to AE will clarify some of these problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• The discretionary sanction authorization states "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working" (emphasis mine). It does not say an uninvolved administrator can make up new rules for a page.
• The procedures say "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" -- is there any evidence this was done?
• A cursory review of article history and talk history shows the "must use talk page" restriction is clearly not being followed. Drawing a line in the sand and then not enforcing breeds contempt, not respect. And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions clearly states it can be overturned by consensus here (WP:AN).
• Given the widespread ignoring of the restriction, how can an editor reasonably file a AE request for enforcement without running afoul of the "unclean hands" warning at AE? NE Ent 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Ent, I tend to agree with everything you've said, although I confess that I haven't macheted my way through the thicket of policy, practice, arbitration decisions, etc. What enforcement action would we be overturning if we had a consensus here? Guy's? If so, Timotheus already made that point. Perhaps seeking clarification would be a better way to go. I'm musing as much as anything because connecting the dots in these things gives me a headache.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will say that one of the biggest problems with this sanction has been editors pushing for enforcement without clearly notifying the party violating the restriction. Nowhere do I see that Gilabrand was ever made aware of this article-specific restriction. However, Gilabrand does appear to have violated the standard ARBPIA 1RR on another article ([1] [2]).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• In theory, one doesn't have to be specifically warned. That said, it is on the article talk page, just as the other restrictions are, and it pops up in an edit notice box when you edit the article, meaning there is as much warning as there is for the 1RR restriction itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• The edit notice isn't markedly different from the standard 1RR edit notice. Editors who are already aware of the 1RR are likely to ignore the notice, thinking it is just the standard one. Personally, I find that quite a lot of editors tend to not pay attention to edit notices. My view is that such notices should not be taken the same as a user talk page notification, which is much less likely to be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Gilabrand personally received a notice with the rules:[3]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I did not see that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness is a walking historical reference for this stuff. It's impressive and almost scary. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• In any event, based on your allegations that Gilabrand violated 1RR elsewhere, I have notified them of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Having read some twenty line truth table edit notices on user talk pages -- If it's Tuesday and it's about an image, I'll reply on your page, but on Wednesday ... -- I pretty much ignore them. NE Ent 22:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, looking further, it seems Gilabrand has been previously sanctioned in a very similar fashion and has been notified of the specific restriction on the Golan Heights article, in addition to recently violating 1RR on another article. I think maybe this should have been taken to AE given that the article-specific restriction is not a simple 1RR, but there does appear to be sufficient cause for action against Gilabrand. Any administrator reviewing this discussion could take action per the discretionary sanctions.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a fairly technical reading of the discretionary sanctions provisions that allows such sanctions, as explained in Kirill's comment in this old request for clarification.

  Sanctions like this are usually lifted either when they are no longer necessary or if they have proven unworkable.

  I'd prefer any complaint against Gilabrand to be filed at AE so that we have a more orderly presentation than this mess of a thread. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• However in the same thread Risker notes "Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely" and Carcharoth noted "articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely," As the restriction is two years old it's reasonable to address whether the sanction should remain in place. NE Ent 02:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• It might be worth noting that the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions does allow "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" which does not require as much of a technical stretch of the older wording. That said, Risker's caveat that it is wise to periodically review article-level sanctions for continued relevance is also appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any admins that wish to monitor the discussion requirement at Talk:Golan Heights? At present the complete edit notice says:

In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.

Though I see no problem with this being a valid restriction which an admin could impose under discretionary sanctions, I'm not sure it is doing any good. People keep forgetting that this restriction exists. Why not abolish it for now. A consensus here (of uninvolved editors) could lift the restriction. Any admin could reimpose it in the future if they are persuaded there is a need. AE retains plenty of authority to deal with edit-warring at Golan Heights if it is found to be a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't find the ArbCom clarification decision on the Armenian article to be very satisfying. Although the arbitrators discuss the 1RR restriction imposed by the admin (back in 2008 - the decision was in 2010), it was not just a 1RR restriction but also a requirement, as in the Golan Heights article, that any reverter explain their revert on the talk page. Yet the arbitrators don't mention that. In addition, although there is a "warning" on the article talk page, the edit notice on the Armenian article doesn't include a warning about the explanation requirement. And those restrictions have now been in place for 4 years - has anyone even checked whether the talk page explanation requirement is being enforced?

I agree with Ed. We should remove the explanation restriction imposed at Golan Heights. There seems to be no current justification for it, and enforcement appears to be completely uneven. I do a lot of closures at ANEW, and I'm not at all happy with the inherent unfairness of blocking one editor for failing to explain, yet allowing so many other editors to do the same thing but not be sanctioned. It's already hard enough looking through the edit history of these articles, which is often heavy, because I don't look just at the conduct of the person reported but at the conduct of other editors as well (that's typical in any ANEW report).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Ed that we should remove the explanation restriction as no longer being necessary or reasonable to maintain the article's integrity. MBisanz ^talk 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to lift Golan Heights restriction

The restriction on the Golan Heights article requiring that editors explain reverts on the talk page is lifted. General 1RR restriction on article imposed by the ARBPIA case is unaffected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support There are no edit wars there so its not necessary.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support as above. Note that User:EdJohnston and User:Mbisanz appear to support removal of the restriction.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comments above.NE Ent 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In this thread, nobody has spoken up in favor of retaining the restriction, so it looks like it will be lifted. Unless some hitherto uninvolved admin wants to come by and declare the sense of this thread I will enact a closure in a few hours. The wording of the restriction is given in the box above, and it applies only to the Golan Heights article. Currently the restriction forces all reverts to be discussed on the Talk page. That discussion requirement is to be lifted but the 1RR remains in effect, since it applies to all of the ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I did what Ed said he planned to do. For clarity and in case I forgot something, this is what I did: (1) I removed the discussion restriction on the talk page of the article; (2) I changed the editnotice to remove the discussion requirement; and (3) I logged what I did at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. I will now close this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin smoke signals needed

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) deleted Template:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes with the explanation that it was T3: Unused, redundant template. It was neither unused nor redundant. The first instruction at WP:DRV says "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first", which is difficult if he is ignoring me. I thought one of you admins might call his attention to a ridiculous deletion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So take it to DRV since he made it quite obvious he doesn't want to discuss it (with you anyway). Tijfo098 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've undeleted it. A contested speedy (not for urgent things like attacks or copyvios) is better served with undeletion and TfD if necessary. The template was not unused, but has a lot of redundancy with another one. Some solution for this can be discussed, but refusing even to give an explanation for a deletion is not the best way to handle this. If this had been posted at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, it would normally have been restored, so I see no reason not to do the same here. Fram (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've notified Schumin. Would be interesting to hear why he's ignoring seemingly valid concerns from a number of editors. GiantSnowman 08:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the massive dispute at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25, this will probably land at ArbCom as NFCC round n+1. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic response to my AN notification on his talk page... GiantSnowman 12:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear about this; the template deletion/undeletion has nothing to do with NFCC. There may or may not be a more general problem with this admins recent deletions, but that's the only link between the NFCC ones and this one. Fram (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems we have an issue of WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." This administrator has ignored calls to explain themselves on two different deletions with different editors. Do we need to proceed to an WP:RFC/U?--v/r - TP 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram, thanks. I had been hoping for an undelete all along. I just thought that with two requests for reconsideration, he might do it himelf. My part in the issue is not such that I would want to lead an RFC. Since 5 of the 8 (7 of 10 if you count the title) links are redundant with {{Anita Loos}}, I understand that upon a quick review, an admin tasked with deleting a ton of stuff might mistakenly speedy this template. I will WP:AGF in regard to his intention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While a deletion may be a mistake (we've all made them!), ignoring the concerns is not. TParis, I agree that RFCU is a good route to go down. GiantSnowman 15:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Admins closing as Delete even when the deletion discussion has a clear Keep consensus?. GiantSnowman 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have re-added the notification to here on Schumin's talk page. How he responds will influence whether to endorse his opinion or that of those posting above. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'd previously seen him do exactly the same thing with another improperly deleted page - delete, move on, repeatedly ignore queries. I'm happy to co-sign an RfC into this. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Let's see if he provides any answers in the morning (22:30 UK time!). GiantSnowman 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• If this admin is deleting image files against clear community consensus to retain them in the cases being made reference to here it should be understood that this admin has a long history of engaging in this practice often resulting in these deletions being reversed after a review is requested. This admin also has a history of arbitrarily removing long standing "non-free" images from articles even though they have been correctly justified and provided with complete conforming rationales for their use. After unilaterally removing the image files, the admin also usually then immediately deletes the images themselves without going through the normal community review process on the specious grounds that they are "orphaned" non-free files. These practices are contrary to both the spirit and letter of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• His methods and, um, highly personal theories have been a problem for years, as I commented in the DRV. At the very least he should be forbidden from deleting images himself and from using methods for getting them deleted that bypass explicit review. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I also had a problem with one of his recent image closes, not only on the merits of the close itself but with his failure to give me a meaningful response. The discussion on his talk page is now archived here; the FFD in question is here. postdlf (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was rather surprised at this particular close. The nominator brought forward a new reason against the deletion rationale. I was the only person saying "delete" but stated my !vote was non-policy-based. More importantly, the curtailed discussion was unsatisfactory. I felt on a previous occasion I had been treated similarly.[4] Thincat (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate that SchuminWeb may be feeling a little beat up on here, but in order to stave off an RfCU I really think he needs to stop by here and address these concerns. The response so far is not ideal; I hope he reconsiders. I'd love to have him stick around here helping with admin tasks, but the accountability thing is not optional. 28bytes (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed - his comment that "Apparently this has brought every person with whom I've ever disagreed in nearly eight years here out of the woodwork" is ridiculous; I can't speak for anyone else but I don't ever think I've ever interacted with SW before. It seems like a way of deflecting valid criticism. GiantSnowman 10:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have spelled it out as best I can. I really can't do any more than that - I fully predict that if this gets to RfCU, he'll feel trapped in a corner and - boom - we've lost another good editor :-( (though I'm willing to be proved wrong on that one) --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• All he has to do is to explain himself here - he has failed to respond. If that continues, RFCU will be the only option. GiantSnowman 15:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate what you're saying, but think a few moves ahead and put yourself in his shoes for a minute. He's done lots of edits that he sincerely believes are within policy and within good faith, and is suffering from editor fatigue. Do you honestly think that if you file a RfCU against him, he won't say "stuff this for a game of soldiers, I'm off" and leave the project? The relevant deletion review is still active - let's wait and see what the result of that is before acting in haste. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• If there are genuine concerns regarding an editor behaviour that give rise to a valid WP:RFC/U filling, then it should be filed. Otherwise every problem editors who are having their conduct questioned can just threaten to leave the project to stop any complaints in its track. -- KTC (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Ritchie, I don't want to lose an editor or an admin either, but I'm not willing to accept an "if you criticize me I'll leave" ultimatum from an administrator either. We simply have to hold admins to a certain standard of accountability, even if they find that annoying sometimes. If this were the first time he'd alluded to taking a break in the face of concerns about his admin behavior, that would be one thing, but it's not. I don't think he's a bad guy or anything, he just needs to engage with legitimate concerns and hopefully indicate he understands what people are telling him. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think there's a bit of confusion over what I meant. I'm not talking about threatening to leave, I'm talking about actually leaving. As in, he voluntarily hands in his bit, gets desysopped, and puts {{retired}} on his page. The past precedent for this (amongst others) is EncycloPetey (talk · contribs), who, on failure to justify WP:INVOLVED, elected to leave WP and lost his bit in the process. To be honest, I see SchuminWeb's point of view - WP:FFD has a slightly different emphasis to WP:AfD as non-free files are in direct conflict with Wikipedia's pillar of free content, so cases for keeping them have to be watertight. Mind you, here Schumin wrote "I made a decision to close a large number of deletion discussions as delete that I knew would be unpopular because they're about people's precious television shows" so he really should have expected blowback on that, and responded to it, otherwise it's a somewhat misguided move. He could have just !voted delete as an editor and got an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I hear you, and I don't want to see him leave either, but if our only choice is to sweep legitimate concerns under the rug out of fear he might quit, that doesn't really leave us in a tenable position. 28bytes (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would simply like the record to show that my only interaction with this admin regarding deletion has been civil and productive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking from my own experience as an editor and as an admin who has been involved in the project for close to a decade, it's an important responsibility to realize when it's time to take a break (whether from a particular area or from the project as a whole) because you're getting too personally worked up, and/or getting others too personally worked up. It's certainly nothing new for NFC issues to be contentious and emotional, so that kind of self-awareness and self-restraint is especially needed if you're going to work in that area. postdlf (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted closure [5]. Purpose of this board includes discussion of administration methods, -- that does not imply every discussion must result in an administrative action. NE Ent 22:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what forcing this back open (without even bothering to inform me you had undone what I consider an administrative action) is intended to accomplish? No formal sanction is even proposed, the subject of the discussion is not participating, the disputed actions are being discussed elsewhere. As I indicated in my close RFC/U is an appropriate forum if prolonged discussion of these issues is needed. What is the purpose of re-opening this? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't force anything, I edited. It's not an administrative action. You don't know whether the participant is reading the thread or not, and the more users to go on record as expressing their disapproval the more powerful the message will be; therefore the purpose is to allow discussion to continue to see if anyone has anything else to say -- if they don't, the bot will get to it soon enough. The more appropriate question is what basis was there for Beeblebrox deciding the conversation was over? NE Ent 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Adminstrative actions that have been performed on the basis of a consensus, after due process, should not be reversible without a process of their own (which is why you need a DRV to reverse an AfD closure). But administrative actions performed unilaterally, on the basis of the administrator's personal opinion carry no more weight or authority than actions by any other editor. Such actions can be reversed by any editor. So NE Ent's reversing of the close was reasonable in all the circumstances. If another administrator re-closes it, of course, then NE Ent ought to leave it alone, but I would hope that our admin corps will be capable of seeing the benefits of letting users have their say.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Another example of SchuminWeb ignoring queries about his admin actions occurred regarding Chagos Islands national football team, undeleted at WP:REFUND only to be speedy deleted WP:CSD#G4. I feel this is either a shocking misapplication of policy (using G4 to delete an page that had been deliberately undeleted) or gross negligence (failing to even check the logs), but the undeleting admin refused to wheelwar and referred the user to SchuminWeb's talk page. The appeal there went unanswered. Kilopi (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. An administrator had acknowledged the previous AfDs and determined that the consensus to delete was obsolete. The speedy re-deletion is outrageous. This is either gross incompetence or patent abuse (and I've restored it. It was restored reasonably and according to process; the same clearly cannot be said about its deletion, particularly when any attempt at discussion is refused. Swarm ^X 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

RFCU

• I think the re-opening of this thread is a good thing - not to discuss this any further here, but for editors to open the RFCU that is so clearly needed. Any volunteers? I would do so myself but will probably be busy over the weekend. GiantSnowman 15:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Paid Wikipedia editors advertizing on Facebook

I saw an ad for this on my Facebook page a couple of minutes ago: http://www.wikiexperts.us/

The ad reads, "We write, improve, translate, monitor, update and protect Wikipedia profiles." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

One of many companies out there - and unfortunately there's no policy against paid editing. GiantSnowman 20:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

However, their logo incorporates the "wiki-globe" logo, which is in fact copyrighted. I'm going to find someone from the legal team and let them know about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I let them know a couple of weeks ago - they're pretty overworked right now. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal is well aware of these guys. It's being worked. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it the old "send the, a letter from a lawyer and that should be the end of it" trick didn't work? It usually does in cases like this, but maybe these guys are more the stubborn type. (consider this a rhetorical question, I realize it is unlikely you would post the intimate details of a legal proceeding here) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary protection

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates is protected contrary to policy; see prior discussion Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates#protection.3F and Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive#24_November_2012. Could somebody unprotect, or, actually give a policy based rationale for its protection? NE Ent 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a thread about this on another talk page already? (Which I think you linked to.) Why the need for another venue? - jc37 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion died there. NE Ent 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really die. It served its purpose and concluded. It would seem you just don't like the outcome. The page will likely be unprotected after the election. Until then, it can stay. Has been done this way a while. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

High-visibility page. Important to an ongoing, time-limited, wikipolitically-sensitive process. No good reason for non-admins (or, really, admins, except under very limited circumstances) to make any modifications. Not an article or talk page. The lack of previous vandalism doesn't negate the value of preventive protection; even one instance of serious vandalism could affect the (perceived) integrity of the election process. I own a fire extinguisher, even though I don't plan to need it.

Beats me if some or all or any of those are explicitly within the word of the policy, but they're all in the spirit. Do you have a good common sense reason to unprotect, or are you just stirring the pot? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that is beyond the explicit scope of the protection policy. For reference, last year, afaik, the only page we protected was the official questions page, and that was because we wanted to make sure that the same version was transcluded for each candidate, also not strictly speaking within the scope of the policy. Monty₈₄₅ 16:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation here, but I'd suggest that drawing attention to the page here, and asking for protection to be removed, is a sure-fire way to ensure that the page will be vandalised if it is unprotected... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think protection is appropriate here. There are 3 necessary questions which need to be asked in determining this for any page:

1. Would Wikipedia gain anything from non-admins editing the page? In this case, clearly not. No one should be eiting it.
2. Would limiting who can edit the page scare away potential users? No way; anyone who knows enough to find this page, unless sent there for disruptive purposes, is probably familiar enough with Wikipedia to understand that this page's integrety needs to be kept.
3. Would there be any harm to Wikipedia, its articles or its community if the page is edited disruptively? Here, the answer is yes; the integrety of te election depends on it.

Since questions 1 and 2 show no reason for not protecting the page, and question 3 gives a reason for protection, the page should definitely be protected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The 1 necessary question which should be asked is -- is the protection consistent with policy? Obviously not. With regards to Od Mishehu's strawman questions:

1. Review of past year's pages show sporadic maintenance edits, e.g. category changes. No reason why that should require an editor with a sysop bit.
2. The issue is the continued spread of protection-itis -- we've see it with talk pages of blocked users, templates with lots of transclusions, templates with few transclusions -- where does it stop? Is the written policy a quaint anachronism, and the real policy -- if we can't up with a reason a peon editor should edit it, no harm done?
3. Integrity of the election? Absurd, voters cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259. -- does editing the candidate page change the contents of the voting page?

When I inquired at the talk page, the justification given was a. there wouldn't be any need to protect it, and b. it was standard operating procedure. Review of past year's pages shows both reasons to be untrue. I was just wondering if anyone could come up with a reasonable explanation consistent with written policy and the anyone can edit meme of Wikipedia. I'm disappointed but unfortunately not surprised no one has thus far. NE Ent 00:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So no specific reason why it should be unprotected then, beyond the usual 'slippery slope' fallacy... As for your suggestion that editing the page couldn't affect the integrity of the election, supposing someone vandalised it by adding negative material to a candidate's statement? In any case, 'anyone can edit' may be a meme, but it sure as hell isn't policy - we restrict editing all the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Supposing someone vandalism the candidate's question page? e.g. There aren't protected. Does that affect the integrity of the election? NE Ent 22:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No NE Ent, that's not the "1 necessary question", and I'm disappointed to see you framing the situation that way. If you need a policy, please refer to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." Or, for that matter, WP:POLICY: "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules. Conversely, those who violate the spirit of a rule may be reprimanded even if no rule has technically been broken." I'll ask again—do you have a good common sense reason to unprotect, or are you just stirring the pot? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift a topic ban

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

---

This is a request to lift the indefinite topic ban that is currently imposed on me (User:Alan Liefting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) on non-mainspace category related edits. The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Topic ban for Alan Liefting and it attracted eight editors in support of a topic ban. Of those editors three used the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum and one gave no supporting arguments. That leaves four remaining !votes:

• GiantSnowman based his/her !vote on the fact that I am removing categories from AfC pages that are present in content categories. She/he then proceeded to block me, calling it is disruptive editing. It is utterly ludicrous to describe the clean up of polluted categories as disruptive.

• Andy Dingley suggested a wider topic ban than the one suggested. I am certain that Andy's !vote is coloured by a disagreement that we have had in the past on categorisation related edits. Interestingly, from what I read here he is supportive of some of the edits that actually caused the escalation of this issue.

• Arthur Rubin based his !vote on previous discussions and the reasoning is unclear to me. He did not actually describe his concerns in the topic ban discussion (I hope the closing admin did due diligence and followed all the previous convoluted discussions!). Arthur had blocked me at one point for "Disruptive editing: Specifically, removing categories from AfC pages, rather than quoting them." To me, as well as others, it seems to be a very petty and heavy handed use of what is a very powerful admin tool.

• postdlf has supported the ban saying that I am ignoring a "clearly demonstrated consensus" and cited an RfC in which I failed to get a guideline established based on what is done by convention. In the absence of policy or guideline what is wrong with editing to what is done by convention? To his/her credit postdlf has made attempts to resolve the issue, including talk page discussions and partaking in a proposed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories that I had instigated.

It seems most of the editors involved with having the topic ban being imposed on me fail to see some of the unwritten conventions with respect to categorisation. If editors drill down from Category:Fundamental categories and Category:Main topic classifications (of which none of their subcategories have any images) it is easy to see that images are not included in content categories. My contentious category editing, described as "disruptive" by some, is simply done to the prevailing convention, to ensure consistency, and to benefit the reader.

Note that prior to having the topic ban placed on me a huge amount of my editing was focussed on categorisation. That, coupled with my high edit count inevitably led to differences of opinion and these differences are but a small part of my editing history. Additionally, categories are not visited as often as articles, and image pages probably even less so. I have now wasted a huge amount of time and energy in defending myself on this issue with absolutely no benefit to the project. We are volunteers but that does not mean that our time and energy can be wasted. We should also put things into context - cost-benefit analysis and all that.

Fram, the nominator of the topic ban, apparently has a prediliction for hounding some of the high edit count editors. See this and this. Fram's actions, coupled with my talk page stalkers and the bad blood between myself and a few editors appears to have escalated the issue. Also, in the case of the edits mentioned in the nomination I don't understand why the WP:BRD process was not used. And given that Fram expressed some uncertainty on the reason for my edits in the nomination trotting off to WP:AN is very poor form.

Given the foregoing rationale I argue that the topic ban is based on poor decision making and it does nothing to assist with building Wikipedia. I would also like to point out that I am on occasion asked for guidance on category related edits by editors who find the categorisation of pages a bit confusing. This should surely indicate that I am seen as somewhat of an expert on categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Given the frequency of his appeals to this ban I propose that Alan be prohibited from posting further appeals for a period of six months, and limited to one request for lifting it every three months thereafter. Failure to abide by these restrictions would result in escalating blocks, as with the original ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. The initial ban was in fact based on consensus, and that consensus was upheld the last it was appealed by Alan. While he is free to disagree with the ban, he does need to just accept it and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So how many times have I appealed the topic ban?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You just had an appeal denied a few weeks ago [6] and you have been blocked a few times for violating it. This kind of WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I had completely forgot about that appeal. I think this whole messy issue is making my brain go soft. Maybe I should seek another venue? Or would that smack too much of forum shopping? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would. This is an entirely appropriate venue, the problem is the brief time frame between appeals. Since you now claim not to remember doing this barely two weeks ago a formal restriction to help you remember seems even more apt. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Anybody who would make this and this change to images of Obama's relatives cannot be allowed further access to categories. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate - there is a convention whereby images are not included in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The word you chose—"convention"—makes me think that you refer to a poorly defined practice with which others disagree. If the images were not allowed in content categories because of an explicit guideline I'm sure you would have said so. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, to say "not allowed" is not really the sort of language used with respect to editing wikis. As I have stated there is an unwritten convention to separate images and content (as well as templates etc). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why were you reverted? Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My edits are reverted because of a difference of opinion and because some editors are not making themselves familiar with what is common practice. Surely you see it happening yourself? Everyone from newbies to the long in the tooth wiki-heads make edits that are reverted because they are not completely familiar with every single aspect of Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia has become a very complex beast making it virtually impossible for an editor to be fully conversant with the whole shebang. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a poor excuse for failing to gain consensus, failing to establish a firm guideline. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, there is a disconnect between what is done by the majority of editors and a handful of involved editors. Please go out and research the issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Beeblebrox. The message does not seem to be getting through and the repeated requests to lift the topic ban are disruptive. - MrX 23:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And I could argue that my request is not being given due consideration. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Beeblebrox, and largely per Null's comments from the last time Alan asked for the ban to be lifted, which I am surprised to learn about now. When would we ever lift a ban when the same conduct can be expected to continue, and the very clearly drawn ban hadn't been complied with? postdlf (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain to everyone what was wrong with my conduct? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I continue to hope that Alan Liefting will come to the understanding that the pattern of editing he still wants to undertake is disruptive and agrees to stop. I would trust him if he pledged to do so, and don't see a reason he should be made to wait 6 months if he does come to that understanding. That said, I also oppose lifting the topic ban until that time. Monty₈₄₅ 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say my pattern of editing is disruptive? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

First as a matter of background, there is no policy or guideline that declares one way or another whether images should be in content categories. You undertook a pattern of editing that involved removing images from content categories. Other editors who object to your pattern of editing have reverted you. You refused to stop your pattern of editing, and even now say you will continue it if your topic ban is lifted. Now I understand you believe there is an unwritten consensus in favor of your editing pattern, and I have no doubt about the sincerity of your belief. Nonetheless, in all the discussion on the matter, including a full RFC, that consensus has never been established to the satisfaction of uninvolved editors. In light of which, continuing the pattern of editing is disruptive. Monty₈₄₅ 02:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Alan still appears to have no comprehension as to what the original problem was and sees this merely as a Gulliverian attempt by the little people to tie him down. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me and to editors unfamiliar with the issue what the actual problem is? And I take issue with your suggestion that I am not wiki-egalitarian. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alan, it's up to you how to handle this but for the record arguing with every single person whose post you disagree with is generally not going to help your cause. I would in fact suggest that it is indicative of the same sort of issue that led to the topic ban in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken but I cannot let the poor quality of the arguments go unchallenged. As I pointed out in my request the decision making surrounding the issue is very poor. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, point not taken. Are you saying that the closing admin makes a decision on how many comments I make? I f that is the case I have no faith in the process. In the original discussion my complete silence in the discussion was construed by GiantSnowman to be some kind sign. Can't win can I! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is a wiki - the history is there for all to see. Anyone can see the slow-moving train wreck of a process. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a wiki, where the history is there for all to see. This includes this RFC you started trying to make policy out of your above-mentioned 'convention', which was soundly rejected. While you state this convention exists without evidence, that RFC is evidence to the contrary. Why do you continue to ignore its outcome? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 02:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read my request. I have suggested a method by which this convention can be check. Please go off and check for yourself. And please assume good faith. I am not making it up. It is there for all to see. This is the nub of the argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Unfortunately necessary per WP:IDHT. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Unfortunate Support - of course, I would have made it 12 months, but meh. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support First, despite Alan Liefting accusing me in his opening statement of some things on the say-so of Kumioko, he hasn't bothered to inform me that he did discuss me. He also went to Jimbo Wales to get his opinion in User talk:Jimbo Wales#Do you consider image and template pages to be content?, again referring to some unwritten convention (the silent majority argument), but forgot to mention a few counterarguments which I helpfully provided there, like the RfC that backfired. The reason for the topic ban was that Alan Liefting removed images from categories indiscriminately for no good reason ("no good reason", as established by the RfC), continued after being warned and blocked, and indicated that he would continue to make such edits. It's similar to his edit today on Krásna Hôrka Castle: while the removal of the article from the two "fire" categories may be debatable, the removal of an ancestral home of a notable family from the category for that family doesn't improve Wikipedia one bit and doesn't help the readers at all, but makes it harder for them to find connected information. Such lapses in judging categorization, while asking (again!) for the lifting of a topic ban where he wants to use even less judgment and just proceed blindly, makes it obvious that this topic ban shouldn't be lifted anytime soon and that further requests to lift it are only a waste of time for the near future. Fram (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support if someone is subject to a topic ban and wants to appeal it, then they should, at minimum, give some kind of assurance that the behaviour that led to the topic ban being imposed will not be repeated. I don't see anything like that with the two appeals that have been made in a short space of time. Instead the appeals try to argue the original topic ban was invalid, which isn't going to work - it's obvious that before the topic ban was imposed Alan was repeatedly making edits in defiance of community consensus and unwilling to listen to those telling him not to do so. If Alan does want the topic ban to be lifted, then I would suggest acknowledging the existence of a community consensus on this topic and agreeing to abide by it, even if he doesn't agree with it. Hut 8.5 11:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support no indication that the disruption is going to stop, actually the opposite. Agathoclea (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I refer Alan to the heartfelt comments I left for him the last time he appealed this ban. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support while Alan's dedication to "the reader" is admirable, this is a collegiate project, and it appears that he does not understand that from repeated blocks following the violation of a topic ban which he had already failed to have overturned, he would be best advised to consider both "the reader" and "his fellow editors" in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Actually one year would be my preference. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Question

Hello. I'm not sure this is the right and proper place for this question but I don't know where else to go. I have been editing Wikipedia since January 2005 under my username. I have never had an unmanageable problem with anyone. I find myself in a tough spot with User:Yankees76. I had questioned his intentions on deleting some Further Reading references in the Invicta Watch Group article. I admit to being a bit miffed by the unilateral deletes of the material he labeled as "link spam" which it wasn't. I left a message on Yankees76 talk page. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees76&oldid=525153902#IWG. I also asked for guidance from a longtime Wikipedia admin I've asked before, User:SchuminWeb on his talk page. He said the links in this case were probably not okay and I then thanked him (Schumin) and left a message on Yankees76 talk page, saying that I took his point and thanks. That's where I expected it to end. Instead, it feels like User:Yankees76 is following me around on Wikipedia and also interjecting what seems to be vitriolic comments in my discussion with Schumin on his talk page.

And Yankee76's original comment on his talk page to me after I said I took his point and thanks.

Go away. I don't appreciate the tone of your comments here, nor do I appreciate having my edits questioned on an administrators talk page without even the opportunity to defend or discuss them first on the articles talk page. Much the same way I didn't report you to WP:ANI for posting link spam (where at least you would have been notified that you were the subject of discussion - something you failed to afford me); you should not be running to administrators every time someone undoes an edit you make. I would suggest you read WP:AGF before interacting with other editors on Wikipedia in the future.

With regards to the edits themselves, the edit comments were not directed at any one editor - they're an explanation of why the material was removed for future editors so they're not added back. There was no "tone". If I wanted to communicate with YOU specifically about your edits and warn you about posting WP:LINKSPAM, I'd have left a note on your talk page.

The first two links that I removed are links to a forum discussion which does not pass WP:ELNO (see Links normally to be avoided #10). Also forums without editorial oversight are not considered reliable sources, so there is no reason for them to be included in the article. The third link is a press release/media kit that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Note that there's already an external link to the official Invicta website, which features much of, if not all of the same information. While "Further Reading" may have a place in articles to direct readers to additional published literature on the subject, a "Further Reading" headline should not be used as an tool to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines on posting link spam.

I'll give you a day to read this before I remove this pointless conversation. If you have any further issues with the article or edits made to it, please start a discussion on that article's talk page. Don't post here again. --Yankees76 Talk 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider this later comment interjected by Yankees76 on Schumin's talk page after I considered the matter closed.

• "Oh sorry, the full response is actually this link.[1] Wikiklrsc if you're going to continue this and fabricate to your administrative handler how I made "threats" to you, you should probably link the full response. Either way I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this (your links are not going back on the article, and I'm not going to get blocked for my response to you on my talk page), so posting here and continuing this little show that you've got going on, even after I called you out for doing so (my "bad reaction"), does not show alot of integrity on your part. --Yankees76 Talk 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)"

He said Ben Schumin is my "administrative handler"? And that he (Yankees76) "called me out"? A bit too much. I hadn't done anything wrong to be "called out" whatever that idiom actually means in this context.

Can this be made to stop? I just want to get back to my quiet editing on Wikipedia. But I feel threatened by this editor. Maybe I've just never been exposed to this kind of serious pointed assaults in my seven years on Wikipedia and so I'm unduly caught by surprise by an everyday event.

Might you please advise me on how to get this person off my back for unjust reasons? It's feeling a lot like harassment to me.

If I'm wrong in this matter, I'll take it as a lesson.

Thanks in advance. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll make this short since I'm not really into wasting administrator time over pointless squabbles.

1) I removed a number of spam links to a web forum that were posted on the Invicta Watch Group article.[7]

2) I receive a number of notes on my talk page from another editor (Wikiklrsc) with whom I've never interacted with chastising me for the "tone" (whatever that means) of my edits, stating (incorrectly) that the links were not spam all while attempting to intimidate me by touting their own long editing history and how my "presumptions and unilateral removals were a bit off-kilter". A quick look through their editing history finds that this user has subsequently complained to an administrator that he/she has dealt with in the past, is on a first name basis with, and who is also under investigation for acting unilaterally without consensus and misapplying policy[8] (I sense a theme here). They post on User talk:SchuminWeb questioning my actions without 1) starting a discussion on the article's talk page or 2) affording me an opportunity to discuss my edits or address any of the inflammatory statements on my own talk page. The post on the administrators page was more about the contributor and not the content. Clearly this is not an assumption of good faith, as I never accused this particular user of even posting the links in the first place, nor did I post any sort of warning or comment on his or any other editors or administrators talk page about him/her posting the removed links.

3) I explain this to Wikiklrsc responding on my talk page (see above), and note my displeasure at his/her accusatory tone on my talk page - commenting on contributors and not content, and without even offering one reason why the edit was wrong - and I called him/her out for their subversive behavior by involving Wikipedia adminstration without even attempting to work towards a consensus on the article's talk page, which is standard protocol that any long-standing editor would be aware of. I also ask Wikiklrsc to take further issues up on the article's talk page, and not mine. After 24 hours to allow the user to view the comments and understand them, I then remove both his and my comments from my talk page assuming the issue is closed. In the meantime, the administrator, User:SchuminWeb, confirms that the links did not belong on the article. (As it turns out the spam links were added by Wikiklrsc)

4) Anyways, after removing the discussion and assuming the issue has been dropped, I notice that Wikiklrsc continues to press the issue and posts what I'm now considering personal attacks on SchuminWeb's talk page [9] claiming I made threats toward him/her - which is a total fabrication (and a WP:NPA). Wikiklrsc even went so far as to post an outdated link to my reply on my talk page - , not to the final comment I posted [10] no, but instead to an earlier version that was incomplete.[11], unfairly representing my situation - all while continuing to focus on the editor, and not the edits. Why he did this, other than to further draw my ire is unknown. If they considered the matter closed as was stated above, why even bother with that post in the first place? In retrospect, it appears to me he was just looking to escalate the issue, and I should have simply not "fed the troll". My error.

5) And now this - accusing me of stalking them? Stalking him would mean I'm following him around numerous articles and being disruptive. This accusation is ridiculous. Take a look at this editors contributions over the last few days - they have been mostly confined to this subject/"dispute", while I've contributed to numerous other articles and moved on. This is not stalking. In fact, I should be asking Wikipedia administrators to ask this editor to "stop", and to stop harassing me on other users talk pages; and perhaps even warn or further educate them about adding spam links, for not assuming good faith or working towards a consensus, and for continued harassment of another editor.

In conclusion, I don't wish the deal with this particular editor, I especially don't want them spamming my talk page with ludicrous statements about my "tone" when removing obvious spam (or posting there even after I ask them to not post there in the future). Simple as that. I removed 2 spam links to web forums that were posted in an article, and another link that was redundant. I explained why. These types of reactions from over-zealous editors who's content is removed or edited are one reason why numerous contributors to Wikipedia simply don't bother removing sub-par material or material that doesn't meet Wikiedpia guidelines. It's not worth the hassle. This is my last comment on the situation. Wikiklrsc, leave me alone. --Yankees76 ^Talk 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I dispute some of the above but if user Yankees76 will just go away and leave me alone to do editing, so be it. I never thought I'd ever have to say something like this, but in this case, it's justified. I stand by my editing record since January 2005. And my percentage of editing talk pages is very low indeed. I'm interested in adding knowledge and keeping Wikipedia spot on, in articles, not chatting about it.

I would appreciate some unbiased comment on this matter or where the appropriate place to have put this request if not here -- which I don't consider pointless unless otherwise advised by a third party. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand the purpose of article talkpages: they are never to chat about the subject - they are there to discuss changes to the article, and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for the possible changes. As per WP:BRD, if you add something and someone removes it, you need to go to the talkpage to discuss the addition/removal. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Music group more important than protocol, satellite, cpu feature etc..?

Howcome the pop group SMAP takes precedence over all other articles with the same acronym? we had the same problem a few years ago when the fanboys of Canadian football league refused to let go of the "CFL" namespace. Is there any rule that entertainment is more important than anything else? Electron9 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the most notable item by that name, considering its length is longer than the other two actual articles (the third thing is a redirect) combined, it predates all three other pages' creations, and its subject is the only one that solely goes by the name "SMAP". One has to question why you brought it up on AN rather than raising the issue on the article's talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually and more importantly, you were WP:BOLD and made a move. It was reverted, and in the edit summary for the move is said "use WP:RM". That's how WP:CONSENSUS works - it's now up to you to argue your point on the article talkpage to create consensus for the move (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not notice that. But yes, consensus currently states that the page located at "SMAP" should be about the music group so if you wish to change that you need to do as Bwilkins states.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal E-mails as sources

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

---

There's a bit of an ongoing dispute on the verifiability of using e-mails as sources. I've put my post on WP:IRS below. Any info would be great! Thanks!

I'm running into a dilemma on an edit and I need guidance. There's an update I'm working on and the data is a little nebulous; sort of a "everyone knows it but no one can confirm it" situation. So I e-mail one of the people involved, and they give me confirmation that the data is in fact true.

However, I'm getting alot of people saying "You could be lying about the e-mail". Okay, I'm reluctant to share personal messages but I paste the text into the talk page. Now people are saying "You could have made that text up". So here I have an e-mail from the person who the edit is actually about, confirming the edit as true, yet I have no certifiable way of proving it. What's the best way to translate this into a Wiki-quality source? Does WP:AGF come into play here? Thanks! --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's already well-known and held that e-mails are not a WP:RS ... no need to reconfirm it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• No, emails cannot be used as sources. If the information in question is not covered by a publicly-available reliable source, it cannot go in the article. Part of the problem, as the people on the talk page have apparently pointed out, is that there is no way to verify that what you say is true. And though I'm sure you're acting in good faith and are indeed telling the truth, there's no way we can just accept people's word for factual claims - we'd have to believe the liars as well as the honest folk. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Link to discussion. As far as your "best way" question — the best way is probably to ask Dubuk to mention this fact on her blog. Something like this is one of the rather few exceptions to the prohibition on using self-published sources, since an artist saying "I made fictional character ___ to look like ___" can be trusted to tell the truth. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Think about yourself in relation to the world. If someone whom you knew solely as "Uncle G" on a WWW site told you that xe had personal private correspondence proving some point or other, but that you'd have to take xem solely at xyr word on what the correspondence said, would you accept that as reliable, published, documentation? Wikipedia is about what can be proved accurate through reference to knowledge that identifiable people attempting to document things accurately and truthfully have properly researched, nailed down, and published. You're nothing more than an unknown person with a pseudonym on a WWW site. Readers don't trust you. You need to go back to the very basics of our verifiability and no original research policies. If you want a hitherto unpublished and unknown fact to be in the encyclopaedia, you need to make it known through the proper route of getting it documented, by identifiable people with known and good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and published outwith the encyclopaedia beforehand. Or, as a pseudonymous and untrustable encyclopaedist, you need to show where that has already been done somewhere. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the sound advice Uncle G has just given above, I'm sure you made your edits with the best of intentions, and you're trying to improve the encyclopaedia, but this argument stems from you adding a half-sentence ancillary fact. It probably isn't as important as you might think it is. We can still read about Cave Johnson and find out about him from what is already reliably sourced in the article. Might as well let it go, don't you think? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. I think my mistake was assuming my edit would be as easy at the one I made earlier about Bill Fletcher being Cave Johnson. That one seemed easy and was accepted quickly, but when this one was contested so vigorously I started feeling put-upon, like there was a WP:CABAL at work. But in this case there's no real published work attesting to Caroline being based on Laura Dubuk. I'm taking Nyttend's advice and ask her to place a small mention of it on her blog to act as official published Valve verification. Until then I'll just chill. :) Thanks for the insight guys. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there ... it appearing on a blog will also not neccessarily be considered to be a reliable source - even if it's their own blog! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay now I'm confused. The reference to Bill Fletcher being Cave Johnson was also from a blog. This could turn into a slippery slope. Guidance on this guys? Can you hash this out with Nyttend? SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If the artist Phil Foglio says on his own blog that he based the physical appearance of his character Buck Godot on his friend John Buckley, the blog is a reliable source. If I post on my blog that the character Comic Book Guy was based on Matt Groening seeing me in an airport one time, that is not a reliable source (and also not true; but John Buckley really did look sorta like that when I knew him and Foglio: yet since I'm not Phil, I'm not a reliable source for that assertion). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike and I are thinking precisely the same thing. I based what I said on WP:SELFPUB, which permits limited use of self-published sources to talk about those sources' authors. Almost any source, no matter how silly and trifling, can be used as a source about itself and its author, as long as we can confirm that it's written by who it says it is. Back to UncleG's point: we won't believe a random person on the Internet who says "I got told this in an email", but when we say "The author says that she based Caroline on Laura Dubuk" and reference that to something the author has said, we're going to believe it, since nobody's more authoritative about the author's opinions than the author herself. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was going by. I'll add a ref once she makes her post. SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Move from Wikipedia:Lady Gabriella Windsor to Lady Gabriella Windsor

Can someone please fix this? A user moved it from the main namespace to Wikipedia:The Lady Gabriella Windsor in order to avoid having to request a move to The Lady Gabriella Windsor, and I then moved it to the present tile without realising it was still not in the main namespace. (I'm not sure if I am at the right place and I apologise if I am not.) Surtsicna (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And tidied up by me. I have move-protected the article for a month - everyone should go away and discuss it properly at WP:RM to get in more people, who might hopefully know what the Wikipedia naming convention is for such people (which may or may not be the same as what the Royal Family website calls them, of course). Bencherlite^Talk 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Autoblock

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I figured Id get the fastest response here. I have evidently been caught in an autoblock related to a sockpuppeteer. Haven’t a clue how it happened, but this is what I see when I try to edit a page (while logged in through my standard internet connection -- I had to log in through a proxy in order to post this message). The *appeal* function sounds like its for anonymous users only, so I’m not sure what I’m meant to do. Thanks. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the blocked editor made an edit using the same IP you were using at 00:35, which triggered the autoblock when you attempted to edit at 00:37. WP:ABK is the place to go, but you will want to have a good explanation for the close together edits. If I were you, I'd be making sure my network is secure... --Tgeairn (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You should use the {{Unblock-auto}} template on your talk page. Legoktm (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Evan's noted on his talk page that he has a dynamic IP address (Google Maps keeps thinking that he's in lots of different places where he doesn't live), so I'm sure that this is what happened. Before he said that, I gave him IP block exemption, since he's a longstanding member of the community (been here since early 2010) who was obviously being blocked innocently. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone restore my IFD'd images? Now I can't look back at my old Ref Desk questions

I mean I could take it to IFD review, but they were drawings used to illustrate a question on the Science Reference Desk, of course they don't have to match all the criteria for article quality, like matching every single criterion of the Chemical Drawing Guidelines or being in SVG. Now I can't look back at my old questions and ponder what they mean. I really don't understand mindless deletion campaign. Can't people leave Reference Desk images alone? Sure they weren't used in any article, but this mindless deletion makes old Ref Desk archives un-understandable. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)