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 47 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)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations

(Initiated 764 days ago on 16 July 2022) Requesting formal closure due to current discussions over the reliability of the subject. CNC (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: - it doesn't look like this was ever a formal RfC, and I'm not really a fan of taking a 2 year old discussion to show the current consensus, given the number of procedural arguements within, and given that discussion is archived as well, I'm extra tempted not to change it (especially as I would be leaning towards a no consensus close on that discussion based on the points raised). Is a fresh RfC a better option here, given the time elapsed and more research into their reliability since then? 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor:  Not done Closures are intended to assess current consensus, not consensus from two years ago in an archived thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 108 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 105 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 105 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)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 77 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 58 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 57 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 49 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 47 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)

 Not done This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 46 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 44 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)

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Trimpops2 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 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)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 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)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 40 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)

 Not done no need for such a close ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 31 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Al Jazeera

(Initiated 1 day ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note, the second section is snowing harder than the first one. The second section is unanimous based on the time of this comment. starship.paint (RUN) 08:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	27	27
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	1	1	2
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	10	35	45
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 263 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 86 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 83 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)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 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 81 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 71 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 42 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)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

(Initiated 27 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 8 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 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)

• 71.183.182.168 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

71.183.182.168 triggered AF/506--Hu12 (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely a good catch. I've requested blocking at AIV. Beyond My Ken (talk)

His latest IP is 71.183.177.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Perhaps a look at those edits to see if the filter should be tweaked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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.[1] 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 [2]. 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)
• Also busy, but happy to draft/endorse. I'll be free from Sunday evening onwards. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please also address the wheel warring perpetrated by admin. " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASchuminWeb&diff=525036801&oldid=524859432" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.18.197 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the other merits to that discussion, your link does not provide evidence of a WP:WHEEL violation. He took an administrative action, it was reversed. The Wheel violation would occur on the 3rd action, which did not occur. Monty₈₄₅ 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it did. He deleted several images, I restored them, and he promptly re-deleted them. Images are File:Bart's Comet.png, File:The office grief counseling.png, File:Carride.jpg, File:Andy checking phone on stage.jpg, File:Office sabre2.jpeg, File:Office scott's tots.jpg, File:Jimchuck teststore.jpg, and File:Office st patricks day.jpeg. Several people objected at my talk page that I'd undeleted them while they were at DRV, but I wouldn't have done that had I known; I learned that they were at DRV only from the objections at my talk page. See the "I think you crossed a line with your image undeletions" and "Thanks and FYI" sections at my talk page, as well as my response at the "FFD closures" section of User talk:Lexein. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 30 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 [3] 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/Archive 120#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.

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

This is for the images linked on my talk page. 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)

I'm not finding this a particularly compelling reason to summarily overturn another admins properly done actions. I think you will have to ask for a formal review if you want those decisions overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This does look like a strange rationale for deleting images. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator or go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hut 8.5 14:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

topic ban for User:Santos30

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editor_User:Escarlati

Santos30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is POV-pushing his personal views about Crown of Castile, Cross of Burgundy and several other articles. His attempts in Spanish wikipedia were reverted and he was finally blocked for sockpuppetry. He moved to English wikipedia a few months ago, distorting several articles to represent his personal views. He has been edit-warring to keep his changes. Several editors have failed to convince him via discussion. He doesn't acknowledge reliable sources, and he pours poorly-interpreted sources to support his POV. He is slowly moving Crown of Castile into fantasy territory to match his POV. This has been going for long enough.

Despite this, he makes some good work on American Independence articles, I am hoping that the topic ban forces him to stay in articles where he is being constructive.

So I propose a topic ban on:

• flags
• coats of arms
• anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Crown of Castile or how broad a topic ban related to it would be, but would the proposed topic ban cover xe's created articles? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Wnt - Request for topic or interaction ban

For some time now, I have felt that I am unable to start a public discussion without User:Wnt showing up to comment. This would be fine, except that Wnt seems unable to accurately process anything that I have written and their responses are littered with misstatements, bizarre accusations, non sequiturs, and just plain nonsense. I do my best to ignore these comments, but I seem to be a bit of a lightning rod for certain people so it is not in my best interests to let inaccuracies go uncorrected. It has reached the point where it has become tiresome and my frequent requests to Wnt to stop this behaviour have gone unheeded. In a discussion I started at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Commons is broken - topless boys edition, Wnt has made a number of false statements about me or my actions. They also referred to me in a related Commons discussion as the "High Inquisitor". Wnt is apparently under the impression that Wikipediocracy "controls" Wikipedia and that I am somehow at the heart of this. For example on Commons, they recently wrote "Let's be clear about the purpose of "verified" consent. surely it is so that the folks at Wikipediocracy can get their hot little hands on a leaked list of all the email addresses and names of people who are subjects of something sexually explicit, not merely the uploaders, so that they can out them at great length on their site until some unknown scallywags spam their employers and families with copies of the photos for great victory".

An interaction ban would solve my problem, but topic banning Wnt from noticeboards and Jimbo's talk page would prevent anyone else from having to deal with the same situation in the future. Most of Wnt's contributions are to the reference desks, so I suggest limiting their participation to the reference desks. Oh, and article space, of course. Can someone please make this happen or suggest another way that I can resolve this issue? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Looking over the last month of Wnt's contributions, I see nothing that justifies a topic ban from EN noticeboards. There is also no evidence presented to support such a topic ban. Jimbo has historically had an open door policy, unless he wants someone banned from his talk page, I'm not inclined to say we should do it for him. All of the accusations here are about commons and the commons related discussion that you started here, let commons handle it. Other then the problems at Jimbo's talk page, is there anything else recent to support an interaction ban? Monty₈₄₅ 21:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  You can pretty much go to any discussion started by me on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or Jimbo's talk page and see any comments by Wnt (examples: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Here are a couple of recent diffs which display his Wikipediocracy delusions: [8], [9]. When I reverted a horribly NPOV edit to the BLP of a white supremacist by a "new" user, Wnt went to their user page, gave them some rather questionable advice including "I haven't gone over it in detail but you'll have a smaller range of things to argue about". With me, presumably. I haven't bothered to go back and repair William Luther Pierce and I doubt I will bother if it's just going to be an uphill battle. I would just like Wnt to stop fixating on me and make it possible for me to have a discussion without having to continually rebut his nonsense comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  You can ask Jimbo Wales to ban Wnt from posting on his talk page. He can do that if he want. After all, it's his talk page.--В и к и T 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban or interaction ban per Monty845.--В и к и T 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't seen any ban-worthy conduct on Wnt's part here. Wnt seems to post on Jimbo's talk page a lot, so if you're tired of dealing with his arguments you should just avoid posting there. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban or interaction ban. DC, however, has been implicitly asked to stay away from Jimbo's page (see this). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read that as implying Jimbo doesn't want to hear from DC. I took it as asking editors to stay away from Wikipediocracy. But I might have missed something. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo would probably prefer not to have some of those discussions on his talk page, but if Jimbo wanted me to stay away from his talk page, I am quite sure he would let me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I did err in attributing the Naser al-Din Shah reference to Delicious carbuncle; it was JN466 who suggested that. Otherwise, however, you can't expect to ask "Is it time to shut it down and start again?" about a major aspect of Wikipedia and not have some disagreement; this is not personal. I should note my concerns about Wikipediocracy were not directed at Delicious carbuncle, who didn't take part, for example, in their recent canvassing for thekohser at Wikipedia:Merchandise_giveaways/Nominations. What is frustrating about this is that Delicious carbuncle has brought up child protection situations that did need action, and he deserves substantial credit for that, but the way he phrases them side-tracks the conversation with more contentious issues. Wnt (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Wnt, I am not surprised if people disagree with me and I am willing to listen to their comments. What you do is not disagreement - it is misinformation. I do not believe that you are a brilliant troll, as others do, but your idiosyncratic interpretations of my statements amount to the same thing. If you disagreed with what I said, that would be fine, but commenting on something that I have not said and chastising me for things that I have not done makes it difficult for others to follow the conversation. Even in this conversation, you have brought up Wikipediocracy "canvassing" as if tshirt giveaways are actually of some importance. You need to realize that Wikipediocracy is just a web forum with only a handful of active members. You seem unhealthily obsessed with and threatened by it, and I believe that fuels your comments towards me. I could do better by not mocking your comments, but it has become tiresome to try and sort out the nonsense you add to any conversation you are in. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  And when you say "child protection situations that did need action", I assume you are talking about this discussion on Jimbo's page about an editor who self-identified as a pro-pedophilia advocate? It still needs action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban or interaction ban. There are plenty of users who always show up on DC-initiated discussions, because DC canvasses for them on an offwiki site and tries to attract negative publicity for Wikimedia on mainstream news outlets. Inevitably, such exhibitionism will attract dissenting viewpoints as well. I would be more sympathetic to this proposal if the proposer cultivated a more private personality. Also, these discussions are happening on places of great public interest, such as administrator noticeboards and Jimbo's talk page. They are not discussions on obscure articles. It can be tempting to conclude that DC is less interested in building an encyclopedia than in tearing it down, such as by repeatedly trying to associate Commons or Wikipedia with pedophilia, etc. Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Shrigley, am I associating Wikipedia with pedophilia, etc, or are the pro-pedophilia advocates who edit here associating it with pedophilia (etc)? Am I trying to "tear down" Wikipedia, or am I trying to goad the community into dealing with some of the issues here? Also, I request that you strike your comment about "DC canvasses for them on an offwiki site and tries to attract negative publicity for Wikimedia on mainstream news outlets". That kind of unsupported accusation is a clear personal attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  In order to "support" the "accusation" - which you don't deny, because it is well-known to everybody familiar with your antics - I would have to link to your website and writings there, which I do not want to promote. Accusing others of "personal attacks" is very cynical for somebody who has made a Wikipedia career of leading crusades of outing and humiliation against Wikipedians such as Fae who disproportionately identify as LGBT. I would compare what is going on here to a system of continuous 4chan raids, whereupon the imported hordes of commentators seek to impose an authoritarian system on Wikipedia to enforce a conservative sexual morality on a majority of Wikipedians who share an "open source software" ethos. Of course you're allowed to have these debates, but don't expect to be able to crush dissent here, as you would on your private website, via topic or interaction bans. Shrigley (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I've been in this situation before when Russavia and others told outright lies about a thread on Wikipedia Review in an attempt to have me banned. It is perfectly ok for you to make allegations without providing evidence (in obvious violation of WP:NPA) because I am a bad person. And if I don't deny your accusations strongly enough, they must be true. Oh, and you could prove it, but you won't, because then you would have to link to my site and you wouldn't want to do that. And what's this? I'm also a homophobe because of something about LGBT which I can't quite parse. Plus there's something about 4chan and "imported hordes of commentators" which I have doubtlessly organized. And to top it all off, I am apparently trying impose a "conservative sexual morality" on people. Thanks, I think you have clarified your vote against imposing a topic ban on a barely coherent fantasist who spends most of their time on the troll magnets reference desks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Would someone mind dealing with the gross personal attacks by Shrigley in the section above? I'm not expecting much, but this is the admin noticeboard and there is nothing subtle about these violations of WP:NPA: [10] & [11]. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Shrigley did not make any personal attacks; they said some negative things, yes, but there's no rule against that, and your description of those comments as "gross personal attacks" is decidedly closer to incivility than anything Shrigley said. In my humble opinion, you're dangerously close to finding yourself the subject of a BOOMERANG thread, per WP:AOBF. You're also far too experienced an editor to think you can get anyone banned without providing a whole lot of diffs, which makes this thread itself a bit POINTy. Argue all you want, but if you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself, I don't see how this is going to end well. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Get anyone banned? Where did I ask for anyone to be banned? You must really dislike me if you're burning your month-old sockpuppet over this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant topic-banned. Please either retract your accusation or take me to SPI. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how accusing someone of sock puppetry without evidence is any better then the conduct you were complaining of. Can someone just collapse the two threads and put an end to it? Monty₈₄₅ 21:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you probably don't, but if you wait long enough, you will. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood for trolls today. If anyone wants to block me for implying that you aren't the new and uninvolved 16 year old gay user you pretend to be, I'm sure they will also take a close look at your contributions, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I will gladly settle this at SPI. If you are not willing to take this there, and are not willing to retract your accusations, your comments qualify as personal attacks. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

At this point, and in light of this confirmation that you've seen my latest response, I take it you have no intention choosing either acceptable option? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Franamax

Just to advise all that admin Franamax (talk · contribs) has died. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, that's very sad indeed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that. 28bytes (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's terrible. He was a good guy. Condolences to his family. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

May they rest in peace. NE Ent 23:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sad events such as this really put into perspective the ridiculous squabbles and petty grievances that occur here. Now everyone go write an article, help clear a backlog, or lend a helping hand to a new contributor. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the account is still able to edit. Isn't it standard practice to block accounts of deceased editors with a gracious block message, since any further edits from those accounts would either be role accounts or have been compromised? Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not to block per Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. --Rschen7754 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's terrible! I am so sorry to hear this..... GJC 06:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is sad news. I liked little Franny a lot. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that. :( Fran was a good one. Andreas JN466 08:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was shocked to learn about this. Franamax was kind and thoughtful, a very good and likeable person to have around. My condolences to his family.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Very sad news indeed. GiantSnowman 12:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's not much I can say except to echo the above, and in particular Roger. This is shocking and very sad news indeed. Franamax was well-regarded on Wikipedia and he'll be missed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, this is truly sad news. Sorry to hear it. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Terribly sorry to hear, and my condolences to friends and family. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

	In honor of Franamax
	This is in honor of Franamax, who has passed away on November 25, 2012. This user will be highly and deeply missed. RIP.

I made this for anybody to put in their userspace who wishes to honor the death of Franamax.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Please consider adding condolences to User talk:Franamax#Condolences. I see several users who have commented here, and not there. This will archive as a regular wp:an thread; Franmax's talk page will remain as a lasting tribute. It is fitting that it should reflect the thoughts of editors moved to comment. My76Strat (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow this is a bummer. I just went through a bunch of his contributions, particularly to my talk page, smiling and remembering. Roger said it well above "Franamax was kind and thoughtful, a very good and likeable person to have around." He'll be missed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Crap! I know it happens, but, well, Franamax? Hell. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes goes live in three hours

Just a reminder that WP:Pending changes goes live in a little less than three hours. The policy is in the usual place, at WP:Protection policy. Requests should be handled like any regular request, i.e., at WP:RFPP. As a kindness to your fellow editors and admins, please do not drown RFPP in requests on the first couple of days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Krenair just pointed out on IRC that no one filed a bug request to enable it. Has anyone talked to a dev about getting it turned on? I just asked in #wikimedia-tech. Legoktm (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nvm, looks like it was never turned off. Special:Log/stable. Legoktm (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a question about what needs to be done, and who is able to do it at being discussed at Wikipedia talk:PC2012/RfC 3. It is currently turned on at least for certain testing pages. If turned on generally, it is at least suppressed somehow. If someone knowledgeable on the matter could comment there it would be appreciated. Monty₈₄₅ 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the question is answered, thanks. Monty₈₄₅ 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will try, as the person at least partially "to blame" for this, to be available to answer any questions, help with any backlogs, absorb gratuitous abuse, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very confused, as I thought the community rejected having pending changes in mainspace? No objection, since in my mind it's a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PC2012#RfCs_and_community-wide_discussions for the executive summary. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably expect more of that as well. Every Step of this long process has been listed at WP:CENT at the very least, yet somehow vast portions of the community are still under the impression that PC was rejected a long time ago. I don't know how that happened but we should be aware that some users will be genuinely shocked and possibly pissed off when they see it being used again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this header be updated? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It should probably just be de-linked as it is now entirely irrelevant. Another detail that was missed was the actual protection interface, which still has not one but two warnings not to use PC. I don't have a clue how to even edit such a page. Anyone know how to fix that? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It'll be via a MediaWiki page, but I don't know which one offhand (there at least four that contribute the various options an d menus on that interface). CBM (talk · contribs) or Amalthea (talk · contribs) might know (there are a handful of other admins who know their way around that namespace, but those two are active). Or you might get a knowledgeable lurker at VPT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will try that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there any chance of getting Pending Changes listed in the options under RPP in Twinkle? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure it will be, but may want to ask somewhere around WP:TW. Monty₈₄₅ 01:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I already left a request there earlier. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So, in terms of implementation, the RfC says that admins are allowed to use pending changes where there has been vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations. Does this have to be in response to a current problem or can we just merrily start adding PC to pages if they've had vandalism/BLP/copyvio issues in the past? If there are a few pages I keep an eye on that are (say) minor BLPs, can I just switch pending changes on for them, or do we have to wait until there's some incident? I'm so glad there was such an extensive RfC process, by the way, and now we are just flailing around trying to work out what the fuck needs to start being done. A+ for planning, D- for implementation. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd advocate turning them on as needed going forward. NE Ent 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but NE Ent's advice is good, especially for this stage of things. I'd make an exception if they're already under long-term SEMI due to previous problems, in which case I hope you'll consider "downgrading" the protection to PC on some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good! This is a good idea for low to moderate traffic articles with problems. I can see how it might not scale for high traffic articles, but for the unloved ones that crop up on OTRS this is progress. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, PC does not work well with high-traffic articles. (congratulations admins, you now have another slightly vague phrase people will endlessly try to argue with you about, as is already happening at RFPP!) I think slowly adding it as needed is best until we have a better idea of what the typical response time for review will be. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

23 hours in

23 hours after Pending Changes has gone live and we've got 10 articles under pending changes, of which 4 are indefinitely protected. Today, PC was added on Chris Nathaniel, B.o.B, Star Trek, Peyton List (actress born 1998), Victoria Justice, Zakir Naik and Puppy mill.

The pages Federal Analog Act, Islamic University of Gaza and A Scause for Applause seem to have had PC protection turned on from before today. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Some folks seem to have never got the memo that we weren't using it the last year and a half. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The stealthy way that this mess-of-a-concept was kept alive against consensus is not right. What do we have to do to fully kill it? North8000 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, three articles that were probably accidentally not taken off pending changes is all that is needed to declare months of discussion moot? That's some wackadoodle logic right there. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

PC protection was applied to those three articles on 6 September, 5 September, and 5 November respectively; it's much more of a "never got the memo" situation than a stealthy method of keeping it alive or accidentally not removing it. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that accusation is 100% Grade A Bullshit. There have been five RFCs in the last two years or so. Each one of them listed at WP:CENT the entire time they were open. Altogether several hundred users participated. Nothing stealthy about that, nothing against consensus about that either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's the problem really - if you tell someone that unless they call an orange, a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, you're going to electrocute them every 5 minutes - eventually they'll call that orange a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, just to get you to bugger off. PC went pretty much the same way - beaten into people until they said yes in an effort to get everyone to stfu about it through boredom. Fish^Barking? 22:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears in all of these cases that the PC protection was added simultaneous with semi-protection (thus making it a non-issue for all but the Federal Analog Act article where the semi expired after several days). Looking at the instances, I think PC protection should be removed from the IUG and Scause for Applause articles as their rationales would not be supported by the current consensus, while the semi-protection on both articles is sufficient. The Federal Analog Act article seems to have PC protection that is consistent with the consensus approach and so it is fine to keep it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I did precisely that to Scause for Applause after a request at RFPP, not having seen this discussion. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes protection icons

Like all protection methods that are displayed in the top right corner of a page, I have created {{pp-pc1}}, and {{pp-pc2}} to tag accordingly to protected pages.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TreasuryTag unban request

TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is asking to be unblocked. The block was imposed by the community at large and has been treated as de facto ban, so a discussion needs to take place. He is invoking WP:OFFER, but provides no details beyond that except for asking for review of his previous requests, sort of a do-it-yourself ban appeal I guess, see his talk page for the actual conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody with the relevant knowledge/memory please link to the ban discussion? GiantSnowman 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the template on his page this would be it. this seems relevant as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to fill in the background, I believe this was the most recent unban discussion the community had about TT. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Something that kind of slipped under the radar at the time until after he was already indeffed is the previous usernames and their block logs.
• Circuit_Judge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rambutan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Porcupine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• In addition to the previous appeals on his talk page he apparently also appealed to WP:BASC earlier this year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify on the BASC appeal, it was declined in part because there had been an unsuccessful community appeal shortly beforehand, and given that it was a community ban the feeling was it should be up to the community to decide when or if to enable a return in this case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• My strong inclination is to oppose this request. The two word unblock request ("Per previous") and the way the subsequent short discussion unfolded (e.g. "trust that that opposition will not be repeated", "on the well-known grounds that indefinite blocks are not supposed to be infinite") is just more of the same battleground behaviour laced in pseudo-pleasantries and wiki-lawyering that helped lead to a ban. I believe that Treasury Tag is completely unsuited to a collaborative editing environment and no time away from the project will change this fundamental incongruity between their editing style and the goals of this project. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(multiple ec) During one of TreasuryTag's previous unblock requests ([12], just under 12 months ago), there was a suggestion that he be allowed to return under some form of mentorship. At the time, I wrote (in part),

...While I don't endorse or expect any sort of 'demonstration of remorse', 'acts of contrition', 'ritual abasement', or other general humiliation, when an individual has been blocked as many times as TT has (under this account and his previous accounts) the community does tend to be leery of "just give me another chance", because we've tried that, and it hasn't resulted in sufficient improvement. Just telling us that it will be different because he's being watched isn't quite sufficient; he's been watched before.

What TT and his mentors should be doing during his block is not make repeated requests on this board and attempt to negotiate an immediate return. The community has pretty clearly spoken on this issue—they see TT as a net negative for the project, and the fact that it's taking such an elaborate monitoring regime for a return to be even considered speaks volumes. Frankly, a good portion of the community probably sees this extended discussion as an ill-considered further waste of resources....[Y]ou need to be able to clearly elucidate how TT returning to the project will be a substantial and significant net benefit to Wikipedia. Figure out specific areas where he has contributions to make. Clearly identify past problems, and how those will be avoided or addressed.

Regrettably, what I'm seeing is a similar lack of respect for the community. This time around, TreasuryTag's initial request for unblocking was just two words long: "Per previous." Instead of spending even a smidgen of time somewhere in the last six months putting a little bit of effort, thought, and introspection in to composing this request, he's expecting the community to do all the legwork to come up with some argument on his behalf.

Decline unban on the basis of no visible progress since the last request, and no explanation why an unban would be in the project's best interests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How does a blocked editor demonstrate "progress" during a block? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Contributing constructively on other projects is one of the more common ways to do it. At the very least, a detailed unblock request explaining how the issues that led to the block/ban will be addressed would be expected. N419BH 19:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

While N419BH's suggestion is a good one, the lack of 'progress' I noted is with respect to TreasuryTag's formulation of his unblock requests. Looking more closely at the history, TreasuryTag has made at least four unsuccessful requests to lift his current indefinite block and ban.

• October 2011
• December 2011
• March 2012
• June 2012, through the ArbCom's ban appeals subcommittee

Each of the on-wiki requests has included specific inquiries from the community pleading for TreasuryTag to explain how he intended to contribute to the project if he was unbanned, and how he intended to avoid further trouble. He has demurred, and each request has failed. This most recent request suffers from the same omissions. Indeed, this request now lacks any details from TreasuryTag whatsoever. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for someone with a block list that long, there should be a rock solid reason to unban. I don't see it at the moment. Max Semenik (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - TT has not presented a valid reason for an unban. GiantSnowman 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wait An editor has requested new and more detailed statement on his talk page. I think we should wait to see if one is forthcoming before deciding. Monty₈₄₅ 19:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I should think he already knew how to appeal a block after around thirty previous blocks. He just didn't bother. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. "I took time away from WP" is good additional input to an unban request, but as the entire substance of one, it's simply not enough. TT, we need you to explain how things would be different this time, not tell us that everything is the same except the clock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• I guess I should also state for the record that I am opposed to lifting this ban. Enough time has gone by that OFFER would apply, but the attitude, which was always his problem, is clearly the same. Condescending, smarmy, and self-important. Previous valid blocks across all four usernames add up to somewhere around thirty over the course of four years. Nothing is presented today to suggest that block number thirsty one would not be in his near future if we let him back in. Mentoring was tried and failed because he wouldn't listen to the mentor. Some people are just not suited for a project like this and the evidence strongly suggests that TT is one of those people Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. A banned editor really must go out of their way to show that they have "reformed" (for lack of a better word) and that they "get it", such that we could expect improvement in the problem areas, and that allowing them back would be a net positive rather than a behavioral management time suck. Obviously that hasn't happened here. Actually, just consider TenOfAllTrades' comments incorporated by reference here, because I can't improve on his assessment. postdlf (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, I've asked TT to consider making a more detailed statement, and I've also notified User:Worm That Turned of this unban request. Worm previously offered to mentor TT along with User:Fastily, who has since retired. I think the prudent course of action is to see what TT has to say before we make a decision. N419BH 19:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  I am prepared to support an effort to bring TT back to productive editing, but it does require a thoughtful request from TT that sounds sincere and credible, short of that I can't really support or oppose, there's just nothing there. I hope it does manifest. My76Strat (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per unwilling to even form a decent unblock request. NE Ent 19:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. TreasuryTag has yet to supply a valid reason for unbanning. And even if TT does supply one, just glancing at that monstrosity otherwise known as the block log is enough for me to oppose. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support – TT's past positive contributions entitle him to a further chance. His negative contributions were an annoyance to editors, more than damaging to the encyclopedia. We know what the risks are, they're acceptable. Should this turn out to be unworkable, I'm sure any necessary future block will be enacted without an unreasonable amount of inconvenience. It's worth the chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think we should unban someone with this kind of history without a very good reason. We don't have one. Attempting to rehabilitate disruptive users isn't a very good use of everyone's time. Hut 8.5 19:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the point raised above of waiting for a more detailed request: First, he already knows how block appeals work, having succesfully done so many times in the past. Second, I very clearly told him he should provide a more detailed explanation if he wanted his request to be considered, and his reply was basically "look it up yourself". He's always kind of been his own worst enemy like that, part of what makes his attitude and Wikipedia a bad match. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's just say that "per previous" is not WP:GAB compliant, and is thus is not unban compliant either. Even WP:OFFER requires the blocked editor to explain how they'll be different in the future. As per Beeblebrox above, he knows how the process works - now he's simply screwing with us (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't get what he hoped to accomplish with this. Why even bother with such a poorly constructed appeal? It is like he is just screwing around. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to believe this isn't a genuine unban request or that TT's intention here isn't as simple as "get unbanned via community consensus". It doesn't appear to be a very effective unban request, but that's distinct from not being a genuine one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per previous. If anyone wants, they can search the archives for more written about this in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• ...and here I thought you were going to link to your previous !vote from his past request, "per previous" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The appeal is little different from any of the others and TT has never understood WP:NOTTHERAPY. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Sadly, there are a few editors who are simply unable to edit here a collegiate and non-confrontational manner. This user appears to be one such and I feel that he should not be here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per half-hearted effort on the part of user requesting unban. I can only assume that TT is going through this to prove a point, rather than with any expectation that it will be successful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I remember well the disruptive problems caused by TT's behavior, and see no particular sign that he will be any different if he's allowed back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What was he blocked for? and has he committed socking since? GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked initially basically for chronic disruptive behavior, not one particular incident. Before that mentorship was tried, unblock conditions were tried, all to no avail. However as far as I know there has been no socking. That is just a minimum requirement though. If this were some clueless teenager who could reasonably be expected to have matured some in the interim it would be different. A user with ~30 blocks in four years is not going to be "fixed" by just taking some time off, they need to show a real commitment to changing their approach, which is utterly lacking from TT. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Were any of those blocks for vandalism? GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

AFAIR, none of them. He was disruptive and abusive to other editors, myself included, but always had respect for the encyclopedia itself. IMHO, this justifies further chances to prove himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, My approach to block/ban situations has softened over the year. Making editors go away or stay away just doesn't do it for me. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

proposed new conditions

I just looked over the last such discussion and note that at that time his ban was further refined to require him to wait a minimum of six months to appeal. In light of the details above, that he has apparently appealed five times in total (including this one) and has failed to present any sort of compelling explanation as to why the ban should be lifted, combined with the near-unanimity of the above replies I propose that restriction be lengthened to a period of one year, said year to begin when this thread is closed. Any attempt to appeal through any means, including WP:BASC before that will lead to a resetting of the start time of that year. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• support as proposer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this proposal is designed as a mechanism for a lifetime ban. Regardless of TT's offenses, that's unfair.→StaniStani  23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Time is not the issue here. If he really put his heart into it and showed he was being serious about the request, I would consider supporting an unblock, regardless of when it is made. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Okay he can't contribute here until he fixes his problems but we don't have to be mean about it. SlightSmile 23:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

kind of surprised at these comments. The idea is not to be mean, it is to try and get him to take this seriously, which he is clearly unwilling to do at present. He just waited until the six months that was mandated was up and then posted a request that said "time's up, unblock me" and nothing else. So, six months from now we can reasonably expect exactly the same thing again. If the ban conditions are tightened there is at least a chance that he will actually take them seriously next time and realize that he has but one shot per year. If he doesn't bother to put more than five seconds of effort into it it won't work. Five appeals, each of them utterly lacking in substance, Nearly thirty blocks, and no lessons learned from any of them. TT has caused his own problems and it is high time the enabling stopped completely and that TT is sent a message that if he cannot be bothered to even try and present an actual argument to let him back in he is wasting his own time and the communities time as well. [If you don't like this restriction, how about revoking talk page access and requiring him to convince WP:BASC by email that he is at least willing to present a real case before any future discussions of a lifting of the ban? No time frame, he just has to get past some gatekeepers by demonstrating that he is making a serious request and not just using "it's been long enough" as the sole reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no useful purpose of lengthening such an interval. The price of maintaining the community is indeed an "overhead" such as hearing TT's requests at a reasonable interval. That's an entirely reasonable cost to be paying. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand the reasoning behind the condition, but IMHO, the real restriction should be something along the lines of "if the next unban request is not sufficiently stated to allow for full investigation and debate, then talkpage access will be immediately removed" or something that prevents this boneheaded disruption we're now going through above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose One can't demostrate if one's reformed, while being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

One can, however, hold one's horses for a year until demonstrating that one has reformed. Wikamphetamine may be highly addictive, but there have been no cases of deaths from temporary withdrawal. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• While the lack of any reasoning other than, "It's been six months, unblock me" is disappointing, TT did in fact wait six months between the BASC request and this community request as suggested at that time. Therefore, we can't say he is completely ignoring community input. N419BH 00:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

User page masquerading as an article

User:Snaphappynat is masquerading as an article and it is in a content category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Commented out mainspace cats and tagged as a userpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Does the make in a NOINDEX page? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Alone, no. However, I've added the {{NOINDEX}} template to the top of the page. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift restriction

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

---

On 12 November 2012, I was indefinitely restricted from making non-admin closures. Although I am not willing to make more closures, I would like to see the restriction removed. In the case I choose to perform any closure, I will seek administrative mentorship before eventually performing any. I understand the mistakes I made while closing several discussions and I consider that I have learned from them. The original discussion can be seen here. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: There were multiple and serious problems with your NAC's, not all of which were even mentioned in the previous ANI, such as the one IRWolfie mentions on your user talk page. Your subsequent behavior on AfDs, specifically continued use of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, does not inspire confidence in your grasp of AfD argumentation, nor does the infuriatingly lackadaisical way you argued in the last ANI. I don't believe your attitude has improved so much over the past three weeks to justify entrusting you with NACs, mentorship or no mentorship. Sorry, but my conclusion is that you just don't have what it takes to do this job right. Maybe in a year I might believe that you have improved significantly. But in three weeks? No way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  From your comments, I can reach two conclusions: 1) You seem to have an axe to grind on me after I tried to help at the Australian Christian Lobby discussion; and 2) You have a very vague and erroneous conception of me. I won't comment further. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  Your WP:AGF button get turned off again? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Two weeks in and you're asking for removal? Come back in a minimum of 6 months for a review, or else you're just being disruptive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I have just reviewed the intial discussion, I would consider an appeal after only two weeks as direct evidence that the user has not acquired sufficient experience with how Wikipedia works to be closing anything, AFD or otherwise. The request as worded barely makes any sense anyway. ou say you are "unwilling" to do more closures, but you want the restriction lifted so you can do them anyway. You volunteer to ask an admin for advice first. Logically, for an admin to advise you they would have to review the entire discussion. At that point they could just do it themselves, so what's the point? I am sure a time will come when the restriction is gladly lifted, but now is just too soon and there is no demonstrable benefit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Closing of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a proposal on the Village Pump/Proposals about closing the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion can be found here. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 23:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)