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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 15 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 95 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 54 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 45 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 36 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 10 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	47	47
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	19	40	59
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 301 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Helene#Split out Florida?

(Initiated 13 days ago on 30 October 2024) Discussion seems to have run its course and needs closure.72.36.119.94 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 13 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Attribution for offensive text that was oversighted but screencapped by subject

Normally when an article is vandalized with horrible things about a BLP, it is oversighted and not mentioned again. In the case of Anita Sarkeesian, she took a screen capture of it (http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/), and allowed it to be published in Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/). Since it is technically free and since it illustrates the topic (where the vandalism of Wikipedia itself is a topic of discussion), I've included it in the article (File:Anita Sarkeesian - Wikipedia Harassment.png). The problem is, how do I give attribution to edits that are currently oversighted revision-deleted but featured in that image? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for accuracy's sake, though it doesn't make much difference to the question at hand: the edits in question were revision deleted, not oversighted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks. I always conflate the two as they amount to the same thing for a non-admin. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ugh. It appears that a BLP includes a section on how the article was vandalized, with a screenshot showing what a terrific job the vandals did. I can see that a case could made to justify this extreme violation of WP:DENY, but I find it worrying. The fact that the subject has attracted vile abuse may have some encyclopedic value, but I don't see why Wikipedia should cooperate in that endeavor. Perhaps the section should be heavily trimmed (no illustration), with just a mention of what two reliable secondary sources have written? Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, just remember that WP:DENY is an essay: we cannot "violate" it as if it were a project policy or guideline. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say Wired violated DENY when they published the screenshot. WP vandalism made the news in a reliable secondary source, we're reporting on that reporting. If we wanted to cork this and save face we should have done so before it saw re-publication. It's silly to not use the screenshot, as it is free and clearly explains the topic. We can't reasonably say that we're protecting the BLP by editing it, when she published the screenshot herself, continues to host it on her website, and provided it to a magazine for further publication. The edits were rev-deleted, so we can't be seen to be co-operating in the slander, just acting as our own tertiary source. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to me that any of the responses above deal with the actual question. As I see it, Wired actually broke the law by publishing that image, because it contains text from Wikipedia and they did not comply with Wikipedia's licensing terms (which require a specific kind of attribution). Since the image itself is technically a copyvio, there is no way of attributing it that will make it cease to be a copyvio. However this is a very unusual situation and it seems unlikely that any sort of legal action would be taken. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the case could be made that any image of a Wikipedia page that contains the title of that page is effectively providing the attribution. For example, this is an image of a WP page that is titled Anita Sarkeesian. One could reasonably assume that Wired readers would know that the attribution would be located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. Regardless, this is covered under fair use, as they are discussing the vandalism specifically. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Johnny. The "source" line for the image should read something like [insert Wired URL here], modified from a screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. The little date addition to the bottom right corner isn't really enough to attract separate copyright in my opinion, and it's not particularly relevant to the situation, so it should stay but could easily be removed should someone challenge it by saying that we're infringing on her copyright. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • She can't claim a copyright violation, all WP text is share-alike, meaning that any derivative work is the same license. She pixelated the image and added the date, but her additions are automatically CC-BY-SA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Going back to the original question, the usernames (mostly IP addresses) were not hidden in the affected range. Hiding them would be a problem per WP:Revision deletion#Notes on use. The visible usernames – even disconnected from individual edits – satisfy Terms of Use 7. b. iii., "a list of all authors". Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thanks. It didn't even occur to me that deleting edits wouldn't delete the editors' names, or to interpret the license in that way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack and ownership of User:Tabarez

User:Tabarez was warned to stop edit warring in this article here. Also he has a long history of copy right violation with multiple warnings in his user page. (He blanked it). He is a member of campaign of one of the candidates of the upcoming presidential [1], and he want to use colors for his candidate without providing a source. He restarted his edit war [2] and after my warning he attacked me in Persian [3] (Here is a translation of what he said: "This section doesn't need references. After a week of useless discussion with you, I finally understand how stupid you are". I think that he believes that this article belongs to him and he wants to promote his candidate with English Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Also I made a request on COI noticeboard here some days ago and I'm still waiting the answer of admins.Farhikht (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In all of our conversations, I conservated practices and I don't insult to him anymore. I think he knows the article is belong to him not me! As he reverted edits of other users. As I know and I asks from other users, color don't need sources and in inbox sources did not shows. All articles about election have color if it's not officially announced. I'm a member of Ghalibaf's campaign but I don't add any partial note to the articles as you can see in my history.Tabarez (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So if I roll in and set that candidate's color to some flavor of hot pink, that would be ok? Or would it not be better to have the correct, official color, and to have a source that we can point to if someone comes in to change it? We don't ask for sources just to be douchebags - having sources protects the information once it's there by confirming it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is discussion about the sources on the talk page... surely for something as simple as a color, primary sources would work? I imagine we have bigger fish to fry, so to speak. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And what about his personal attacks?Farhikht (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, there are no primary sources. This user provided a poster of a candidate and says that because the color of the poster is gray so the official color is gray.Farhikht (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read, a simple as colors don't need source. It only separate candidates from each. Colors don't need source as I ask from other users but you do it in your personal!!! You said my personal attack. Which you mean? You said I promote my candidate in the article. Where? Adding color for an article mean promoting a candidate??!!! Tabarez (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Cue Due to the high tension and flinging of insults and other adrenaline amplified responses I see here, I would recommend that both Farhikht and Tabarez have themselves a read of WP:CALM and WP:CIVIL and take two days from commenting on this discussion here or on any other talk page/discussion to allow themselves to come back and discuss this from a new perspective. I would personally think much more highly of either or both of these involved individuals if they could do that. Technical 13 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But why I should reed WP:CIVIL? And which insult you means? and you may know that I'm not the first who complain this user.Farhikht (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move on

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pjc747 a different kind of case came up. Editor was blocked for VOA a while back, which he claims was a compromised account. Edits before that were fine. Original account was User:Pjc747 and it was blocked 3 December 2010. He started a new account User:Spartan7W the next month in January 2011 and spot checking his edits, I didn't see anything problematic. The only reason he was discovered is he used the old name in his current signature, so he wasn't trying to hide anything, he just wasn't aware of the policy, which is plausible. Technically, it is socking now, meaning he should log in to the old account, request unblock, or wait 6 months for a WP:STANDARDOFFER but he would rather use this established account. Forcing standard process seems overly bureaucratic in this one particular case. A unilateral decision by me seems inappropriate in this circumstance so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. This is one of those rare cases where I think Wikipedia is better served if we ignore the rules as a community.

I propose we move on, let him edit unrestricted, and build an encyclopedia.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - "Rules" or bureaucracy should never be allowed to prevent improvements to the project. He's currently editing constructively, and should be allowed to continue doing so. I am much more convinced of an editor's "rehabilitation" by months of constructive editing than I am by six months of nothing followed by a standard offer. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Of course NE Ent 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Accounts sometimes are genuinely compromised, and starting a clean account seems a reasonable solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Salvidrim. Peridon (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Dennis Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sensible applicationg of IAR. Blackmane (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I can't say that I'm overly convinced by the account offered at the SPI (this situation seems more like the actions of a youngish editor who got caught vandalising and then made a clean start, but I am pretty cynical), but Pjc747's edits seem of a good quality so there's no reason for such an old block to be enforced. Most VOA blocks are (I suspect) imposed on young people, and so it would be pretty silly to put any weight on them after more than a few months in most circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  I completely understand the skepticism, and share the belief that it is moot anyway. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Nick-D --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a reasonable idea, community support, etc. for doing this. I believe there's consensus. However, I have notified blocking admin Dreadstar on his talk page of the situation and discussion and invited him to comment prior to acting. If he objects prior to tomorrow morning I will hold off until discussion converges again. If he does not I intend to unblock and resolve this discussion tomorrow morning ish. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Had the block been more recent or more contentious (or memorable) than a routine VOA, I would have notified at the start. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor would prefer to use the new account, so I don't think the unblock is required, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There'd better be a permanent linkage between the accounts, if that's the case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and changed the block on the master, noting the linkage, and added a note on that editors talk page, too. Dreadstar isn't around but I'm confident he would have no objection if he were here, so I've just implemented what is an obvious conclusion, including closing the SPI report and notifying User:Spartan7W. Thanks to everyone for having an open mind, I expected as much but it is always good to see it from the community. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry I ended up away for an extra day there. Thumbs up. 128.107.239.233 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses

Relevent discussions before I get into details:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.215.10.7

At the reference desks, there has been what appears to be recently uncovered someone who is, for all intents and purposes, violating the spirit of WP:SOCK by using multiple personal identifiers including the following:

• Wickwack
• Ratbone
• Keit
• Floda

None of these is a registered account, but they all edit from the same Australian service provider (Telstra) with a highly dynamic IP address, and they always sign their posts using one of those monikers, though they have never formally registered an account, they have clearly represented themselves as four distinct personalities. There is some compelling evidence, however, based on the style and overlap of editing, the fact that they all edit from the same geographic area, all sign their posts in the same manner (though they use different names, the way they sign their name to their IP posts is the same), and that they frequently show up to support the others when a conflict arises is quite disturbing. There are even instances where more than one of the "personalities" will edit in quick succession from the exact same IP address. Not everyone in the above discussions is fully convinced of the connection, but a decent case based on diffs and other evidence has been built by User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Modocc. I'd rather not copy the entirety of their evidence here, as that would take this post into WP:TLDR territory (If I'm not there already), but I'd like to ask that as many people as possible review that evidence, and then vote on the following ban proposal. If you either a) disagree that the evidence is compelling enough or b) agree that the evidence is clear, but still do not support the ban proposed below, please feel free to oppose it. If, however, you think this type of WP:GAME behavior is disruptive and dishonest and should be stopped, please consider supporting it. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I know I am supposed to notify the user in question, but they edit from a very dynamic range of IP addresses, changing randomly. I have no idea what the most recent IP address they have used is, but they do actively monitor WT:RD and other parts of the reference desk, so I have left a notice there hoping they will see it. Any other suggestions as to how to meet the notification requirements are much obliged, I have every desire to hear this person's side of the story, but I am at a loss as to how to more efficiently notify them than I have already done, so any help in this department would be appreciated. --Jayron32 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I put a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.178.49.220 --Modocc (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of IP editor known as Wickwack and other aliases

The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages.

• Support as nom. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support due to manipulative use of "alias". -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Having been gamed, I'm inclined to delve into the archives to see what other misconduct might have occurred that might warrant a full site ban. -Modocc (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Unless the editor is willing to register an account and provide some rationale/alternative for their behaviour.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm generally a supporter of a lot of things WickWack says, but Jayron has convinced me that his pretty obvious messing around with aliases is a big breach of at least the spirit of what we're on about here. He says some very constructive stuff on the Ref Desks, and he has a ready solution if he wants to stay with us. Register. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support But without enforcement until after he has posted on WT:RD or W:RD, and had a chance to have his say (if he doesn't, then the lack of a ban makes no difference, but he should have the chance to comment to stop it coming into effect, rather than to remove it). MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

But do you see the problem? He is not registered. His IP address changes frequently. (Not his fault. It's how his ISP operates.) So how can we communicate with him? (Personally, I think we should force editors in such situations to register, precisely to avoid the problem we have here.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that there should not be a presumption of guilt until it can be reasonably assumed that he has at least seen the argument. When he posts on WT:RD (or on W:RD, which will probably cause someone to point him here), we can safely presume he has seen it. If he doesn't post on either, then the topic ban makes no difference anyway. In practice, it makes little difference, I'm just more comfortable with him defending the ban before it comes in than trying to revoke it once it is in force. MChesterMC (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support but conditional on not registering; i.e. he (?) should be allowed to register an account and no longer be bothered by this, but looking at the evidence allowing the continuation of the ip socking outweighs the benefits of their frequently useful answer on the RD.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question/(Non-administrator comment) I'm curious, if this editor is unregistered and has a dynamic enough IP address that it is causing an issue confirming that they have received notification that there is an issue with their style of contributing, how is a topic ban going to help in protecting the community? Short of blocking the wide range of IPs the editor edits from, what is going to stop them? I see such a wide IP range-block as doing more harm than good keeping out multiple other good editors that follow all the rules in an attempt to stop one stick in the mud. Forcing everyone to register goes against what the spirit of Wikipedia is, and I would never support it (as I'm sure most others wouldn't as well). I am simply at a loss for words and ideas that might actually prove useful to prevent this kind of damage. Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume this is why the ban is "enforceable by reverting their contributions". Mind you, if he stops signing his name(s), we open up a whole different can of worms when we try and decide if a post is Wickwacky enough to revert (or should that just be whacky?) MChesterMC (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack signs his posts because he wants people to know that he posted them - despite an every-changing IP. Forcing him to be truly anonymous and to gain no credit for his work would be a genuine punishment that would hurt him. He could pick another name to attach to his IP posts - but as soon as we realize that this is another sock - he'd have to change it and start over with building a good reputation. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last Chance I'd prefer they be given a final chance to pick one identity and register it. If they refuse am not against a ban. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I could accept that. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The IP-hopping creates additional difficulty for us in monitoring his activities. He is not compelled to IP-hop, and there is no reason for us to view that as extenuating. If he creates an account and stops pretending to be multiple people then he can ask to have this ban reviewed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't read the thread properly, have you? It's his ISP, the biggest in Australia, that does the changing of the IP addresses. It's not the editor's choice. While I too support sanctions, I get cross with posts that are poorly informed, apparently by choice. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's going to be tough to impose a punishment that will stick - but doing nothing at all just gives permission to any malcontent with a rapidly cycling DHCP address to run riot through our encyclopedia. If Wickwack (et al) is handed a block - then we can at least delete contributions that are identified by that set of monikers on sight. Since these activities seem most common on the Ref Desks - where a small community of editors is easily able to monitor all posts - that's not an unreasonable consequence. I get a sense that Wickwack takes pleasure from being credited with his posts - which is why he signs them - and I doubt that he'll become a totally anonymous IP poster...so a seemingly symbolic punishment might have more teeth than one might at first suspect. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Last chance per Medeis, ie unless he commits to an identity and stops socking. His contributions were often good; his chosen format was a pain but within the rules. I fully support the principle of IP editing, but a topic ban doesn't force him to register to edit any area where he has no problematic history. If he's genuine, he'll appreciate why this is required in view of the diffs. If it turns into Whack-a-Wickwack, at least we'll know where we stand. I really hope he registers. - Karenjc 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Like everyone else, I am tired of this editor's antics . Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Partial oppose. I haven't heard compelling evidence, and I know sometimes Wickwack gives good answers. The proposed remedy is that we delete his stuff on sight, but since we might not know for sure who it is that could mean discarding good content by a new volunteer. I would suggest we simply give ourselves broad latitude to remove comments by him we think are abusive, but also the freedom to leave anything that seems helpful. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Medeis is showing human feelings for the first time, so, we could do that too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the smoking gun I am copying it from the Ref Desk Talk Page linked to above and archiving it since it's a quote and to make it stand out. Another bold inset format would be fine if someone wants to edit it.

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

---

By themselves, those instances might be explained away as (admittedly rather implausible) coincidence. Damning, however, is that while editing from the IP address 121.215.10.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wickwack/Ratbone appears to have inadvertently slipped up, first editing this talk page and signing as Ratbone, then about half a day later, posting a rather mean-spirited comment on WP:RD/Sci while signing as Wickwack. Either he forgot to reset his router between posts, or Telstra left his IP static for a lot longer than usual.

If Wickwack/Ratbone just liked to use different names from time to time, it might be no more than a mildly-irritating eccentricity. Pretending to be two or more separate individuals to try to win arguments on the Ref Desk, or to try to protect himself from sanctions on this talk page rises to the level of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And here are a few more. A very quick search through the archives finds

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 25#Why can't LCDs be made capable of displaying interlaced video?, where 'Keit' disagrees with SteveBaker; they go back and forth for a bit, and in a thread with no other participants to that point, 'Ratbone' suddenly shows up to announce "I agree with Keit..... One suspects that if Steve was actually a researcher in Philips Display and Television Group, then from the misinformed nonsense he wrote, he was probably in cabinet design or something."
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 5#Does drinking water right after a meal makes us fatter? is interesting, as it introduces another pseudonym: Floda. 'Wickwack' offers a response, Alterprise demurs, and then 'Floda' (another Telstra IP) pops in with "It would appear that Wickwack is correct..." before Wickwack returns to further agree with himself.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 6#turning flourescent lights off and on features 'Wickwack', 'Floda', and 'Keit'. They don't appear to be up to no good, but it's just plain weird to run through three aliases just answering a question about fluorescent tubes.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 18#Seismic morse code starts with responses by 'Ratbone' (among others); 'Ratbone' becomes increasingly vexed by disagreement with another IP. After three 'Ratbone' posts, 'Keit' appears to lend support: "Didn't you read anything that Ratbone and SteveBaker wrote? Information theory, as both have outlined, is a well established branch of science...". 'Ratbone' then returns to make another five or so comments in the discussion.

...and I'm losing interest in looking for more. If you do a Wikipedia-namespace search for pairwise combinations of Ratbone, Keit, Wickwack, and Floda, anyone can find dozens of Ref Desk pages where they show up together, often to offer mutual support and endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin wanted to close/evaluate Village pump discussion on partial disambiguation

The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Partially_disambiguated_titles

There is disagreement on whether the discussion achieved consensus about what to do. An evaluation by an uninvolved admin would be greatly appreciated by everyone involved, I'm sure. Thanks. --B2C 17:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In future, you're looking for WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Just in case any admins watch the 'new editor getting started' RecentChanges tag...

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Change_to_the_.27new_editor_getting_started.27_tag for an update about which edits will be tagged. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for closure decision on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

In a recent decision to not close two discussions on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, the administrator closing the discussions, User:Nathan_Johnson, stated that "both threads have died down and been archived. If this issue is still in dispute, I would suggest starting a WP:RFC." Which I did go ahead and start an WP:RFC, here.

However, the more I think about it, the more problem I have with this close. The discussions were old but the consensus they demonstrate hasn't changed. Rather the discussions were old or not, they demonstrated a policy based consensus for the inclusion of the background section of that article. I would ask that the non-closure be overturned and both discussions be closed with a consensus that the section does not contain WP:OR or WP:SYN. Just because the discussions were archeived does not mean they do not represent policy based consensus. The two discussions are as follows:

• Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/Archive_1#Background
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections.2C_2012_Background_Section

I mention it because the arguments were brought up at FAC. I would like some closure on issues that I feel are dealt with. Casprings (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of "closure" (your last sentence) do you want? Is there a current disagreement with the article? What was the issue brought up at FAC? (--RA (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

There is current disagreement that I am trying to work out. However, this particular issue shouldn't be. The linked discussions happened months ago. In my opinion, there is a consensus in those discussions. However, when I brought it to WP:FAC, user:Arzel gave very similar remarks concerning the article. He stated that it was a "research paper" at FAC. These are very similar to his comments at WP:ORN. I am not against him stating an opinion that is against consensus. However, to me these two discussions represent consensus on the relevance of the background section to the Article and the fact that it is not WP:OR. I would like the discussions to be evaluated and closed for that reason. If I am wrong and there is no consensus, so be it. I will keep working to arrive at one. However, if there is one, I would like it acknowledged so I can point to it in future FACs.

You opened a dispute resolution request on this issue, yesterday. Is it an on-going issue? Or is it over? --RA (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There are multiple issues ongoing which I am trying resolve. I have RFCs going currently (thus the quick close of that dispute, which I didn't know) I was going to try use that process also to resolve the various dispute. However, the above issue should be at consensus, at least in my opinion.Casprings (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see anything to close. User:Arzel expressed an opinion, a few other disagreed. That does not make for a strong consensus in my book and User:Nathan_Johnson close was fine especially as the discussions were archived. The current version of the article does not have a tag on the background section so its not really disputed. This is beging to look like WP:STICK, but if you really want continue it follow Nathans advice and open a new RFC.--Salix (talk): 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the two discussions and boldly closed the RFC (the repeated request here for closure of the previous discussion negated the reason for the RFC).

Like Salix alba, I think you should step away from the WP:STICK as well. --RA (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the close. I removed the section and placed it on the talk page because of the close. I will move the sources later. While I disagree with the close (multiple sources do mention it as background information on Akin), I will accept that the consensus I thought was there was not there. Thank you again.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, see the last two sentences of my closing comment:

"I didn't see evidence in discussion that [the background section wasn't done fairly per WP:NPOV using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article] in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so."

I added these in an edit to the closing comment. --RA (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the point. Backgroung is fine as long as it is neutral. Thanks and sorry for the confusion.Casprings (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1) The Tea Party movement case is suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to attempt to resolve the conflict regarding the Tea Party movement article. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. The Committee will reconvene on 1 July 2013 to determine if the conflict has been resolved; and if not, what further steps the Committee should take.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Issues with relisting (and, occasionally, closing) AfDs

This is to other admins who use the closeafd.js script to help them close and relist AfDs. I've noticed recently that apparently, when relisting a discussion, the 'View log' link on the AfD does not update to link to the log the discussion is relisted to anymore - it remains pointing to the original log that the discussion is no longer in, even after multiple relistings. In addition, on occasion (although not regularly) it fails to remove the AfD template from the article when closing, so please check the article after closing to be sure it did (Anomie's linkclassifier helps with this). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The script still seems to be working fine.[4][5][6] (Note: I am using User:Timotheus Canens/closeAFD.js, which is Mr.Z-man's script with a few tweaks.) The issue you describe usually happens when you try and relist a whole load of AfD discussions in a short time period. The script doesn't have any edit conflict detection, and if it encounters an edit conflict it just doesn't make the edit to the log. This is a pretty common occurrence, as the daily log pages are huge and take a long time to save. The answer is either for admins to wait until one discussion has finished relisting before starting the script on the next one, or for someone to write a batch relist tool that can do a whole load of relists at once. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding, life got hectic. Well, I understand that, but that's not quite the issue I'm referring to. I've experienced the "not removing/adding to the log" thing just like that, and resolved it the same way, but what I'm referring to is the 'View Log' link on the individual AfD discussion page. See for instance this AfD; originally listed May 17, it's been relisted on May 24 and June 1, but 'View Log' still points to May 17th's log. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani

An incident. Moved to WP:ANI#Hassan_Rouhani. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of consensus needed

For whatever reason, an In the News item has not been assessed by any of the ITN regular admins in a couple days time. As such, I am requesting assessment here. The item, Valeant Pharmacuticals, can be found here. No special knowledge of the ITN process is required, just the ability to assess consensus. However, if desired, the general guidelines on ITN can be found at Wikipedia:In the news. Whichever way things are decided, a brief note of explanation would be nice. If needed, posting instructions are available here. Note: the story is not yet stale - at ITN we routinely post stories of this age (about 3 days old) to the middle part of the template. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the level of support traditionally needed at ITN to be listed, but there appears to be enough support to add the item especially since this type of news rarely makes the front page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow

After some discussion with TheShadowCrow on my talk page, I would like to request a partial lift on his topic ban related to creating BLP and Armenia(n) related articles. Despite an initial BATTLEGROUND start to that discussion, I believe that this user has come to a realization that no-one is "out to get them" or holding any grudges against them. I believe that at this point, something similar to the article creation restriction of User:Doncram by arbitration process, which states: "He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review." I believe that a one month or twenty-five new approved article threshold would be reasonable to demonstrate this user's intention to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner and awareness of identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability. I think that this would make a reasonable prerequisite for an overall lifting of his topic ban in demonstrating good faith to properly edit existing articles on the topics. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the second or third request of this nature is a very short span of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my first request on this users behalf after his second previous request on his own behalf requesting a full revocation of the ban of which he withdrew. This request, I would like to emphasize, is a request for a partial lift to facilitate reviewed new article creations offering him an opportunity To prove his claims of having learnt his lesson. Due to a technological restriction, I am unable to post links to the orginial discussion and previous requests for revocation for his ban, but would be happy to do so in the morning. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not an issue, but I notice the user has already made Armenia related edits to his sandbox: [7], [8]. This would be technically in breach of: "edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed". Now I don't think that would merit any sort of sanction, but it might be premature and indicative of continued impatience, along with the multiple appeals, and postings to user talk pages such as User talk:Dennis Brown pushing for support in his appeal: [9],[10] etc.

That said, I'd actually support a relaxation of the topic ban to allow him to work, initially, on a single article at a time in his sandbox - which would need to be reviewed by an editor with good BLP experience before being moved to mainspace. He'd need to find someone willing to do those reviews. If that works out, then the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. If it doesn't, then the original terms are easily reinstated. I don't like the AFC idea at all - AFC reviewers shouldn't be expected to do what could essentially amount to mentoring a topic-banned editor. Begoon ^talk 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good proposal. Support. NE Ent

That seems to be a reasonable counter-proposal. As a reviewer at AfC, I would be happy to ask around and see if there is anyone that has good BLP experience and see if they would be willing to take this user under their wing and mentor them. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've made requests at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user#Requesting an adopter that is... and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Requesting a reviewer that is... as promised. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly that reduces my support somewhat, because one of the big concerns here is the "pushy" nature of the appeals to date. Did you not notice the multiple uses of the word "premature" in this section? That should have been a hint. Editors worried that this was being pushed too hard and too fast will hardly be reassured to see you attempting to make arrangements for something that only one editor supports, and 2 admins have opposed, in an unfinished discussion. I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't, imo. Begoon ^talk 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how requesting a relaxation on a three month topic ban that was imposed seven weeks ago (one week shy of two months) which is over 50% of his sentence being carried out with a mentoring that would be set to last no less than a month (putting him one week shy of the original three months) is premature. Can someone explain that to me, please, as I really do not understand it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. I tried to explain my comment when I made it. I came back and tried to clarify it a couple of times. It's a perception thing. My little girl knows that quite often the best way to get something from me when she's been forbidden it or abused it is to stop asking for it back every 5 minutes. She knows that constantly asking the same question in different ways is not going to work out for her. So she behaves for a while, smiles sweetly, and gets what she wants more quickly. Sometimes she forgets, and keeps holding onto the stick. That doesn't work out for her, ever. Not a perfect analogy, and sorry if it doesn't help. Begoon ^talk 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are you kidding me? This was withdrawn as way too premature, not because you offered to have a chat. There cannot be relaxation of the TB this soon, seeing as he wholly misunderstood what the topic ban actually meant. Bringing this up now risks a topic ban against requesting relaxation of their topic ban - bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my thinking at the last discussion from a few days ago - too soon. Wait for the full 3 months and then we will re-visit. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how editing in a sandbox would be disruptive. I can see the reasoning behind wanting a three month break but the editor may lose interest altogether than then we've lost an editor (we have a shortage of those). NE Ent 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I've seen a lot of editors being pushed away unreasonably recently, and based on my readings of previous incidents that seems to be the way it has always been. This is sad that there are people that want to help and improve Wikipedia as a whole, but may be a little misguided in doing so and for that receive excessive blocks or bans from Wikipedia. Now, I realize that there are a lot of stupid bots and people that intend to do harm, but honestly, I rarely see any of those formally attempting to follow protocol and come to ANI or any other venue to request reconsideration. Most of the bots and those wishing to do harm to the project don't bother, they simply create a new spa or make their atrocious edits anonymously. Now, Wikipedia has many venues to help new editors, Help desk, Teahouse/Questions, Adopt a user program, AFC, and the list goes on, but there seems to be a broken link in getting the people that are having troubles and are here in ANI to these programs and help areas. Instead, there seems to be a let's block them for half a year and maybe they will be more mature and absorb all of our guidelines in the meantime even though they don't have the opportunity to practice any of the things they are suppose to be learning. I see lots of flaws in this, and hope that there can be a way to discuss this out and come up with a better "rehabilitation" program of sorts to get people hooked up with the right resources to help them make better edits on Wikipedia. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

People are rehabilitated here all the time. Many admins started out by getting in trouble and then learning to fit in. It's a community, it's established, and at the end of the day it's a lot harder to change the monolith than change yourself. You need to be a part of it to effect change from within, and change from outside isn't going to happen, generally. I've been "mentoring" an editor who was indefinitely blocked, and saw no prospect at the time of his ban of ever getting out of the hole he was in. It's taken not weeks, or months, but much longer, and it's ongoing because it still benefits him, and me. Now he's a valuable member of the community, productive, and a lot of other editors respect him. I hardly need to do any "mentoring" with him at all now, but I'm still around for him if he wants to talk. Sometimes he "mentors" me now, on topics he knows better than I do. And I'm nothing - have a look at the mentoring work editors like User:Worm That Turned have done. Simply awesome. Sure, we could do the "mentoring" thing better as a community - but please don't think it doesn't already happen. A lot. Officially and unofficially. It's just not a "10 steps to heaven", tick all the boxes, model citizen in a fortnight program. But if you come up with one, I'm all ears. Begoon ^talk 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I failed to make myself clear in the fact that I understand and respect that there are a few people that are rehabilitated with the way things currently work. My point was that if a person takes the time to discuss what they did, or what it was perceived that they did (I'll admit that I don't agree that there were initial violations in all of the cases I've seen on these noticeboards, but that may be my lack of understanding of all of the circumstances or whatnot and I've not the time or interest in dredging up all kinds of old "cases"), and someone feels it worthy to request a modification of the sanctions that are proposed on a user based on the discussion and all previous discussions that indicate others feel that the user is remorseful and truly has good faith intentions, than it isn't unreasonable to allow some modification of the sanctions from "you can't do" to "you can do, but supervised" and I think it benefits Wikipedia more in the long run to encourage participation in any of the programs I listed or implied that are designed to improve the editing skills of the editor and offer some kind of reward (in these cases, lightening, not removal, of the sanctions against them). Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you saw from my support above, and Ent's, you're not alone in believing that we should work in that way. We also need to show respect for the community's time in dealing with these matters though, and, like it or lump it, serial appeals and constant pushiness rubs people up the wrong way. Always. I've used up my self imposed monthly ANI word count just in this discussion, though - so good luck. Begoon ^talk 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised last night, the links to the previous discussions are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please remove my ban. → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal

• To be fair, his dabbling in his sandbox was my idea. That shouldn't be held against him. I felt it was a way to allow him to demonstrate the ability to do so properly, while limiting the reach. During his long block some time ago, I showed him how to hat discussions to allow him to work on article drafts on his talk page, so I've been involved for some time and used my best judgement in determining what would not cause disruption, balanced with trying to help him get up to the standards expected by the community. If the community wants to hold me to account, that is fine, but it would be unfair to hold that against him when deciding. On the topic ban as a whole, I'm reserving judgement at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that, so wouldn't have even mentioned it had I known. Mea culpa too. I'm pleased I actually supported a very gradual relaxation for one article at a time in his sandbox in that case... What made me nervous about anything more liberal was the overall appearance of impatience to just get the whole TB scrapped, with posts like [11], while this discussion was happening. Of course, that could also just indicate enthusiasm, but there do seem to have been an awful lot of words wasted on this matter, and that comes into play too. Begoon ^talk 05:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose due to this editor not understanding the reason for the topic ban in the first place. Like the previous two requests, this request is just too soon. BearMan998 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten password for an account without an e-mail address associated.

The Help:Logging in page suggests posting here for advice. Not sure what kind of information I need to provide or what the process is to reset the password for the account. Advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.223.24 (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Try this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see the part about you having a missing e-mail. If you have forgot your password and you have not specified an e-mail, there isn't much you can do to get your account back. Unless your account posted something such as a SHA-512 which you could then verify, it's probably better if you start over with a new account. Next time, specify an e-mail so you can retain your account when mishaps like this happen. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to close RfC at Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have?

The Request for Comment (RfC) at Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have? has been open for three weeks, and discussion appears to have calmed down. I'm asking for an uninvolved administrator to summarize the discussion and close the RfC. Perhaps it may be hard for the closing administrator to find consensus for a specific phrasing, but they can say, for example, that "the stall should be mentioned" or "pilot error should not be mentioned". Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 08:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of opening a Request for Closure at WP:ANRFC. This will transclude the request to the top of the AN page making it more visible rather than buried in the morass of AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

From WP:AN/RFC: Not done. Consensus unclear. Wait until the full month has passed. And adding here: There's really no point in requesting closure of an RfC before the full month has passed. If consensus is clear, then there's no need for formal closure. If consensus isn't clear, it shouldn't be closed early. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

RFPP unprotect requests

User:Webclient101 added 26 requests to the unprotect section of WP:RFPP. I looked at a few of them, and they are all related. In 2011, User:Dabomb87 semi-protected the articles indefinitely because the pending changes trial was over. Webclient101 wants to reenable pending changes. Dabomb87 hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of last year, so they can't be consulted.

My recommendation is we unprotect the pages without pending changes. Indefinite anything needs to be justified, and it's not clear to me why these articles have been semi-protected for two years, or why we should continue it, even with a lower level of protection. Obviously, if editing becomes disruptive on any article, it can be taken back to RFPP and an admin can evaluate whether protection is warranted.

If there's agreement with my recommendation, I will go through all of them, insure they fall within the same pattern, and unprotect them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of prudence, I would say change SPP to PC1 for the BLPs, and unprotect the others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Salvidrim here. As this would in line with the request, it wouldn't be contentious to do so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Template:2c Some of these were semi'd before the trial for BLP violations. In my opinion, those should remain as-is. As for the rest, they should probably be unprotected. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinite PC1?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I will admit a bias that says all BLPs should have indef PC1 at a minimum, so that would be agreeable with me, yes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was unaware of that bias. I'll wait for more comments, but if there's a consensus to keep some sort of protection on the BLP articles, that's fine, but I wouldn't take the laboring oar to implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Salvidrim. However, pages like toast and sound will always be a popular target for vandalism. Why shouldn't those pages have pending changes enabled? Webclient101^talk 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're subjected to a large amount of vandalism, they will be protected as needed. Looking at the page history, neither of them have been vandalized for over 6 months, so protecting them is a solution waiting for a problem. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Six months from when? They've been semi-protected for two years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are the diffs I am referring to...although I should have said "one year". [12] [13] WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Both edits were (obviously) done by auto-confirmed accounts, so their significance is marginal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but both accounts were autoconfirmed through the vandalism. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PC for high-traffic pages rarely works out well. We cannot know if they would be frequently edited by non-(auto)confirmed editors due to the two years of SPP. If, once unprotected, vandalism becomes too much to reasonably handle with reverts, it is never too late to apply protection again; at least, then, we'll know for sure that it is absolutely needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

While I tend to prefer, as Dennis, the idea of some level of PC for BLPs, I'm not sure that some of the BLPs wouldn't be best unprotected. As one example Michael Hastings (journalist)'s moment in controversy has probably passed us by, he very well might do fine unprotected. In the general case, the PC mechanism we have now functions more poorly if too many articles are put onto it, and/or if high-volume articles are put onto it. Obviously Michael isn't a problem there either way, but I think there's some argument for being selective about the use of PC. For the non-BLPs, I'd unprotect most of them, but each should still be assessed individually, there's some odd history to Wheely Willy, for example. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note above that the lack of recent vandalism lately doesn't show that protection isn't needed, only that protection has worked, since they have been protected. I think it is clear from reading above that each article will likely have to be decided on its own merits, and likely a blanket level for all of them won't be optimal. I am still of the idea that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs, but that doesn't mean they all must be protected as a rule, as the consensus doesn't support that, yet. I would say just use your best judgement for each individually. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For history, the articles were indefinitely semi-protected because of an Arbcom overstep. When the PC1 trial was over, I was actually blocked and taken to Arbcom for exercising judgement in the removal of PC1. The mandate from Arbcom was to replaced all PC1 protections with semi-protection of equal length. The result is that many articles wound up with indefinite semi-protection when no protection at all was actually justified.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Injections of gender specific terms in multiple articles

I have just noticed two editors (possible related) injecting gender specifics into article against any recommendations I have read in WP. Could somebody please investigate Tradesman and Handyman and it looks as if they have created some disambiguation pages concerning the same gender nonsense theme. Editor/s involved User:108.17.82.201 and User:Omnipaedista. Many discussions on these article alk pages have resulted in not to do this complication of articles.

Apologies if this is not the correct page. I did not know where to go. Involved have not been notified. Thank you. 99.236.135.28 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No gender bias here, of course. I was merely objecting to the violation of WP:INTEGRITY [14]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies! It would appear that you have been involved in correcting the gender specific edits, as I intended to do but cannot seem to do mass reversions as an IP (I guess?) and I have made a huge mistake. It appears you have been looking after the panic I perceived from the edits done by IP108. Sorry for the confusion. My bad. 99.236.135.28 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)