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 30 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 20 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)

 Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 100 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 59 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)

@Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Your health always comes first. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I fear I gave the wrong impression. My health is in no jeopardy whatsoever, I just have intractable problems with fatigue and focus that frequently keep me from doing the things I want and intend. I appreciate your concern, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 50 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 41 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 40 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

(Initiated 32 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This one was obvious enough that no formal closure was needed, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 14 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	16	16
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	5	29	34
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Administrator recall

(Initiated 8 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Pre-1876 life peers

(Initiated 8 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 17 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 306 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:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 17 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)

Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

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

---

The closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Moving Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter

From WP:RFPP here:

Would an admin unprotect Kirby Delauter and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter? See this close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter by Spartaz (talk · contribs) (thank you, Spartaz, for reviewing and closing the discussion):

This discussion has stalled. As far as I can see there may be disagreement here about whether the article should hae been deleted but there isn't a killer policy based argument that the delete aspect of the DRV as closed was wrong. Where I am seeing a lack of consensus is around whether the salting should have been reinstated. As the salting was part of the original deletion is is certainly in RoySmith's ambit to reinstate this with the endorse finding but, on challenge, we do not have a clear specific consensus. As such, and bearing in mind that DRVs remit is deletion not salting I think the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close. What does that mean? It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point. The only reason I have not done this myself is because there appears to be a risk of BLP issues to consider and I have not got the time right now to research the question to determine if there is a BLP risk from the unsalting. This does not preclude someone who has got that time from doing so.

Cunard (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not unprotected This should be taken back to DRV; I am not going to override an endorse close there by my own action. Courcelles 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not take this back to WP:DRV for further discussion since this WP:AN close already reviewed the WP:DRV close with the conclusion "the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close". And "It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point" as long as the draft is reviewed by an admin as BLP compliant. Ping User:Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after this is resolved. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• The unsalting is actually rather irrelevant here, surely the question is whether the draft article is sufficient to overcome the original "delete" arguments even if it is BLP compliant. I personally don't think it is good enough notability-wise - it looks to me like this person's "notability" is hung on a minor news event and a load of local news reports. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Borderline notability means that it should be put through AfD. It easily passes all WP:CSD criteria. There never was a BLP concern, BLP1E is not really a BLP concern, and if there is a BLP concern, it exists in Draft space equally as mainspace. This person is a politician. The salting was a knee-jerk reaction accompanying the out-of-process deletion, and this salting appears to be wholly ignored or unsupported at DRV and here. Courcelles was wrong to ascribe an endorsement of the salting at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not often I disagree with you SmokeyJoe, but on few things here I must. Fails WP:NPOL and it's just a drama magnet. Wikipedia is not a social media reporting site, and the only thing of note here is Kirby's brief Facebook rant. Unless or until Mr. Delauter does something notable, then it's best that the article is deleted. Salting removes the temptation of further problems right now. Just IMO, so ...

• Keep deleted and salted — Ched :  ?  10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Hey Ched, maybe this disagreement can be resolved. We are talking about different things? Deleting for failing WP:NPOL is a matter for the AfD process, and is not a CSD criterion, and failing NPOL does not give admins the right to unilaterally delete contrary to the leading sentence at WP:CSD. For me, this is about respect for process, and vigilance against kneejerk reactions by a ruling class of Wikipedian. Did DRV approve the deletion with silent reference to NPOL? Possibly. If it is agreed, as you say, that this person fails NPOL, and further that there is drama magnetism at play, then yes, "Keep deleted and salted" is the right thing to do. But please, User:Floquenbeam, send it to AfD next time. If this were AfD, I would argue that reliable independent secondary source coverage exists, and the appropriate place for the content is at Streisand_effect#Selected_examples, justified by this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with 99.9% of that. The one part I must take exception to is the "knee-jerk". Admins. are supposed to "mop-up" things they see as a mess. In this case it seems more that an admin grabbed the mop and cleaned up a mess before it was reported to the corporate office, and the "please clean" request was filled out in triplicate. Now - I'm wondering if putting Draft:Kirby Delauter up at WP:MFD would help resolve things here? Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-emptive mopping may be questionable. It could be perceived as "controlling". Anyway, MFDing the Draft might be sensible. MfD might be good at the isolated question of whether the page is a BLP violation. If the question goes to NPOL, I for one will shout "wrong forum", MfD is not the approval court for drafts. Better to unsalt, move to mainspace, and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• All very bureaucratic but the varying admins seem to require just that. For the matter to be properly decided by the full editorial community, the draft should be taken to AfD for a proper keep/merge/discharge from draft/delete discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Meh Why would we immortalise this trivia? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article

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

---

• Short version:

Please review the RfC response and the close, and the implementing edit made by the closer. I tried to discuss with the closer, and that went no where.

The RfC was focused on whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE.

In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC.

The close did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the reasoning provided in the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

The close is going to be important to subsequent DR efforts on the page and I was looking for a more thoughtful close reasoning, that considered the range of views, and considered BLP and PSCI in light of each other. Instead, we basically got one admin's view.

• Long version:

I know this is a bit long; please take a minute to bear with me.

Nyttend kindly responded to a request to close the RfC at Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence. The question was whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE. In my view there are live, interesting questions here and anybody who treats the issues as cut and dry, on either side of the issue, is really missing the boat.

I am contesting the close itself, as well as Nyttend's edit to implement the close. I discussed it with Nyttend and I don't think he has heard me (he hasn't responded to my actual objections), so here we are.

This is a troubled article - it has been protected twice, in quick succession, for edit warring. There are strong views on whether/how to describe Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" and how to discuss his medical views. We need to move carefully and conservatively in editing it. I am trying to work DR carefully to keep us out of AE, but we may end up there.

I've been trying to work DR in bite-size pieces. We were able to agree, during full protection, on modifying the infobox to include "Known for: Conspiracy theories", and that compromise was implemented by an admin.

The subsequent RfC was narrowly tailored to discuss just the first sentence of the article. The RfC was well publicized, and we got a good (not great) range of thoughtful input from editors not already involved in the article. I was very interested to have the community weigh in, and to get a close that thoughtfully weighed the tension between BLP and PSCI, and that took into account what the community had to say about that, with respect to the issue at hand. The close will be important for resolving subsequent content issues that we still need to work through.

The close was to take "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead. The reasoning was based on "conspiracy theorist" being derogatory. In the implementing edit, Nyttend rewrote the entire lead.

I have two main objections:

1) In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC and ruining the careful effort to work DR slowly and bite-by-bite. I asked Nyttend to change his edit to only deal with the first sentence, and he declined, saying that: "If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories." I pointed out that the RfC was limited to the first sentence, but he was not hearing that. He believes his edit to be solid. I don't. I think he is well intentioned but he is not honoring the RfC. The edit short-circuits/forecloses our efforts to work through the content issues and doesn't respect the perspective of several editors, which include involved admins.

2) In the close itself (which you can see in the link above), as well as subsequent comments on the article Talk page]] (at this section, and in discussion on my talk page (in response to my query on his talk page), Nyttend cited the view of a minority of respondents, that the term itself is derogatory; he didn't cite the many (and persuasive) arguments that it was UNDUE to name Griffin that way in the first sentence (in light of the rest of the lead), and Nyttend didn't cite or discuss any of the arguments made to keep "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, which are not without grounds in policy. The close reasoning did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI. The issues are not cut and dry here.

In the discussions afterward, it became clear to me that Nyttend came in with clear views on the issue, and that he relied primarily on his own interpretation of PAG in doing the close, and in implementing it. He was unaware that most of the !votes were in favor of keeping "conspiracy theorist" (I know that !vote count is not determinative but it should be considered), and made it clear that he was unfamiliar with the PSCI shortcut to the part of NPOV that deals with fringe/pseudoscience in content in WP. (it is not bad to be unaware of things, but it is bad to close an RfC where PSCI is so central and to be that unfamiliar with it).

Again, this first RfC is going to be important to further DR efforts, and its lack of grounding in what folks actually said at the RfC, and in what PSCI and BLP say, are going to warp those further DR efforts.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

Please review the close and implementing edit. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (edited to make it clear that I don't disagree with the conclusion of the close, but I feel that the reasoning presented in the close didn't reflect the full response to the RfC nor the complexities of the policies involved and will cause problems going forward Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)) (added to statement that editors at the page had agreed, prior to the RfC, to add "Known for: Conspiracy theories" to the infobox and note that RfC happened after that)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

---

• Comment. I would take issue with the close, because it seems to be saying that if material can be shown to be derogatory then the game is up because we will never include derogatory material in the first sentence or lead of an article. But I can think of comparable examples where consensus has been to include such derogatory material (David Icke, David Irving) so, for me, the close doesn't quite add up. On the other hand, I don't think it can easily be argued that the close should have been "yes". It could easily have been "no consensus", but there would have been no practical difference, because in that case the derogatory material should also have been excluded. So, I endorse the close just because there is nothing to be gained from overturning it. I can see the argument that the closer went beyond the scope of the RfC in their implementation of the result. However, the implementation of the close is not part of the close, so I would say that here is, strictly speaking, not the place to examine it. If a consensus on the implementation develops here, then fair enough, but otherwise it might instead be brought up on the article talk page, not for the closer to defend their actions but to test whether consensus supports them. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. In writing the above, I hadn't twigged that there might be additional issues involved to do with use of tools. In that case, yes this is is the right venue for discussing the implementation. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments. I have looked carefully at the RfC and at the subsequent edits and discussions about the close, and I can see arguments on both sides of what is not a black-and-white case. About the most basic part of the RfC close, I think that it is reasonable for Nyttend to have concluded that the outcome was to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead sentence, based on the discussion that occurred. So I do not see a good reason to overturn that. I also think that the subsequent edit warring over the description, near the end of the lead section, of the subject's theory that the scientific establishment is in a conspiracy to suppress his fringe medical advice could have been avoided by simply looking for compromise language. Why not call it, instead, a "discredited theory"? But we are not here to discuss content. I think that there were multiple significant errors in the use of administrative tools in the close. Unlike Formerip, it seems to me that because this is AN, the use of those tools needs to be discussed along with the close itself.
  • The explanations given for the close demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding of NPOV, BLP, and other important policies.
    • At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents".[1] There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
    • The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)
  • As Jytdog correctly says, the RfC was carefully worded to be about only the lead sentence. Furthermore, a reading of the RfC comments makes clear that several editors specifically drew a distinction between the lead sentence and the rest of the lead section. There was no consensus that could be drawn about the rest of the page, after the first sentence. The closing administrator could in theory extend the application of the close to more of the page, if policy so required, but policy did not require that.
  • After Nyttend full-protected the page, appropriately, to stop edit warring, he then made an edit restoring the page to his preferred version: [2]. An administrator editing through full protection is exercising a serious responsibility, because it is something that the rest of us are prevented from doing. Again, doing so could be justified when there are overriding policy concerns (such as BLP violations). But policy did not require this edit, and Nyttend knew by this time that the edit was controversial. Also, there is a longstanding consensus that full-protection is not supposed to be used to protect the "right" version of a page.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would myself endorse the decision of closure, because most of the uninvolved members who had participated in this Rfc actually disagreed with the inclusion that was being discussed. VandVictory (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see grounds for overturning the closure; although I think it violates WP:NPOV not to call him a conspiracy theorist or, at least, a supporter of conspiracy theories, in the first sentence, there are arguments in favor of exclusion, although I probably would have disputed the close if I had been active. However, the edit whitewashing the lead is not even consistent with the close; it is clear that there are no potential arguments to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead entirely.

  I hadn't noticed that he edited <strikie>through protection to restore his preferred version. That would normally be grounds for an immediate block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  I admit to tagging the article through protection; but something needed to be done to indicate that the status is solely Nyttend's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  Apparently, protection was on for less than a minute. Still, Nyttend's edit-warring to restore his own revision, not consistent with his close, was not "proper". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it was set for 24 hours it looks like as it expired today, but it was implemented yesterday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: IMO the page protection issue is a red herring. It was done to stop edit warring and very short term. This said, there is now a proposed lede re-write on the article talk page which is subject to on-going improvement. I posit that some tweaks will make it acceptable to all, thereby rendering this review moot. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view the proposal to rewrite the lead is premature. I'd like us to wait to see the results of this review. We need to go slow, bite-size. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If this ANI plays out, what will we have? I see three possibilities: 1, The closing is endorsed. 2. The closing is overturned and a new closing is implemented. 3. The closing is overturned and the RFC is opened up for a new closing. With Number 1 the OP does not accomplish much. (The present version becomes the accepted (for now) consensus version.) Number 2 is unlikely because it entails one admin overturning another admin's decision. (Not a rare event, and the closing was done in a non-admin context. But unlikely.) Number 3 entails a continuation of the drama. In the meantime we are moving forward with a discussion to improve the lede on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think reviewing the closure would be helpful for you folks there. The main problem that I think people were hoping to see as Jytdog mentioned was where WP:PSCI fits into play here. The main result of going outside of the scope of the RfC and the use of admin tools at least has been fixed, but the actual closure seems to be something worth looking into. How we deal with fringe topics seems to not have been addressed in the closure, and Nyytend appears to not be familiar with PSCI policy within NPOV based on some conversations mentioned here, which appears to have lead to only a partial understanding of the discussion. A common problem I see in the article is that people cite BLP for removing "derogatory" content, but have trouble with PSCI where valid criticisms of fringe topics (i.e. psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, etc.) stay regardless of being perceived as negative (NPOV doesn't mean non-negative content). The RfC should have been closed with both policies in mind, but the benefit from revisiting the close would help orient future discussion about the tone to take in handling both policies going forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - just to be super (maybe too) clear about what i am after here. I am looking for a restatement of the close, that takes into account what responders actually said and that deals with both PSCI and BLP - we will need this to guide further discussions on the page. I would also like a clear statement on the validity (or lack thereof) of the closer's implementing edit. This too will be important going forward. If the do-over of the closing results in overturning the surface result, that is neither here nor there to me; I think there are reasonable arguments for keeping and for removing "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I don't know if you are following or have read the above, but if not would you please do so, and would you be willing to withdraw your close and implementing edit, and allow someone else to do the close anew? That would ease the situation. I have seen closes done by Dank of really complex RfCs and have respected his work. I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him. Thanks. Nyttend I also want to apologize to you; I was looking for certain qualities (not answers but qualities) in the close and I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... I should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. Sorry that you were pulled into something unawares. I do appreciate that you volunteered to do it. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - Jytdog, it appears you want to choose your own closer and impose certain dictates. Your apology to Nyttend is certainly a respectable gesture, but it appears to be superficial because you haven't changed course. You stated, I was looking for certain qualities says it all. How is this not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? You may have attempted to qualify your desires as not answers, but your following statement I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... is very telling. The concerns you've expressed go beyond what editors are obligated to write in a BLP, perhaps because your own experience as a writer of prose is limited, and your focus as a biotech is of primary concern as evidenced by the emphasis you've given to PSCI in this BLP. I find it rather disruptive considering we are supposed to be writing about a person's life, not your opinions on laetrile or whether or not you agree in principal with this author's writings. I do hope an admin will take notice because this type of behavior goes beyond the pale. Atsme☯^Consult 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme - 1) I am writing on a public board where everyone can see. 2) I wrote: "I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him." 3) I wrote: I "should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. " 4) I don't believe for an instant that I could "pick my own closer". My point was that the selection of closer should have been intentional and not random. And of course, by agreement of everybody who cares. For folks reading here, the kind of reaction I just got, is why i will not be surprised if this ends up at AE. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "choose your own closer": exactly, that's one reason I'm not comfortable closing here. (Lack of experience is another.) But thanks, Jytdog, that was kind of you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks Dank - my intention was (and is, if we get there) that the closer would be acceptable to everybody.Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean you were trying to choose your own closer, I meant that I'm not comfortable closing on request because it raises eyebrows. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. It is my understanding that the main issue is close review is whether the closer used reasonable judgment and whether another closer can understand why they closed it the way that they did. I concur with the close. Having not reviewed the RFC results in as much detail as I would if I were closing, I don't see anything wrong with the close. However, I am puzzled. What exactly is the original poster, User:Jytdog, saying is wrong with the close? It appears that he was asking for certain qualities for the closer or conditions on the close. The RFC had been open for 30 days, so that any experienced editor could have closed it, with or without a special request by an editor. Maybe I have completely misread the policies, but I don't see a policy that permits one editor to impose conditions on the close. It looks to me like a reasonable close in terms of deciding not to use the 'loaded' phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice. I support the close based on what I have seen, but I don't understand the argument by the OP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"so that any experienced editor could have closed it . . ." I think that may have been the key point. Nyttend didn't appear to be experienced in policies relating to fringe topics, and didn't appear to consider the comments from those addressing the fringe aspect in the RfC because of that. I'm not sure what others think, but if the opposite happened where a closer was not even aware of BLP policy and only summarized from the fringe perspective instead, I'm pretty sure that would be open to review too due to lack of basic understanding needed for the topic. Seems like a review is exactly what's needed when a closer unknowingly bites off more than they thought they were handling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thank you for asking for clarification. My problem is with the reasoning presented in the close, which is going to be cited in the rest of the DR process, and the implementing edit. The RfC question limits itself to the first sentence and specifically calls for consideration of BLP and PSCI. If you read the survey and discussion, there was robust discussion on the "no" and "yes" sides, with policy-based arguments, well-stated on both sides. And the counted !votes actually favor "yes" (keep "conspiracy theorist" in the lead). And if you step back a bit more and look at the talk page discussion, as a wise closer would do, you would see that there is some fierce discussion going on with respect to the tension between BLP and PSCI - we've already been to BLPN, RSN, and the fringe noticeboard. What was needed, was a close, that actually listened to what the community said and dealt with the policy issues that were raised, and was thoughtful. (remember, this is a BLP article of a guy who makes his living writing books and making movies pushing FRINGE ideas... and if you look at the Talk page discussion, we have believers in his ideas participating. and it is a BLP. Lots going on. ) If you read the close first and go look at the RfC, you would think it was SNOW. It was far from that. As I said, I found the arguments presented by responders, based on UNDUE, to take "Conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence to be persuasive. I am OK with the surface of the close, to take it out. But the reasoning presented in the close is very thin, and doesn't reflect the discussion at all, nor does it mention PSCI. And based on discussions with the closer it has become clear to me that these are the ideas that he came in with. He found an echo in some of the comments (a minority of them) and went with that. He didn't actually close the RfC - he just made a SuperVote. And his implementing edit went way too far and rewrote the whole lead. Those are my objections. I hope that is clear. I am sorry if it was too long. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I want to say two things based upon the subsequent comments here. First, I think it is incorrect to accuse Jytdog of forum-shopping, because it is well within Wikipedia norms to ask for a review of contested closes. (After all, that's why we have DRV for deletion decisions.) Second, I think it is necessary, not optional, for Nyttend to comment here, and tell us whatever he might think about the ways that he used administrative tools. I raised some significant issues there, and I see nothing subsequently to make me change my mind about those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Added comment – The RFC was opened while another thread about the lede was ongoing. That thread was addressing the lede in a broader sense and we seemed to have agreement that describing Griffin as a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede was appropriate. What Jytdog's RFC did was to open another thread that produced the same arguments from the same people. And while the RFC was on-going, Atsme opened a thread that was broader in scope, but still concerning the same issues (NPOV & UNDUE). And now we have a fourth (or is it fourteenth?) thread here where the same old stuff gets argued. Nyttend's closing (and edit) had the immense virtue of great virtue of establishing a consensus version for the lede as a whole. With the present version (provided by Nyttend) in place, editors are proposing and discussing a re-write that will use either "conspiracy theory" and/or "conspiracy theorist" in the lede. WP:CCC is in play at the bottom of the article talk page. With this in mind, reviewing admins of this request should simply close the request without action and advise editors to strive on elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How can it be true that Nyttend's edit "established a consensus version" and also true that a consensus contrary to Nyttend's edit had developed elsewhere and also true that editors are now working on an agreement about how to undo the controversial part of the edit? That does make it sound like an edit that was against consensus which has caused editors unnecessary work. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close as no arguments indicate that the close was improper, which is the sole criterion here. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. To clarify my earlier response, I support the close as a plausible interpretation of the arguments (although it gives inadequate (apparently no) weight to WP:PSCI), but note that the closer's edit was contrary to the close in that there is consensus that it should be noted he is a conspiracy theorist in, at least, the first paragraph, and unanimity that it should be prominently noted in the lead that he supports conspiracy theories, if not that that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This Noticeboard is not the place to relitigate the issues raised in the RfC. OP has not demanded that the close be set aside, only that there is sufficient, policy-based concern to be uneasy about its conclusion. Where there is good faith, reasoned concern about a close, a review by a second Admin is warranted. The matter can be put to rest, one way or the other, so that editors can work on improving other parts of the article. There will be no harm done if a thoughtful review affirms the original close. Whatever the outcome, all editors will have increased confidence that the result is robust and stable. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Close. Consensus is clear, there is nothing left to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy I have not requested a review of a close before and i have no sense of where we are. can you spell out your comment for me a bit? (are you actually closing or are suggesting a close? what consensus is clear to you?) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If Guy was closing this discussion s/he would have used {{archive top}} and given a rationale. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit exceeding the scope of the RfC

The issue that isn't being addressed properly here is the way the edit by Nyttend went beyond the question posed by the RfC re the first sentence. Link to the RfC question: [3] -- and here's the portion of the edit Nyttend made that exceeded the scope of the RfC: [4]. Closing an RfC is a matter of determining the consensus of the community; there can't be a consensus for an answer to a question that wasn't asked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to note here, the editors working on the page agreed during full PP to make an edit request to the infobox, that Griffin is "Known for: Conspiracy theories". That discussion is here and you can see it the infobox here G. Edward Griffin. Nyttends' edit removing "conspiracy theory" from the lead altogether not only went beyond the scope of the RfC but went against the consensus that we had established. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that Nomoskedasticity opened this distinct subthread, because the narrow focus by some editors above, on the close itself, was resulting in not seeing the forest – the ways in which administrative tools were used to go beyond the close itself, in ways that went against policy – for the trees. As I said above, those administrative actions reflected significant misunderstanding of policies, including NPOV and BLP, as well as misunderstanding the scope of the RfC discussion, and made improper use of editing through full protection. I am disappointed that Nyttend has not commented here, nor acknowledged that some of us have raised these concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: So what? Look at it this way – the RFC was closed with a determination that CT should not be used in the first sentence. So it was properly removed. (You can't argue with that change.) And then Nyttend makes 2 more changes in the next sentences. But those two additional changes are based on the same determination that using CT in the lede was improper because the "derogatory characterization" is a "fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." What do you want this AN to do? Give Nyttend a scolding? (The task of a closer, let alone an admin, is tough enough. And very few appreciate those roles.) Or do you want the AN to say CT should be used in the subsequent sentences? If that is your solution, then it contradicts the RFC determination. (This solution is not going to happen.) In any event editors are now working on a new version of the lede on the talk page. Join in. You will see that CT is (now) used in the first paragraph via a quote from Sean Easter. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, I get it that you agreed with the close, and I've already said that I do not have a problem with the close itself, but I could not possibly disagree with you more about the supposed power of administrators to go beyond what was in the close itself. There were serious mistakes here, and there needs to be some reassurance that they are not going to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to say "supposed power of admins". Any non-involved experienced editor could have closed the RFC. (And "supposed" has a rather derogatory tone about it.) As Wikipedia is a project where anyone can edit, nothing prohibits a closer from editing an article. Before anyone is going to formally admonish Nyttend for those other two edits, you got to convince the admin community that Nyttend's determination regarding NPOV was incorrect. I don't think that is going to happen. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so. I stand by what I said. Unless anyone thinks that we need to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, there is no uncertainty about what is being asked here. OP is asking for a second Admin to review the closing. It's not helpful to suggest that anybody here wishes to "give Nyttend as scolding." That's a straw man, it's not constructive and it's arguably a personal attack which insinuates other editor(s) come here with an inappropriate motive. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two objections were made above when this AN was opened. One was about the close and the other was the edit. This subthread is about the edit. As to both objections, nothing is going to change. WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures may be of some help: basically the close will stand. The edit itself is simply part of the process we follow when improving articles. Contributors would better spend their time thinking about how to improve the article (and contribute on the talk page) because this AN is a dead horse. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, that reply was neither helpful nor responsive. I suggest you drop the stick. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually found his reply helpful and informative, and agree that we should be spending more time writing prose and less time poking sticks. But wait, there's only two editors who are actually writing prose. Hmmm...this may require further review. Atsme☯^Consult 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue about the edit goes to Question 4 asked by Arthur Rubin which inexperienced editors here have not understood. If the additional edits to the lead were an "administrative action" then for another admin to revert them would be WP:WHEELWARRING which admins stay away from since they can be sanctioned for that - it takes a discussion like this one to overturn them. If the edits were just part of a close, another admin can overturn them. The other piece of it, is whether the edits outside the first sentence were based on the RfC or not and were essentially an admin making a SuperVote on the RfC, which admins are not supposed to do. These are serious and subtle questions and are what AN is for. There is no doubt that Nyttend's restoration of his edits through protection was an admin action, as that is something only admins have the ability to do. Separate questions have been raised about that, but the full resolution depends on the status of the initial implementing edits beyond the first sentence. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple questions

There are multiple questions that should be resolved somewhere. Only the first one is really being discussed here. (If someone wants to respond to individual questions, please do so. I've signed each of my comments individually.)

1. Was the close, stating that "conspiracy theorist" should not be in the first sentence, correct.

   In my opinion, it was the wrong choice, both as a matter of guidelines and as a matter of consenus, but plausible, so it should probably stand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Closes which are within reason should not be overturned. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I think the close was necessarily subjective, but specifically with respect to the first sentence, it was a reasonable conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   i think it was a reasonable conclusion, given for the wrong reasons. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, his actions are supported by policy. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely correct. No other way to see this. Wasting too much time on this.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Was there consensus as to whether "conspiracy theorist" should be included in the first paragraph.

   I think there was consensus, in favor, that the fact that he is known for conspiracy theories should be in the first paragraph. There certainly wasn't consensus against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No clear consensus - but I tend to think positive consensus is required for inclusion of what was clearly viewed as a contentious term. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   In the discussion, several editors said explicitly that they were drawing a distinction between the first sentence and the lead as a whole, and there was no clear consensus either way about the rest of the page, outside of the first sentence. Several participating editors said that there were issues of due weight with respect to the first sentence specifically, which sets the first sentence off, relative to the rest of the page. Therefore, for a closer (whether an administrator or not) to determine that the phrase should be deleted elsewhere on the page, either there had to be a policy basis for doing so, or it would be a super-vote. Administrators making such closes are expected, even required, to understand applicable policies correctly. As I have explained above, this close reflected a serious lack of understanding of policies, and of previous ArbCom decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   no. There were 9 "no" !votes, and 13 "yes" ! votes and 1 "neutral" !vote (which was neutral on the first sentence and "hell yes" for somewhere in the lead). Of all those, only two (arthur rubin, alexbrn) specifically discussed the lead. and I'll add that three of the "no" !votes (DocumentError and Carrite and JonRichfield seemed to me, to be saying "no" to the narrow question of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence only but were fine using things like "promotes conspiracy theories" outside the first sentence. That makes it 17 to 6 !votes in favor of saying something like "he promotes conspiracy theories" which is overwhelming. the implementing edit not only removed "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence but all reference to "conspiracy theories" from the lead. That did not reflect the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Consensus is not required for the removal of fundamentally noncompliant material, with particular emphasis on BLPs. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. Concensus is not relevant since it can't change policy in this RfC--Pekay2 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. It fails NPOV to imply that it is part of a mainstream view that he does not support multiple conspiracy thories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead part of the close?

   Clearly not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Uncertain- where the closer appears to have felt that a positive consensus is needed for inclusion, then this might well be part of what he viewed as the proper close. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   It certainly was not part of the RfC question, as it was written, and the RfC discussion appears to have been conducted based on the understanding that it was about the first sentence only. That does not rule out a close that goes further, based on policy, but the basis on policy here was incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No. Here is the actual close, so it is fresh. Doesn't mention the first sentence nor even the lead; seems to aim to cover the whole article: "Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist"."Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes. The admin acted properly by removing improperly sourced contentious material that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. The closer followed both WP:Consensus#Administrative or community intervention Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome ...closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely yes. The closer was very clear.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action, so that reverting it is a violation of something (probably an ArbCom decision, Arbitration Enforcement)?

   That needs to be established. I would say, not, but it would be problematic to reverse it until a consensus at an administrative noticeboard is reached. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That would likely have to be discussed in a new section entirely - if it were intended to be an admin action, then it would absolutely need to be reviewed in a full discussion with positive consensus needed to overturn such an action, and not in this rambling discussion. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I am not aware of any ArbCom sanctions or other editing restrictions that would interfere with an uninvolved administrator reviewing what happened and either supporting or reversing any of it. But I see that as becoming moot, in light of subsequent work by editors at the page and the talk page. What I am interested here is some clarification of what was appropriate and what was not appropriate, and an indication from Nyttend that he is interested in learning from this situation and doing better going forward. I'm not interested in seeing anybody get punished, but I am interested in seeing some learning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That question is way over my head. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, reverting an admin's action to remove noncompliant contentious material from a BLP was tendentious and disrespectful of the sanctions and RfC closer. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme that doesn't respond to the question that was asked. The question is whether, specifically, Nyttend's implementing edit should be considered an "administrative action" or something else. Your response doesn't deal with the question of how to classify that edit, nor why it should be classified one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog you asked Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action and I answered Yes. Nyttend's response on his TP was pretty clear: [5] as was the following excerpt from his explanation on your TP: Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. [6]. Considering the WP:Forumshopping it appears you are engaged in now, and the fact that you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK, it appears Nyttend has far more insight than you give him credit. Atsme☯^Consult 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Is there any other way to see it?--Pekay2 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I expressed no !vote at the RfC. Collect (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that neither did I. I only became aware of it after the close, because I watch Jytdog's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to add some things. First, I request that Nyttend comment here. Second, I have one additional question:

1. What are the limits to administrators editing a page through full protection, and was Nyttend's edit within those limits?

   I think that editing a page when the rest of us cannot do it is a very serious action to take, and is easily abused. The only time that an administrator should do so is when policy requires it (for example, to remove a BLP violation). Otherwise, stay off a high horse, and make an edit request on the talk page like the rest of us. Full protection is intended to prevent edit warring and disruptive edits, and not to preserve anyone's preferred version of a page. Here, it is complicated because Nyttend appeared to believe that policy required his edit, but he was wrong about that. I think there is a serious need for a consensus that editing through full protection is not something to be done carelessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Where an admin has made a determination that a claim of fact made in Wikipedia's voice is something where policy dictates that it ought be made only as an opinion of others, then it is proper for him or her to remove such a claim made in Wikipedia's voice, which should be reserved only for statements of fact, as an administrative action per the ArbCom BLP decisions. If such is the case, that admin should state it here before this gets too far afield from that issue as BLP requirements are not overridden by local consensus. Collect (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   I looked back at the ArbCom BLP case, and I didn't see anything in the final decision about Wikipedia's voice versus attribution to a source. Where does it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

   WP:NPOV/FAQ When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion

   And in many many discussions. Collect (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Agreed and understood. It just wasn't in the ArbCom BLP decision, and the ArbCom Pseudoscience decision indicates that obvious or generally recognized pseudoscience can be identified as such in Wikipedia's voice, rather than presenting it as a matter of a source's opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

   Perhaps JzG can also respond to this question. I respect Nyttend's decision as an admin which I've already stated above with inline text attribution validating his adherence to policy. Atsme☯^Consult 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm continuing to see editors saying that administrators should do the kinds of things that Nyttend did because that's what policy requires, mainly the BLP policy. I feel bad about repeating myself, but I feel a need to repeat what I said earlier:

• At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents".[7] There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
• The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)

Look, I get it, about the importance of BLP. But it is a misreading of BLP to say that anything negative about a person must be deleted. What Nyttend edited through full protection to remove was not something that BLP requires to be removed, and I'm basing that on a decision by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – It seems some editors want the RFC to go both ways. One, they say the RFC was strictly confined to the first sentence; but, two, they argue that consensus was for inclusion of conspiracy theory/ist somewhere in the lede. They are willing to accept the determination as to One (first sentence), in which case this AN is unneeded. But the Information page WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says "Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." And "Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." With this in mind, where is there context or information left out of the discussion or new information? Where is there a compelling reason? Where is the overwhelming consensus? The answer to these questions is negative because much of the discussion in this AN is a re-litigation of the CT question and not worthwhile. Moreover, didn't Nyttend make the determination on NPOV? (One more thing, why are editors giving Nyttend grief by asking Nyttend to comment here and implying that Admin misbehavior is at issue?) – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, you are framing what others of us have said, as things that we did not say. I don't think that anyone said that there was consensus for removing the phrase from the first sentence and for keeping it elsewhere. What I, for one, have been saying is that there was consensus for removing it from the lead and no consensus either way about removing it or keeping it elsewhere, and that administrative tools were used heavy-handedly to go beyond what the RfC (in which I did not participate) had determined, in ways that are actually contrary to policy and an ArbCom decision. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss those problems at AN. I am not asking that Nyttend be punished or sanctioned, and it is unhelpful to imply that anyone is asking for that. It is perfectly appropriate to ask that administrators respond to concerns about their actions, and cause for concern when they do not respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough with the questions already. Nyttend closed this, and other Admins are ignoring this 'go nowhere' conversation. Wrap it up and move on.--Pekay2 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate to close this discussion, unless it is to ignore Nyttend's closing edit. If Nyttend refuses to comment on his reasoning, it must be assumed that anything he did not explain with reference to policy, including his closing edit, is not part of his close. Discussion on the article talk page cannot go anywhere unless it is determined exactly what is required by the close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

status update

As this thread lingers, editors on both sides of the issues in the article have gotten antsy and have started to aggressively edit the article and edit war. Probably close to page protection again (that would be the third time). I have decided to step away from the article as the editors there are dragging themselves to AE. It would be very helpful to the folks still working on the article if this thread could get attention and resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you included yourself in that accusation of "aggressive" editors. Passive aggressive behavior is equally as disruptive, Jytdog, and your pretense as peacekeeper is disingenuous, especially when you are at the core of the problem. It should not have taken us 2 months to convince you that contentious material in a BLP could not be stated in Wiki voice. You also don't seem to understand the difference in executing bold edits for policy compliance vs what you're falsely trying to portray as antsy and aggressive editing. My attempts to correct the policy violations and expand the article may have been bold, but I have proposed those same changes on the TP for nearly 2 months, but you kept SQS to prevent them. The removal of PP, and the RfC calling out the policy issues gave editors a green light to fix the fundamentally noncompliant policy issues that were pointed out by the RfC, but your "side" reverted the changes. It appears you will do just about anything to prevent Griffin from becoming a GA candidate - like filing that completely false 3RR claim against me. It's shameful behavior. You say you want to avoid ARBCOM but you never change course. I consult you to drop the stick and move away from the carcass as you have already been advised to do by several other editors. Atsme☯^Consult 20:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note to admins. I have decided to watch the Griffin article again. I am waiting for a close of this review of the RfC close. Once that is done, I plan to launch a second RfC to ask whether the lead, outside the first sentence, should say something about Griffin being a conspiracy theorist or promoting conspiracy theories. This was what I intended all along but the process has been stalled by the controversial close and the dragging out of the review of the close. Editors at the article have clearly stated views and are not going to convince each other and the discussion there continues to be deadlocked; we need to work DR and keep bringing in the voices of the community to help us resolve issues in a careful, stepwise fashion. Would an admin please review this thread and close it? If that means referral to another venue, please be clear about that; I've not requested a review of an RfC by an admin before. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Nyttend's edits went well beyond the RFC consensus. Atsme is on a crusade to whitewash the article. Griffin is, as evidence comprehensively on the Talk page, a conspiracy theory advocate. He does not originate them, but he advocates them. To describe them as conspiracy theories does not violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a hagiography, and Griffin is a well known crank. One who advocates antisemitic conspiracy theories and outright quackery.

This article would be immeasurably improved by the withdrawal of Atsme, who seems unable to accept that conspiracy theories about the Fed and laetrile are, well, conspiracy theories. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons

Would an uninvolved admin please be so kind as to peruse the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Icons#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it and review the Non-admin closure that has precipitated the confusion? The contested change has been made three times and reverted twice and there appears to be confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging @Technical 13:. I don't see any issues with the close, personally. Those who are edit warring against the consensus found in the most recent discussion should, as usual, take it to the talk page. HiDrNick! 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• HiDrNick, please see User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close for my thoughts on it. I'll happily review the new discussions when I have some time, about to head to class for 4 hours. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing Technical 13 - in fact I haven't participated in this RFC/discussion at all. It's just that some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles". Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful. If people are happy with Technical 13 making the clarification, that's fine with me – I don't have a dog in this hunt (my peeve is flag icons w/o the name/abbreviation of the nation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). I just felt the opinion of an uninvolved admin might shut everyone up so we can all get back to editing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging User:SMcCandlish who contested the close in December at User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think that the close is over-broad in its interpretation. It appears to make a general statement about sports generally when the discussion was about Forumula One racing in particular, and the conclusion reached actually contradicts years worth of previous consensus discussions. Basically, the F1 editors lobbied very hard to get their way on this, and people who also really, really, really like flag icons are trying to misconstrue the questionable result of that one discussion as an overruling of something like 5 years of previous decisions against festooning articles with cutesy pictures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding these tags and clogging up the page. Allow threads to die a natural death, if that's what they're going to do.. Not everything needs a formal closeure. BMK (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we post a comment here everyday until someone responds – that should keep it from getting archived. Seems clear that @Technical 13: has decided not to clarify his close (despite a cordial reminder on his talk page), so the ambiguity remains. I guess there really aren't enough admins to go around. Is it any wonder we're losing editors? I posted this here when a nascent edit war was developing. Wisely, @Jojhutton: reverted only twice. But, if this is archived without clarification from technical 13 or an uninvolved admin, it raises the additional question of what to do about the edit to MOS:ICON – should it be reverted to the status quo ante or left as is? Mojoworker (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't decided to do or not do anything. My ex's 60+ year old father slipped on some ice in a store parking lot last weekend, broke three ribs, punctured a lung, went in for multiple operations to fix it, and has been in ICU half the week. Clarifying my close on a topic on Wikipedia has been at the very, very bottom of my todo list. I'll get to it in the next week or two when my mind has a minute to regroup and I apologize if I seem brash or uncaring, but in comparison to what I'm dealing with in RL atm, I really don't care. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

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

---

A little more than six months ago I was topic banned (link). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How will it benefit the interests of Wikipedia to do so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is always beneficial for wikipedia to have more editors constructively editing all articles on wikipedia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that your past editing in the area concerned has been constructive? I ask this because that appears not to have been the consensus when the ban was enacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing whatsoever about Antidiskriminator or previous incidents, but "I just want to edit" is not a productive argument for lifting a topic ban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply which really makes sense. Is there any guideline which presents some kind of list of arguments to be used in discussions about ban appeals? If not, what do you think could be such argument? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guide specifically related to appealing topic bans, but the advice given at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked is also relevant to topic ban appeals. Generally speaking, an appeal wont be successful unless you:

• show you understand why the topic ban was imposed
• point to examples of where you have been constructively engaging in collaborative editing in one or more other topic areas
• have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident.
• state why you want to return to the topic area - is a particular article/problem you want to fix, for example?
• promise that problems will not reoccur

Deliberate boundary testing, wikilawyering, poor conduct in other areas, and a general lack of editing will typically be looked at unfavourably. I have not looked at any of the details of your ban or your contributions since, so I don't have an opinion on the merits of this specific appeal and I'm not implying that you have or have not done anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Here it is:

• The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me
• For example The Fault in Our Stars (film) and bringing it to GA level together with its nominator (link to my GA review). Since my topic ban was imposed I created 40 articles and developed 27 of them to start class and 4 to C class, alone or with other editors. I had 12 of them approved as DYK articles and still have 2 nominations. One nomination (Paškal Jukić) was done jointly with another editor (link) (link and link). I also created one template (link) and most of its content.
• I have abided by the topic ban for at least the last 6 months without incident (with one minor unintentional breach when I added one comma to text about Albanian partisans near Tirana in article about Kingdom of Albania - link)
• I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction.
• I promise to take very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think that first bullet point may be a killer to this request, so I suggest you expand on it. Can you explain what actions you took that caused the community to give you a topic ban? In particular, can you explain what you did that was problematic? You don't need to apologize for past behavior. Rather, you need to show you really understand what the problem was and have a solid plan for avoiding similar problems in the future. As written, I don't get that sense at all. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion that resulted in the topic ban is here, and the first appeal of it, five days later, is here. It's been about 5 1/2 months since that appeal, and as far as I can tell there hasn't been another appeal since. A short discussion regarding the boundaries of the ban is here. Several of the people in that discussion were of the opinion that Antidiskriminator's October 21, 2014 edit to Albanian Kingdom (1943–44) violated the topic ban, but there was no consensus declared. BMK (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, Since that appeal has been 191 days, or 6 months and one week, if I am not wrong.
• Hobit, Thank you for this question. It is indeed good to clarify if I have a solid plan for avoiding problems in this topic area in the future. To put it briefly: The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). Yes, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas. I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I'd be hard pressed to call the ban discussion a consensus in any way, shape or form, despite Drmies concluding that sufficient evidence of disruption had been presented to warrant a TBAN. The number of editors that !voted in that ban discussion was distinctly suboptimal. Six editors !voted all but two having had some sort of contact/dispute with Antidiskrimnator. I definitely couldn't say there was a sufficiently uninvolved consensus for a TBAN. Be that as it may, perhaps a probationary period of say 3 months during which the TBAN is lifted but any transgressions would result in a TBAN under WP:AC/DS? Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. The discussion above of what brought about the TBAN in the first place doesn't exactly reek of contrition, but avoiding the topic for six months may be grounds to AGF and lift the topic ban, on the understanding that it comes straight back if the misbehaviour continues. How do we administer this, so that admins are aware of the probation condition? GoldenRing (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest allowing proposals of edits on talk pages, and see how it goes from there. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem allowing Antidiskriminator to edit in their chosen area. That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected. What this particular proposal needs is a bit less sourness from Antidiskriminator and a bit of good faith from the rest, esp. the ones who wanted him banned in the first place. One of the things they should say, given that AD has been out of that area for six months, is that editing in that area has gotten easier. If they cannot show progress, or state with hand on heart that it's gotten better, then AD's topic ban wasn't much use in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Taking in consideration that most of the complaints to my talkpage behavior were related to my communication with Peacemaker67 who was blocked because of "edit warring and personal attacks" (diff) while I was banned, I am not sure if it can be stated with hand on heart that problem was (only) my behavior. Some of editors that I have been in conflict with and who !voted for my ban came again here to !vote against its lifting. To show them (or any other editor concerned about my possible "obstructing discussions") that I have a plan to avoid similar problems in the future I am willing to oblige myself to use below presented template for all comments I make at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to Post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months after the ban was lifted.

Short description	Opinion	Basis
Antidiskriminator's opinion/reply about/to xzy ....	I think that xyz...... because........ so the text should be changed to ...............	* List of wikipedia policies (with quotes if necessary) that support the opinion. or * List of sources that support the opinion (if necessary with short quotes)
.......	........	.............

Based on the discussion at WP:AN (permanent link), Antidiskriminator obliged himself to use this template for all comments he makes at articles' or users' talkpages in relation to post-1900 Serbia and Serbs topics, for at least 12 months.--~~~~ --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that putting your comments in a table avoids the problem. Quite the opposite in fact given that this would be difficult for other editors to engage with. Blaming others for your conduct is also worrying. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Antid attempts to throw mud at me for a short-term block I quite rightly received. What he fails to point out, and what demonstrates the huge difference between his behaviour over a very long period, and mine on that occasion, is that when I do the wrong thing, I unreservedly acknowledge it, apologise to the community, per this, and discontinue the behaviour. Antid shows no contrition or acceptance that he has breached community norms, he just wants to get straight back to doing what he was doing before. He keeps a list of all the "wrongs" he was not able to "right" with the Pavle Đurišić article (and others), and he will no doubt just go straight back to it, using his "policy table" above, which will just be used to make his wikilawyering look more official (and authorised by ANI). He has demonstrated a strong need to "right wrongs", generally wrongs he feels have been done to Serbs, and his subpages list is indicative of the way he goes about it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lift ban. And expecting someone to agree with you that you were right to ban them is pretty dumb. Nobody ever actually believes they were justly banned, so this is really just a demand for kowtowing, and it's petty. Everyking (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've lifted the ban. Happy editing! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• How did Lugnuts do that? NE Ent 20:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pixie dust? Magic wand? Touched by an angel?

  In point of fact, Lugnuts did nothing except type the words "I've lifted the ban. Happy editing!", and the ban has not actually been lifted. There was no closing statement with an explanation of the closer's rationale, the topic ban is still logged at Editing Restrictions, and presumably admins will enforce it if there's a need to.

  In theory, there's nothing wrong with a NAC closure of a ban appeal, but in general NAC closures should be reserved for cases where the outcome is obvious and indisputable. There's also the problem that while the community imposes the ban, admins are the ones who have to enforce it, so imposing or lifting a ban without an admin close may or may not be effective.

  Were I Antidiskriminator, I would not start editing in the topic ban area without getting this question cleared up. BMK (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• And can we have some due process here, please? The discussion has barely lasted a day. Despite relatively low participation at that ANI, I don't think Antidiskriminator was banned lightly, and the decision came after years of WP:TE and WP:CIVILPOV. To quote Fut. Perf from that debate, but Antidiskriminator is certainly one of the most persistently tendentious and stubborn actors in the field – usually keeping below the threshold of admin intervention by avoiding overly perspicuous edit-warring sprees and incivility, but persistently obstructing discussions through stonewalling and refusal to get the point, coupled with tendentious and poor-quality editing in articles. and that matches my impressions in relatively limited dealing with AD perfectly. I'm not against second chances, but I have significant reservations about AD's determinations to reform and be a net positive for the project. No such user (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban I have some recollection of all the issues from last time around. But I get the sense this user is going to take an honest shot at being a good editor in the area. I would prefer the topic ban removal be with the condition that it can be reimposed by an administrator at any time if his editing in this area again becomes problematic. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of TBan His edits are useful. I had reviewed one of his DYK,[8] they are interesting. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of ban. This user's presence in the topic area was a perennial source of disruption, and I see no signs whatsoever that he has changed. This ban was imposed for a good reason. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes you believe he hasn't changed? 6 months in his other edits have been quite solid from what I can see. We generally give people WP:ROPE at that point. I'd not be shocked if the ban needs to be reimposed, but I'm not sure what else he could do to show things have changed. What is it that you'd want to see to think he has changed? Hobit (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of TBan I am one of the editors that has objected strenuously to Antid's behaviour in the past, and also one of the editors that had to deal with him most, because he had a very particular interest in Chetniks, and I edit in Yugoslavia in WWII. I agree wholeheartedly with the observations of No such user. Antid was NOT banned lightly, so far as I can remember, his behaviour has been ongoing for the whole three years I've been editing WP. This is not a second chance, it is actually a third chance. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator. A lifting of the ban in terms of talk pages would open the flood gates for exactly the same behaviour on talk pages as he engaged in before. He created laundry lists of "issues" on talk pages on which he would demand clarification, fail to get the point, fail to accept consensus, and was generally highly disruptive, wasting editors' time. For a small sample, look at Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 6, which demonstrates just how incredibly frustrating his behaviour really was. Someone above asked if it had been easier to edit in his absence. Where I (and others) edit, hugely. In fact, it has become a pleasure again after a couple of years of incessant frustration with tendentious obstructionism and poor-quality editing (when he deigned to actually edit in article space rather than carping about endless issues on talk). This is not just a matter of walking away from a disagreement. In the case of Pavle Đurišić, I took it to FA, and he fought it tooth and nail every single step of the way, creating reams of text about issues he has shown he will never accept are reliably sourced. He showed no indication he learned anything from his first brush with ARBMAC, and I doubt he will learn from this ban if it is lifted. He showed a great deal of interest in advocating for very specific points of view, and I don't believe that lifting the ban would be in the interests of Wikipedia. If he is productively editing outside this topic, let him continue to do so. Surely there is much to do to improve WP coverage of the Ottoman period. Why does he need to project forward past 1900, where he had proved unable to edit without obstructionism and tendentiousness? A lifting of the TBan will just draw him back into the same contentious territory in which he failed to get the point in the first place. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unban - For chrissakes. He's made a calm, good-faith request to have his topic ban lifted, he's given ample proof of having contributed beneficially in the meantime, and people are demanding he grovel. Just unban him and let him edit, if he violates policy then reban. Easy. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Lifting of topic ban per my comment below, and Peacemaker's comment above. From what I've seen, the editing environment around former Yugoslavia topics has improved hugely over the last year or so, and allowing Antidiskriminator to return to this field would be a significant step backwards, especially as they appear to be unrepentant. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Your argument doesn't really take into account how the user has behaved since the topic ban. Are you suggesting that he should never be unbanned? If not, what would need to happen for you to think that removing the ban was a good idea? Hobit (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • For the ban to be lifted, I think that Antidiskriminator would need to genuinely acknowledge the problems with their behaviour, and make meaningful commitments to avoid this going forward. Not stuff like this. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Unban - AD was very active and productive editor. Unfortunatelly, Balkans related articles often create groups and lobbies which end up trying to eliminate the editors opposing them in the discussions. The topic ban was too heavy and seemed more of a elimination of an editor than real benefit for Wikipedia. I beleave AD understood well the type of engagement that will get him into opposing editors filling reports on him, and besides those discussions he was actually a very productive editor. He certainly deserves at least a chance. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That is way too cute, Fkp. You yourself got a six-month ARBMAC TBan in 2012 for behaviour very similar to Antid's. There are quite a few regular editors in the space Antid wants to return to, and I have had zero issues with any of them since he was topic-banned. They all have different perspectives, and we seem to be able to resolve any disagreements amicably and quickly. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Many users from "your side" from those discussions back then also got banned. I am not here to save you from discussions, but for the best interest of Wikipedia. I said what I have to say. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal of ban. He avoided the topic for six months, to me that is grounds for a second chance. AGF, move on and lift his topic ban. Caden ^cool 16:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• If the people of good faith who are willing to extend a second chance to AD in this topic area were actually going to be there throughout the next few years to police his various shenanigans, then sure, why not. But experience taught me to have absolutely zero expectation of that, since this is a really convoluted and often toxic topic area that the bulk of the editors steer clear of. So there's little doubt in my mind that unbanning him would lead to anything other than a net loss for the encyclopedia. In fact, this discussion has only reminded me of how nice these few months of relative peace have been. That doesn't mean we've had it easy in the Balkans topic area - a recent example of wacko crap that happens around there is laid out at List of Presidents of Croatia. Who wants to police that? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be fair if you have added several important clarifications to your comment, such as:
    1. that you are the editor who reported me in the first place
    2. that you were involved in numerous disputes with me
    3. that you were blocked for your actions in this topic area (diff)
    4. that your block came after I pointed (diff) at the issue with your actions
    5. that you reported me immediately after you were unblocked
    6. that few months of relative peace might be result of Peacemaker67's block for edit warring and personal attacks and warnings he received not to repeat such behavior in future (diff and (diff).
  • Taking all that in consideration, together with the tone of your comment here (i.e. "shenanigans" and "wacko crap") I am uncertain if it is my editing which needs policing. Nevertheless I am willing to address your policing concerns and, in case I am unbanned here, oblige myself to immediately report myself to WP:AN as soon as you or Peacemaker67 accuse me for being disruptive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • A succinct demonstration of why you shouldn't be unbanned, and I didn't even ask for one. Yay! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of Tban (Non-administrator comment) My reasons for opposing the removal of this topic ban are the same as listed below. Ca2james (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the idea of having to fight all the war at the Balkan again. And Antidiskriminator was too many times involved in that. A perennial source of trouble. The Banner talk 20:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Concrete Proposal

IAW the discussion above, let's modify AD's topic ban from A ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed) to A ban on Antidiskriminator editing articles in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1900-current' (broadly construed), but allowing edits to talk pages of such articles.

• Support as proposer GoldenRing (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, his talkpage behaviour was always at least just as big a problem as his article edits, and I don't see any indication why I should expect more constructive behaviour now than before. These talkpages are better off without him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until the editor frankly acknowledges the misbehavior that led to the topic ban, and commits explicitly to avoiding such behavior in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Fut.Perf. and Cullen, and I can't help but notice that Antidiskriminator's approach in this appeal is to make as few commitments as they possibly can. Their entirely unsatisfactory initial post in this thread is a real warning sign to me that problems are likely to re-occur, and the vague commitments they have subsequently made give me little comfort. Nick-D (talk)
• Oppose per my comment above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't have any particular interest to edit talkpages. On the contrary, my approach will be "to make as few commitments as I possibly can", just like in this appeal. I clarified that: "I plan to strictly follow wikipedia policies and avoid both content and conduct disputes with other editors. If some dispute happens anyway, I will strictly follow WP:DR and limit my talkpage comments to 1) opinion and 2) wikipedia policy or reliable source in which they are grounded as much as possible."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - please, allowing a productive editor to participate in discussions but not allowing him to edit articles is like teaching someone to drive a plane but not allowing him to fly. Also, makes no sense, since AD problems came more precisely from discussions and not actual editing. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose (Non-administrator comment) Having reviewed the ANI topic ban discussion, it's clear to me that there were good reasons to topic ban this editor. I don't think that removing the topic ban would be beneficial to Wikipedia: in this thread, the editor hasn't shown that they understand that his behaviour was the problem and also hasn't shown that he is committed to changing that behaviour. Restricting comments to his opinion, Wikipedia policies, and reliable sources is not a change in behaviour at all. Ca2james (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of the worst disruption and drama happens on talk pages, and they are where content is very often decided. A topic ban which allows talk page edits is not a topic ban in any meaningful sense. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the idea of having to fight all the war at the Balkan again. And Antidiskriminator was too many times involved in that. A perennial source of trouble. The Banner talk 09:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Sorry, placed in the wrond section.
  • Can you present some link or diff to the war you had to fight with me at post-1900 Serbs or Serbia topics? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure of AN topic

I don't know what is the procedure when some ban appeal discussion gets archived without being closed, so I copied it here hoping that somebody will close it. It should be taken in consideration that two oppose !votes are connected with possible canvassing issue explained in this discussion (permanent link).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the discussion is closed. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "do not archive until" tag. This discussion has been open since February 1st, that's 21 days now, more than sufficient time to have generated an admin closure if an admin felt the need for it to be closed. Allowing the thread to be archived without action is the equivalent of a pocket veto, and is an indication that no admin believes there is a need to change the status quo. BMK (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • More than one admin who participated in this discussion supported removal of ban or clearly stated they are not opposed to it, including the admin who imposed ban in the first place (Drmies) who emphasized "I have no problem allowing Antidiskriminator to edit in their chosen area. That votes for the ban come from editors that they have been in conflict with--eh, that's to be expected."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm re-adding the do not archive tag. If someone wants to say there is not consensus to remove the ban, all well and good. But in general we should have closes on things like this. It is simply rude to the requester not to do so. Ideally, such a close would give a better idea what the policy-based reason is for not undoing the ban and what steps they should take in the future. I'd close this as a NAC, but I'm clearly involved. Further, I'm not at all certain the reason we haven't had a close is because this one is just not clear. Most of those opining on one side or the other are involved and falling where you would expect them. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't you think that over 20 days is sufficient for this discussion? These things usually run about 5 days at the most. That admins are unwilling to close it one way or the other is, in my view, a collective "Meh" from them. Also, that we're going to let this sit here until mid-April is affording AD a special status that other topic ban appealers don't get.

      Ah, well, maybe someone will just close it. BMK (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Appeal of autism topic ban against User:Muffinator

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

---

What follows is a copy of my appeal sent to the Ban Appeal Subcommittee. I was told that BASC will not consider my appeal due to the topic ban being "an administrative action not related to an arbitration case" and that I must appeal to the Administrators' Noticeboard instead. I have waited the recommended 6 months despite the ban being erroneous.

Username: Muffinator

Nature of ban: Topic ban on autism-related articles

Issued by: TParis

Relevant page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#User:Parabolooidal_spamming_passive-aggressive.2C_sarcastic_attempts_to_derail_discussions.2C_edit_warring.2C_and_meatpuppetry

Why it should be overturned: Unfair or erroneous - The following reasons for the ban were given at the adminstrator's noticeboard:

1) Use of WikiProject tracking banners on articles whose relevance to the project is disputed. This is a (talk page) content dispute which I had unsuccessfully attempted to centralize at the affected WikiProject. If anyone is at fault, it is the editors who insist that the issue is solely with me, on the grounds that other project members are less active. At the time of the ban, I was waiting for a request for comment to run its course, NOT engaged in an edit war.

2) False accusations of personal attacks. We can tell, based on the diffs, that they are not personal attacks, just statements that other editors do not agree with.

3) False accusations of creating WikiProject Autism to advance an agenda. The page mentions neutrality several times, urging participants to maintain it. It is only my own statements on talk pages (and not even on the WP:AUTISM talk page) that reflect a point of view, namely my opinions. Recognizing that all editors have opinions is a vital step in the process of maintaining neutrality.

4) Accusations of adding WikiProject tracking banners without explaining why, despite having explained why, several times and on several pages, including in comments that the accusing users responded to and therefore have presumably read.

5) Statements made on talk pages that are not neutral or supported by reliable sources. Comments on a talk page are not held to such a standard, and I never carried over to article text any of the sentiments in the cited comments.

6) Single-purpose account - my account has been used many times for non-autism topics, and even if it hadn't, it still doesn't meet the definition outlined at the SPA policy page. Just taking a strong interest in a particular subject does not make a user an SPA.

In addition to these 6 untruths, I believe this ban was made hastily and with regard to a democratic tallying of "support" comments rather than consensus based on the quality of arguments. Involved users who seemed to agree with me on other pages were not even given a chance to voice their opinions because the discussion was closed so quickly.

Another piece of information I consider relevant is that the user whom the ANI notice was originally about was discovered to be a sockpuppet a month later.

Lessons learned:

1) The latest revision of the WikiProject Council guide is insufficient to prevent most disputes over the use of tracking banners. It could use an update.

2) The administrator's noticeboard first scrutinizes the user who adds a complaint, and if that user is determined to be at fault, the original complaint is ignored.

Change of conduct if unbanned:

1) Although this was not a reason cited for the ban, I will be more careful to avoid edit wars, no matter how ridiculous I consider the other editor's change to be, instead favoring 1-on-1 discussions, third opinions, and requests for comment.

2) I will not start any discussions on the administrator's noticeboard.

3) Although I consider the ban frivolous, I am willing to hear out any suggestions that would normally be given for a "second chance" appeal, adding on to this list of changes.

Muffinator (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The section in "Lessons learned " comes off as a swipe against anyone that participated in the linked ANI discussion. More importantly, there's nothing in lessons learned that state why or even if you thought your conduct was innapropriate. I get the sense from reading this that you don't believe you did anything wrong, and that you were right. That's not a good attitude for asking for a ban reversal, sorry KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I am not looking for groveling, I don't see anything that suggests that you understand why your conduct was harmful or what specific actions you will take to avoid conflict in the future. NW (Talk) 17:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be an idea that "everyone is in error except me." JodyB _talk 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban appeal consisting of a lengthy explanation of why everyone else is wrong, concluding that everyone else is wrong and concluding with suggested behaviour changes that also manage to say that everyone else is wrong has no chance of succeeding. Hut 8.5 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• So, the "lessons learned" can be summarised as: none. Hence oppose. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above. I've seldom seen a ban appeal that was a more clear cut case for denial. BMK (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see what I did wrong- that's the reason for appeal. Despite that, I am showing a change of attitude in the last point, which invites all recommendations. If my attitude is the main issue, please explain to me what a better attitude would look like. Muffinator (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• We are opposing because you don't see what you did wrong. Chillum 05:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What Chillum said. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Since the ban was imposed, Muffinator has made no main space edits, his only edits have been to talk pages either about his ban, or saying about going on a wikibreak. Whilst editing is not compulsory, Muffinator has made no attempt to show he can work with other users. In the ANI discussion that lead to the topic ban, I commented that Muffinator refuses to WP:DISCUSS issues, he needs to prove that he can edit as part of a team before the topic ban is lifted. Points above 2. [9] is a personal attack. 4. His reasons for adding the project banner seemed to consist of because he could, and ignored WP:BRD discussion here diffs [10] [11]. Muffinators behaviour at [12] was bad. Refusing to discuss the issue per WP:BRD [13] yet editting the wikiproject back in [14] after that refusal. I note also an IP [15] edited Talk:Prince Azim and other articles after the block was put in place either we have two like minded editors, or block evasion. Martin451 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have technical tools that could disprove block evasion? I know that wasn't me, so obviously some verifiable things like IP must be different. Muffinator (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia does. You can request a WP:SPI into other users (or even yourself). You can start one yourself. If you want another user to start one, I would be quite happy to, I know just the place. Martin451 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is quite possibly the worst ban appeal I've seen for a long long time. I don't insist upon begging for forgiveness, but this smug little rant that you'll reluctantly follow the rules, even though everyone else is wrong, does not give me any confidence whatsoever that the issues wouldn't reoccur Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose User has demonstrated they do not understand why their behavior led to the ban. That being the case it should remain. Chillum 05:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Question about WP:POLEMIC...

Will an admin please advise with a yes or no if the following would be considered polemic? [16] Thank you in advance.... Atsme☯^Consult 21:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Those observations are not at a specific editor - but that guide is very very true. That Daily Mail bit is in more than one way a very clear observation about yourself and other editors. The more experience you have on Wikipedia's "problem areas" the more it becomes clear. 1 and 2 are true for reasons that should be self-evident though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think any single admin can make an end-all, be-all determination as to whether this page passes beyond the line drawn by WP:POLEMIC, but my opinion is that it's fine. It's not unrelated to Wikipedia, it's doesn't attack any identifiable editor or group of editors... it's more of a wikiphilosphy thing, presenting the opinions held by MastCell (and/or the Guide's author). I present some similar statements on my own userpage. I wouldn't go as far as to say that this page is helpful, but neither is it harmful, and given the leeway generally afforded to productive contributors as to what they can host in their userspace, I can't find a reason to argue the removal of the content being discussed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• I wouldn't consider it POLEMIC, as it's not targeted towards or referencing any particular person or set of people. (I mean, how many people honestly identify themselves as "stupid"? Who's going to read that and say, "Hey, you're talking about my people here!?" People may recognize particular actions as "stupid" but never themselves on a whole - so I wouldn't think people would get personally offended. It might make someone think less of the writer/re-poster, like "Wow, that person's kind of a jerk for being so judgmental" or something, but that's not a POLEMIC problem I guess.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Not at all. It reflects much truth albeit in a cynical way. So "no." Why do you ask? JodyB _talk 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I had it on my TP (have since deleted it) and didn't want to get in trouble for including something that would be considered WP:POLEMIC. There are so many PAGs to follow, and so many different interpretations it makes my head spin. Atsme☯^Consult 22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder what the context might be? (No, actually I don't. See talk:G. Edward Griffin). Guy (Help!) 22:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• It does not attack any specific editor or group of editors, therefore is perfectly valid in userspace. If no specific editor or group of editors is identified or attacked, there is no harm done to them. Very few people wander the maze of userspace pages, by the way, and one wonders about those who seek to find something to object to. Collect (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• No problems there whatsoever. Perfectly good use of userspace. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input...(well, not quite "all", but then I kinda understand why Guy likes to taunt me over the Griffin article.) Enjoy your weekend! Atsme☯^Consult 05:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not taunting you. You are wrong, that's all. You said you'd drop it, I was happy with that because I think you are a nice person, but now you've decided to take up cudgels again and that is a major problem, because you are unwilling or unable to accept the consensus view on the mad ideas Griffin advocates. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's discourteous to discuss my userpage here without notifying me, but whatever. MastCell ^Talk 06:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion , A very appropriate page, that needs no apology. Well within the limits for internal comments about WP by experienced editors. Some of it may be hyperbola, in general I would endorse almost every statement there . People engaging in disputes here would do well to look at it very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The OP appears to be at risk of dressing as Spider-Man and climbing the Reichstag, which is always ill-advised. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• MastCell I actually brought it here because I had linked to that section on your user page as I noted above - I believed it to be an excellent reflection of what we sometimes have to deal with as editors. I asked a simple question that required a simple yes or no answer for my own benefit (my link to it) because I've seen accusations that similar material on other user pages was polemic. I apologize for not summoning you to join the discussion - it was an oversight on my part. I can assure you that if the discussion had shifted contrary to what I believed, you would have been notified immediately. Atsme☯^Consult 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much sums up what goes on around here more often than not. If anything, all sensible editors should have it on a sub page to remind themselves from time to time. Blackmane (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Block review of User:Russian editor1996

• Russian editor1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please read the ARCA request that I have linked. At the linked page, the request that I'm referring to is in the section "Clarification request: Eastern Europe". Now that the application of DS was rightfully overturned by motion of ArbCom, I'd like to request that Russian editor1996 (talk · contribs) be unblocked. I've explained my reasons in that ARCA request. As far as I can see, no behaviour by this editor warranted an indefinite block. Given that it is already known that the administrator that imposed it did so out-of-process as a discretionary sanction, I believe that there is no reason to allow this unjust block to stand. RGloucester — ☎ 05:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock The fact that the black was procedurally incorrect as a DS block -- because the editor had not received a prior DS warning -- does not mean that it was unjustified as a normal admin block, which it has been converted to. The behavior noted was still the same behavior, and there's been no evidence of that not being the case, so the block should stand as is. (In any case, has Russian editor1996 requested an unblock? What standing do you have to make this request?) BMK (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What behaviour "noted"? No evidence of behavioural misconduct was ever provided, which is why I pursued the ARCA motion in the first place. The issuing administrator has provided no diffs or anything. Please look at the editor in question's edit history. The only justification for a block that was provided by the issuing administrator was "arbitration enforcement", which obviously doesn't apply. I don't play legal games with "standing", whatever that is. The fact remains that this is an illegitimate block. It must be overturned. RGloucester — ☎ 06:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't do block reviews requested by third parties. The user in question hasn't requested an unblock himself; if and when he does, it will be considered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just out of interest, is there anything in policy anywhere that says a third party cannot request a review of a block they think is unjust? Squinge (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear RGloucester (who was recently blocked for outlandish behavior at ANI) himself stated that "[Russian editor1996] was nothing but disruptive". Seems strange to me that anyone would ask for someone who they considered to be nothing but disruptive to be unblocked... just saying. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

He will not ask for an unblock because he has no history of talk page use, or of even understanding what a talk page is. In other words, an editor has been removed from the project with no justification. I've explained my use of the word "disruptive", and explained that that did not warrant any kind of block. Coffee has still yet to provide a single diff supporting his indefinite block. I'd ask him to try and do that, so that others can comprehend the thought process that went on inside his mind at the time. Coffee, of course, likes to portray himself in a good light. In a better world, he would've blocked for what he did, so he doesn't have much room to talk. RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

He has two choices: learn what a talk page is (which is not optional if you want to contribute in contentious areas), or stay blocked. Do feel free to coach him on talk page use and thus achieve the result you prefer. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't "prefer" any result. Indefinite blocks are a serious matter, and are not usually given out lightly. We have every obligation to assist this user, who has been gravely wronged. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

They very much are very serious and are the driving force of people leaving the project. Future Perfect is also wrong that we don't do block reviews by third parties. They also provide no policy or guideline relating to this. This is an admin noticeboard where you can request assistance by other administrators and other experienced editors. If a bad block happens, you should be able to report it here and have it reviewed. That's also what the template says. Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. This is a block with seemingly no evidence behind it, and by that motion, it should be lifted. Tutelary (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Normally, it is undesirable to have block reviews requested by third parties. Only the person blocked can make any assurances about their future behavior. But this is a case where we have no idea why the block was issued. The block could have been a mistake. The block is not a tragedy, it is just unmotivated. My own review of 11 February did not reveal any bad edits. Unless User:Coffee can point to one or more specific diffs that were disruptive, I argue that the block should be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• He was blocked for creating unsourced articles about the UKR/RUS crisis... among a long term editing pattern of edits which were not conducive to editing in a contentious area - due to NPOV and other concerns ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] etc). As you'll notice he wasn't unblocked by ArbCom, the block was merely changed from a DS sanction to a regular block since he hadn't received a DS notice. Once again I'm very confused as to why RGloucester is advocating for someone with a disruptive editing pattern (someone he even reverted and warned for similar behaviour himself). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is very simple, Coffee. None of those edits ideal, but they are simply not grounds for an indefinite block. We all make non-ideal edits from time-to-time, but that doesn't mean we all get blocked indefinitely. Such blocks are only issued when a user is either WP:NOTHERE or extremely disruptive. This editor was neither. He made some genuine content contributions, and "creating unsourced articles" is not grounds for a block. In many cases, too, he reverted his own inappropriate changes, showing some level of self-awareness. Nothing about this editor struck me as malicious. To be frank, blocking this editor indefinitely is completely out of proportion. Users who are much more disruptive on a regular basis do not get blocked for 24 hours, let alone indefinitely. It is a double standard. As I said on my talk page earlier, it is easy to target this editor as no one cares what happens to him. It is very easy, however, for such slippages to spill over. You need to understand that blocks must be issued in proportion to the disruption. In this case, the disruption was essentially negligible on a real scale. We must maintain the principles of our system for curtailing disruption, otherwise it will be compromised. RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not the remit of Arbcom to undo blocks by our admins. We need to analyze it ourselves. Here's what I found out:

• The first diff (this one): the user immediately self-reverted when he saw that he had broken the template.
• The second diff (this one) is from September 2014
• The third diff (this one) he attempts (in an incorrect way) to re-name the template from diff 1. This edit was immediately reverted by RGloucester.
• The fourth diff (this one) is from July 2014.
• The fifth diff (Diff of Germany) while silly and POV, dates to July 2014.
• The sixth diff (Diff of Right Sector) is from March 2014.
• There's no posts on the user's talk page from July 2014 until the block notice was posted. He received no information that his edits were inappropriate or the articles he created were being deleted; no warnings or communication whatsoever prior to the indef-block. Four of the diffs posted by Coffee are from last year. Only two of the three deleted articles were actually unsourced. I don't see any noticeboard discussions about the person's editing. I think it was a bad block. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support an unblock I fully concur with the reasoning of User:Dianna and User:RGloucester here. Much of the issues appear stale, There is evidence of self-awareness, there appear to be procedural irregularities in terms of informing the editor of problematic issues, and an indefinite block here appears to be major overkill. Give the editor a break basically. The unknown are easy targets, and I find it heartening that a 3rd party is advocating. Let the editor develop if he or she so wishes. Mentoring and attempting to reach out, not indef blocks for marginal stuff. Bad block. Irondome (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock discussion on a user that has not requested an unblock. Chillum 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you telling me that we have a system whereby groundless blocks can be maintained merely because the subaltern does not speak? Do you wonder why he doesn't speak? Perhaps that's the reason, though: he knows no one will listen to him anyway. I feel like that's an absurd reason, at least in cases like this, to oppose removing a block that was clearly applied inappropriately. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I will thank you not to put words into my mouth. I am saying that the block was not groundless, disruption has been described. I am saying we have no indication this user will not be disruptive if unblocked or that they are even around anymore. This discussion is moot until the user expresses a desire to be unblocked. Chillum 02:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Then I would suggest a time limit of a week. If there is no meaningful response from User:Russian editor1996 by that time, we abandon these attempts. It is very likely the editor has been frightened away, or feels there is no point, or does not know the procedure for appeals. I would suggest explaining the situation on the editors talk page in more detail, with an advisory on how to appeal. If no response by next monday, let it go. Irondome (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Giving specific information to the editor in greater detail on his or her talk page is an excellent idea. BMK (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've added some information to the editor's talk page. If I've missed anything, please feel free.. BMK (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Added a few words on ed T/P. More informal, but hey, what harm eh? I said WP is not "unkind". I really like to think that. Anyway..Irondome (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's moot that the user has not requested an unblock, as Arbcom advised that "the block may be modified by any uninvolved administrator". I think we should unblock irregardless -- Diannaa (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But that is the case with any block, that any uninvolved admin can alter or undo it (although consulting with the blocking admin is usually considered to be good form, I believe), but blocks aren't generally undone without a request from the blocked editor, and then the explanation of the editor is taken into account when deciding whether to block and unblock -- as EdJohnston said above, only the editor himself can vouch for their future behavior. If the purpose of ArbCom was to convert this block from one made under DS to a standard run-of-the-mill block, why are extraordinary steps being taken when the blocked editor has not requested an unblock and has provided no explanation of the behavior? It's very rare that I've seen that happen, if ever. BMK (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, what is the "behaviour"? The block notice provided no citation of any particular "behaviour". RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock - looks like biting a relatively new user who was acting in good faith and did not committed any disruptions deserving a permablock. If he will continue disruptions it is quite easy to hit the block button again. I would request him to change the name as the present one is quite silly Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: While interesting, because this discussion could possibly affect future situations, I think that Re1996 will simply make a new account or possibly already has. Not much is at stake for the editor in question, although I do believe that the issue raised is still relevant for the rest of us.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well, while it may work it is a wrong way to unblock a person (just look the other way when he or she creates a new account) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I don't see anything in his edits (or deleted edits) that merited a block, especially nothing that merited a block out of the blue with no warning. Davewild (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Two admins have claimed that we should not consider unblocking users unless they request it themselves, but neither has offered any policy link to support that - I have asked, but I got no reply. And it seems an absurd position to take anyway - it's like saying a convicted criminal can't be set free even if the conviction is faulty, simply because he hasn't actually asked for it himself. Of course the community should be able to question a block and of course the community should be able to overturn it if it's thought to be bad, and admins are supposed to listen to feedback and constructive criticism from the community. And this is clearly a bad block in my opinion - there were problematic edits but they were really not all that bad, and no attempt at communication or trying to help this person at all before the indef block. Squinge (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  PS: I agree with User:EdJohnston who says "Only the person blocked can make any assurances about their future behavior", and that makes perfect sense if there was genuinely sufficient bad behaviour to justify a block in the first place. But common sense says that if the community doesn't believe a block was justified in the first place, then the user should not have to make any assurances (just like those of us who have not been blocked don't). Squinge (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock unless and until the user shows ability to engage on Talk pages. The evidence of disruption is clear, and in the absence of actual commentary from the user we have only past behaviour on which to judge the likelihood of disruption continuing. The track record of disruptive editors who do not engage on Talk is poor. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support unblock I agree with Diannaa et al that the evidence of recent harmful behaviour justyfing the original indef block is minimal. But I only weekly support an unblock because I agree with Guy that it's concerning if an editor doesn't know how to use talk pages, it suggests they may not be suitable for wikipedia. On the other hand, I'm not sure they have yet had a major need to use talk pages. The only thing really would be to appeal their block. But I'm not sure whether not using a talk page here is because they can't figure out how, or because they don't want to. I have some sympathies for someone who feels they were unfairly blocked, and can understand how they may not want to bother. And it does seem there's only been limited attempt to engage them in discussion until recently. P.S. I'm not an admin so can't see the deleted stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - Unblocking someone with clear POV editing issues in a highly contentious area, who also apparently doesn't know how to communicate via talk pages, is simply not a smart idea. It's not like we're losing someone who was clearly here to help build an unbiased encyclopedia. - This editor still has not posted an unblock request, might I add. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

CFD is backlogged again

Can some admins please help out at WP:CFD? We'ere backlogged again, with 129 discussions awaiting closure - including 3 from November. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I got a couple of the older ones: who's up next? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

R2 speedy

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

---

Can someone speedy these two please?

• Module:Guy, Sharyn and Clint
• TimedText:Guy,_Sharyn_and_Clint

Untaggable cross name-space redirects left by move.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

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

Backlogs at WP:UAA and CAT:SPEEDY...

...if anyone can help. APK whisper in my ear 09:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Still a massive backlog (156) at CAT:SPEEDY. Amortias (T)(C) 17:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the subject of backlogs, AIV has been pretty backlogged for a few hours at least. Some reports have been waiting for a fair while. The admins already there may need a helping hand. Orphan Wiki 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Xenoglossy page needs attention

The administrator (JzG) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#Xenoglossy_page_issue) of this page refuses to remove the semi-protection without having a good reason. To whom should we complain about this? Please help.74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)