Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 292: Line 292:
:*Please take note of my comment here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Catflap08]. I will not interact with [[user:Sturmgewehr88]].--[[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08|talk]]) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:*Please take note of my comment here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Catflap08]. I will not interact with [[user:Sturmgewehr88]].--[[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08|talk]]) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Catflap08}} an i-ban is an interaction ban between the individuals involved, under whatever accounts or IPs they might be editing from. Granted, in some cases, if the IP or other account does not clearly acknowledge their identity, it can be harder to enforce, but such actions also in general qualify as sockpuppetry and abusing sockpuppets to avoid sanctions is generally itself actionable. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Catflap08}} an i-ban is an interaction ban between the individuals involved, under whatever accounts or IPs they might be editing from. Granted, in some cases, if the IP or other account does not clearly acknowledge their identity, it can be harder to enforce, but such actions also in general qualify as sockpuppetry and abusing sockpuppets to avoid sanctions is generally itself actionable. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 18:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:I do make my own conclusions upon reading the latest rather lengthy statements of the editor involved. The statements leave me being a bit baffled and the conclusions I do come to I’d rather not post. Since I received some emails concerning the editor in question and also by reading about some past conflicts that did not involve my person I would just like to ask again if the I-ban would affect the editors no matter which user name they may choose. I myself have only used this name for nearly 10 years now. Some users do tend to change their names, so I just want to make sure that in future I do not run into the editor in question. Does an IBAN consider other names that may be in use?--[[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08|talk]]) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=655605754&oldid=655595197 my statement] at ArbCom. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span>]]</span>''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=655605754&oldid=655595197 my statement] at ArbCom. '''[[User:Sturmgewehr88|<span style="background:black"><span style="color:red">ミーラー強斗武</span>]]</span>''' ([[User_talk:Sturmgewehr88|StG88ぬ会話]]) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' I'm extremely skeptical of IBANs as a general rule; in my experience, they almost always lead to more drama than they resolve, especially if one or more of the involved editors shows a proclivity for being unwilling to let issues go, which there is certainly evidence of in this case. That being said, I don't think I can recommend a better course of action as the next reasonable step, and with at least one of the involved parties indorsing this approach, it seems worth a try. I'm not really sure if either side has stopped to think about the implications this would have to their editing, however. Both work in some common articles and areas that have very few other active, regular editors. I wonder how feasible this solution is when both sides have come to be as atangonistic as they have in part because of their attachment to these areas and an inability to reach compromise over relevant content issues. One or another of them will have to give way in order to abide the IBAN, and I'm not sure both are capable. In circumstances where discussions only involve two or three users, it's not as if they can abide the IBAN by speaking to the content issues alone and staying away from comments about eachother's approach and behaviour; if both were capable of doing that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. So yes, my basic sentiment is that this is our best hope for resolving this situation short of one party getting blocked, but I won't be surprised if it's not too long before ANI sees the first report of a violation of the ban... [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' I'm extremely skeptical of IBANs as a general rule; in my experience, they almost always lead to more drama than they resolve, especially if one or more of the involved editors shows a proclivity for being unwilling to let issues go, which there is certainly evidence of in this case. That being said, I don't think I can recommend a better course of action as the next reasonable step, and with at least one of the involved parties indorsing this approach, it seems worth a try. I'm not really sure if either side has stopped to think about the implications this would have to their editing, however. Both work in some common articles and areas that have very few other active, regular editors. I wonder how feasible this solution is when both sides have come to be as atangonistic as they have in part because of their attachment to these areas and an inability to reach compromise over relevant content issues. One or another of them will have to give way in order to abide the IBAN, and I'm not sure both are capable. In circumstances where discussions only involve two or three users, it's not as if they can abide the IBAN by speaking to the content issues alone and staying away from comments about eachother's approach and behaviour; if both were capable of doing that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. So yes, my basic sentiment is that this is our best hope for resolving this situation short of one party getting blocked, but I won't be surprised if it's not too long before ANI sees the first report of a violation of the ban... [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:52, 10 April 2015

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "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.

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations

      (Initiated 765 days ago on 16 July 2022) Requesting formal closure due to current discussions over the reliability of the subject. CNC (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @CommunityNotesContributor: - it doesn't look like this was ever a formal RfC, and I'm not really a fan of taking a 2 year old discussion to show the current consensus, given the number of procedural arguements within, and given that discussion is archived as well, I'm extra tempted not to change it (especially as I would be leaning towards a no consensus close on that discussion based on the points raised). Is a fresh RfC a better option here, given the time elapsed and more research into their reliability since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdann52 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @CommunityNotesContributor:  Not done Closures are intended to assess current consensus, not consensus from two years ago in an archived thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for both your replies, it's interesting to hear the assessment of no consensus from that discussion given previous/current interpretation of that discussion. It's looks like another RfC is needed after all then. CNC (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

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

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 78 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Al Jazeera

      (Initiated 2 days ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V May Jun Jul Aug Total
      CfD 0 0 0 42 42
      TfD 0 0 1 3 4
      MfD 0 0 1 1 2
      FfD 0 0 0 1 1
      RfD 0 0 10 36 46
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

      Other types of closing requests

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

      (Initiated 264 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 87 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 83 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 82 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Closure Review Request at MOS page

      About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

      I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

      Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Some of these are easier than others.
      I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.
      The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.
      If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles).[1][2][3][4] —sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi all. Is anything happening with this request? Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs, but I'd like to contribute to the centralized discussion if there is one, or start a new one if there's nothing active. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      These comma removals should not be controversial, since the MOS says that the omission of the comma is preferred. However, it appears that junior commas are inherently controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Robert McClenon: Those comma removals should not be controversial, but they are because the wording you settled on in the MOS was not explicit in deprecating the commas as had been proposed in the RfC and editors who don't like it are using this as a basis to discount MOS. —sroc 💬 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      What I closed was to leave the wording as it was. If the consensus was to omit the "preferred" clause and forbid the comma, then my closing was incorrect. If the implication is that I should have used a supervote to close without consensus and remove the "preferred" clause, then that isn't my understanding of how closure works. What is the consensus at this noticeboard, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Robert McClenon: Your closure did not reflect consensus. The proposal was for the following wording at WP:JR:

      Do not place a comma before "Jr.", "Sr.", or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

      This was supported by Atsme, Dicklyon, FactStraight, Herostratus, Tony1, and yours truly based on a list of reasons enumerated here. Collect and Randy Kryn supported the status quo ante, which allowed an exception for the subject's preferences. DrKiernan said: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way. ... So, neither or both should be acceptable." Aside from the proposal being supported by 6–3, none of those with a contrary view addressed the various reasons for the proposal. The consensus was clearly to adopt the proposal.
      DrKiernan later unilaterally, without any further discussion or support, changed the wording of WP:JR to:

      It is unnecessary to place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. ...

      This was the wording in place when you closed the RfC stating: "The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is." However, this wording was not supported by consensus in the RfC.
      If you now accept that this closure was incorrect, then you should reverse the closure or revise the closure to reflect consensus from the RfC (i.e., to adopt the wording originally proposed). Otherwise, perhaps this needs to be raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. —sroc 💬 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I will review the closure. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the issue should be raised on WP:ANI. The procedures on closure state that closures should be reviewed at WP:AN, which is here. If there is consensus that my closure was incorrect, then it can be opened and reclosed. Alternatively, my closure can be re-opened here, and an administrative re-closure requested here. I made this request here, nearly a month ago, because this and not ANI is said to be where closures should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I only suggested AN/I because the edit screen has this notice: {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}}. —sroc 💬 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The situation of the two Martin Luther Kings (Jr. and Sr.) shows the problem and why the language should allow both forms. Dr. King is known and famous, and that widespread recognition of his name includes the comma. It is used in governmental honoring, on all his books, etc. Not to argue the case here (and I've asked several times for the Martin Luther King, Jr. article be returned to its proper name because the move which moved it was made as 'uncontroversial', common sense to know that it might be controversial, so can an admin please put it back to the previous name? Thanks). A hard and fast rule, one certainly not decided on by the community but by the small amount of people who inhabit MOS pages, and even that discussion seems inconclusive. Maybe let it be "argued out" at the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, which should be a good forum for an extended discussion of this. Suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 17:48 3 April, 2015 (UTC)
      @Randy Kryn: The MOS exists for a reason. It sets guidelines for the style adopted by Wikipedia. If the community consensus is not to include commas before Jr. and Sr., then this should apply regardless of individuals' preference; we follow Wikipedia's style, not the style of individual subjects.
      The problem is well illustrated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library which have apocryphal titles using mismatched commas: all style guides advise that, if a comma appears in a name before Jr. or Sr., another comma must appear after as well; the fact that some individuals or bodies flout this rule of English pronunciation is no reason for this encyclopedia to follow in their folly. This is another reason to omit the commas altogether and avoid repeated arguments over proper pronunciation over and over again on article talk pages. —sroc 💬 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Propose reopening the discussion – Whatever way this closure review goes, the MoS changes instituted by this process will always be on extremely shaky ground. According to our policy on consensus, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community". I would say that not enough participation was solicited for such a massive change, and that even if it was, the subsequent errors in assessing the consensus that did develop (in favour of removing the comma) completely destroyed the potential stabilising factors that this RfC needed. I support the change, but was not aware of the RfC at the time, despite having various MoS pages on my watchlist. That's an indication that what we really need to do is reopen the RfC, widely advertise it in appropriate places, and generate a firm consensus that cannot be challenged across many pages, as is happening now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for Closure of Closure Review

      This closure review request has been open for nearly a month and has gotten nowhere. Is it time to close it as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The fact that this review has gone stale is no justification to support "no consensus" following your controversial closure of the RfC with a conclusion that did not reflect the discussed consensus, effectively overruling the consensus. We urgently need resolution of this issue.
      It should be noted that this controversy has now been used to block page move requests supported by the RfC discussion:
      (Not moved: see Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015)
      (Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015)
      (Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library § Move discussion in progress)
      (Not moved: see Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)
      (Open: see Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)
      —sroc 💬 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      What is the consensus here? Regardless of whether I made a mistake in closure, I think that something should be done rather than leaving this issue open for more than a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi. I've presented a possible option in my latest comment above. Randy Kryn 17:54 3 April, 2015 (UTC)
      Blaming the closer for not following the exact dynamics of what happened is not a good scheme. The problem is that some editors who were not involved in the discussion don't like how it came out. Might as well just start another RFC to see if they want to overturn what the MOS has said since 2009, or the recent tweak to it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Am I mistaken, or did the recent 'tweak' remove the option of keeping the comma? Tweaks which limit actions are not little changes, but major moves, and those are the ones which should have much wider participation than just the few regulars who now create (and often restrict, such as this comma decision) the MOS guidelines. There are so many pages and so many walls of text that the vast majority of editors won't know when something important is being changed. Even people reading those pages aren't following everything, and like the recent back-history I looked up about how the "rule" about upper and lower case titles came into being, sometimes a major change is in the middle of the wall of text and not seen by many editors. The problem with MOS is too much of it in the hands of too few editors, with people who know how it works putting in their own favorite site-wide changes which then create controversy (as with this Jr. and Sr. thing, should be on a article-by-article basis. Dr. King has always been comma-Jr., and changing it is literally changing his name). Randy Kryn 5:23 4 April, 2015 (UTC)
      Even back in the 60s, the comma was sometimes omitted, even in Ebony magazine. Do you think they were trying to change Dr. King's name? Seems like a stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It removed the exception of keeping it at the preference of the subject, since there was no reason for that exception and no way to determine it. And it removed Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of that; his name had had the comma inserted at random; most of his albums and many of his biographies, including one by his daughter, omit the comma, so the random claim of his preference was specious. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      DrKiernan: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way." Randy Kryn: "... something important is being changed." Mmm, right. It is annoying when people who are dedicated to language and style issues agree on what guidance MOS should provide (based on style guides written by experienced language experts) and those who aren't invested in it lobby to ignore MOS when it impacts a topic they have some interest in (preferring what they're used to over what's right). —sroc 💬 06:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Sammy Davis Jr. must have asked that the comma not be used on his albums. The difference is that Martin Luther King, Jr. used the comma on all his books, so he thought of it as part of his name. I guess this is a generational thing, that the new generations will look at the comma in the name as 'old style'. But should Dr. King remain as 'old style' as he was known in his lifetime and how the U.S. government refers to him at his Memorial and the day named in his honor? Yes, I personally "see" it as part of his name, and seeing his name without a comma looks odd. Again, that could be generational. But it is historically accurate. How far from historically accuracy should Wikipedia go? If the only difference is a comma, then I'd suggest keeping the comma for sake of accuracy. Randy Kryn 6:29 4 April, 2015 (UTC)
      Dr King's style or his publisher's style? And what difference does that make? As a matter of style, we are free to choose whichever style we prefer for Wikipedia, as documented in our MOS. Wikipedia routinely changes quoted text for typographic conformity with our MOS irrespective of others' preferences (Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations §§ Typographic conformity). In any case, this was all covered in the RfC. The issue here is that the RfC was closed incorrectly. This is not the forum to re-hash the arguments all over again. —sroc 💬 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Requesting adjustment to an ANI discussion closure

      Two weeks ago, Drmies closed an ANI discussion, now archived here. Reading through the discussion, you can see the !voting was for a normal WP:TBAN topic ban, not anything more narrow. Alexbrn's initial wording did say "blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles" but every other !vote was for TBAN, and then Alexbrn also demonstrated his !vote was for a normal indef TBAN in his follow-up comment at the bottom of the thread, regarding Sugarcube: 'Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too.' However, Drmies posted in the close at ANI that the editor is "indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages," and "from Circumcision-related articles and their talk pages, broadly construed" at the editor's User Talk.

      I didn't think much of it at the time, figuring "it's only a problem if it's a problem," but since then Tumadoireacht has made two edits in the area of the topic ban, here and here, continuing the same behavior but doing it at User Talk pages. A normal TBAN close would not have allowed these edits but the more narrow wording used in the close does.

      I brought this to Drmies' attention via email and he agreed with an adjustment to the close. He said he didn't have the time at the moment to dig into it himself, and suggested I bring it to AN where he didn't expect it would be a problem, so I'm bringing it here for discussion and action. The specific action I'm requesting is for an adjustment to the closure language to that of a normal TBAN.

      Thanks... Zad68 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry this is my mistake for being too specific in my wording (and not thinking/remembering that disruption can decamp to User Talk pages). My intent was that a normal topic ban should apply to put a stop to the disruption. I would support the adjustment. Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I'm a tad occupied with Verlaine at the moment, trying to follow the beat of his joyous drums. Zad did indeed ask me about this and I have no objection to some further scrutiny of the discussion and the preciseness of my close: if I read a "broadness" into the comments that wasn't there, by all means let's get it right. Thanks Zad, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a bit rich. Pound of Flesh territory. If another editor welcomes discourse on his or her own talk page it is really of no concern to the likes of Zad and Alexbrn. What exactly is it that these lads fear so greatly ? Discussion anywhere ? Challenge ? / Being contradicted ? A balanced and inclusive article ? Is the subtext a push to have a premature Featured Article status sought for the very flawed Circumcision article ?

      Perhaps I should expect a writ from Zad if I discuss genital cutting in my living room or the local pub ? I will pursue with vigour an appeal if an attempt is made to alter what was already a bit of a railroading . Drmies speaks of "disruption" which means "unplanned, negative deviation from the expected delivery" What expected delivery and expectation exists here. Please remind yourselves

      Also is Zad in contravention of WP policy in not informing me of this discussion/attempt to gild the lily  ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Alexbrn often reminds me of Greta Garbo. So taciturn. So enigmatic. Foreskins sell by acreage rather than weight Drmies, ( http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/30/Foreskin/) but the pound referred to above was not money but weight. Since Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice -"A pound of flesh" is a figurative way of referring to a harsh demand or spiteful penalty.
      Oh dear - wait - Is this a circumcision related article or talk page ?
      May I even speak here in my own defence ? We cannot mention the sale of foreskins cut off by circumcision in the circumcision article (or indeed any of the ways cutters dispose of them including godparents or grandparents eating them) due to the enigmatic brotherhood embargo here represented by two of its luminaries. ( Expect the others shortly if it looks at all possible that I will not be made to walk the plank again) So I am relieved you brought up price Drmies. Do you think maybe the place for mentioning price is the article itself though ? What price freedom ? Still Alexbrn is correct - an "adjustment would be helpful" - just not the one that Zad is clamouring for.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Again, the original discussion is archived here. The request is to adjust the wording of the close to match the community TBAN found in it. Zad68 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Once again Zad is misrepresenting events - there were 8 votes to support the TOPIC ban that Alexbrn proposed ( for me and and 5 votes opposing it.) which he worded thusly:
      "In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles
      Then, near the end of the discussion, long after all votes but the fifth one opposing the ban had been cast , Alexbrn reacted to a comment seeking the banning of Zad and Doc James ( for alleged Non NPOV partisan editing motivated by religious affiliation ) by newly seeking a TBAN on the editor who made the comment. Naturally Doc James agreed, and there followed a short discussion on the motivation for Doc James pushing for a severe penalty with one editor asking whether Doc was "responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes" . How this gets itransmogrified into "Everyone agrees" to a wider ban is a stretch.
      Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages or is there some other agenda afoot here ? To borrow Alexbrn's original phrase "It would be good" to know !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 13:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages, the answer is Yes, that is the normal result of the typical "topic ban" on Wikipedia, the topic can't be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with the WP:TBAN policy page. What's happened is that the community supported a WP:TBAN, but the wording provided to you wasn't clear enough. The request here is to provide you clear wording that is in line with the TBAN. Zad68 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes a topic ban widely construed was the result and just needs to be stated. This editor can and should work on something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      No it was not. A specific proposal was put forward (" blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles") and voted upon as originally worded. If you wish to pursue a website wide topic ban lads then you must make a new proposal, not an amendment proposal and let folk consider it, discuss it, and reach a consensus on whether it is needed.

      Now If I am not writing on Circumcision page or its talk page or any of the other 20 or so genital alteration/ mutiliation pages and yet you still want to hound out any discussion on my or other editor's personal talk pages, your motivations for doing so may come in to question and your hounding may boomerang. There is a great deal of discussion of COI at present - if the group of editors who are harassing editors at Circumcision who do not comply with an unbalanced positive presentation of Circumcision do in fact all belong to one ethnic group for whom Circumcision is sacred then it behoves them to declare this conflict of interest. Just as it would behove the Circumcision article to mention that the W.H.O. chief expert on Circumcision who is pushing it as a HIV prevention tool in Africa is also the inventor of and has a consequent commercial interest in, the three main tools used to lop off foreskins in clinical settings. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      You are either very naive or very stubborn, or both.
      Would you like to know what invariably happens when topic-banned editors come here to defend their right to keep arguing their case, supported by a long spiel reiterating their passionate belief that they are bringing The Truth™ and should thus be allowed wide latitude to continue disrupting the project?
      I ask because you may be about to find out the hard way. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      General remark

      I see nothing suggesting that Liz would either kick or scream. Indications are to the contrary. I also see no admin action required here. Begoon talk 16:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I took some time off last summer and on returning to edit at the end of 2014, I'm struck by decreasing presence of admins on ANI and AE. I think there used to be a larger pool of admins who frequented these forums and closed disputes and now there are just a handful of admins wading into these conflicts...maybe it's because some regular noticeboard admins have retired. I can understand admins who want to focus on other areas of the project or choose to avoid the drama boards. But now that I'm learning the ropes of clerking with the AC, I frequent AE and see some cases that probably should have been closed last week.

      I know there are constant appeals for admins to handle backlogs of work so there is a need for more admins in many areas of the project. This could all be none of my business, I just was wondering if there was some explanation that came to mind. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      If theres no need for further admin intervention you can close them as a non-admin. I frequently do so on ANI where actions have been carried out but they havent been closed, their misplaced or obviously nonsense. its a drop i the ocean but every little helps. Amortias (T)(C) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I will do a {{nac}} if the situation has been resolved, like if the OP has withdrawn the complaint or an editor has received a block. I'm not talking about those clear cut cases. Situations now tend to be of two types, a) those that are quickly resolved (often in a few hours) and b) those that remain unresolved, sometimes for weeks. I imagine that an admin, looking at dozens of comments or walls of text, might be reluctant to wade in a conflict and try to parse out if anything blockable has occurred and who might be responsible. It also seems like some of the most assertive admins have suffered blow-back from making difficult choices.
      But I think, especially in formal cases like at AE, it's important to come to some resolution even if it is a "not now" or "not yet" decision that a situation isn't serious enough to be addressed yet. Nonadmins can't close cases at AE and it's best if there is more than one or two admins weighing in, reading evidence and making some sort of ruling. IMHO. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe the solution is to drag you kicking and screaming to RfA, Liz! ansh666 20:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Appeal to get consensus to remove from blacklist

      NOTHING TO SEE HERE
      No consensus to remove the blacklist entry, and some evidence of the WP:FOOTGUN. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Please see my proposal below which I proposed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It marked to be declined by lone admin even when I am giving so much reasons and surety. It is being declined because it needs consensus from regular contributors so please give your consensus. I assure you that the links will not be added again and wikipedia will not be hurt. Please read the proposal below:

      Hi, I am posting this proposal here after discussion with administrator Beetstra [5] so that wikipedia community can have their consensus to remove this site from the black list.

      In 2012 my friend (owning borntosell.com) hired someone for online marketing and that person decided to spam wikipedia with their website. It was nothing that could not have been handled by blocking those 3 accounts and the single IP that were spamming but an admin decided to put the website in the blacklist right away. Which is ok but now they have stopped editing wikipedia since 2013 (1.5 years) to prove that they want to abide by the rules. The warning given to them was after adding the site to blacklist and they did not know wikipedia rules about which links were eligible, which is no excuse, but also not fair enough to get blacklisted. It is not an excuse but now they are ready to prove it by wikipedia norms by first stopping like you do in WP:Standard Offer for blocked users. I request that this website be removed from the wikipedia blacklist in exchange for the promise that they will not add it again and keep check on any PR working for them that they do not add links to wikipedia for online marketing. Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope says people should be given a chance and if they do it again, you can add back so is it possible to remove it and see that they are keeping their promise.

      Wikipedia does not need their links and they do not want to add as well, the main reasons for the request to get removed from the black list are that some other companies and websites copy and use wikipedia's blacklist as their own which is hurting their website ranking and also their newsletter which goes to spam folder of their subscribers even though it is not spam. They just asked me to explain to you as I regularly read wikipedia. I want to explain that they only want to disappear from your blacklist and they will stop getting involved with link spam. Kindly give your input and make consensus to remove this site from blacklist.

      --Riven999 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Based on the history of this URL and the lack of reasoning by the single-purpose account, I would not be willing to remove it from the blacklist at this time. They may be willing to not spam Wikipedia, but many non-wiki projects depend on this blacklist. Nakon 06:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi. I am giving sufficient reasoning that not spamming wikipedia since 2013 is sufficient proof that they are willing to stop and prove by stopping first. It was a mistake. No wikipedia or any other projects will be spammed if it is removed from the blacklist. The main purpose is that their normal newsletter is being sent to spam folder even when people willingly subscribe to it. The proposal is to just get off the blacklist. Other sites that copy blacklist are not doing properly I had discussed with Beetstra.I think the request is reasonable. If seen spamming again add back quickly if you want. Your wikipedia policies allow this lenience in WP:Standard Offer and Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope. It is my request to regular contributors to give input so that administrator's objection is no more. I do not want to impose my decision and do not want any single admin to do this as well. Please see if it is something that can be allowed. I can assure that they have learnt the lesson from the blacklist's effect and do not want to engage into this by with asking any one to spam again.--Riven999 (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      We should remove it, at least temporarily. Blacklisting the link prevents us from adding it to Born to Sell, which isn't a good situation. We can always restore it to the blacklist when we've put it on the article; I can't imagine why we'd want to use it anywhere else on the project. This is why I wish we had a whitelist page...Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It is useful only on that one article, so the solution is to whitelist the About page. That's what we normally do in such cases. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't remember that we had a whitelist. But MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist looks like it's a way to whitelist an entire link: is it possible to permit a link to be added to one specific Wikipedia page while preventing the same link from being added to all other Wikipedia pages? Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately not, unless something has changed. That's why I normally go for the About page. Reminds me: does anyone know if you can edit filter on links? People keep proposing Natural News as a source for quack claims - it never passes, we should save them the trouble. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @JzG: - yes, you can use the edit filter on that, though it tends to be slow on the system - but did you consider XLinkBot, it can revert on references specifically as well as on non-reference-external-links? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Is Born to Sell even notable? Nyttend has just helpfully removed its spammy content, but most of the references provided have been media releases or similar. The two remaining references are pretty brief, and appear to also be promo-style mentions of this company. Given that there appears to be an attempt to advertise the firm here, I don't think any of its website should be whitelisted. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed entirely a story from Barron's, because the article text was a copyvio. This source could be used quickly to mention how the website's interface works, although again, it's just a brief mention. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Whitelisting can indeed be used to selectively allow a single link from an otherwise blacklisted site. If Born to Sell survives AfD, a link to the company's "about" page could be whitelisted for that site. borntosell.com isn't a reliable source and isn't of use to Wikipedia as such, and we don't remove sites from the blacklist just because it's hurting their search ranking elsewhere, especially when the request is from a single purpose account who is now forum shopping when they didn't like the answer(s) they got at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#borntosell.com. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I thoroughly agree with what you say. Whitelisting their "about" page, to enable its use in the article, should be obvious; whenever possible, we should ensure that the spam blacklist doesn't prevent us from following WP:ELOFFICIAL. I suppose the "about" page could also get spammed here, but even if we have to un-whitelist it, the link would already be present in the article, so this basic problem won't again occur. And yes, when a site's been spammed here and rightly put on the blacklist, and when its use wouldn't be helpful here, we shouldn't unblacklist it. Finally, "if it survives AFD" is key; no point in making changes when the article's up for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Site ranking is the main concern of the company - trying to promote its self and draw attention to the site. Jon Wuebben (2011). Content is Currency: Developing Powerful Content for Web and Mobile. Nicholas Brealey Publishing. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-85788-990-1. -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi, Born to Sell is not important. Wikipedia can decide what page they want to keep on their website. If the page is deleted and the site is removed from blacklist that is also ok. If a website gets on wikipedia blacklist there should be some legitimate way of getting off the blacklist. I am not forum shopping I am appealing that wikipedia may give consensus on matter not single administrator. You can remove them temporarily and if they spam you can add them back permanently. I think it is ok thing to ask. 1.5 year time is good WP:Standard Offer to prove that they are willing to stop. They will not add links to wikipedia even later. The reason for getting off black list is that the company is being hurt on their normal newsletter. May I also suggest that you keep them on probation and remove them for some time and see if they spam or not. If they do not only then keep removed. --Riven999 (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      If Born to Sell is deleted -- or, come to think, even if it isn't -- and you promise not to add a link to it, what POSSIBLE difference could the existence of the blacklist have? So no, I can't see the point of this request. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi Calton. I agree with you that if it is deleted or not, the links will not be added. The existence of the website in the blacklist still has effect on the site. That is the only reason I am requesting for removing. There are two affects which are important to the site. One, other websites copy wikipedia's blacklist and that is hurting search results of the website and two, the normal newsletter is not going to inbox of subscribers and it is due to the same reason that some other websites or email hosts copy and use this blacklist which is not fair. If they have made the mistake to get into this blacklist, there should be a legitimate way of getting off this list as well (after not spamming since 1.5 years at this moment). Any suggestion that takes the website off this blacklist, including probation on any editing at all from borntosell is acceptable. --Riven999 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      You're making less and less sense. Even if what you claim is true -- and you haven't offered the slightest credible evidence for it, and I not only doubt it's true but also think that YOU know it's not -- your employer's SEO strategy isn't Wikipedia's problem AT ALL. --Calton | Talk 08:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Riven999: I still don't believe really that companies are copying Wikipedia's blacklist (as the blacklist is not a true measure of the spam, it is a measure of abuse on Wikipedia which can also have non-spam-reasons). However, if an SEO is spamming Wikipedia, they might also be spamming other places and if those SEO activities are noticed they might put them on other lists. In short, I do not think that being on Wikipedia's blacklist is necessarily the reason the site is affected in their search results and e-mail delivery, nor do I think that removing it here will have the counter effect.
      As I argued on my talkpage, the real arguments that might result in a consideration to delist (or even a delist) is to show use ánd positive interaction with Wikipedia. That positive interaction was not really shown until now, especially since the promotional editing continued, less than 1.5 years ago, after the site was blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      This is what they have determined to to be the cause as everything was reviewed and it's very important to them. I understand that there was promotional editing after the blacklisting but after that they decided to go the legitimate way and have learnt the lesson. They stopped waited and did nothing for 1.5 years before asking some one to appeal and they will not redo the any promotional edit you decide to delete. Now I think my interaction is quite positive and I requested where I felt it was proper place to ask fully respecting wikipedia's norms. I agree to stand by your decisions here so the request is just to remove it. Wikipedia will not be affected even if they remove them from the list. If they spam again, I really do not mind adding them back again but I think it's a fair request to ask for a second chance. It's not an extreme request either. Just something ordinary. --Riven999 (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Request to close this discussion I think it is quite clear that there is no consensus whatsoever to remove this from the blacklist. Further discussion is unlikely to change that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      If there is no consensus how much time they should wait and show that they will not do any promotional editing or spamming before they can appeal again? 6 months? They are not regular wikipedia contributors so they can not create articles but they can stop editing or creating their own topic and never add links to show good faith. --Riven999 (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Tracking an IP-only vandal

      In my experience long-term vandals will tend to edit from a named account, get blocked, and then edit from IPs or socks accounts - in which case they are tagged as being linked to the 'original' account using {{Sockpuppet}} and/or {{IPsock}} But what about when they remain IP-only, e.g. 177.59.105.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others listed here? - what is the best method of tracking this individual? GiantSnowman 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Sometimes (especially if it's so painfully obvious that an SPI is never needed), the only way to "keep track" of these users is via your brain's internal memory, or to dedicate them some userpage; I guess LTA should in theory be the "proper place" for such cases, but y'know... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Salvidrim!: So I couldn't, for example, 'give' then a fake name and use that? GiantSnowman 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that (or something similar) is what they did for the "Best Known For IP" editor, who has recently been blocked (again) ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      GiantSnowman: In my example, "Macy VG IP vandal" is technically a "fake name", but a descriptive one. But there are also cases like Tailsman67, who despite being IP-only, often "signed" with a recognizable name, so that's what he's referred to as. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I've started a log here. GiantSnowman 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I've moved this from WP:ANI, where it was originally posted. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I am requesting a topic ban on all pages about Wikipedia for Chealer.

      Chealer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to be disruptive on Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. This user has been previously blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring on Wikipedia-related pages (most recently in March 2015 by Swarm). There have also been ANIs (1, 2) and WP:AN3 (1, 2, 3, 4). Chealer has a history of disruption on Wikipedia-related pages in general as well as engaging in WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages (and in response to the most recent block, see here).

      Chealer apparently disputes any internally generated statistics or information regarding Wikipedia (despite WP:SPSSELF). Their most recent efforts have been against a table related to page rankings (see Talk:Wikipedia#Odd_tags_for_stats for discussion). If this were a case of not understanding the WP:CALC used to generate these numbers and charts, that would be fine. They also quibble about the meaning of "importance" on the table's talk page (link). But Chealer went further and "froze" the source page for this info, replacing the bot-generated template with a static version ([6]).

      This recent disruption of the bot-generated table (which was the last straw for me), in addition to past disruption on these pages and recent bad faith edits on my user talk page (here and here), has proved to me that Chealer is unable and/or unwilling to productively edit on these pages and that a block did not stop this behavior. While I am open to other options, a topic ban seems warranted given the length, scope, and tenacity of disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you Nyttend. I have notified Chealer of the move ([7]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]
      Very disappointing to see the stats page reverted to static again before any effort to talk about the problems raised here. O well lets get this over with and move on. -- Moxy (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      @Engineering Guy: FWIW Criticism of Wikipedia was part of the AN3s I linked above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion on the scope of the proposed ban

      • Oppose because the proposed ban is really vague. Is this a ban from editing mainspace pages that are Wikipedia-related, or a ban from editing mainspace and talkspace pages that are Wikipedia-related, or a ban from projectspace pages (ones beginning with "Wikipedia:"), or something else? As currently worded, it could mean any of several things, and if enacted, it could be misused to block him for things that you're not envisioning. I don't know the situation, so if you clarify the proposed ban, I'll simply strike my opposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. I'm not quite used to defining ban scopes. I guess what I intend to say is any pages related to Wikipedia as a website, company, or foundation, including pages related to internal statistics. I can't just say "mainspace" because the table generated by the bot is not in mainspace. But I don't want to ban Chealer for any Wiki projects (unless the project is about Wikipedia itself). Though I am worried Chealer would use the project spaces to argue about importance rankings as they have done elsewhere, but that might be jumping the gun at this point.
      Given these rambling thoughts of mine, what wording might work better? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps best to say all article covered under Category:Wikipedia ...this may solve the problem. at hand. I would support that. -- Moxy (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      We could say "all articles about subjects that are Wikipedia-related, and their talk pages, and all pages in other namespaces that focus on these articles, aside from the usual exceptions". That's a rather clear definition, and if that's your proposal, I'll drop my procedural objection. I still won't offer any opinion on whether we should ban Chealer from this stuff. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that my idea is broader than Moxy's: both proposals would prohibit editing Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, but while mine would prohibit editing Church of Scientology, Moxy's wouldn't. Maybe Moxy's would be too minimal (if his editing's disruptive, it wouldn't stop him from being disruptive from tangentially related articles), but its scope is clearer than mine (even a bot can determine whether a page is in CAT:WP or its subcats), and probably better as a result. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      We need to incorporate the global summary table he broke in this topic ban? Cant have more bots broken because someone is not getting there way in main space.-- Moxy (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      You could propose "all pages in CAT:WP and its subcategories, and all of their talk pages, plus pages A, B, and C", or "all pages in CAT:WP..., plus all pages that do A, B, and C". Just be careful to provide a clear definition for your proposal. The whole problem here is that it's not practical to ban someone from the topic of Wikipedia — one can be banned from most topics reasonably clearly (see the guidelines at WP:TBAN), but banning someone from the topic of Wikipedia could be construed as banning them from all project discussions, and if it's refined to be narrower, its scope is lush ground for wikilawyering. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Could we not just add Category:Wikipedia to User:WP 1.0 bot (I dont deal with cats ever not sure if allowed) .. this seems simple and the fact it is a page dealing with Wikipedia its self. -- Moxy (talk)

      Discussion on enacting a ban

      Support Category:Wikipedia ban per disruptive unilateral changes. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban and Grading scheme ban after seeing the bot stooped again I see no other choice. -- Moxy (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban Per the above and per this is an exceptionally disruptive case. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Cautious support unless there's a really compelling explanation for some of the recent changes, apparently WP:POINTy edit-warring and such. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Category:Wikipedia and bot ban in response to [9] JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics ban for a month. If, after a month, Chealer continues to make inappropriate edits (i.e. edits against consensus, e.g. "freezing" the table), then an indefinite ban on these 3 pages may be appropriate. Chealer's contributions show that this user has also been editing other Wikipedia-related articles like List of Wikipedia controversies and Criticism of Wikipedia, but I do not know whether any problems have been caused there. It may be alright if Chealer is allowed to edit talk-pages, to participate in discussions. On talk-pages, if this user suggests any inappropriate changes, then they can just be ignored. --Engineering Guy (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Hes been blocked from editing for the same thing over and over I dont see a month solving anything...will just lead us back here in a month. The editor does not even show basic courtesy in reply to the concerns raised here. Is there any indication that the behavior will change....i dont see it -- Moxy (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment To my direct question if he knows why he got blocked twice in March, the first time for three days and the second for a week Chealer replied that there is apparently no reason for the blocks, or if there is he doesn't know it and he told me to see his talkpage. Getting blocked twice for a total of ten days and still claiming that he doesn't know why he got blocked betrays a total failure to understand the impact of his actions and that is assuming in good faith that he is not feigning ignorance, or trolling. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question. For those of you who are supporting a "bot ban", could someone please explain to me what that encompasses?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Answer. I meant that, in response to [10], the editor should be banned from editing pages (project space or talk pages) related to wikipedia bots, broadly construed. I suspect someone could wordsmith this. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another question - why are we discussing a limited, hard to define topic ban for an editor who has just bounced through 2 blocks for edit warring and disruptive behaviour, wikilawyering endlessly on their talk page through it all, only to resume being disruptive? Wouldn't the sane thing now be an indef block until we are convinced the pattern will not continue? Begoon talk 16:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to explain to him why he couldn't go into the 3Rs/EW archives and rewrite or delete text and he kept asking me why, why, why as if he didn't understand the concept of archiving. A simple, "You can't edit archived pages, especially archived noticeboard pages" just caused him to ask me more questions on why this was policy. He's not a new user so his recent conduct, behavior and claims of ignorance is a little baffling. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proposal for 1RR restriction on Chealer: Since Chealer has demonstrated that he has no grasp of what constitutes edit-warring, despite repeatedly being blocked for it, I propose that he be placed on a 1RR restriction in addition to the bans proposed above. The 1RR restriction should apply to any topic that Chealer may edit. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. We have a lot of different proposals floating around here, some of which have not been clearly defined as to their scope. I suggest someone regroup and start subsections with concrete, clearly defined proposals. There can be alternative proposals, but they should be separated somehow to be clear. If that is done, there is no harm in notifying those who have already voted that they may wish to vote again. Otherwise, my concern is that, as currently presented, an administrator will have a hard time determining a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Lee Harvey Oswald

      This bug is covered in Village Pump. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I apologize if this is the wrong place for this report.

      I am getting a very strange message when trying to view this talk page, which I have never seen before:

      Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      The revision #0 of the page named "Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald" does not exist.
      This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. :Details can be found in the deletion log

      It is as if this lengthy talk page is gone, including a recent revision I wanted to read. Can anyone explain what has happened there? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Looks normal to me. Maybe a glitch in the matrix? Try resetting your browser cache or something, because I see no error. --Jayron32 01:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I had the same trouble, now OK. I blame the the shooter on the grassy knoll. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      I fixed it. It's a recurring bug, but it can be corrected with a null edit. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Proposal for a large-scale merge and splits in ARBPIA area

      I made a proposal to refactor many (at least tens of) articles in a sensitive area. There doesn't seem to be any objection, but too few people expressed support for me to be confident that it's a good idea to go ahead with implementation. Where would be a good place to put notice calling more people to respond ? “WarKosign” 18:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      There hasn't been any objection, but there hasn't been much discussion either. If you were to use a Request for Comments and leave it up for the standard 30 days, you would have more time to publicize it neutrally and get more involvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:VPP and WP:CENT are also good ways to advertise discussions. --Jayron32 02:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Rampant editor wreaking havoc

      Dear administrators, please take note of this discussion here: [11]. Thank you. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88

      I am not at all interested in who is right or wrong, only in what is best for Wikipedia. In this instance, an interaction ban is the obvious solution. There is an ongoing request for Arbitration [12] which looks likely to be declined specifically because no solution has been sought at AN/ANI first. There was a discussion that was archived and which I was forced to hat here [13] It contains enough links (as does the Arb case) to provide a convincing argument as to why an interaction ban is the best solution here. Then if that is not enough, further action could be taken. I would recommend standard IBAN rules, as there is nothing that extraordinary here, just two editors who simply are never going to get along. If we put the needs of the encyclopedia first, it is my opinion that this is an obvious first (and hopefully last) step in achieving peace.

      Comment: Actually, per recent history, I would myself support an additional i-ban between Hijiri88 and myself, possibly joint i-ban if necessary. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      You can propose that as a separate item below, as some might pick one and not the other, so we can't lump them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support, probably long overdue. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support - like Dennis, I can't work out who on earth is right and who's wrong, but I do know that the conversation on WT:WER was not conductive to retaining editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support - This does seem like the obvious solution. BMK (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Support - As I myself have requested for an i-ban here [14]--Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC) I do however hope that the i-ban will include other accounts/names used by the other party involved. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I do make my own conclusions upon reading the latest rather lengthy statements of the editor involved. The statements leave me being a bit baffled and the conclusions I do come to I’d rather not post. Since I received some emails concerning the editor in question and also by reading about some past conflicts that did not involve my person I would just like to ask again if the I-ban would affect the editors no matter which user name they may choose. I myself have only used this name for nearly 10 years now. Some users do tend to change their names, so I just want to make sure that in future I do not run into the editor in question. Does an IBAN consider other names that may be in use?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - per my statement at ArbCom. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak support I'm extremely skeptical of IBANs as a general rule; in my experience, they almost always lead to more drama than they resolve, especially if one or more of the involved editors shows a proclivity for being unwilling to let issues go, which there is certainly evidence of in this case. That being said, I don't think I can recommend a better course of action as the next reasonable step, and with at least one of the involved parties indorsing this approach, it seems worth a try. I'm not really sure if either side has stopped to think about the implications this would have to their editing, however. Both work in some common articles and areas that have very few other active, regular editors. I wonder how feasible this solution is when both sides have come to be as atangonistic as they have in part because of their attachment to these areas and an inability to reach compromise over relevant content issues. One or another of them will have to give way in order to abide the IBAN, and I'm not sure both are capable. In circumstances where discussions only involve two or three users, it's not as if they can abide the IBAN by speaking to the content issues alone and staying away from comments about eachother's approach and behaviour; if both were capable of doing that, we wouldn't be here in the first place. So yes, my basic sentiment is that this is our best hope for resolving this situation short of one party getting blocked, but I won't be surprised if it's not too long before ANI sees the first report of a violation of the ban... Snow let's rap 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Unhelpful comment spearheaded by (indeffed) troll. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that Catflap08 has provided few diffs to illustrate my "personal attacks" and "stalking" of him. This is because any fair reading of the evidence would indicate otherwise.
      Summary of events leading here organized by page, in reverse chronological order
      • On ER, both John Carter and Catflap08 referred to a "clique" of "POV-pushers" in "problematic areas", John Carter requesting more eyes on these areas, the clear implication being that Catflap08 was in agreement with community consensus and was driven off by a small minority. Catflap also repeated one of his old attacks against me that I had supposedly "ridiculed his nationality" (actual diff here). The assertion that I am not allowed respond to these personal attacks on the same forum is ridiculous.
      • With the Daisaku Ikeda page, John Carter repeatedly[16][17][18] goaded me to get involved in the dispute by asserting (wrongly) that I already was involved. When I went there I found Catflap08 engaged in the same misrepresentation of sources he had on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, so I pointed out on the talk page that this was a recurring, possibly chronic, problem with this particular user. This was interpreted as "following" Catflap08, a ridiculous assertion given the reason I initially took an interest in the dispute.
      • Kokuchūkai is an article Catflap08 created, but he very clearly just wrote whatever he wanted, and added sources that may or may not support his claims (it seems likely he hasn't actually read them). He openly admitted that this is his modus operandi, hence my pointing out that when he did the same thing on the Daisaku Ikeda article this is a recurring problem with this user, rather than a good-faith difference of opinion over article content. I recently fixed the Kokuchūkai article by providing a neutral and accurate summary of what all the sources actually say, which Catflap08 has since claimed is "problematic".
      • On Kenji Miyazawa, Catflap08 has repeatedly[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] violated a very clear consensus by inserting dubiously-sourced material (essentially OR) that is contradicted by 99% of our reliable sources. Why reverting this is wrong has never been especially clear.
      • Regarding "name-calling": Catflap08 here has been applying a blatant double-standard. If I get frustrated and call him a "jackass" once (actual diff here; at least one admin repeated this "personal insult" when asked to sanction me for it), Catflap spends a month and counting calling me a "jackass" and a "jerk" in response. I am also, apparently, a "xenophobic racist", and users who disagree with Catflap08, including myself, are an "ignorant clique" of "idiots", etc., etc. He even appears to have accused me of homophobia.[29][30][31] He has repeatedly refused requests from multiple users, including his friend John Carter, to withdraw his ad hominem remarks, while insisting that my already-stricken responses to said ad hominem remarks should lead to repercussions.
      I don't think an IBAN is appropriate, given that I have done nothing wrong here. Catflap08 has a particular POV and when other users respond by saying the sources don't support him, he responds with forum-shopping and personal attacks. A mutual IBAN would protect his more disruptive edits from me. A one-way IBAN would at least protect me from his continued and unapologetic personal remarks. But the project as a whole would be much better served if Catflap08 was indefinitely blocked.Opposition withdrawn.
      Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      A one-way IBAN? Sorry, that's not how it works. I didn't even know you two were still going at each other (in the past, I asked for an admin to put a stop to it myself), so I fully support an IBAN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose of an interaction ban isn't for the sole benefit of the two users, it is for the benefit of the community. It is an alternative to using the block tool, so we get your contributions, you both get to stay unblocked. At this point, it is obvious that interactions by the two users is causing problems outside of a single article. Who is to blame? Frankly, I don't care, as it is clear that any interaction is disruptive to the project as a whole. What I want is a good editing environment for all editors, which takes precedence over any single user's desires. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      My only concern is that we've already seen administrative involvement fail to separate these two. By the way, did anyone remember to inform SilkTork about this, since he was the last admin to attempt to halt this nonsense? As its now down to a community vote, I'd like his insight in particular and I think he might want to know what happened here, in light of the conduct he requested during his mediation of the issue between the pair. Hijiri seems indignant at the implication of the IBAN, but I think, in opening this discussion, Catflap may have spared him a block for that whole affair and his persistence in seeking this conflict out. And that's rather the point I started out to make here. IBANs only really work when both parties really want them to and have accepted there is no solution but to cooperate in not cooperating. It's silly, but if it works and stabilizing the problem, who cares, right? The problem is that one or both of the parties is determined to continue the fight, IBANs collapse in on themselves and become the community fabric equivalent of super-massive black holes, sucking up indescribable amounts of community effort and contributor man-hours in acrimonious discussions of the IBAN itself and whether it's being violated and, if so, whose fault it is. And it can be unending. And you can bet it won't be long before these two cross paths again, because they both operate in some shared (and very niche) spaces, and both clearly have strong feelings on said topic. In short, I don't see this IBAN would work, short of a mutual TBAN in those areas as well...
      I really honestly sometimes think IBANs are broadly a mistake and ought to be abolished for anything but voluntary application. If someone is not behaving in accordance with our behavioural policies and can't be convinced to, they really ought to just be blocked. The rationale behind IBANs is "Well, we don't want to lose two or more valuable contributors, and this seems to be limited to their interactions with eachother, so let's just remove that factor." The problem is that, if an editor shows a willingness to break with our community principles of conduct in one context, there's almost certainly another context in which that user could be compelled to do so again. No matter how specific the frustration seems to be to that user, there's at least a handful of other editors out there who will rub them the wrong way in basically the same way, and if said user can't comport themselves in those circumstances then, at a minimum, the community should acknowledge as much (and probably impose sanctions as necessary), not try to patch around that core issue. When two editors lock horns and can't let it go, when they come to uncivil words and personal attacks, an administrator or the community broadly should step in. If they can't head the advice being given them in those administrative/community processes, then a line should be drawn for them, beyond which their behaviour cannot be tolerated, as was done in this case by Silk. The party that next insists upon that problematic behaviour should then be blocked. This is all spelled out in policy.
      IBANs attempt to allow us to avoid assigning blame and/or spare someone a block, but in the long run in most cases, I don't think they do the involved editors any favours and certainly not the community. All they ever seem to do is prolong the ugliness. So I think we need to think carefully about whether to institute an IBAN here if both parties are not going to embrace it. If that proves to be the case, I say we ask SilkTork if he wants to apply any of the blocks he seemed prepare to implement if his administrative proscriptions were not followed. There's been a lot of WP:IDHT in this case and I suspect at least one of the involved parties will fail to hear the IBAN, so if both parties are not going to work at settling this issue, we should send a message composed of substance, of the type that starts at 24-hours in size. Snow let's rap 06:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The whole idea is that instead of reading through walls of text, it is possible to simply block them if they violate the iban, without having to get bogged down in the merits of the arguments. I am not a fan of ibans, but sometimes, they are the lesser of all available evils. This is one of those cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support two-year IBAN Okay, I've changed my mind. I've had enough of this hassle, and want the IBAN if only to get Catflap out of my hair. But I think a definite-but-very-long time limit is preferable to indefinite for the following reasons:
      1. Past experience has taught me that even having a block log is enough for AGF to go out the window, so having a ban permanently in effect is not attractive, especially if the ban has no purpose (see 2 and 3 below).
      2. Catflap has announced his retirement/semi-retirement. If this is genuine, then there's no point keeping what would effectively be a one-way IBAN in effect indefinitely.
      3. My CIR and NOTHERE/BATTLEGROUND concerns regarding Catflap still stand. Even if I am not the next one to take him to ANI, his state of always being in conflict with one or more users has not changed. If he doesn't retire voluntarily, I am 90% certain he will be blocked within the next two years.
      4. His comments on this thread make me think that if he doesn't retire, he will immediately violate the IBAN himself by accusing the next Japanese IP he comes into conflict with (it happens a lot) of being me. He's already done it on the Kenji article, but there was no IBAN then.
      5. If after two years of us both editing English Wikipedia constructively with no violations, one or both of us wish to renew, it can be discussed at that point.
      Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Also an IBAN without further clarification would be technically difficult. Before imposing the IBAN, could someone take a look at the Kokuchukai article and clarify whether one or both of us would be banned from editing it? Catflap created the page first, but 90% of the current article is my work, and both of us are intimately aware of these facts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read WP:IBAN and see exactly what it discusses. It refers only to direct interaction, it does not rule out the possibility of developing articles independent of discussion between individuals, or much anything else, just directly discussing each other or each other's edits. And I would myself
      Support indefinite i-ban as per the standard form, with perhaps a possibility of review after no less than one year. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=655867804"