Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 84 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Infobox image

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 43 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Chrysler#Splitting proposal - Sep. 2024

(Initiated 62 days ago on 1 September 2024) Discussion has become inactive and I'd like a third party opinion of the concensus. Adriazeri (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	13	0	13
TfD	0	0	9	0	9
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	28	0	28
AfD	0	0	8	0	8

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 158 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 192 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Larnoch_Road_murders#Requested_move_2_October_2024

(Initiated 31 days ago on 2 October 2024) Discussion has slowed after 30 days; needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor please. Muzilon (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question - Can an identical edit be made to hundreds of articles with no discussion or consensus?

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

---

This discussion was started at WikiProject Politics, which stemmed from two threads at the Help Desk.[1][2] In short, an editor unilaterally made a contentious change to a date in hundreds of political articles without ever starting a discussion. So my question is very simple and is about the process, not the editor: Is someone allowed to make a contentious edit to a very large number of articles without getting consensus? If not, should the edtior be required to revert himself until the matter has been resolved? Czoal (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, editors should "be bold" if they think that something is going to be uncontroversial. If it does later turn out to be controversial, they should stop and garner consensus before continuing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

Concur with Lankiveil. If we all had to ask for "permission" first before doing something that someone somewhere might disagree with, WP would consist of a single blank page. BRD is an an essay describing an optional process that it self-describes as useful for some editors some of the time. It was pretty recently savaged in WP:VPPRO when someone proposed elevating it to guideline status, and it is frequently abused for patent WP:FILIBUSTERing. While most of us agree to use that methodology, when we think a revert has potentially rational reasons and a discussion could be warranted, it's not a policy violation to decline. As OlEnglish notes below, unless the attempts at improvement were obviously actually controversial (and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a real controversy), its better to initiate discussion than revert. BRD is basically a last resort. Assume on WP:AGF that changes are intended well and as an improvement. If we assumed that repetitive changes across multiple pages were a problem, categorically, WP:AWB would not exist. If someone is generally using AWB other other mass-edits to do something against a clearly established WP:Consensus that has not changed, or it doing it is clearly disruptive ways, lodge a complaint about it at WP:ANI, and expect drama. It is not WP:FAITACCOMPLI to use ABW to make a bunch of trivially complex changes that are just a trivial to undo to with an equal-but-opposite AWB run. Fait accompli involves shaping content to fit an editorial agenda with the intent or effect of pre-emptively short-circuiting consensus formation, in a way that is hard to back the encyclopedia out of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD the matter should get resolved first, before making any other reverts. See also Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Avoiding or limiting your reverts -- œ^™ 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal: @Lankviel: @OlEnglish: My apologies for only spotting this thread now.

On the procedural issue, the "fait accompli principle" adopted in several ArbCom decisions reflects that "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." (See, for example, here.)

On the substantive issue, although this issue is a perennial challenge and I have largely given up fighting it, March 4 is unambiguously the correct answer. See the evidence I provided here in 2006. I will cross-post that link in the project-page thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't seen yet any of the "hundreds of articles", could you post a link to a few, USER:Czoal? Fact is that thousands of congress bios were originally imported by User:Polbot (a bot) from the Congressional Biographical Directory which states March 3 as the end of term until 1933. Anything that was changed later (while cleaning up) to march 4, was done without consensus, and contrary to the sources. There were some discussions started by editors who think that the term ended March 4, none of which were formally closed, and all of which ended inconclusive. The present discussion, linked by the OP will have the same fate. The reason is simple: the issue had become controversial in real life (to clarify the point, the XX amendment was enacted) and debaters always mix up "term" and "session" and mix up events of 1791 with events of 1917 and then start generalizing. Obviously one can't do that, WP:OR is forbidden under WikiPolicy. I suggest some other sort of dispute resolution, since the RfC model has failed, so far, in this case. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kraxler: I agree some sort of dispute resolution seems warranted. While March 4 is unambiguously a date when some presidents signed legislation, and the Senate sometimes met, as @Newyorkbrad: has demonstrated, --- March 3 is unambiguously the end of Members of Congress terms of office, by law, as reported by the House and Senate History Offices contributing to the Congressional Biographical Directory, and not disputed elsewhere.

There seems to be continuing confusion as to the nature of the Senate's character as a “continuing body”; a quorum is assumed unless called for and it fails for the morning business. On any given March 4, two-thirds of the Senate (more than a quorum) are still in the midst of their individual terms of office, though one third has ended a term that March 3 --- so they may still be in session as a continuing body. The Senate is occasionally noted as having a Special Session of “one day only”, March 4. But I could not find a citation in Newyorkbrad’s references to the House extending a session to March 4, — was it the exigencies of wartime? Were there any objections? How many Members of Congress terms were not then March 3 in those Congresses of exception which is the default date for info box terms of office? In any case, such exceptions for some few do not justify making a blanket change for all Members' terms of office with contrary sources pointing to their individual terms ending March 3 as was customarily done by law throughout U.S. history until Constitutional Amendment to January 3. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The substantive discussion really ought to continue on the project talkpage and not here; and I will return to that discussion when I have some more time. In the interim, though, I have to say that I despair: in my extended contribution on that page, quoting myself from as far back as 2006, I quoted verbatim an instance where both the outgoing House and the outgoing Senate were still in session on March 4 straight until 12:00 noon, whereupon the Speaker of the House and the presiding Senator interrupted the Member who had the floor to announce that the constitutionally mandated end of the session had arrived. There may possibly have been some dispute as to the end of the term in the early 19th century, but not all that much, and not afterwards. The Congressional historian's office, albeit in a personal communication with me, has explained that March 3 in the early directories should not be followed and is being corrected; that said, those entries provide an explanation of why March 3 dates appear in many articles, but they cannot outweigh the evidence that if one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year when the body was in session, the Members sitting belonged to the outgoing body and not the new one, a fact that to me is virtually dispositive. And the suggestion that Representatives' and Senators' terms might have ended at different terms, makes no sense at all. To be continued, I suppose.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RE "if one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year when the body was in session, the Members sitting belonged to the outgoing body and not the new one" that's a fallacious argument, like asking "If you beat your wife, then did you beat your wife or did you beat somebody else's wife?" The question assumes that you beat your wife, and obviously it brings the answer along. The real question is "If one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year, was there anybody sitting?" and "If at that time the body was in session, did they have the legal right to sit?" Kraxler (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeepers, I didn't realize this dispute was still ongoing. FWIW, we should use March 4 :) GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: There is nothing dispositive about an assumption that Senators with six year terms all end at the same time every two years in odd numbered years when terms of U.S. Senators are staggered into class 1, class 2, and class 3, each separated by two years. At no time do all members of the Senate cease to hold office.

No one in the Congressional historian’s office has communicated the end of the Senate's staggered terms. You are mistaken. For instance, in your home state of New York, every six years in even numbered years, there is no election for a U.S. Senator, because each state has only two Senators, each with a term of six years.

New York Senators are Class 1 (Gillibrand re-elected 2012, next election 2018) and Class 3 (Schumer re-elected 2010, next election 2016). There was no Senate election for class 2 for New York in 2014, nor will there be in 2020. For every state to have a U.S. Senate 6-year term election every two years for six years, there would have to be three Senators for each state, and that makes no sense at all. See List of United States Senators from New York for a graphic display. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For goodness' sake. Given the content of my contributions to this and other discussions over the past nine years, you may take it that I know how many senators there are. In the words of King Arthur addressing the French taunter, "Is there someone else up there I can talk to?" Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: 1) The House and the Senate meet in separate chambers at the opposite side of the United States Capitol Building. You said, "as far back as 2006, I quoted verbatim an instance where both the outgoing House and the outgoing Senate were still in session on March 4 straight until 12:00 noon, whereupon the Speaker of the House and the presiding Senator interrupted the Member who had the floor to announce that the constitutionally mandated end of the session had arrived." I read your link to 2006 and I could find no such Congress, or I would have double checked sources myself. Joint Sessions are held on ceremonial occasions. It may be you misremember, or you mean to represent the counting of electoral votes for presidential elections for a new president as old business at List of joint sessions of the United States Congress, which does not bear on the end of an individual’s term as you propose.

2) You presume that all Senators terms end on the same day, they do not. You said, "the evidence that if one walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 11 a.m. of an odd-numbered year when the body was in session, the Members sitting belonged to the outgoing body and not the new one, a fact that to me is virtually dispositive." There is nothing here dispostive other than March 3 across class 1,2,3 terms in the Senate and for all Representatives in odd numbered years. It may be your imagination ends six year terms every two years together, but it is Congressional sessions of the House which end at the end of the Representatives terms on March 3. You may distinguish between end of an individual's term and the end of a Congressional session.

3) It would be anachronistic to now change the standing historical record of Sessions ending March 3 and arbitrarily make them March 4 to conform with the noon-to-noon Constitutional Amendment. At House History webpage [3] we have the account of correcting a misappropriation of $3 millions, corrected on June 30, 1906, extending the end of a First Session, not at the end of Representative’s terms. That’s it — by search on the House Historian’s website for March 4 end of sessions which you said was to be changed post haste in 2006. You were clearly mislead, see [4] viewed October 14, 2015. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question, again Where are the hundreds of articles, referred to by the OP? Give me a link. Are we discussing here some ghost issue? Kraxler (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(question for Czoal) Who's the individual that made the numerious changes, btw? GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: You have again made a number of errors. The House and Senate were sitting separately on the morning of March 4, 1917, right until 12:00 noon; I described the situation and quoted from the Congressional Record extensively on the project talkpage. Just as I know how many senators each state has, I know where the Senate and House Chambers are located, and your continuing assumptions that I have an advanced level of cluelessness are becoming a serious problem. You are also confusing the ending date of a session (which is whatever date the House and Senate voted to adjourn sine die) with the ending date of the term of Congress (which is the date on which the Members cease to be Members, regardless of whether the House and/or Senate are in session on that date). Again, this can be continued on the project talkpage, and I am torn as to whether I should expend much further effort regarding it, but please don't gratuitiously insult my intelligence any more if you can help it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Brad, AN is not a content dispute place. ApparentlyUser:Czoal asked a question and then abandoned this thread. No answer to my question. So we don't even know what his question was about. Who changed what and when. I propose to close this thread, which had been bot-archived already. You all, please, continue the content discussion at the Project Politics thread. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that this thread can be closed, at least from my point of view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question, yet again Where are the hundreds of articles, referred to by the OP? Give me a link. Are we discussing here some ghost issue? Kraxler (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(response to Czoal) FWIW, on about 3 occassions over the years, I've attempted to change the dates, when I came across congressional bios pre-1935. I was usually reverted. Therefore, in answer to your question, I'm guessing that it's not alright to make across the board identitcal changes. Atleast it's not alright, without a consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Review of Reguyla (Kumioko) reblock

Discussion archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Reguyla-Kumioko community ban. Katie^talk 04:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking of T Mobil IP's for a long time (several months)??????

I have noticed over the past month or two or more that IP's starting with 172 have been blocked. A message pops up when trying to edit saying all 172. IP's are blocked until December. This is preventing thousands of editors who use tablets, smart phones, etc. I tried to create an account and that was blocked as well. It absurd to block millions of T Mobil users. I guess Wikipedia is becoming a more exclusive club. Remember exclusive means less relevant and if it becomes to exclusive it becomes endangered. 208.54.38.175 (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to give us more information - specifically what does the block message say. Looking down the Range block database for blocking starting 172 and ending in December 2015, I see 172.56.0.0/18 by @Materialscientist: which says "Long-term abuse, WP:BLP violations". It looks like you've experienced collateral damage, and as long as Wikipedia is available for anyone to edit anonymously, this situation will remain. If you have an account, you should have enough information to post an unblock request on your talk page, which can be reviewed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Please read post again.208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Use {{Unblock}} on the account talk page, and simply say you're caught in a range block for the reason. NE Ent 11:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting original user: "I tried to create an account and that was blocked as well."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And without knowledge of which account this is, there's nothing we can do about it. For all I know, the disruptive user in question is the one who reported it; even if not, the block may be justified for other reasons. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

How many IP's does the 172.56.0.0/18 block hit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It effects all American T mobile users which effects millions of people. I am unaware if it effects Canadian users as well but I believe it does. Why is it blocked for so long? As far as I can tell reading the myriad of bureaucratic rules this violates policy concerning broad long term range blocks. It appears this type of block is already sufficiently covered and recommended against. Additionally account creation is blocked as well. Why would anyone completely block millions of T Mobile users?208.54.38.175 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The block 172.56.0.0/18 (like any /18) hits 16,384 IPs. This is Not all of T-Mobile, as they also use the ranges shown here (10,649,856 addresses total). The blocking admin (User:Callanecc) may be interested in contributing to this discussion. I will notify -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is Callanecc. His block is superseded by block #1586 by Materialscientist. The other 172.xxx blocks belong to Elockid who is having the more dramatic impact. I'm sure they have their reasons.

• 494 172.246.0.0/16 16 Elockid
• 826 172.255.0.0/16 16 Elockid
• 1701 172.56.8.0/23 23 Callanecc
• 1729 172.86.176.0/21 21 Elockid
• 1586 172.56.0.0/18 18 Materialscientist

We haven't been getting bombarded with unblock requests so the IP can simmer down...it isn't as they describe.:
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the 208.xxx IP as a sock. The account, User:Davidromano67 is one of his...based on the way that account looks in editing history there are probably more. I would leave all the range blocks in place...looks like it is having an effect on some of them. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Range block database appears to be wrong, which is consistent with Wikipedia:Database reports saying "many database reports are consequently broken. The actual record can be viewed at [5]; (note: I wasn't smart enough to figure that out myself, but I was smart enough to ask Diannaa on their talk page.) NE Ent 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NE Ent. It has the appearance that Callanecc only modified Material's pre-existing block without changing anything just so he could get the "<!-- ACC ignore -->" comment in there so that (guessing) the audit subcommittee or whatever audit group doesn't screw up and undo it. :) Forget it, 208.xxx, it isn't going to happen no matter how much you wikilawyer.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"<!-- ACC ignore -->" is so that users who create accounts at WP:ACC don't defer the request to CheckUsers. Regarding the blocks, there are heaps and heaps of hits in the CheckUser log indicating that there are many sockpuppeteers using these ranges so they are unlikely to be unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

172.255.0.0/16 and 172.244.0.0/16 are not allocated to T-mobile. Both those companies are webhosts. Elockid^(Boo!) 13:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to end enforced wikibreak.

Hey! Can an admin please edit User:Brustopher/common.js to end the enforced wikibreak on my main account? My exams finished far earlier than I expected when I set it. Thank you in advance. Bosstopher2 (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Please consider updating the link on your userpage. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Mohsin17

Hello everyone. I am requesting the attention of the administrative noticeboard regarding continued disruptive editing by Mohsin17 (talk · contribs) after a recent block expiration.[6]

Since October 2013, [7] Mohsin17 has flagrantly ignored repeated requests from the community asking that he or she puts an end to the continued introduction of unsourced content, be it in the form of unsourced original research or poorly sourced content attributed to blogs/web forums. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

See also the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics#Pakistani_cities_Transport_and_Economy_section

We have shown good faith to this editor for 2 years, and the responses received show an absolute defiance to our policies, going as far as making claims of discrimination. [17] [18] I feel that I, along with several other editors, have exhausted all attempts at communication with this individual and am now requesting community feedback on how to best proceed. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not ignored any requests by youtaor t anyone.The fact is that only a single person has objection on content added me and that's you. You are continuously targeting me, deleting my material and spreading hatred against me. Your behavior is totally biased Mohsin17 (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If reverting your edits while assuming good faith to keep Wikipedia in accordance with policy and sending you notes to remind you of that means you're a target, then I don't know what to say. As multiple editors, Yamaguchi included, all agree that your edits are disruptive, you are by no means being targeted by an individual. It seems like that because you're the one in the spotlight. However, if you stop your disruptive editing and start editing productively, you'll find that you'll stop being called out. Amaury (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Mohsin17, please make note of my response to you at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics which reads:

Mohsin17, numerous messages have been left on your talk page indicating that original research is not permitted on Wikipedia, and that sources are required for all significant content changes. I see on your talk page that you have been notified at least 5 times between now and October 2013, so I do not understand why you are continuing to add unsourced and otherwise poorly sourced content to these articles. Please adhere to our editorial policies and guidelines and I wish you well in you future endeavors. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC).

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, provided that your contributions can be attributed to reliable third party source. Take the List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan article for example, where you have continued to dismiss our WP:V policy by introducing original research or using web forums hosted by SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM as a reference despite requests not to. Examples of sources you have used recently include: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1696650&page=46 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1731754 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3608 - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1698468 - et cetera. These are unacceptable per WP:USERGENERATED, please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or request assistance from the community via the respective talk page. Persistent edit warring in opposition of our core policies is not the way. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello— Today, Mohsin17 (talk · contribs) has relapsed back to citing internet chat forums as sources despite multiple requests not to. [19] In some cases, the thread will discuss an article somewhere which may actually have encyclopedic purpose, and in other threads not. In any case, the SKYSCRAPERCITY.COM forums have no place being cited here. Will an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor please assist? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mohsin17: Forums are not suitable reliable sources. I suggest you revert your addition else you will attract a block for disruption. Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mohsin17's reintroduction of internet chat forums as cited references on 07:08, 13 October 2015‎ remain in place in the List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan article at this time. I have disengaged from the article until an uninvolved administrator or experienced editor has an opportunity to review and intervene. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I posted a clear final notice that if Mohsin17 doesn't discontinue this practice of using original research and forum posts for sourcing, he will face a block. It could be that a block is warranted at this point but I like to give editors one last warning that a block is on its way if behavior doesn't change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it for you, Yamaguchi先生. Amaury (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy and Renee Ellmers

Just a heads up that these two articles have hit the headlines after Homeland Security IPs were identified as having edited them. There could be a fair bit of activity picking in the coming days, which may bring about some potential BLP violations. I would recommend that admins be ready with ArbCom DS notifications relating to BLP's and American Politics 2. Blackmane (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, revdels, blocks, page protections etc. Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Which Kevin McCarthy, though? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

this one--MONGO 15:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kevin McCarthy (California politician) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As I suspected, the Speaker who never was :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have checked that it didn't just go to a DAB page. Blackmane (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think DS imposition is necessary. There already have been some revdels. Right now both articles are semi-protected and being well monitored. A DS notification would just make it harder for the people who are monitoring and maintaining the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MelanieN. I only posted as a heads up to admins, how they choose to act with regards I leave to your (plural) discretion. The list was just options off the top of my head. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Abusive Redirect

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

---

The page Sindhu Bhairavi is constantly redirected to the page Uttaran by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. So please rectify this problem and protect Sindhu Bhairavi (TV series) from being redirected again.Devmahatma (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The page is being redirected because it is a non notable language dub of a show that has not established that the original is notable. Any admin action should be to lock the redirect to prevent the nonsense recreation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a content fork to me. There's some stuff worth moving over to the original article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Not the eye-blinding colors though --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion request (CSD tags don't work)

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

---

Please could somebody delete MediaWiki:Undeleteextrahelp/enCA under WP:CSD#G8?

The situation is that the page was created at the wrong title (it should end "en-CA" or it won't serve its technical function), and was renamed on my request. I've since tried to get the redirect speedied (on the basis that redirects in MediaWiki:-space doesn't work), and admins have agreed with me, but because I put the speedy tag on the talk page (I can't put it on the interface page itself for obvious reasons), the talk page got deleted, which isn't very useful.

Because the "standard" CSD tagging method isn't really working in this situation, I decided to ask over at AN instead. So here I am. --ais523 07:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and just as a note, ensure you delete the redirect itself, not its target. The software might not follow redirects in MediaWiki:-space, but clicking on links to them will still take you to the redirect target. --ais523 07:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Request to lift temporary topic-ban

I request that this purely punitive two-month topic ban (the continuation of which has a purely punitive effect, however preventative it was intended when issued)) by Future Perfect at Sunrise be lifted; it has been one month to the day so far. It's certainly not preventative of anything: The admittedly disruptive dispute at WT:MOS had already wound down and had moved to WP:ANEW; and two editors arguing about behavior at a noticeboard that exists for resolving behavioral disputes is not disruptive (though this WP:ACDS topic ban actually derailed that dispute resolution without any resolution being reached).

I can respond here, to address any questions or concerns over the next day, but I'm preparing to travel to Washington DC for WikiConference 2015, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to respond between late 7 Oct. and ca. 9 Oct, and will be AFK for much of 7 Oct., though available for a couple of hours from this posting, and again ca. 12 hours after it.

The ban was applied one-sidedly on a technicality (the other editor's discretionary sanctions alert had expired), although the admin had initially intended it to apply equally to both parties [20]. My repeated requests, on my own talk page (see [21], [22], [23], and [24] and that of the admin (see [25], [26], and [27]) for it to be narrowed or even clarified as to what it really means, have been totally ignored, as was my request (see diffs above from my own talk page) for evidence of its justification (the admin made accusations without diffing any evidence to support them, which is among the things that WP:ARBATC in particular was enacted to restrain, ironically). Weirdly, despite saying they would address these questions and concerns promptly [28], the admin has been active the entire time, even issuing further topic bans to others, then later archived the requests without any comment or action.

I've been just living with this TB in good faith, but it's getting to WP:IAR levels of impracticality at this point. All it's doing is muzzling me from routine participation, having the WP equivalent of a chilling effect on my ability and willingness to edit. I have a big pile of reliable sources to add to the affected article, and am just sitting on them twiddling my thumbs. The article in its present state is so bad that The Guardian publicly criticized Wikipedia for it, and that newspaper article is still in top-ten Google search results for the subject [29]. All this TB is doing is preventing me from genuinely improving a public-eyesore article (a genuine PR problem for WP) with RS research I've already done. Well, it's also denying me the ability to participate in any MoS-related discussion, despite the disruptive discussion having been very narrowly focused on one topic, and entirely a two-editor pissing match, not a general brou-ha-ha; a far more useful approach would have been an interaction ban for a while. But even that would not be needed at this point; ironically, I was in the middle of drafting a constructive olive-branch message for the other editor's talk page when FPaS dropped the TB bomb on me, and its overreaching scope actually prohibits me from posting it! What good is a TB that prevents editors trying to work out their differences?

Additional rationales and details supporting this request

I've outlined here a handful of the interference this is causing. Due to its overbreadth and vagueness, I fear even editing anything MoS-related in a sandbox or draft page, answering any requests for my participation (e.g. [30] and [31] today alone) even just to say that I'm not allowed to participate, citing MoS as a rationale in any discussion (which is why I've almost totally avoided WP:RM lately, and most WP:RFCs and WP:VP discussions I would normally contribute to), as well as editing anything related to WP:AT (because WP:ARBATC covers both, and the admin in question cited that as the basis of their ACDS against me). For all I know, I'm about to be punished further since this very request mentions MoS in passing. The extension of the topic ban to an article, that I was obviously actively working on sourcing, is especially uncalled-for and unjustifiable; it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The scope of ARBATC does not even include actual articles that happen to be about punctuation or other linguistic matters; it's about disputes relating to WP:AT policy and the WP:MOS guidelines. This is exactly the same as topic-banning someone from Japan-related articles because of disputation over MOS:JAPAN matters; I raise that example specifically because WP:ANI recently concluded multiple times against such a topic ban, in cases of far more intractable conflict. In short, the TB appears to conflict with WP:ACDS#Placing sanctions and page restrictions, in being disproportionate. The entire basis of it seems shaky to me to begin with. I opened a WP:ANEW discussion about another editor's actions (very clearly documented by me), spanning an MOS page, an article, both talk pages, and even an associated Wiktionary article, and then was slapped with ACDS for "addressing editor instead of content". But the entire purpose of such noticeboards is addressing editor behavior. It's not a "personal attack" to raise such concerns on a noticeboard, even if my tone could have been calmer. I feel that I've been railroaded unfairly here, and that ACDS is being misapplied to interfere with actual encyclopedia work, with normal consensus formation at both a policypage and an article, and normal dispute resolution at a noticeboard. The purpose of ACDS is not to "settle" disputes by short-circuiting normal process to declare whoever is quieter to be the "winner". We have talk pages to resolve conflicts about pages' content and the sources for it; we have noticeboards to fairly and correctly resolve editing disputes in the readership's and the community's best interests; and we have ACDS to stop actual disruption in particularly dispute-prone topics, as a last resort. An ANEW report pending neutral investigation is hardly a last-resort situation; nothing was being disrupted by one editor arguing with another about behavior on a behavioral noticeboard. And no disruption was prevented by retroactively applying ACDS punitively for disruption at an MoS talk page where the dispute had already fizzled out and moved to a noticeboard.

I concede that my tone was intemperate in the original dispute, and it was a mistake on my part to allow myself to engage in a dispute that became too heated, circular, and lengthy. One month is more than enough time to re-think my approach to this issue entirely (namely just sourcing the question reliably beyond most further argument – though the overbroad TB actually prevents me from doing this! – instead of continuing to argue back and forth about the matter, and starting at the article, where resolving this really matters the most, since it's our encyclopedia content, not an internal question of style guide wording). I also have a long history of coming to peaceable terms with editors with whom I've had vociferous disputes in the past, and I look forward to that kind of resolution with the other editor in the dispute behind this incident (with whom I already agree much of the time on most matters). If not for this TB we probably would already have such a resolution.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Added info about The Guardian article and prevention of user-talk dispute resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support In looking, it looks like SMcCandlish used dispute resolution , rather than just edit war, to resolve the issue and it didn't work, further, he politely contacted Future Perfect at Sunrise for clarification and it looks like FPOS just brushed him off. I'd say lift it. KoshVorlon 10:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Update:' Off to WikiConference. Probably incomunciado for a day or so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  Got airport wifi for a few hours, if anyone wants to ask anything.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, I think. I'll admit I haven't read over everything because frankly there's a lot of it and it's pretty dry reading. But I think it's worth giving SMc the chance here, he's handled the banning admin's lack of communication pretty well and he does sound like he's learned from the situation. Worst case scenario, the topic ban just gets reimposed, but I judge the chances of that happening pretty small. Jenks24 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Request closure in favor of the request: This was open so long, without opposition, and without further comment but the supports, that a bot already auto-archived it once. If there are any questions/concerns, I have WiFi for about 20 min. (WikiConference is closed now, I'm at a café), and will again a few hours after that, at the airport.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• The bot shouldn't have archived this rather new thread so quickly. I think it deserves more feedback if admins who are familiar with the topic ban could weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Just lift it. I've already supported above, but this has been open for what four or five days and no one has opposed. FPAS is a good admin and I'm not saying the topic ban was a bad decision – certainly from what I glanced on my watchlist it was becoming an unhealthy and unproductive discussion for those involved – but it's now a month on and even FPAS doesn't seem to want to comment here (he has been editing while this discussion has been open) and say that the topic ban should continue. SMc will know he's treading a fine line in this area for a while and it's not like MoS talk pages are unwatched by anyone – I'm sure in the unlikely event he does anything silly it will be easy to come back here and re-apply, but in the meantime we should AGF for a long-term contributor who has clearly learned from the situation. Jenks24 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• OP calls the temporary topic ban "purely punitive", but I see no evidence to show that punishing him was the motivation behind it. Without supporting facts, perhaps he would be advised to strike that claim. In any event, I don't think it's appropriate to remove the topic ban without first hearing from the sanctioning admin, FPAS -- which could also shed light on the reason he applied the ban. So, let's call this a Procedural oppose until that happens. BMK (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise: in regard to the above. BMK (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Beyond My Ken:. Done. My intent was never to imply a punitive motive (what on earth would be the point of attacking FPaS's motivations when the TB was for allegedly attacking someone else's motives to begin with?), only that this long after the event, it has a punitive effect and no preventative one. See latest post on my talk page: Even the other party in the original dispute is inviting my commentary on a current MoS matter. This water isn't just under the bridge but has flowed well past it at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• The point of a topic ban from MOS was to prevent you from participating at MOS. If your only real argument for lifting (from taking a look above) a reasonably placed ban is that its punitive because it prevents you from editing in the area its designed to prevent you editing in due to past behaviour... Well that is pretty much the point of it. Its 2 months. Take a break for 4 more weeks. Oppose Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The point of a topic ban for anyone from anything is to prevent disruption of or relating to that topic, not (constructive) participation in it. I've already explained why the TB should be lifted early. Given that, as far as I recall, every single one of the quite infrequent disciplinary actions ever taken against me in over ten years on this project has involved a sentiment that my posts leading up to and in defense against said action are long-winded and repetitive, I decline to be drawn into another re-explanation of what I already explained in probably too much detail above already, and which others seem to be accepting without coming to the assumption of circular reasoning you are. PS: I think it's rather injust to "procedur[ally] oppose until [it] happens" that I make a retraction (of something that you simply inferred and I did not actually say), then oppose anyway after I comply.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • "The point of a topic ban for anyone from anything is to prevent disruption of or relating to that topic, not (constructive) participation in it" is incorrect. "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." This was all the explanation ever needed. Any participation is banned. Period! You were deemed to be disruptive in the MOS topic area and temporarily topic banned accordingly. You may have never agreed with it or accepted it, but that is totally immaterial to the banning policy. You are allowed to neither disrupt nor constructively participate in the topic area until the topic ban expires. That's it in a nutshell. It wasn't punitive then, and it still isn't punitive after all this extra filibustering. Doc talk 08:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • That comment seems to serve no purpose. I obviously understand that I can't participate in the affected topic constructively, or I would not be asking for the TBan to be lifted early on the basis that its interference with me doing so is more harm to the project than good. Doc did not actually understand what I wrote, which a about the the point of, not result of, a topic ban. I decline to re-re-explain this, for reasons already given above, or to address Doc in any more detail directly, for reasons already given below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Please do not "re-re-explain" things, as that doesn't seem to work out too well for you. We are not under an IBAN at all. I can say whatever I want about you, and vice-versa. It does not behoove you to claim that the topic ban is doing more harm to the project than good. The utter hubris of that notion is something you need to get a hold of. The project will get along just fine without you, and you are very replaceable. We all are. Get over it. Doc talk 06:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There’s no compelling reason to lift the topic ban early. Are we supposed to believe that we are all really being punished or deprived by not allowing him to get right back into the MOS fray that much sooner? He has maintained that the block was punitive from the very beginning with his 8-point demand for an “explanation”. "Whatever the intent, this comes across as a "punish more who ever posted more or more loudly” decision".[32] What amount of “explaining” would satisfy SMcCandlish that the topic ban was ever justified at all? Filibustering was specifically mentioned; and this continued whinging about a simple 2-month topic ban has wasted enough time. He said right off the bat "I'm not going to whine about receiving a temporary topic ban as onerous”... but here we are! To claim that "only that this long after the event, it has a punitive effect and no preventative one" flies in the face of what he’s been complaining about all along. To claim a PR issue because he is forced to "twiddle his thumbs" instead of protecting the encyclopedia is just... reaching. I don’t blame FPAS for not wanting to waste a ton of time arguing with him (though he really should comment here). SMcCandlish was given a little “time out” from MOS for two months. Plenty of other things for him to do in the meantime. Explanation time is over! Doc talk 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, Doc is hardly a neutral commenter on this matter, given that I lodged two ANI complaints about him last month, and the consensus was we should avoid interacting with each other for some while. His comment here does not appear to qualify as doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

History merge needed for areas of Armenia

Resolved

 – all done. Graham87 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A minor case of an improper move has occurred:

1. Protected areas of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is the original title, created December 2009, but is now a redirect to #3.
2. List of national parks of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a redirect to #3 but has the original page history.
3. List of protected areas of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is now the article, without the original contributors in the history.

I raised this at User talk:Spetsnaz1991#Copy/paste move but the editor has done a few more edits without responding, and it would be better if the issue could be fixed before anyone else edits the article. Would someone history merge #2 into #3 please. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: All fixed. Graham87 01:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Attention needed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999

1. I fear that sockmaster and sockpuppet are using TL;DR to disrupt and confuse.
2. By posting WP:WALLOFTEXT responses at the sock investigation -- they are trying to (unfortunately) decrease the likelihood anyone will take action on this.
3. The numerous WP:WALLOFTEXT posts all over Wikipedia can be seen as disruption, in and of itself.
4. Please evaluate this original evidence on its merits -- and decide to take action, or not, based upon the evidence.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Also would appreciate action on behavioral evidence provided by myself and by DGG, at case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Zeke1999 blocked. The other is more complex, I encourage other admins to look into it in detail. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much! Action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000 would be most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Bebbebopp appears to be a sock

Edits are here. Should we just block this account? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read through all of the discussions on the talk page of the article. @Doc James: do you have an opinion (evidence) on who the master may be? They are clearly not a new editor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes not sure what other accounts they use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for this discussion. It should be taken to WP:SPI. But to do that, you need actual evidence in the form of diffs, which Doc James doesn't appear to have. It's also worth noting he doesn't appear here with exactly clean hands. He's canvassed for his position in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Honey bucket and he's involved in a dispute on that page with Bebbebopp over what the outcome of the RM should be and also over what constitutes COI. His complaint here has a little too much of the feel of trying to take out an opponent for my taste, especially as an admin coming to an admin board where he might find friends rather than the correct venue where he might not. This complaint should be closed no action. If Doc has genuine evidence, he should take it to the proper venue. Msnicki (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Msnicki, I notice that you don't acknowledge that this account is not new and that Doc's suspicions are well-founded. You don't think this is a sock?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a new account and the behavior suggests this is someone who's been around for a while. So there's reason for suspicion. But that broad suspicion is not evidence. Evidence would be diffs showing that two accounts are likely the same person and that they're being used in a way we don't allow. It is entirely possible this is an individual who's been editing for years as an IP but finally got an account. We need evidence of wrongdoing, not just broad suspicion. And if anyone has some, the place to take it is WP:SPI, not here. Msnicki (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had more time this morning to look at the Bebbebopp's edit history and have decided I think this is a genuinely new user with very little experience simply doing his/her best. We should not WP:BITE. Bebbebopp's arguments about COI make it appear he/she is an experienced editor. I think it's just evidence he/she is trying to read and apply our guidelines. But this is definitely a newbie. Notice that in the first 4 of this editor's 9 edits, he/she had trouble getting the signature right. It doesn't get more newbie than that. I suppose a really cunning, calculating sock might do that, just to throw us off scent, but that seems unlikely to me. Msnicki (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to you that a sockmaster would make make deliberate mistakes with a new sock just to throw us off? So... you've never seen that before, in any other sock, ever?

I see. BMK (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My observation is that people always seem to expect their behavior is normal. If they're constantly pushing the envelope, getting into fights and gaming the system, they expect this is normal behavior for everyone and it causes them to be suspicious of everyone, even if there's no real evidence. By contrast, I'm pretty honest and I try to follow the rules, so that's what I expect unless there's some real evidence. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh, snap, pretty clever the way you did that, insulted me without seeming to. Well done! BMK (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

IBan removal

There was a recent thread at AN/I [33] which discussed a/an WP:IBAN which was archived with no closure. The editors involved are: User:MaxBrowne and User:Ihardlythinkso. I propose that the IBan be vacated regardless of the formality of its institution, and that both editors be judged on their own actions going forward. — Ched :  ?  02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ched, I hope you don't mind if I say a word or two--some of you regulars know this is an ongoing affair. I want to ask all participants to keep it short and sweet. This is not about what these two users supposedly did wrong in the recent past, but whether the community is served by an iBan which, some argue, is not adequately enforced. Editors who were involved in that now-archived discussion, specifically in the section that discussed lifting the ban, are NE Ent, MaxBrowne of course, Sjakkalle, Cobblet, Penwhale. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• (original IBan discussion) per link at WP:EDR — Ched :  ?  15:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Support

• I have read through the AN/I thread, as well as a talk page thread here. I have never felt that WP:IBAN achieved it's intended goal in most cases for many reasons. If two editors do not communicate well, it is best that they avoid each other, but I feel a forced "you two can't talk to each other" does nothing but increase tensions. For these reasons, and many more, .. I Support the removal of this IBan. — Ched :  ?  02:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• For freedom to improve articles w/o added burden of observing iBAN restrictions re overlaying the each other's edits. The other editor and I have had no history of edit-warring over content. IHTS (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• NE Ent 09:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think IBAN shouldn't be straight-up lifted without some other limitations, but it needs to go, IMO. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional - lift the IBAN for one month & observe how both editors get along or don't get along. Do this 1-month review for 6 months. Then go from there. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'll see you and raise you 10 NPAs MaxBrowne (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Explain. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  If the IBAN is lifted i'm willing to abide by wikipedia policies regarding no personal attacks, dropping the stick etc. I'll even acknowledge that my behaviour has not been ideal. MaxBrowne (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  Can't disagree. (It lifts a proven detrimental-to-everything-and-everyone-concerned sanction.) The reviews seem admin time-suckers, IMO they wouldn't prove necessary. But comforts Max, so OK. (Perhaps lower their frequency [e.g. to every 3 mos] and lengthen the overall time period [e.g. to 1 yr]!?) IHTS (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support but only on the condition that this be raised to Arbcom. This dispute is almost as bad, if not just as bad, as the dispute between Hijiri and Catflap. It's blatantly obvious that the community isn't able to handle this so it has to be escalated. Blackmane (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not Blackmane. Arbccom is a harsh end. Folks disagree - let them work it out. Arbcom is notorious for making some extremely bad decisions. In fact - I can point to a case where an editor who had never been blocked, had never even been WARNED, was a party to a case and ended up being sanctioned and restricted. Total bullshit. They do their best, and it is a necessary evil to have a ruling body - But no - this is not for them. — Ched :  ?  04:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support with no ARBCOM involvement. MaxBrowne said here that he'd be willing to vacate the IBAN. Just play nice and carry on. Doc talk 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - No benefit to building an encyclopedia has been presented which isn't true of any I-Ban at any time. Unless the original conditions which provoked the I-Ban are no longer in effect, I don't see why the ban should be lifted, especially when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't - implying that one of the two will benefit more than the other. The edits of Wikipedia contributors are always judged "on their own merits", and sometimes their lack of merit, which leads to sanctions such as an I-Ban. If there's a general problem in enforcing I-Bans, that's something that needs to be dealt with with the admin corps. BMK (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I am always hesitant to lift an IBAN when both parties don't agree that it should be lifted as that generally creates greater problems. IBANs need to be enforced robustly and vigorously, if they are, they work. But as BMK says that's a problem with policy and administrative enforcement. To lift any sanction I look for the sanctioned editors to note the problematic conduct and show how they are going to change their behaviour. This is slightly different (and note I contributed to the original discussion) in that it was imposed as more of a 'no fault' IBAN, that is both editors were unable to be constructive around each other. So I'm looking to see if both of them can move forward without further drama and I can't see that so I oppose lifting the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Then how about you being the admin to enforce blatant edit undo violations? I went to three admins (Blade, Brad, JgZ) and got no help! Also, why don't you be the admin to tell the other editor what they can and cannot do under the iBAN, the editor has openly said they refuse to check edit histories and "don't care" if they undo edits contrary to iBAN. So far no admin has corrected the other editor's understanding, they appear to think iBAN does not apply to theirself. Also there are two edit undos that were disimprovements, and I'd like to know what you intend to do about getting the edits restored, since even the content disimprovements in violation of iBAN were pointed out at article Talk and explained at ANI as well, the other editor has not restored the edits, and has even in one case shown their intention not to, at article Talk. I've been asking for a way forward at every turn so as not to violate iBAN myself, have never received instructions or directions. I'd also like the iBAN clarified re personal derogatory remarks the other editor has made in ANIs opened re iBAN violations, and at admin article Talks. (Where is this governed or controlled at WP:IBAN?? I'm not supposed to point out the hypocrisy and dysfunctionality??) IHTS (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If they edit in violation of the ban I'll block them (assuming I'm online and not on wikibreak) and that includes undoing your edits. As it is everywhere the onus is on the person making the edits to show that they are within policy (which, in this case, means checking to see if the other editor has edited the page, such as through this tool). If you give me the page histories and diffs of your edit and their undo of that edit I'll revert it as ban evasion. "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" does not include making "personal derogatory remarks", so if these are personal attacks or are casting aspersions then I'll make use of the block button (again assuming that they are recent and I'm online and not on wikibreak). Hope that helps. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm fine with all of that. But it occurs to me iBAN lift is better for health of WP and users' time. (You do have an unusual hard & fast view re rule enforcement from your background at Arb. But yes, your offer is a way forward under the iBAN that I've been asking for, so thank you.) p.s. As long as you are forthgiving of answers, WP:IBAN prohibits editors in iBAN from "interacting" with one another, or undoing one another's edits. But it says they can edit the same articles, and even the same article Talks. My question is this: if they are permitted to edit same article Talks, and article Talks are for content, then may they or may they not make contributions to same thread in article Talks, about same issue (whether their views are different or same)? And if the answer is yes, they can contribute to same article Talk thread on same issue, as long as they do not "interact", the discussion is assumed about content, which might be content contributed to the article by any editor, even one of the two editors in iBAN, yes? So then is it OK to comment re content of the other, as long as no "interaction between users" takes place, and discussion is purely about the topic of said content? Or is content discussion limited, if the content was the contribution of one of the editors? (I've been long here to be specific and clear. My Q is in good faith. It is not my fault that WP:IBAN does not spell it out. The content discussion contributions I've described don't appear to me to be prohibited at WP:IBAN, which makes sense to me since is consistent with allowing editors to update same article and article Talks. Anyway the fact it isn't spelled out is not my fault, my Q isn't "game-playing" or "wiki-lawyering" if I in good-faith want to know. [I've already been accused and threatened from those arguments. Nothing you did, I think.]) IHTS (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • True, but I think IBANs need to be enforced that that, as they tend to be very easy to game.

may they or may they not make contributions to same thread in article Talks, about same issue (whether their views are different or same)? Yes they can

(editor X and Y are mutual IBAN'd) If the discussion is about content which editor X added then editor Y cannot comment (third dot point). If the discussion is about content which neither editor added then they can both comment in the discussion just not replying to each other or referring to the other's comments (intro para and second dot point).

I'm hoping that answers your question? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you have me confused ... You say "If the discussion is about content which editor X added then editor Y cannot comment (third dot point).", but, the third dot point (if I'm wrong correct me) says: "make reference to or comment on Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly" (where "Y" is an editor, not a piece of content). I don't get you. IHTS (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I meant that I was basing that point (read interpretation) on "make reference to or comment on Y" in the third dot point, that is by discussing content they added (and hence are responsible for) you're commenting on them and hence breaching the terms of the IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, this discussion doesn't belong here of course, but I wanted to followup to let you know I don't think things are so straightforward as you suppose. First, that is not what WP:IBAN says. (I think you're adding what's not there, and even what the original WP:IBAN language authors did not intend, or want.) Also, I asked my Q in a framework where topics at article Talk were separated by identifying which editor added them. Your answer was in accord w/ that separation, but you weren't obligated to answer according to that separation. (Consider this gray area that flows logically: Editor 'A' brings up a topic at article Talk. Since editor 'A' opened the discussion thread, not editor 'X', editor 'Y' adds to it. But! - the same topic or close relative was brought up by editor 'X' previously in a long-ago archived Talk thread. Since editor 'X' is still feeling passionate about the issue, they join in the current discussion, avoiding editor 'Y' in doing so. [iBAN violation according to your prescription, or not?] There's even gray re edit undos, which otherwise seems pretty clear at WP:IBAN, consider: Editor 'X' makes an edit, then editor 'A' reverts it. Editor 'B' restores the reverted edit, then editor 'Y' comes along and reverts the restore. [Did editor 'Y' undo the edit of editor 'X'?]) Cheers, IHTS (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose absent a mutual showing of agreement to collaborate better. IBans are usually instituted because either a) two parties' continual interpersonal conflicts are disrupting a topic area, and/or b) one party is being harassed by another (or sometimes both are harassing each other). Either way, there needs to be clarity that both parties, not just one, are agreeing to go forward in a more positive light and to avoid a repeat of the disruptive conflict. (And this is not all that difficult, honestly, unless one party is a grudge-holder, in which case they're probably bound for an indefinite one-way IBan or worse eventually).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the issue is referred to ArbCom. MaxBrowne has opposed lifting the IBAN, and having looked at IHTS' commentary here and on Drmies talkpage, it looks like he still feels he has done no wrong, even though the issues were very real and the imposition of the sanction had strong consensus support. This issue has gone on for two years and needs to stop. We could request a binding resolution at ArbCom in which case the IBAN should be lifted so that both parties are free to submit evidence. The alternative is a considerably more rigorous enforcement of the existing sanction. MaxBrowne should note that edits such as this, with a provocative edit summary to boot, will almost certainly lead to blocks in the future under a more strict enforcement regime. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have not posted an outright oppose in this thread. All I want is some assurance that there won't be a return to the constant sniping which occurred prior to the IBAN, but any attempts to raise this concern are perceived as attacks, and are met by attempts to play "your diffs are worse than my diffs" and "my grievances are worse than your grievances". This gives me no confidence that he will modify his approach if the IBAN is lifted. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, excuse me, when did a lift iBAN AN proposal initiated by Ched, add expectation or condition for the confession of sins? And even if that logic is granted, how do you suppose or imply with a straight face, that the other editor was the only injured party? Or that the other editor's offenses were less? Especially when the actual fact is, the other editor's complaints at the original AN that imposed iBAN, were a pittance compared to their unprovoked epithets thrown at me in an ANI just days before that AN? (I guarantee you, or anyone else, the other editor's complaints basis for requesting iBAN at the AN, consisted only of an irritation over having their username often mentioned, in threads of mine with other editors where they were not directly involved. And nothing more. *That* was an issue of ETIQUETTE, and someone telling/warning me to stop it, which would have been a reasonable request, and which I agree I overdid [sorry Max]. The "strong consensus" you name for that AN was a misguided giving of iBAN to a user profusely complaining and moaning for one, to statisfy them. [Not a good basis for handing out iBANs!] And I believe the !voters in support of said iBAN somehow thought the magic of iBAN would gracefully put away all the fuss and a rainbow would appear suddenly over the horizon. When in fact the user has subsequently been actively following my edits for even a smell of iBAN violation they can claim at ANI--which they've done alot with your support--and doing what they supposedly object to from me--sniping with derogatory comments in all the iBAN violation ANI threads and at admin Talks, in retaliatory fashion. [The editor has publicly stated they "despise" me. I really don't care, but there you go.] Lastly, if you take a look at the ANI that JgZ opened re the edit undo violations, there you will see the other editor attmpting to rally editors to slap me down that I dare bring up iBAN that might apply to them re undoing my edits, because they are "contributing to the encyclopedia", and apparently my role is that of nuisance to be trashed or banned?!? He wanted the darkest forces of WP to put me down, that is for sure. [Continued in-fighting? On who's part?! "Needs to stop? On who's part?! BTW I already said at the ANI, when Max was sounding positive about iBAN lift, that I felt we both have learned what the other editor doesn't like and won't tolerate. I also said I could go into detail if needed, with or without Max doing same, to get specific. I implied that doing so would probably be unnecessary, because there's little doubt about what the issues are/have been. At no time have I ever struck out at Max with unprovoked incivilities, I have no reason to do that. Ditto Ched. But I also accept that I rub people the wrong way sometimes, and then they want to eat me. So much for human nature. Nevertheless, I harbor no grudge, I want Max to enjoy editing as freely as I want editing for myself. The bad stuff is not clinging to me, Sjakkalle, so please clean up your act and get off my case!? Thank u. p.s. Arbcom!? So more people's time can be sunk over an issue of ETIQUETTE? If you must know, I've long-ago dropped any idea that Max might apologize for his classic epithet. [I have dropped that stick, why don't you drop yours Sjakkalle?]) IHTS (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no explicit requirement that you "confess sins", but when you seem to think the IBAN was totally unjustified, there is cause to believe that you will resume the conduct that led to the IBAN once it is lifted. As for why I am commenting here, I was pinged to go to this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't "seem to think it", I very much think it was out-of-order and unnecessary (despite "consensus"). You apparently do not allow possiblity that editors can learn & grow!? (Drmies has noted it. Ditto Ched. But I don't expect you would/will, as you have carried a grudge [re my comments to Quale, your "long-term friend"].) So INDEF me if your worst fears come to pass. p.s. It's my understanding a ping is a simple notification and does not beg a response. IHTS (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose more or less per SMcCandlish above and below, by which I mean, make it clear that the i-ban need not necessarily apply at WP:DRN, WP:ANI, or similar noticeboards in which the input of other editors is actively sought-out. At such locations, it should be fairly easy for some admin reviewing the situation to determine if a comment crosses the line and discusses the other editor involved too directly. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I have expressed my misgivings re lifting the IBAN in the thread in question. Basically, lifting the IBAN would be unacceptable to me if it means a return to the status quo which existed before. Please don't play dumb and make me explain this in detail; just refer to the original thread leading to the IBAN, and the events leading up to it. I have no wish to attack the other editor but my concerns are genuine. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again, one-sided/unbalanced expression of concern re the other editor's behavior. Well *my* concern is an order of magnitude greater than the other editor's. (The difference might be, I'm willing and able to back up/demonstrate in an extended subthread anywhere, with a moderator[s], if needed, to sort it out. But I also know that WP and no one gives a whit to figure out what is distortion and what is not. No resources for that. So anyone gets by saying anything. And everyone knows that. [Theoretical Q: It's fond to be said here, "serious accusations need serious proof". But can anyone show a single thread where the serious proof or non-proof was ever sorted out!?]) IHTS (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"I want to ask all participants to keep it short and sweet." - DrMies, 03:03, 13 October 2015 MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Questions for Ched}: (1) What were the reasons the I-Ban was put in place? (2) Have those conditions changed? (3) How does removing the I-Ban help to build an encyclopedia? (4) Are you asking for the I-Ban to be removed on general principles or for a reason specific to this particular I-Ban? BMK (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @Ched: BMK (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK, the ANI thread from last year led to the iBan, and if I had to guess I'd say it was the back-and-forthing between the two that led to some exasperation on the part of those following the discussion. I can't speak for Ched, but IMO removing it will save us time and energy on ANI and associated boards, if only because we won't be asked to investigate the technicalities of whether something was in violation of the iBan or not. (Didn't we have another such thread a couple of months ago? Didn't we have talk page discussions too?) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • BMK, "when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't - implying that one of the two will benefit more than the other." Do you know what you're talking about?! The other editor has expressed openly that they refuse to abide by the editing terms of the iBAN, specifically saying they refuse to check article edit histories and "don't care" whether they undo edits by the other editor. To unburden them from checking edit histories I have been doing that leg-work for them (since it's easier for me to recognize my own edits), and documenting on the respective article Talk pages where they inadvertently undid an edit. But that effort has been ignored. When I subsequently restored an overlaid edit I was reverted by the other edtor and told to "get lost". In the ANI you will see the other editor rallying support for his position that he shouldn't be under restriction of iBAN because he was working in good-faith to improve an article. I believe him (tho as explained, none of the four edit undos were improvements, and two were disimprovements). My being proponent of lifing the iBAN was for benefit of unburdening the other editor to edit freely, plus my dislike of the fact iBAN turns into a roving topic ban (for example, I'm active Project Board Games editor, the other editor created Backgammon match strategy, I'm not allowed to help improve the article, not even punctuation or grammar fixes, seeing that all the edits to that article are so far the other editor's). IHTS (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Ched started this thread, and it's his responsibility to present the evidence which supports his suggestion of removing the topic ban. I naturally take the comments of the subjects of the ban with a grain of salt. BMK (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • BMK, just one point - "I don't see why the ban should be lifted, especially when one of the subjects objects, and the other doesn't". I don't think an editor wanting an iBAN (whether the orig imposition or in a later AN proposal to lift) s/ be given the significance you give it re deliberations. (Why? There are plenty of editors who like to irritate or add sanction to an editor whom they don't like, via asking for iBAN, I've seen that alot on the WP, yes? And those threats/requests are typically seen as a form of harassment and don't get serious traction, yes?) Also I think your assuption that one of the parties objecting to an iBAN lift always does so for genuine and valid reasons, especially where there is past discord/friction between editors, is taking good-faith way too far and you need to open up to other realistic possibilities - there are distinct non-valid/non-genuine possibilities too. (E.g. a user might object to iBAN lift along the lines of continued in-fighting, with the philosophy "what my opponent wants can't possibly be good for me, so I'll object to it". [Do I think that might be relevant to this AN? Absolutely. For example the editor specifically requested iBAN provision denying undoing one another's edits--which incidentally they later argued didn't apply to themself due to WP:IAR!--when there was never any history of edit-warring re content or anything else between editors. Also do I suppose my expression at the AN that imposed iBAN, that I didn't like iBANs because they can morph into roving topic bans restricting freedom to edit, could have something possibly to do with the editor specifically insisting on that additional provisio!? Same answer.]) IHTS (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Max, I do fully understand your hesitancy here. I have had difficult discussions with IHTS in the past as well. To the point where I made a statement that I am still ashamed of (in email). I have also seen what I consider a very positive move in IHTS's approach, and I think it would be best for the project to drop any "IBan" items, and judge all editors on their own merits. — Ched :  ?  03:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (1) I don't know the details of the original IBan. ( 2) Since I don't know the original conditions, then No, I don't know if they've changed. (3) I think it improves the project because it removes the ambiguity of what is and what is not allowed. Each editor is judged on their own actions. (4) Partly on general principle, but also noticing an improvement (IMO) in IHTS's approach. — Ched :  ?  03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - A lot of the support from admins for lifting the IBAN appears to come down to (1) "IBANs don't work anyway" (in which case, that is a matter for policy/process discussion, not a matter for discussion in relation to an individual case) (2) "I can't be arsed enforcing it" (understandable, but that's part of the "janitor's" job, isn't it? upholding community decisions?) MaxBrowne (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The "IBan's don't work, because we spend too much time trying to figure out if a particular response on some noticeboard thread was technically a violation of the IBan" is easily solved by narrowing the IBan, so that it doesn't apply to noticeboard commentary involving both parties. If they really need to hash something out, they can do so, in a venue prone to WP:BOOMERANG for unclean-hands vexatiousness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet another pointless iban violation

And is this corner IHTS continues to posts walls o' text above, and it that corner MaxBrowne seems unable to avoid pointless poking at IHTS [34], indenting what was a properly indented comment -- IHTS was replying to Sjakkalle, not MaxBrowne ... No one liked my outta the box Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Proposal_.28Nash_Equilibrium_iBan.29 suggestion based on misguided notions of "fairness." Please see WP:NOJUSTICE. Is it fair that the dispute resolution community has spent so much time on these two? MB complains above "I can't be arsed enforcing it" (understandable, but that's part of the "janitor's" job, isn't it?" The answer is NO, admins get the same crappy pay the rest of us get: it's not a job, its folks volunteering their time, and admins have numerous scutwork tasks to do, they shouldn't be expected to expend any more time on this. NE Ent 13:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The indentation was purely to separate my concise statement from what followed, yet you attribute bad faith to it. You have consistently done this with respect to my edits, and consistently tried to blow smoke and confuse the issue any time I have complained about Iban violations. You have shown a consistent bias against me and in favour of IHTS. Fact. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh zip it. I agree with NE Ent, except I might have used the word "crybaby". I think it's a word we don't use often enough. This seems to be going nowhere. MaxBrowne, Ihardlythinkso, good luck with it; please don't come to my talk page with perceived violations. Beyond My Ken, this is why we wanted the iBan lifted--so AN/I wouldn't have to deal with figuring out which one reverted which one's edits blah blah blah. You'll see this topic coming up again and again, I think; maybe you should run for admin and then you can take care of it. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Nah, you just want me to run for admin for the fun and hilarity that would ensue. <g> I sympathize with the plight of the overburdened admin corps, but isn't this what you all signed up for, cleaning up after other people's messes? Personally, I wouldn't have much problem replacing many IBans with mutual topic bans or even indef blocks, but you saw how far I got with that on Catflap/Hijiri, which was (I think) much more virulent than this case. BMK (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Way to guarantee BMK will never run for adminship, threatening him like that indicating he could handle conflicts like this one on his own if he were an admin. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, John, if you ever see my name at the top of an RfA, you and the whole of Wikipedia have my permission to bring in a team of top psychiatrists and psychologist to examine me, because I would clearly have gone off my nut. BMK (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In similar fashion to how a block can be considered a de facto ban if no admin is willing to reverse it, is an interaction ban considered "de facto lifted" if no admin is willing to enforce it? (not meant to be serious, but for what it's worth...) kcowolf (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Is it fair that the dispute resolution community has spent so much time on these two?". For the record, at no time did I ever ask any DR community to get involved. (Only individual admins, single-threaded, Blade, NYB, JgZ.) I consistently favored proposals to lift (NE Ent, Drmies, Ched). I suggested the ANI w/ lift iBAN proposal be unarchived, then a summary closure provided (by Sjakkalle based on his comments there, turns out Ched could have done it too), even the other editor conceded the consensus there was to lift. IHTS (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposer's comment

The hell with it - I'm gonna be outta town for a couple weeks anyway, so I'll just say it straight out. This comment is mostly to Max. Trust me - I FULLY understand your reservations. I've been acquainted with IHTS for years, and I could point to a few threads (somewhat of an understatement) anyway ... But that is in the past. Anyway - I noticed the tone and the conversation at both the aforementioned ANI and at Drmies talk. My impression is an honest attempt from IHTS to put aside things and that he/she is making a very honest effort to communicate and collaborate with others. To be honest, I doubt that IHTS would ever think much of anything I had to say - but from my perspective? I've seen some very mature growth over the last few months, and I am one of those "give them every chance" kind of people. And let's be honest Max - (perhaps in frustration), there's been times you haven't exactly painted your self in perfect light either. (not that I have myself).

IMO - this whole "IBan" thing is a bunch of crap. Wikipedia is not supposed to be some daycare center, or playground for kids who should be out growing and learning how to deal with real life. Yes - adults don't get along too - we suck it up, deal with it, and focus on what is best for the concept of global knowledge. Adults can have their little bitchfests on talk pages - and move on. I just don't think it's right to turn our backs on those who make an honest effort. And the truth is that IHTS has put a LOT of work into improving our chess related articles.

IDK - and quite franky .. IDGAF. I just want someone to close this whole shitfest so we can quit wasting elecrons and stop abusing keyboards. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Probably a bit irregular to reopen this (sorry Spartaz and Ched), but I'm still open to removing the IBAN, because honestly it's a pain in the ass to everyone involved - me, IHTS and the admins. Only condition I'd like to see (apart from the obvious - strict enforcement of NPA, CIV etc) is Softlavender's suggestion - neither of us talk about anything that happened between us prior to 16 October 2015. No arguments will be had about whose fault it is or whose diffs are worse. It's gone. Over. Doesn't exist. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no strict or even monitored enforcement of NPA, CIV, etc. after an IBAN is lifted. You just have to be nice to each other like everyone else. It looks like the ban should just be lifted. Like, yesterday. Doc talk 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know this edit was probably a technical violation, but you know what? I don't gaf. In the end improving the encyclopedia is what matters. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with a change please?!

Resolved

HI, Hoping you can help me with a change please to the external link on the Hotel Saskatchewan page.

Marriott International has taken this over from Radisson and the external weblink needs to be : http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/yqrak-the-hotel-saskatchewan/ are you able to assist me please?

Sorry for the trouble, this is my first foray into editing, I did most of the other content on my own successfully!

Thank you,

Jennifer Worden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jword850 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made the change you were looking for. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request article rename

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

---

I would like to request that the article Hoteling (office) be moved to simply Hoteling. I believe this is an uncontroversial change, since there is no other term competing for this name. I explained this in a little more depth on the talk page (and also disclosed my employer there). I am happy to fix double redirects after the rename. -HeyBoogie (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RM will walk you through the process on how to do that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial. I just did it for them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to move it before my above post but it wouldn't let me for some reason. Ah, well. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

@Erpert: the target page had two edits to it so it needed an admin to delete it before the move could be made. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A CAT query

Possibly should be at VPT, but it's more admin than tech. How do you remove a user from Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy? They're unblocked and name changed, but the new name is in that cat, and the Hidden Cat note is on their page. Peridon (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I was asked off-wiki to note the following :"ShakespeareFan00: can you drop a note for me? ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#A_CAT_query and a note that http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/cat_username_unblocked.py is a listing of all unblocked users in that category" to this thread ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Err, thanks (to both of you...). The one I'm on about is in that list. It still seems to be in the other list too. At 'Cat:Wikipedians who are indefinitely', in the blurb it says to remove ones that are unblocked. Damned if I can see a way. Still can't... Peridon (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That list of 'unblocked' ones has blocked ones in it as well. 8-( Peridon (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In the few I checked, it was just a matter of Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy being on their talk page from an old block template message. As its a talk page, the category is mixed in with the substituted template code, and not at the bottom of the page as one would normally expect. I'm guessing we have no systematic process in place to remove that after a rename/unblock, unless there is another problem on top of that. See: [35][36], maybe should be a bot task? Monty₈₄₅ 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

On a couple of occasions (at least), I've seen someone come in after I've unblocked someone and remove a cat, but never took much notice. Got it! I'm not sure whether it should be described here though per WP:BEANS.... Having a bot do it would probably be a good idea, anyway. Peridon (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This summer, I asked about whether it would be a good idea for me to go through this category, see if they were active accounts, whether they were blocked or not, see if the usernames were no longer a problem, but with 41,034 accounts in this category, I was told maintaining it wasn't a very high priority. There are more urgent areas that needed attention. If a bot could handle this task, that would be great! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Would an RfC be needed, or a request at Bot Owners, or a request to a bot creator who is able to do it? Peridon (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say just a bot request. This kind of thing would be simple: bot opens each page in the category, checks to see whether the user's blocked, does nothing if he is, and removes the category if he isn't. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Some weird vandalism patterns.

Obviously, there's nothing that can be done about it, but over the last day I've seen two articles under go concentrated attacks by both random IPs and newly-created accounts, all from the same country: one vandalised by accounts from Austraila, the other from Sri Lanka. Both have been carpet-bombed by nonsense vandalism. The articles themselves are apparently randomly chosen, but the attacks are the same - random and continual vandalism from accounts all from the same country until the page is semi-protected. HalfShadow 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the edit histories of the articles in question HalfShadow. Without them it is difficult for admins to assess what needs to be done. Then this thread could be closed without any help or advice being given. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Albertus Seba and Shanudrie Priyasad

I know you won't be able to do anything, since it's random, but I thought it was odd enough to mention. HalfShadow 19:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the links HalfShadow. Looks like both article have been protected at this time so that should allow you to clean up any mess those accounts made. MarnetteD|Talk 20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the Sri Lankan actress was probably on television shortly before the vandalism, which is quite localised. The other was probably school vandalism. They seem dissimilar and unrelated. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Presumably, the Australian IP vandalism is due to the use of this subject in the New South Wales Higher School Certificate English exam. The HSC is the exam that all students take as their last high school exam and serves as the entrance exam to university. We don't have colleges in Australia. It's something like the US SAT. Looks like there was someone rather disgruntled by the use of Seba in the paper. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

New arbitration trainee clerks

The arbitration clerks would like to welcome Amortias (talk · contribs), JoeSperrazza (talk · contribs), and Miniapolis (talk · contribs) to the arbitration clerk team as trainees. For the arbitration clerks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New arbitration trainee clerks

Experienced LTA clerks/admins needed.

Hey, if anyone is experienced in handling new LTA cases and doing the approval process, can someone take care of the small backlog at Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval? It's not a long list (9 cases) but some of them have been sitting around a while, and probably need to be actioned one way or the other. Thanks! --Jayron32 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Identifying the issues with RfA

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which aims to identify the issue(s) with our current system for selecting administrators. Please do not comment in this section, but rather post any comments about proposals in the relevant section, or on the RfC's talk page for general matters. Thank you. --Biblioworm 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for volunteer closers

Could there be three editors who would be willing to be part of the closers' panel for this RfC when it ends in about a month? The RfC is still far from ending, but I think it is generally advised to have closers ready a time before the RfC ends. Preferably, the volunteers are administrators who are familiar with the issues surrounding RfA and have a good track record of experience closing discussions neutrally. --Biblioworm 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from gun control-related edits imposed as Remedy 4 of the Gun control case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Gaijin42 fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Gun control amendment

I.P User claiming to be Colton Cosmic

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

---

This | user claims he's Colton Cosmic, it may be and then again, it may not be, however, on the off chance that it's him, he's banned and as such , it might be a good idea to block this IP address. Even if he isn't , he's definitely a past user, who I don't know. Just a heads up ! KoshVorlon 18:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked it. Elockid^(BOO!) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Edit filter/RfC

Might be time for an uninvolved admin - if there is such a thing - to make a careful close of this RFC? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

User:eeekster keeps tagging self-created photographs with speedy deletion notices, and I think he's harassing other editors

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

---

I stitched two snapshots of myself (yeah they're on FB but I don't really consider that "published") into a single picture (I own the copyright to both of them) that I could use for hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female), but User:eeekster keeps posting generic "no proof of attribution" templates on my page and on my uploaded files. What do I have to do to prove the images are mine? I am tired of this harassment (these photos weren't taken with a DSLR) and I would really like this issue resolved quickly. Thanks. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

But we do consider that to be publishing and require the OTRS procedure. Eeekster (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not a prominent, notable figure. Furthermore, where did you find my image that suggests I am not the copyright author? I believe that declaration of "own work" is all that is necessary. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history I am suspecting that similar harassment is occurring to other editors as well. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is a duplication of this one on AN/I. I NAC'd it on that basis, but the OP reverted the close. BMK (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thus WP:FORUMSHOPPING needs to be added to the things that Yanping Nora Soong should read before proceeding further. Oh and not a single shred of evidence has been presented of harassment by Eeekster so the title of this header needs changing. MarnetteD|Talk 02:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Request of independent evaluation of my actions in Anna Politkovskaya

Earlier today, I saw the request [37] at WP:RFPP to protect the article because of the edit-warring. I went to the history, checked that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) made eight reverts of the same material within an hour, and several other users reverted them back. I checked that BMK was under understanding that the material represents an unambiguous BLP violation, that they were aware of the fact that some user oppose qualification of this material as BLP violation, and that they were aware of the existance of 3RR. Then I blocked them for 72h, declining protection. There have been two topics about BMK at WP:ANI/EW, one about their edit-warring in this article, and another topic about their edit-warring in a different article which I did not even check [38]. Since I have already blocked BMK, I closed both topics. Eventually BMK filed an unblock request and was unblocked by Drmies (talk · contribs). I did not object to the unblock, though I refused to unblock BMK after they started bad-faith accusations against me. The discussion is at their talk page. Simultaneously, Sladen (talk · contribs), the filer of the RFPP request, asked me to take the issue to AN/ANI for independent review. Please note that I will be leaving to the airport in several hours and might be unable to participate in the initial stage of the discussion. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring against consensus sure. But where a (potential) BLP violation is not clear-cut, the appropriate place to take it is the BLP noticeboard, and the only two people to comment there (and I concur with them) do not think it is a violation. But that was after the block - you probably should have warned him before blocking (do this or I block you) to stop edit-warring and take it to the BLP noticeboard first rather than block straight off the bat. BMK knows how the process goes where BLP issues are not obvious/unambiguous - but also that is rather the point, it was quite clear that it was not an obvious BLP violation, and again BMK should have known when faced with multiple people who disagree with him that he needed to get further input. Basically sub-optimal from everyone all around.

Including Drmies, unblocking BMK who said they will not edit war further, then edit-protecting the page they were edit-warring on *in BMK's preferred version* is ridiculous. Since there was highly unlikely to be any further edit warring by BMK, why the need for protection? Given the consensus so far (excepting swarm) has been against BMK, it leaves Drmies open to accusations of favoritism. Blocked user gets unblocked after minimal time served AND gets their way at the article despite consensus against them. It basically justifies BMK's conduct and states to others that he can get away with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

See this on the last point. Doc talk 07:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You win my internal 'who is going to link wrong version first' lottery. Wrong version is for when a request for protection comes in and whichever admin responds to it protects the page to stop the edit war. In this case the edit war was clearly already over, BMK had said he was not going to re-start it, so protection was unnecessary. Its also not a defense for Drmies because he had clearly already taken a look at the dispute, seen that BMK was acting against consensus and protected it in BMK's preferred version anyway. Given that a request for page protection had already been declined, the only explanation I have is that Drmies thought the edit war was going to continue, like I said, sub-optimal from everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. What's the remedy? Doc talk 08:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Trout everyone. Unprotect page. Wait for BLP discussion to be resolved. Job done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The disputed content is highly questionable and borders on UNDUE / SYNTH / POV. However I do not regard that as a blatant BLP violation and should not have been relied on as an exemption from 3RR. In any case its removal was not so urgent and BMK could have left it to another editor to revert, discuss it on the talk page, or post at BLPN rather than edit war. As such I find Ymblanter's block entirely appropriate and the unblock premature and questionable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So does BMK get re-blocked or what? If I had a dime for every time I saw an admin unblock an editor "prematurely" over another admin's authority... I'd have a shitload of dimes! Doc talk 08:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To make it clear, I do not contest (and I did not object) Drmies's unblock of BMK.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Drmies unblocked BMK and protected the non-controversial version because BMK made an extremely cogent argument on his (BMK's) talk page for why the material should be excluded. (The argument was the main gist of his unblock request.) I personally was highly convinced by the cogent argument (see my comments as a TPS on that page after I read it). Having now looked at the article's talk page and the article itself a bit more, I'm a little more ambivalent about it. The material is still a conspiracy theory, but it's one that has popped up in the media several times, either to sell papers, or because journalists actually feel it has some merit, or both. I can't read Putin's mind or the murderer's mind, nor do I know all the ins and outs of Russian politics. I will say that the version of the material that BMK was reverting was highly inflammatory and completely conjectural in that the text of one of the footnotes stated that Putin rewarded the alleged person behind "gifting" Putin the murder on his birthday by making him President of the Chechen Republic, which is so wrongheaded for Wikipedia to print that I think anyone would agree that it's a double BLP-vio and could not stand without intervention. As to whether the people in favor of the "birthday" mention are single-minded Putin-bashers I cannot say, but if they are, their opinions on neutrality in this article should probably be given a good deal of skepticism. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis mine) As the content is clearly sourced: see Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Sources_for_Politkovskaya_being_murdered_on_Putin.27s_birthday, it's not a BLP violation and therefore the block was justified, and the content should be restored in some form to the article. NE Ent 10:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally disagree with that, based on the actual edit involved. The article-body text that was added was neutral, but the two footnote texts (and I mean footnotes, not citations) clearly state that Putin was responsible for and/or pleased about the murder. Read the edit: [39]. In fact the footnotes contradict the body-text. Also, WP:BLP is 40,000 bytes long, not just one sentence. Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK is not the first editor to believe they have an unlimited right to revert anything they personally think is a BLP violation. The definition of BLP depends on community consensus, and it takes general agreement. The fact that he had never taken the issue to WP:BLPN could have been taken into account by the 3RR closer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Um, how is that footnote not a BLP violation? "they knew that Putin would be pleased by a gift from them on his birthday. Apparently the gift did please the recipient.". That's only a hairbreadth from "Putin ordered the killing" (which, of course, is the insinuation that people are trying to insert). Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not with Ymblanter. BMK is the edit warrior par excellence, blocked five times in just over five years amid probably dozens of 3RR reports. Sure, he really believes that BLP justifies eight -- yes, eight -- separate reverts to the Anna Politkovskaya article. But while that edit war was still raging, BMK was undergoing a separate edit war at Union Square, Manhattan, for which he was reported at the 3RR noticeboard. That case was closed because he was already blocked. Let's reopen the Union Square edit warring violation and just block him for that case, where there's no fig leaf of a BLP excuse. Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Black Kite, there is no way that footnote is not a BLP violation. Thinly veiled accusations of assassination are not BLP violations? As much as I can't stand Putin, there is no way we would allow those kinds of innuendos directed towards any other living person. I see a list of sources over at BLPNB, most of which refer to 'conspiracy theories'. While there seems to be some disagreement on this, the default action should be to not have this in the article until it's resolved, not edit warring/tag teaming to keep it in. Dave Dial (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think the BLP issue is valid, but the problem is that, as noted by Alansohn, BMK then took the dispute to an unrelated article, and engaged in a non-BLP related edit war, for which they should have been rightly blocked. Once again, we have the problem of "User A was correct in one little aspect, so they were justified in acting inappropriately everywhere in everything they did..." No. The BLP issue at the Anna Politkovskaya was a legitimate BLP concern, and should have been left out of the article. BMKs further vindictive edit warring at Union Square should not be tolerated, however. We cannot say "Well, he was right in the Politkovskaya article, so he can go off the handle and do whatever he wants to get attention..." --Jayron32 15:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Except that is not the order of the events. The Union Square, Manhattan editing happened first, in which both editors were edit warring, and even though BMK was technically correct(User:Yanping Nora Soong did not follow BRD), he surpassed 3RR. It was then that Yanping Nora Soong seemed to follow BMK's edits over at the Anna Politkovskaya article and join in the tag teaming to keep the claimed BLP violation in the article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Except WP:BRD is an essay; WP:3RR is one of our most fundamental Wikipedia policies, one that BMK violates with impunity. There is no BLP fig leaf for the edit warring at Union Square, Manhattan, and that 3RR report was closed by Ymblanter as BMK had already been blocked on the Anna Politkovskaya matter, despite the chronological order of the reports. Whatever the issues between YNS and BMK regarding Union Square and Politkovskaya, BMK made six separate reverts by four other editors utterly involved in BMK's other active edit war. This isn't just about BMK's record of five blocks in five years, this is a chronic pattern of edit warring in multiple articles in one day. The only question is whether BMK deserves a sixth block or a seventh, and if so for which of these two concurrent edit wars. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Berber page vandalism

The user NottNott vandalized the page, by removing multiple sources. see [40]]. Guanches are only considered to be part of berber people by some scientists only. Doesn't make them elligible to be in the list of related people instead of Genetically proven related people. That's vandalism and its untolerable. Guanche language is unclassified language, similarities may only be a substratum and not a relation at all.
Best Regards
41.143.222.134 (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AIV, not here. Doc talk 08:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Socking disruption of GA process, request admin attention please

Admins,

WP:DUCK case:

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

Socking disruption of WP:GA process, request admin attention please.

Thank you for your attention and action on this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing "extra" is going to be done here. The SPI is at SPI, and there's no reason to open an additional report here at AN. Doc talk 12:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Added notice here as SPI appears to be backlogged these days and we have ongoing disruption of our Good Article Nomination processes, in addition to Featured List nominations disruption there, as well. — Cirt (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Banned user

I was just looking at a couple templates and noticed {{Banned user}} appearing on userpages for users that aren't actually blocked (discounting sandboxes/lists of templates). This might not be an issue at all, but it seems like one of the few userpage templates that should really only be used for its intended purpose (though there's no restriction in the template documentation, as far as I can see) so it seemed worth mentioning here. In a couple cases it looks to be non-serious (Voldejenn, MegastarLV). Rick73s looks to have added it himself (out of frustration?). Empengent and Carlisle Rodham have sock puppet tags but the block was removed by WP:BASC. And a few others were just never blocked: Macallla, Jumpika025, and Wanli. That's all. Feel free to close this thread if there's already consensus that these can be displayed on non-blocked accounts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)