Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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.

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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 29 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 83 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 64 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard~~/Archive 439~~. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 57 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 47 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 35 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 31 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 30 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	53	62
TfD	0	12	12
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	5	5
RfD	2	30	32
AfD	0	11	11

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Colonia Ulpia Traiana

(Initiated 69 days ago on 30 March 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 66 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 64 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 61 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 60 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 60 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 59 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 59 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 56 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 54 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 53 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 50 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 49 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 43 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 43 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 43 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 42 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 41 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 41 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 40 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 32 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 31 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 29 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal

(Initiated 433 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.

The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.

So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 80 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 51 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 24 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've NAC'd it. Mdann52 (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

(Initiated 7 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 4 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Range blocks

Could an admin familiar with range blocks take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer and see if anything can be done with blocking this person? I'm concerned that what we're catching of his vandalism might be the tip of the iceberg, and articles are being distorted with his misinformation without being discovered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From which IPs has this vandal most recently been active? AGK [•] 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

71.183.177.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.183.182.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
96.224.19.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
96.224.16.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
96.224.17.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

are some that I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also

71.183.183.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and
71.183.191.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing nothing whatsoever about filter construction: is it possible to block certain key words only if they came from 71. or 96. addresses? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest IP used by this vandal is:

71.183.177.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Only two edits so far, but it's clearly him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the edit filter question, so I've asked here. Shadowjams (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the answer is yes, you can have edit filters limited to IP ranges. Shadowjams (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israeli sanctions and 1RR parole "rule"

ANEW report

I need some help from those more knowledgeable about these sanctions and what discretion admins have to impose extra restrictions on articles (not editors). Apparently, in 2010, User:WGFinley, whom I've contacted but who hasn't been around for a couple of months due to more exciting things in his personal life, imposed an extra restriction on the Golan Heights article that not only limits editors to 1RR (typical) but also requires every content reversion to be explained on the article talk page. Guy added a separate notice to that effect on the talk page and changed the edit notice so editors are also warned when they edit the article.

My first question is can Guy do that? If the answer is yes, how is such a restriction removed? I'm struggling to see what authority an admin has to impose a restriction on an article that doesn't appear to have been supported by the ArbCom decision itself. Imposing it on editors, which has been done, makes sense to me, but much less so on articles. It's a fairly onerous restriction on all editors who edit that article. I seriously doubt it's being followed or that editors are being even-handedly sanctioned for not heeding it, but I haven't researched that. Even assuming we (admins) have the discretion to do such a thing, there must be some guidelines as to when it's appropriate and when it's not. After all, here, it's been in place for over 3 years. Ironically, the editor who's been accused of violating it was at one time under such a restriction as an editor, but that restriction expired (or was lifted).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he can't. That's not the intent of discretionary sanctions -- I'd fix the editnotice if I could but I ain't got the bits for it. NE Ent 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll investigate the specifics, but those sorts of restrictions can sometimes be implemented as a result of AE threads; we did it some months ago at Nagorno-Karabakh. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was done as arbitration enforcement in this thread. It can be removed via a thread at WP:AE. MBisanz ^talk 04:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such restrictions have been allowed for some time. Mass killings under Communist regimes was actually placed under article-specific restrictions through AE. The success rate and practicality of these more nuanced restrictions would be another matter for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ArbCom has been asked several times about such restrictions, and they have, without exception, been seen as valid uses of the discretionary sanctions system. Whether this one would be upheld if appealed to AE or the Committee I do not know, but the idea of article-level sanctions is pretty much been settled. Courcelles 06:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Guy both on his talk page and by email. He still participates in MedCom mailing list discussions, so I wouldn't be too surprised if he drops by to leave a message. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that; I should have at least notified him on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's see if I can crystallize this a bit based on the above comments:

Any admin can impose an article-level sanction like the one Guy did.
Such a sanction can be appealed to ArbCom.
Can an admin remove such a sanction without going to ArbCom, or would that be viewed in the same way as unblocking a user who was sanctioned?
Are there any guidelines for imposing such a sanction or for the duration of the sanction?

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The standard rules governing appeals of AE sanctions apply; you can either go to ArbCom or try to get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to lift the sanction.

There is no special guideline for article-level sanctions that I'm aware of. T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timotheus, particularly for the link. The lack of a guideline is disturbing because I don't even know how to justify a request to terminate the additional restriction if there's no guideline for its imposition in the first instance. Perhaps a trip to AE will clarify some of these problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discretionary sanction authorization states "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working" (emphasis mine). It does not say an uninvolved administrator can make up new rules for a page.
The procedures say "Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;" -- is there any evidence this was done?
A cursory review of article history and talk history shows the "must use talk page" restriction is clearly not being followed. Drawing a line in the sand and then not enforcing breeds contempt, not respect. And Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions clearly states it can be overturned by consensus here (WP:AN).
Given the widespread ignoring of the restriction, how can an editor reasonably file a AE request for enforcement without running afoul of the "unclean hands" warning at AE? NE Ent 20:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ent, I tend to agree with everything you've said, although I confess that I haven't macheted my way through the thicket of policy, practice, arbitration decisions, etc. What enforcement action would we be overturning if we had a consensus here? Guy's? If so, Timotheus already made that point. Perhaps seeking clarification would be a better way to go. I'm musing as much as anything because connecting the dots in these things gives me a headache.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that one of the biggest problems with this sanction has been editors pushing for enforcement without clearly notifying the party violating the restriction. Nowhere do I see that Gilabrand was ever made aware of this article-specific restriction. However, Gilabrand does appear to have violated the standard ARBPIA 1RR on another article ([1] [2]).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, one doesn't have to be specifically warned. That said, it is on the article talk page, just as the other restrictions are, and it pops up in an edit notice box when you edit the article, meaning there is as much warning as there is for the 1RR restriction itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice isn't markedly different from the standard 1RR edit notice. Editors who are already aware of the 1RR are likely to ignore the notice, thinking it is just the standard one. Personally, I find that quite a lot of editors tend to not pay attention to edit notices. My view is that such notices should not be taken the same as a user talk page notification, which is much less likely to be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand personally received a notice with the rules:[3]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not see that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness is a walking historical reference for this stuff. It's impressive and almost scary. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, based on your allegations that Gilabrand violated 1RR elsewhere, I have notified them of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read some twenty line truth table edit notices on user talk pages -- If it's Tuesday and it's about an image, I'll reply on your page, but on Wednesday ... -- I pretty much ignore them. NE Ent 22:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking further, it seems Gilabrand has been previously sanctioned in a very similar fashion and has been notified of the specific restriction on the Golan Heights article, in addition to recently violating 1RR on another article. I think maybe this should have been taken to AE given that the article-specific restriction is not a simple 1RR, but there does appear to be sufficient cause for action against Gilabrand. Any administrator reviewing this discussion could take action per the discretionary sanctions.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fairly technical reading of the discretionary sanctions provisions that allows such sanctions, as explained in Kirill's comment in this old request for clarification.
Sanctions like this are usually lifted either when they are no longer necessary or if they have proven unworkable.
I'd prefer any complaint against Gilabrand to be filed at AE so that we have a more orderly presentation than this mess of a thread. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However in the same thread Risker notes "Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely" and Carcharoth noted "articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely," As the restriction is two years old it's reasonable to address whether the sanction should remain in place. NE Ent 02:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that the current wording of the standard discretionary sanctions does allow "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" which does not require as much of a technical stretch of the older wording. That said, Risker's caveat that it is wise to periodically review article-level sanctions for continued relevance is also appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any admins that wish to monitor the discussion requirement at Talk:Golan Heights? At present the complete edit notice says:

In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.

Though I see no problem with this being a valid restriction which an admin could impose under discretionary sanctions, I'm not sure it is doing any good. People keep forgetting that this restriction exists. Why not abolish it for now. A consensus here (of uninvolved editors) could lift the restriction. Any admin could reimpose it in the future if they are persuaded there is a need. AE retains plenty of authority to deal with edit-warring at Golan Heights if it is found to be a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the ArbCom clarification decision on the Armenian article to be very satisfying. Although the arbitrators discuss the 1RR restriction imposed by the admin (back in 2008 - the decision was in 2010), it was not just a 1RR restriction but also a requirement, as in the Golan Heights article, that any reverter explain their revert on the talk page. Yet the arbitrators don't mention that. In addition, although there is a "warning" on the article talk page, the edit notice on the Armenian article doesn't include a warning about the explanation requirement. And those restrictions have now been in place for 4 years - has anyone even checked whether the talk page explanation requirement is being enforced?

I agree with Ed. We should remove the explanation restriction imposed at Golan Heights. There seems to be no current justification for it, and enforcement appears to be completely uneven. I do a lot of closures at ANEW, and I'm not at all happy with the inherent unfairness of blocking one editor for failing to explain, yet allowing so many other editors to do the same thing but not be sanctioned. It's already hard enough looking through the edit history of these articles, which is often heavy, because I don't look just at the conduct of the person reported but at the conduct of other editors as well (that's typical in any ANEW report).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Ed that we should remove the explanation restriction as no longer being necessary or reasonable to maintain the article's integrity. MBisanz ^talk 15:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to lift Golan Heights restriction

The restriction on the Golan Heights article requiring that editors explain reverts on the talk page is lifted. General 1RR restriction on article imposed by the ARBPIA case is unaffected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are no edit wars there so its not necessary.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Note that User:EdJohnston and User:Mbisanz appear to support removal of the restriction.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previous comments above.NE Ent 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chutznik asking for an unban (basically)

Chutznik has withdrawn his request and claims to have left Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although he had large number of socks in the past he says he has been clean in the mean time, and claims that he complied with WP:OFFER. His unblock request has been pending for a while. I think it's best that this is dealt with by the community. Thoughts? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good read of his talk page and the self admitted obsession with creating multiple accounts should be taken into account before reaching any conclusions here. 'Clean' is only becuse he appears to have respected his block, but his arguments for unblock, to me at least, are unconvincing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth waiting to see the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaz0t, as that has an obvious bearing here. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A check user found them unrelated. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the editor's triumphant tone in declaring his panoply of socks on Wikipedia Review (see the SPI for links), as well as his less celebratory but virtually unrepentant comment about them on his talk page does not lead me to believe that he is trustworthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking any evidence he has not followed the terms of the standard offer, unblock. NE Ent 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how it works, the standard offer calls for some positive evidence of value and trustworthiness, such as editing on another project, to show that the editor will contribute productively in the future if he is unbanned. If it worked the way you seemed think it does, all any banned editor would have to do is take a 6 month vacation from editing and *bam* they'd be allowed back in automatically. That trvializes the community's difficult decision to ban someone and turns every ban into a de facto 6-month block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:OFFER#The_standard_offer.

The standard offer
It's simple:

Wait six months without sockpuppetry.

Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.

Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

The requirement/suggestion to work on another project was removed a long time ago. NE Ent 12:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the essay is next to useless, as the only "evidence" we have to go by is the word of the editor involved, who is (obviously) an interested party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:OFFER is an essay, and one that not all editors agree with (and probably even less do in its watered down version). Fram (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, Chutznik is under the mistaken impression that the offer automatically grants them a review at the end of 6 months, in a sort of "I did my part, now you do yours" type of bargain and the fact that they're fighting tooth and nail for his interpretation to be the interpretation isn't exactly the sort of attitutde that would encourage me to say "sure, let him back in". Blackmane (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to comment on this unblock might take a look at User talk:Chutznik#Standard offer unblock request. If he would take a break from the legalisms of the unblock process and explain what he intends to do differently in the future, things might be more promising for him. This editor did a lot of good work but also some strange things. A sincere moment of reflection on his past problems would be very welcome. His belief that he should be allowed back until the exact moment that he starts to mess up again is unconvincing. He should explain what he'll do differently so he doesn't mess up again. If he has plans for any content work he should mention that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban - Bans are pointless. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ever going to explain why they are pointless? And for the record, I don't believe this user is technically banned. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how this discussion ends, we'll have a clear ban situation when this concludes: either we'll end up with an unblock decision, or the community's refusal to permit an unblock will be interpreted as a community ban, per WP:CBAN. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope We don't need to start all this nonsense all over again. Jtrainor (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the section that EdJohnston linked. These comments indicate that he's not doing this in complete good faith and that an unblock will likely be succeeded by more problems very quickly. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this user has very problematic past and his recent unblock indicates that there is a considerable chance that he will return to his old ways if unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sure we might say we can always re-ban/block if old behavior resumes, but I'm not sure it's that easy. AutomaticStrikeout 01:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on the behavior I'm seeing on his talk page. Apologies and prostration are not necessary, but recognizing that it's possible to be wrong and it's useful to listen to other people when they try to help you are. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm reading the unblock request right now and I couldn't stomach half of all those blocky messages he's making. One thing's for sure, he's crying "It's so unfair!" in most of them and the fact that there was a big-wall unblock request a month ago and his rebuttals to Boing!'s rejecting of it doesn't look good for his case. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Advice?

Thanks for the advice everybody. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I left the following message for user:Plot Spoiler on their talk page under the heading, "Tendentious editing".[4]

Hello.
I have some concerns with your editing. You mostly edit content about Jews, Judaism and Israel, and Muslims, Islam and Palestine, almost always slanting content in favour of the former and against the latter (such as Palestinian incitement). On your rare excursions outside that area, you have created or expanded six articles about commercial products or organisations, five of which were biased. (I have no problem with Kiehl's). In all but one of the latter you created promotional puff-pieces or puffed-up existing articles. The exception was the Warwick New York Hotel, where you inserted a lengthy section (longer than all of the remainder of the article) blaming them for renting a room to the Iranian prime minister; that is, pillorying them for not taking the political stand you would have preferred.
If you are not already, you should make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander.
This kind of behaviour brings the encyclopedia into disrepute and creates a lot of work for others. Would you please acknowledge that you have been editing tendentiously, undo the damage (starting with the Warwick) and agree to be more balanced in future?

July 2010: Shake Weight.

September 2011: Warwick New York Hotel.

July 2012: When Killian Roche from IWL ran into trouble at Meridian Audio [5] you took over and created a puff piece. Today I removed the puffery.

September 2012:‎ I'm no AFD expert but Digital Luxury Group doesn't look notable to me.

October 2012: You deleted reliably sourced text that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the ALCAT test, replaced it with misleading puffery supported by celebrity endorsements,[6] and edit-warred to keep it in.[7] When it became clear that the article would continue to report what reliable sources have to say about the test, you took the article to AFD.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

His response was to Archive my post.[8]

Is this editor's behaviour problematical? If so, what to do? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really feels like stalking honestly, or wikihounding or what have you. Anthony and I have a disagreement at ALCAT test and now he appears to be digging through my user history to establish his own tendentious conclusions (made clear by the fact that he only emphasized purported negatives and not anything positive - see all my DYKs, etc). I'm sure I could establish a similar conclusion if I felt like digging through Anthony's user history -- but that wouldn't be the best use of my time and would be a form of harassment. Is this even the proper forum for such a discussion (if such a discussion should even exist?)? Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Archiving a post may be taken as proof of receipt. You've issued a note of concern. If the problematic behaviour continues, then escalate either to an RFC (if it looks like he may be an otherwise good editor we need to correct) or request a community ban (if he's self-evidently an unreforable POV pusher). Caveate, I've not looked closely.--Scott Mac 16:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony put the wrong diff: This was my response to his message on my talk page [9]: "this is starting to feel like 'stalking'". I don't believe it was worth discussing with Anthony because I don't believe his behavior is done in good faith. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unfamiliar with this editor until the Palestinian incitement brouhaha. Other than looking at his block log, I have not researched his past edits. Focusing on the bias issue (you've raised two issues the bias and the puffery), which to me is more serious, do you have other examples of his bias besides the recent article (the Warwick Hotel article is somewhat tangential although relevant)? If so, that would assist in deciding whether a topic ban is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only had time today to make the apparent paid editing case. I'm on a dodgy connection and can go for long periods without internet access. I looked at enough of the other to satisfy myself there is a problem with pro-Israeli anti-Muslim bias but making that case properly will take time. Five more on the scale of Warwick New York Hotel and Palestinian incitement should make the case, I think. The Warwick Hotel effort is not tangential to a pro-Israeli-anti-Muslim bias. --16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request you strike the marks on "anti-Muslim bias". I consider that a personal attack and unwarranted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I don't make "rare excursions" outside the listed topic areas as claimed by Anthony (and I take umbrage at the claim) if he even bothered looking at my DYKs:

Nasrin Sotoudeh - imprisoned Iranian human rights lawyer

Walid Husayin - imprisoned Palestinian blogger

Zahra Bahrami - executed Iranian dissident

Zenga Zenga - viral auto-tuned song embraced by the Libyan opposition

Mexican pointy boots - awesomeness

Baltimore Rock Opera Society - awesomeness

Yossele the Holy Miser - fabulous folk tale

Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies - important institution

Gholhak Garden - beautiful British diplomatic compound in Tehran

Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil - al-Qaeda operative based in Iran sanctioned by the U.S. government

Sim Bhullar - could become the first prominent NBA basketball player of Indian descent

Saeed Malekpour - Iranian-Canadian computer programmer on death row in Iran

Alcohol enema - awesomeness

Keep in mind that those are Anthony's interpretations of my edits. If you'll look at the condition of any of those pages cited by Anthony before I began working, you'll see I added significant value in a manner that I deemed consistent with Wikipedia rules.

I'm also quite concerned this is quickly going to turn into a witch-hunt -- seeking to establish tendentious conclusions based on cherry-picked information. Let's see all the POV warriors show up here... just wait. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler. You are not helping yourself here. I've not looked (yet) at your edits and so have reached no conclusion. However, the point of this board is that neutral and uninvolved admins examine issues and find solutions (if warranted). Trying to poison the well with preemptive accusations of witchhunt and POV warriors doesn't help. Now, if neutral people look at your edits, will they see a problem? If you are sure they won't, then you've nothing to fear and no need to be defensive. If you think they will, then better to indicate you're aware that you may have occasionally edited less than neutrally, and give some undertakings that you "get it" going forward. That's generally all it takes.--Scott Mac 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, do your thang. Happy to work with you and others to address any potential issues. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of the editor due to the last AN post here. The editor clearly believes wikipedia is a battleground, as amply demonstrated by his comments in this very thread. The edits are clearly slanted, such as putting this into article space: [10]. The editor removes opinions and criticism from notable organizations that criticize Israel and Jewish groups: [11][12], while adding content critical of Muslims and Arabs elsewhere: [13]. Here he adds lots of content to calls for a boycott etc [[14]][15] which trimming away standard material describing the hotel: [16], such that the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad section is bigger than the rest of the article: Warwick_New_York_Hotel#Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad, all the while he was edit warring with another editor to remove any non-controversial content: [17]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the board was for "neutral and uninvolved admins"? Again, this is an example of tendentious editing - cherry-picking information to establish a certain conclusion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the extent of our interaction: [18]. I've only edited one article the same as you, and that was 3 days apart. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are focussed on removing criticism of Israel and it's allies, or that does not portray them in a positive light such as [19][20][21]. Large edits about campaigns against Iran, even though mostly based on primary and self published sources: [22] (while removing content elsewhere as being self published: [23][24]. And adding criticism about companies that support Iran: [25]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I apologize for my concern about human rights in the Middle East and highlighting the plight of dissidents like Sattar Beheshti - believed to have been tortured to death by Iranian authorities in Evin prison? Please WP:AGF and stop making wild accusations based on cherry-picked information. ~~Otherwise I'll have to call the Elders of Zion on you. I hope admins will remove your remarks since you are not a neutral and uninvolved admin or a neutral and uninvolved editor~~. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have not yet made a case for serious tendentious editing in the Israel-Islam area. I strongly suspect it, I've seen instances of it, but we need to wait until I or someone else have done a thorough survey of those edits to determine how serious the problem is. I know there's a serious problem with your puffing of commercial articles; I'm pretty sure you've been being paid by a PR company to puff for them since last July. But the other is less certain, for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If your interactions on this page are examples of your interactions overall, I see an WP:RFC/U in order. An issue with your behaviour overall was raised with you separately. Rather than respond, you deleted it. So, it was raised here where admins and other editors may review your edits and behaviour and comment. Your responses to requests to change your behaviour are not only not positive, but they're proof of poor behaviour overall. Although at first glance I don't see anything immediately requiring admin attention, but I certainly see that the community as a whole certainly might wish to get involved - you just act nasty towards everyone and anyone, including neutral parties who actually know the community nature of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to what BWilkins has said. You're not taking Scott's advice to heart. You're making things worse with just about every comment you make. As a procedural matter, there is absolutely nothing wrong with non-admins posting here with their views. IRWolfie has as much right as anyone else to post comments as to your conduct. In addition, your sentence about the Elders of Zion is odd, at best. It's apparently a threat, but I don't even understand what you mean; was it intended as sarcasm, something else?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I apologize. Editors are making some very serious charges and I felt the need to respond to statements which I felt were unfair and unsubstantiated. I have struck some of my remarks and I will let the process take over. Please let me know how I can be at your disposal. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated? I presented 15 diffs showing your behaviour, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I tried that last night in the topic above. Little good it did me. I woke up this morning to what I perceived as offensive remarks by another admin. On the positive side, I slept well. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet read any of the underlying diffs, but based upon the interaction on this page, I guessed Plot Spoiler was a newish editor. I was stunned to see almost 7 thousand edits, yet complete lack of understanding of how this place works. On a positive note, I hope that's because Plot Spoiler's edits haven't been the subject of the admin boards. However, for Plot Spoiler's benefit:

Yes, this is a place where someone can bring items of concerns in the hope that uninvolved and neutral admins can take a look, but that does not mean only neutral admins can comment, it doesn't even mean only admins can comment.
Others have pointed out that your accusations aren't helping your cause; I hope you most recent edits mean you now understand that.
If an editor sees potentially concerning edits by another editor, such as bias or puffery, it is not stalking to look at the other contributions of the editor. It is standard practice. There have been real cases of stalking, this isn't in the ballpark. SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot has been a regular on AE concerning the ARBPIA topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what constitutes being a "regular". Important to point out I haven't been blocked from Wikipedia or the ARBPIA topic area for more than 24 hours - as opposed to other ARBPIA editors that have faced indefinite blocks or blocks extending months of weeks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd use that as a defense, but in any event you were blocked for 31 hours in February of this year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any problem with certain editor in the WP:ARBPIA area you may raise in WP:AE.Actually there are bunch of editors hat want to promote their POV from both sides of the conflict.Should all of them be banned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the severity and persistence of the POV-pushing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well many were topic banned and still returned to editing I think I could present diffs on many editors in the area and show they promote certain POV along their editing history.I don't see anything damning in the diffs presented by editors here but if anyone here have a case I invite him to go to WP:AE so the matter will be solved.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall an AE case where someone presented evidence of long term systemic bias and the editor was topic banned on that basis, although I may have missed a few. I'm not sure AE can handle that or at least I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it can. People are banned for technical violations/edit warring or when they make egregiously disruptive edits. AE doesn't seem to be good at dealing with complexity or large amounts of evidence. Editors aren't good at preparing large amounts of evidence either, it's tedious. Banning all editors who promote a POV they favor via ARBPIA3 or whatever probably wouldn't work because new editors arrive everyday to advocate, many far worse than existing editors, many of them sockpuppets of course and some active right now as usual. I would choose an honest but biased nationalist editor over a dishonest biased nationalist disposable sockpuppet account that can break rules with impunity, any day of the week. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the solution is to delete all the articles in topic area or maybe freeze it in current state.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Either of those options works for me. Or build a security barrier around the articles and have a rigorous entry policy, just pick a random attribute to build the granfalloon of suitable editors with the right qualities, favorite cheese for example, must be Chinese on their father's side, or whatever, exclude everyone else and have drones flying over head to zap intruders. The problems in the topic area really do seem completely intractable to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you've been living under a rock, you'd have realized that there are about two dozen other editors who act very similarly to Plot Spoiler. And they've been doing it for years. Some have received temporary bans at AE, but some have never been sanctioned. Biased editing in the IP area is not a sanctionable offense per se. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at a couple of the disputes related to the WP:ARBPIA area, and they induce despair. Eventually a draconian solution will be needed (some LOL suggestions: have one set of articles that only P editors are permitted to edit, and another that only I editors are permitted to edit; or, have a rule enforcing no more than 10 edits per week in the topic area or its talk pages or noticeboards for all P and I editors). The combativeness in Plot Spoiler's comments here shows the general pattern that applies throughout the PI area—those involved are fighting a noble cause and will not be dissuaded by reason. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still browsing through his contributions. I've found a few problems but my connection keeps dropping out. Let's close this for now, and when I'm back in civilisation I'll have a forensic look. If I conclude there's a problem in the Jew/Judaism/Israel/Muslim/Islam/Palistine area I'll make a proper case. If it comes to that, where should I take the case for a topic ban? Here?

Plot Spoiler, I am very confident you're a paid advocate for a PR firm. If you come anywhere near another medical article with that shit, I'll move heaven and earth to have you run off this site. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole, please stop posting inflammatory personal attacks of this kind. Please refactor your post. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony, as per normal practice, I see this as the best forum for proposing a topic ban, particularly if you're going to argue that the editor should have more than one topic ban depending on your research. I'd like to add that I started to do a review of the editor's edits from the very beginning of their tenure here, but I found it difficult to collect evidence in support of a ban. I was looking mainly at the editor's edits to Arab-Israeli articles, not the medical stuff, although I did note the user name change early on. In any event, I saw a pattern emerging that went kind of like this: (1) Plot Spoiler (PS) makes changes to controversial articles; (2) PS edit-wars without breaching 3RR; (3) another editor templates PS's talk page about 3RR; (4) PS doesn't edit again, thereby avoiding a technical breach; and (5) PS removes the 3RR notice from their talk page. That kind of pattern is inherently disruptive, but, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily indicate bias or rise to the level of warranting a topic ban. To analyze that aspect, I'd have to look at the actual content changes. Unless they are glaringly biased on their face (like the Palestinian incitement article), I'd have to (a) know more about the subject and (b) know more about the reliability/objectivity of the sources. So, partly because of that and partly because it was so tiring, I stopped - and I hadn't gotten even close to the present day.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he is proposing a topic ban broader than a ban from articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict then this is indeed the place. However, if his concerns are most pertinent to the Arab-Israeli conflict then I believe AE would be the appropriate place to take it. Personally, I would have to see something more convincing regarding Anthony's "paid editor" allegations before I would take that seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no basis for saying that AE is the only forum for proposing a P-I topic ban. Indeed any involved admin may impose a topic ban without even coming here. "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." (WP:ARBPIA) Per WP:AC/DS: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You right but that's the usual practice to get input of more then one admin--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "usual practice" is, Shrike, without looking at statistics, but if the objective is to get input from other admins, it seems to me that WP:AN is a good place to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE is not the "only" place for proposing such restrictions, but we wouldn't want people bringing things that can be handled at AE to other noticeboards. Obviously, if there are issues not pertaining to ARBPIA then AN or an RfC/U would be the more appropriate methods.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't any evidence that complicated issues in ARBPIA territory like persistently biased editing, things that potentially involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE as far as I'm aware. Setting aside the Palestinian incitement article, if you want to see Plot Spoiler in action, in microcosm, I suggest you look at the history of the Camp Ashraf raid article. It's not long. It provides insight into the editor and will give you some idea of the volume of evidence likely to be involved in cases that address these kind of issues. It's just one article.

The article is about a raid on a People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) camp, an organization ironically not very unlike some Palestinian organizations. If you have been following the covert/proxy war between Israel and Iran in the news (e.g. [26][27]), you'll understand why this article might be of interest to Plot Spoiler.
His initial version is here. Note that it was orginally titled Camp Ashraf massacre and he added the categories 'Massacres in Iraq' and 'Mass murder in 2011'. Why ? Plot Spoiler explains that in an edit summary, "was a massacre even if not named as such. killing of 34 more or less defenseless individuals". He explained it again at List of massacres in Iraq with the edit summary "Murder of 34 defenseless individuals is a massacre" after someone removed it for equally unsound reasons because a "raid on terrorist base is not a massacre" and "there were many more counter-insurgency operations with higher civilian casualties". See the revision history for the short edit war. Imagine if someone used Plot Spoiler's approach to naming an article and categorizing something as a massacre in an article about an IDF raid on the Gaza Strip or any of the many conflicts that have taken place there. There have been hundreds of raids. Thousands of people have been killed in the Gaza Strip in the last 12 years, a large proportion of which were, like in most conflicts, "defenseless individuals". Would Plot Spoiler let that kind of policy violation stand, unsourced labelling of IDF actions as a massacre, a mass killing, using Wikipedia's unattributed neutral narrative voice ? Not a chance, and rightly so. The double standards are comically transparent. He nominated the article for DYK, obviously.
Now, I'm sure Plot Spoiler could come up with some explanation for his interest in this raid on the MEK camp and anything he does. They have already said "Should I apologize for my concern about human rights in the Middle East", but that statement is inconsistent with the evidence from their editing history which shows a highly selective concern for the human rights of certain subsets of humanity in the Middle East. Israel, like many countries (and MEK), has a less than stellar record on human rights. But human rights in Israel and the occupied territories is evidently not something that interests Plot Spoiler according to this contributors list.
Camp Ashraf raid is just one article but it shows a disregard for content policy, presumably because it is less important than other issues of concern to the editor. I'm sure that if anyone could be bothered to go through Plot Spoiler's contributions, systematically documenting cases like this, there would be many because the editor is a text book example of a biased advocate, one of many.
Someone might ask "Why single out Plot Spoiler, there are lots of biased editors?" "Why not ?" would be my answer to that. Baby steps. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps you should start with yourself, since you are a highly biased anti-Israel activist/propagandist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.107.108 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone wanted to go through every single edit I have made in the topic area and compile evidence to support that statement, report me at the appropriate place, I would have no objection at all. I would encourage someone to try to do that, I might even help them because the process of addressing biased editors needs to be optimized/tested, but it would be a waste of their time. I am highly biased about several issues, but not about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I just don't edit articles where my bias could trash my editing. I'm not anti-Israel, I'm pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, what's the difference, people are people. I'm not an activist in any way, shape or form and I'm a propagandist only in the sense that I look at and read a lot about propaganda in SEAsia as a hobby. But carry on believing what you want and I'll carry on editing in the topic area until it is fixed. Then I will stop and have time to edit things that interest me. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. That's given me the options of where to take this further, if that seems necessary or useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

history restore request

Can someone do a history restore at Template talk:2010-2019VSFashion Show.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done because harmless, but there is nothing useful there... CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had properly created this talk previously so I just wanted to see the history. If I had known it was only the deletable page, I wouldn't have made the request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Race (human classification) so biased? (Mikemikev)

(moved to talkpage) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A trolling post by Mikemikev was moved from here to an article talk page.[28] [29] As pointed out on WP:ANI, where CU Deskana commented about this community banned user, for the last month or two Mikemikev has been editing from South Korea, where he is currently working. Per the R&I motion about banned users, although his posts may be removed, please do not add them elsewhere. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move by Seb az86556 obviously done in good faith; has been reverted by Ryulong. WP:SPI filed by myself. NE Ent 14:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, you should really not just post to the old SPI case page and use the proper template that someone coded up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too hard. I don't really care. It's a waste of time -- as long as anonymous (IP) editing is a fundamental Wikipedia precept we're gonna have trolls. Was mostly doing as a courtesy to Mathsci (we having a standing disagreement over troll response which I really didn't want to get into here.). Was planning to dump the troll comments off the race page once the SPI signed off on it being a mikemikev; wouldn't have bothered had I known Ryulong was gonna revert the edit. So telling me "really" in the future stuff is a waste of bits. The day I log in at the not WP:BURO pillar is gone I'll just leave. If someone wants to do something useful vis-a-vis SPI filings, I'd suggest add edit notices to the page(s) -- I did look for instructions there but there weren't any. Had there been some template / instructions visible I would've been happy to cut and paste. NE Ent 14:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy enough to file SPI reports. There are instructions at the top of the page, The second rubric says, "Submitting an SPI case". Click on there and substitute "Mikemikev" for SOCKMASTER at the next prompt. Then click to open an investigation. At the moment, there are so many Mikemikev ipsocks from Korea, that it is more trouble than it is worth submitting reports. Best just to tag the user pages for future reference as CU Deskana recommended. Mathsci (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev has no instructions present. NE Ent 23:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was the wrong place to look. Unresolved SPI reports are all listed on a central page and that requires a common template for the reports. Please click on WP:SPI next time. Wikipedia software is not at fault here. Mathsci (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving my talk page

I would like to create archives #6-10 (so that I can archive, and so I would not have to come back here to bother you again. My current archive is full. When I do it, it says I need administrative privileges. Please assist. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm rather confused why this is an issue; perhaps it thinks that you have too many non-alphanumeric characters in these archive names? Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's this line in the global title blacklist, I think:

#URI like page titles
.*[?&]+[^=]+=[^&]+.*

Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement regarding recent leaks from arbcom-l

The Arbitration Committee has recently been made aware that information posted to its arbcom-l mailing list was inappropriately shared outside of the Committee this month. The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens on November 6 and 7 (UTC), and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. The unauthorized disclosures were reported to the Committee separately by two non-arbitrator candidates in the current Arbitration Committee elections, and our understanding is that other candidates and other editors have also received correspondence repeating some or all of the information.

Arbitrator Elen of the Roads has confirmed that she shared information, including direct quotes from the mailing list, with two non-arbitrators within 24 hours of Jclemens' original posts. This information was subsequently shared with other parties, including at least some of the current candidates. The Committee was made aware of this on November 13. On polling the arbitrators, Elen of the Roads disclosed that she had released a portion of one email to non-arbitrators, and denied sharing any further emails. She subsequently clarified on 25 November that she had released information from two separate emails, including the full text of one.

In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee.

Arbitrators supporting this statement: Casliber, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, SirFozzie
Arbitrators recused from voting on this statement: All current candidates (Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad)
Arbitrators inactive on voting on this statement: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this statement

Operation Pillar of Defense

Hi, Israel casualties and injuries are different in some part of article Operation Pillar of Defense, please correct and match them to each other. I put this request on talk page of this article but nothing happen. --H.b.sh (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request from User:Mythdon

Indefinitely blocked user Mythdon (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock - see User talk:Mythdon#Block/ban appeal. The history is that Mythdon was banned for six months in September 2009 after Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong, and was indefinitely blocked in March 2010, shortly after that ban expired, for reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#concerns_about_too_much_of_user:Mythdon_on_AN.2FI. I have not read this up and express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was entirely clueless and a huge time sink 2-3 years back and managed to get indefinitely blocked on Simple Wikipedia as well. But it WAS 2 years ago, and there was no socking in the mean time that I'm aware of. They also seem to be well aware of what got them banned. I guess WP:OFFER applies.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock - Offer appears to have been fulfilled and we should be more welcoming and less bitey. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As he was advised that WP:BASC was their sole means to an unblock, I'd love to know what they said ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to ban Elen of the Roads for 6 months

Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has greviously violated Wikipedia policy and her trust as an Arbitrator and Administrator. There is a motion to revoke her access to the ArbCom email list, among other permissions. This proposal is meant to send a message that this eggregious violation of trust must never be tolerated. As a result I propose that Elen be banned for 6 months, and must petition the community to return after this time. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

134.241.58.251 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Her lack of judgement as an arbitrator and functionary has no impact on her ability to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community, this proposal is frankly without merit. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If that's your opinion, sign it with your name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. I am an unregistered user. I do not have an account. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards