Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 34 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The close has since been rescinded by the closer, so is very much due for closing again. CNC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 101 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 99 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 99 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 50 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 39 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 33 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 32 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	40	43
TfD	0	0	3	0	3
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	64	19	83
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 256 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 79 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 76 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)

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

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

(Initiated 74 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Jesse Clyde Nichols

Copied first two posts from Archive262

Last couple edits (by an IP address) seem like a personal vendetta against the article subject. Some of the recently-added material is readded stuff I tried to delete before. Not sure what you guys want to do about this but I'm not interested in a slow war with an IP, so your participation would be welcome. Townlake (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Two edits (in a row) by a single IP, 4 days ago, with minor to moderate WP:NPOV issues. I'm not sure this is the beginning of a "slow war." Don't forget to assume good faith. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's discouraging to get an AGF scolding under these circumstances, dude. As I predicted, the IP came back and reinserted all their POV stuff, still unsourced. I'm sure not going to keep reporting stuff like this if I'm just going to get dinked to "assume good faith" about POV warriors. Townlake (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocks here are to prevent immediate damage, and with no edits by an IP for days, it won't happen. If you feel the article needs protection, then there's a place for that the panda ₯’ 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Now that you've filled out form WP-123, go fill out form WP-456 in the protection office on the fourth floor. But before you file that police report, are you sure you've assumed good faith about the guy you're reporting?" You guys know why good volunteers stop contributing their editorial energy to Wikipedia, right? Townlake (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Any admin who blocked an IP that hasn't edited for days would be violating their admin rights. At the top of the page is a set of links to the right places to ask for action - even at this point, WP:RFPP would be declined as it's not performing current protection. Timing is everything, sorry to say. We're janitors, not police or judges the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your civil tone in your replies. I note in passing that the "janitor" analogy doesn't reflect the true power admins here possess. Janitors don't have the power to ban entrants from participating in activities, policemen do. Alas, too many of the police here prefer to sit on their hands and claim to be janitors. And the project suffers. In fact, I am here as an actual janitor, trying to clean an article to Wikipedia standards and attempting to report mistreatment of project property to the police. The fact I'm getting nowhere is no individual's fault; it reflects a problem with the project's more general attitude toward adminship. Townlake (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure a current editor can really have much of a personal vendetta against someone who died 64 years ago? I've seen vendettas against people who died 30+ years ago, but not many on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Some still idealise the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, and they tend to have vendettas against Abraham Lincoln. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There was also a recent report about an editor who had a personal vendetta against Jefferson Davis. The American Civil War was 150 years ago, but continues to inflame passions on both sides. More generally, the history of race relations in the United States continues to inflame passions. As William Faulkner said: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I think anyone who feels they and theirs were substantially oppressed might feel such inflamed passions for a long time, but those whose forebears merely participated in such a conflict might not. Thus I can't think of any Englishman who feels particularly strongly about anything to do with the various much more recent Boer Wars (English interest in them is mainly centred around the incompetence of their own commanders, a common theme in that era), but that may well not be the case for some Afrikaaner inhabitants of the northern parts of modern day South Africa. And neither Englishmen nor Russians care much about the actions of the other side in the Crimean War, except in as much as the area is now in the news again. 19th century and earlier disputes are well remembered and commemorated in Northern Ireland whose populations were severely impacted at the time, but the rest of the United Kingdom (whose forces were involved) does little to note them except in history books. Most Englishmen feel neither regret nor much interest that the American war of independence succeeded, whereas Americans (naturally) still consider it very important. The Franco-Prussian War presumably inspires no passion at all in modern day France and Germany, whereas the two subsequent (and related) larger wars over similar territories are much better remembered. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is both interesting and relevant. The IP address editing this article seems to have a gripe with racism in past Kansas City area real estate transactions. If the IP could source its statements about the practices it connects to Nichols, the statements would surely be relevant to understanding the article's subject. Legally-sanctioned housing discrimination on the basis of race is an ugly part of America's past; ideally, we don't fight the same wars repeatedly because we remember the ugliness of those already fought. Townlake (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting review of editor conduct

I'd like a few extra opinions as to the conduct of myself, RGloucester (talk · contribs), and the administrator known as Q5W5 (talk · contribs). Today, at the page 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, of which I have been a prolific editor, a relatively new user called Stephen B at USDA (talk · contribs) initiated a page move to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine with this edit. He did the same at the timeline article, Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I reverted his page moves with this edit[1], as there is currently an ongoing requested move discussion about the title of these articles at Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I shall note, I am a strong advocate of the "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" title, and in fact, my bold page move to restore the article to that title is what initiatde the present requested move discussion. I have no interest in maintaining the present title for various reason that are best left for the move discussion. However, I do not think it is appropriate to overwrite an ongoing requested move discussion, as I'm sure most people agree. Furthermore, Stephen B introduced an orthographical error into the title, moving it to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine with a dash, rather than with the appropriate hyphen (2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine). Minutes later, Stephen B once again moved the pages to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine. Another editor, Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs), reverted these moves. I only made one revert of Stephen Bs bold page moves.

Minutes later, I received an edit warring template on my talk page[2], placed by the administrator Q5W5, who has been participating in the present move discussion. I immediately requested clarification from the administrator, as I had not participated in any edit war. I made ONE revert of a bold page move during a move discussion. The administrator responded with this edit[3]:

So you are saying that and other substantially identical edits made within the last fifteen minutes were not made by you? You are not exactly giving yourself a good reputation by continuously reverting constructive contributions and then lying that you did not do it. Edit histories do not lie, so we can figure it out fairly quickly. Do you have an answer for these things, RGloucester?

Anyone that actually looked at the edit history would know that I was not reverting any constructive contributions, and that I only made one revert of a bold page move. The aggressive tone of the administrator in question shook me up, as I take allegations of wrongdoing seriously. I replied, explaining to him what actually happened.[4] The administrator replied, saying that he was mistaken with regard to "edit warring", but that my revert was "extreme".[5] I do not consider one revert of a bold page move during a currently ongoing move discussion as "extreme". The administrator in question then attempted to put words in my mouth, saying:[6]

Edits are NOT vandalism if the person is unaware that they are wrong. Despite it being clear that he was acting in good faith, you took it upon yourself to blatantly revert his edit, referring to it as "disruptive", while making absolutely no friendly attempt to educate him about how Wikipedia works. Besides, you said yourself that you support this move. Disagreeing over two equally good titles and reverting a blatantly inaccurate one (as Stephen B at USDA did) are two completely different things. Q5W5 [discussion] 22:06, Today (UTC−4)

I never said the editor in question was a "vandal", and in fact, if one looks at his talk page, one will note that I was having a discussion with him about why the move was inappropriate, and that I was in fact attempting to "educate" him in a civil manner. However, despite explaining this, Q5W5 was not sated. He responded to my continued explanations with the following remarks:[7]

I have said myself on the article's talk page that the title is wrong and so have a slew of other editors. This is not about two good titles in dispute; it is about fixing a blatantly incorrect title. I support Stephen B at USDA's right to change it, especially as a newcomer. If you disagree, you should educate him on why you believe he was wrong, not restoring by restoring incorrect titles, which is borderline vandalism. Q5W5 [discussion] 22:22, Today (UTC−4)

I agree that the title is wrong, as I tried to explain to the administrator here. However, it has been stable at that title for a month, until a bold page move by me triggered the current RM. It was agreed upon by discussion, and did not appear out of thin air. Instead, we have an administrator pushing a POV (one I happened to agree with, by the way) about "accurate" and "inaccurate" titles, and calling ME a VANDAL for my ONE REVERT of a BOLD PAGE MOVE during an ongoing REQUESTED MOVE DISCUSSION. I do not understand why I deserve to be bullied and attacked by an administrator for things I did not do. Please read my talk page, the talk page of Stephen B, and review my edits, and those of the administrator. Please tell me why it was okay for this administrator to functionally bully me for no reason. I was accused of "biting newcomers", but in reality, I'm the one being bitten here, and I can't understand why. Now my talk page is sullied with accusations that are false, and there is nothing I can do about it. I value my integrity, and this is just a bridge too far. If it is found the administrator in question was out-of-line, I request that he rescind his accusations. RGloucester — ☎ 02:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Q5W5 (talk · contribs) isn't an administrator, and their account was only created on the 20th of this month. I think they copied an admin's userpage. I'll have a word with them on that subject. For now I'll assume that this is a new and naive user. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's what I get for "assuming good faith" and taking a person's user page at face value. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You get karma points nonetheless. It's a copy of Bucketsofg's userpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the newness of the account, the copied userpage from Bucketsofg and the copied talkpage content from Qwyrixian, and the aggressive and proficient use of policy quotes, I'm guessing this is not a new user, and they set out to create the impression of an established admin account. I'm about to sign off for the evening and have left questions of Q5W5's userpage: additional investigation is warranted here. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been fooled by this too. This is even more shocking now. Q5W5 has been a good contributor though. I guess some people are just that good at being deceitful. That's a bummer.  :-( L'Aquotique (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You might want to consider adding User:Ais523/adminrights to your custom.js. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Navigation Popups Gadget also shows user rights.—Odysseus1479 04:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on the user's admission [8] that they intended to deceive, I've blocked Q5W5 indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I remove the affair from talk page, or would that be inappropriate? I really don't like having personal attacks plastered all over my wall. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as nothing in WP:UP#CMT prevents it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

Q5W5 (talk · contribs) has now issued an unblock request with the following rationale:

What I did was wrong and I should have known better. I have been a useful contributor in the past as an IP, but I let my ego get the best of me and willfully violated multiple policies because things were not going my way. If there is even the tiniest possibility that I could be unblocked, I promise to not even have a user page for a while, stay completely away from the Ukraine articles, and work on another topic of interest. I feel very bad about the way I treated User:RGloucester and want to rebuild my reputation here. If you do not want to let me do this, however, I completely understand and will be accepting of it. I am a very troubled individual anyway, so I do not expect much either way this turns out, since my life is already quite meaningless and damned. My sincere apologies for insulting RGloucester. Thank you for your time.

With WP:AGF and WP:NOPUNISH in mind, I would tentatively support an unblock coupled with implementing the Ukraine topic ban volunteered by the user, but would value a second (and third, fourth,...) opinion. Acroterion and RGloucester's views would be especially welcome. WaggersTALK 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be away in meetings for the rest of the morning and a for good bit of the afternoon, so any admin can implement whatever consensus develops in my absence. As apologies go, it's a pretty good one, acknowledging the sin, apologizing to the victim, and promising reform. However, the offense was egregious: a deliberate attempt to bully users using a fake admin account, going so far as to appropriate pieces of inactive admin's userspace, presumably so it wouldn't be readily noticed. But as noted above, we don't use blocks as punishment, and the unblock request is the sort of request we hope to see in these circumstances (and all too often don't). I'm leaning toward unblocking, with strong restrictions enforceable by immediately reblocking. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on the accounts and proxies that just got blocked, AGF goes out the window. This was an extensive effort involving impersonation of several accounts: I should have picked up a couple of them without CU if it hadn't been so late, i.e. L'Aquotique who commented above and who used the same methods of impersonation. I think we're done here. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also support an unblock with the Ukraine topic ban volunteered by the user. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have declined their unblock request because they are socking. I will post my full results shortly. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique

L'Aquotique (talk · contribs) is the oldest account of the group I turned up so far, but be aware that most of the accounts and IPs I uncovered have been used to participate in the same talk page discussions, deletion discussions, noticeboard discussions and probably more, so some cleanup and striking of !votes will be necessary. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White as it was sock-initiated and -infested. Fram (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted three more userpages that were copied from those of legitimate editors. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't expect to step on a hornet's nest. That's the most comprehensive deception I've seen in my time here. I'm glad it's being dealt with. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is

There is a viewpoint that all archive.is links are bad and evil. I make no comment on this.

There is also some considerable work going on (by either 'bots or editors) to remove all of these and to leave the links unarchived. In many cases, the link were long archived via archive.org and have only recently been changed to use archive.is

There is little issue with replacing archive.is links by links to another archiving site, such as archive.org. However is the removal of such links (and not their replacement) considered to be acceptable?

Is it credible to believe an editor who removes such links, and claims "they will be bulk replaced in the future"? Professionally I'm a coder, I build tools to do such work - no way would I work that way. It's far easier to remove and replace an archive link for a single link at a time (and most importantly, knowing that this link needs to be archived). A bulk operation in the future would be tantamount to scanning each and every WP EL, then determining those that are deadlinks (a serious amount of 'bot work) and then adding an archive link. Such a process is technically ludicrous, compared to replacing as encountered, one-by-one.

This issue is growing in dramah. It would be useful to all concerned to get a clear statement ASAP as to our policy on how these archive.is links are to be replaced, and what's acceptable behaviour around them.

Some backstory is here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually one does not need to check if the links are dead, proactive additions of archive urls before they die is OK too. Just because you think one thing is easier than another doesnt mean everyone thinks that way. As I have told you before stop stalking my edits and causing drama. Werieth (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm supportive of being serious with archive.is links. However I do have some concerns over the complete removal of citations. It seems to me that such cases should worst case, be replaced with a link to the original URL, so someone can try and dig up a copy archived somewhere else, or may be use the details for the citation where they exist to see if it exists elsewhere. If the tools being used can't do that or there's no desire to visit archive.is to find out the original URL, I suggest such cases be left until someone is able to deal with them. Of course if there's another reason to remove the citation, e.g. it's not an RS or it's a copyvio, then it can be removed as it always can be. Edit: In some cases even though the only URL may be an archive.is URL, it's possible the original URL is working.Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

They're being removed from articles, but not article histories. There's ways for bots and semi-automated tools to find articles that used these and figure out the replacements. The temporary lack of archiveurls is less an issue than "supporting" the problematic archive.is links. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And Ive got about 80 snapshots (all articles that use archive.is links) if anyone wants it for historical purposes. Werieth (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting not removing the archive.is links. However they also ought to be replaced with acceptable archive links. The best way to do this is at the time the archive.is link is removed. The idea that this is somehow easier, or even practical, by trawling through article histories is ridiculous. Just do it the sensible and straightforward way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We're treating the archive.is links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations, and thus the repairing is a step that can be done after the fact after we've remove the potentially damaging part first. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we? When was this established? I took part in the RFC and was supportive of cracking down on archive.is but don't recall copyvio being much of a concern and a quick check seems to confirm it wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"We're treating the archive.is links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations,"

Why? They aren't. Have you not read the RfC? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice that Werieth has completely removed at least one entire reliable source citation (including cross-references to it), with the justification being only to remove a link to an archive. This is really not appropriate. I don't know how many times this has been done, but it is damaging Wikipedia by converting well-sourced content into unsourced content. There is no requirement that all citations must have online links. Please see WP:OFFLINE. Looking in the user's history, I see lots of edits that may be taking similar action, and several objections on the user's Talk page. Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. I do not object to removing links to an inappropriate archive, if the archive in question has been determined to be a problem. But I do very strongly object to completely removing citations to reliable sources instead of just removing or replacing such links as a remedy for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

When the .is link is removed from that citation in that example, there's no way to trace the source; archive.is links should never have been used alone but always as secondary to the main URL that they capture. So no, that's not a reliable citation. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That was a citation referencing Smithsonian.com. The Smithsonian Institution is an extremely well-known and reliable source. Moreover, there is no requirement that sources must be online at all. Please see WP:OFFLINE. This is really poor behavior. Sources are not required to be clickable. If there is a problem with a source, that is a different issue than if there is a problem with an archive of a source. Problems with the quality of sources should be discussed as an entirely separate matter. Citations definitely should not be removed in a wholesale fashion just because they were previously linked to an inappropriate archive. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation lacked information on what the original publication was, making the citation a failure of WP:V. I am not saying Smithsonian is unreliable, but the citation - w/o the .is link - is. Yes, I'm sure someone could search for it on google or at the Smithsonian website and get the url, but that needs to be done, and the danger of the archive.is links is more a concern to put that off until later. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But how's anyone going to know to do it when the whole citation is gone? Yes many of these examples aren't perfect citation practice, but it doesn't mean it's beneficial to remove all trace of them from the active page. There are so many options that are far better. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I still think in cases where there's only an archive.is URL, we should keep the archive.is URL until someone at least re/adds the original URL. You can even disable the URL so it's not clickable if you want. But yet, it would be better to at least keep the details even if the archive.is URL is removed (preferably noting in the citation that the URL was removed to make it easier when someone is trying to work out what it was). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The archive.is are not appropriate to keep as they are found, removal immediately is appropriate. But I will agree that what could be done is that if links are being removed, that the diff of the removal could be archived on the talk page in a header that points to the archive.is issue, and provides the diff, so that editors can know what was removed and then be able to fix from that. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of a link is different from removal of a citation. Removal of a link may be appropriate. Removal of a citation is not.—BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation without a URL to the original publication is a broken citation, and its removal is fine. Just saying that the work was published at Smithsonian.com is not sufficient to meet WP:V; it would be like pointing to a article that appeared in the NYTimes without given idea of date of publication. Could the original publication be found? Sure, but that's work for editors to correct. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There are problems with that perspective: 1) the edit summary here was extremely misleading because what appears to be a removal of a link is the removal of a complete reference, 2) here we had an exact title, exact author name, and publication by an extremely reliable source and we know that the source actually existed because it had previously been linked to an archived copy, so complete removal under those circumstances is just nuts, 3) the proper action for an imperfect reference to an obviously reliable source is to work to improve the clarity of the citation or request for someone else to improve it, not to just delete it. Simply converting sourced content to unsourced content is damaging. Here the page wasn't even left with a citation request. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the date of publication was provided too. If there had been no link, this would have been judged a completely acceptable reference. Here is the edit: [9], and I think it is, objectively, damage to the encyclopedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

??? Sorry but that doesn't make much sense. Archive.is is bad for many reasons, but they do on the face of it have the stuff you'd normally expect from an archive service. You can obtain the original URL simply by visiting the archive.is link and taking it from there, which is what I did. (And IP added it to the article before I could.) As I said above, if you don't want to visit archive.is to get the link, while that may be understandable, it's not a good reason IMO to remove the citation and make it difficult to recover or even know it existed. (It's easy to see someone properly citing something, us ending up with an archive.is link only, the whole citation being removed, and someones careful work remove when someone recognises there's no citation and removes the claim.) Note also in a case when the details are fairly complete, as it was here, you can potentially find the citation without visiting archive.is. Heck you could probably use a Google cache or similar copy (edit: of the archive.is link) to find the original URL and set up your firewall or browser such that you don't visit anything associated with archive.is while doing so (or just look at the HTML file from Google or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is a problem with the clarity of a reference, that should be raised as an entirely separate matter from the appropriateness of its archival. Wholesale removal of references is not the appropriate action. Wholesale deletion of citations to sources is very damaging. In this case there was clearly an article that was being referenced. It was an article that was published by the national museum of the United States – a very highly regarded institution of the highest academic reputation – one of the highest quality sources possible. Just deleting the reference because of its archive location is very damaging. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How many citations has Werieth removed from articles because they were archived somewhere undesirable? Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. If there is some different problem with a citation, that is a different matter and should be tagged, discussed, etc. – not just deleted because of the archive location. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Werieth is continuing to remove archived links, with no effort or credible intention of restoring them, even as we discuss this. A GF editor would at least have held off during the discussion. Yet again, normal policies and behaviour just aren't something that Werieth feels ought to restrict a super-editor like himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just seen a reply to my comment on Werieth's Talk page that does not appear to be an appropriate response. The user seems to have proceeded to make multiple edits per minute while this discussion has been ongoing. I suggest an immediate block to put a stop to this until this settles down. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Strikethrough above, because I actually don't see further problematic edits after 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A question, since I am new to this issue: The RFC closure reads to me as if there is absolutely no consensus given for removal of anything but archive.is links, that is, URLs. Does anyone disagree? --j⚛e decker^talk 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how literal you want to be. Certainly things like "archiveurl=" parameters that generate URLs would seem to be covered, and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be that literal, but at the point where the title of a reliable publication, a title, an author, a date, and a vsiited-date were provided, I think removing all of those seems ... a stretch from the RfC. I don't know if anyone is arguing otherwise, the single example above--well, I haven't done the research to know if it's just an error, I AGF, but the single example above strikes me as not plausibly backed by the RfC. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples aside, the reason I first raise the issue (which was before any existed) was because of this thread User talk:Werieth#Do_you_mind?. Werieth appears to state there that they would remove an entire citation just because it uses the citeweb template. The citation has a lot of info. If you look carefully, it becomes clear the wrong citation format was used, since it's a journal article or similar.

The wrong template is unfortunate, but removing this apparently good RS just because the URL happened to be archive.is is surely harmful. It's claimed that cite web requires a URL. This would make sense, however I don't see any error here [10] so I'm not sure what's what.

Regardless, there are many options to deal with this, such as adding a dummy URL with a quick explaination. Or using a temporary copy of cite web which doesn't require URLs. Or even just, as I keep saying recovering the original URL. (As I mentioned in that discussion, I do have concern the URL is copyvio, but that's a seperate issue.)

What's surely undesirable is removing this apparently goood citation which is primarily using the wrong template and doesn't even need a URL just because the URL was archive.is. While this didn't actually happen Werieth said that would have happened if they'd noticed what template was being used which makes it almost as problematic. I didn't look at the cite news case, but it sounds like another example.

And yes, I still don't get why we have to have such extensive discussion, when we could just recover the original URL and replace archive.is but I guess I'm used to that on wikipedia by now. The funny thing is, as I also said in my first post, I've been strongly supportive of completely removing archive.is for a long while, I agree there's no way we can trust them. But I'm starting to see why people are so concerned when such a simple solution i.e. replacing archive.is with the original URL, is ignored. And instead we have good citations entirely removed or would have been entirely removed just because someone messed up the citation slightly and didn't include the original URL.

Edit: Had a quick look at the contrib history for cases where a larger amount of info was removed. From that I found [11] where another citation was removed. While the info isn't great, it was been enough to find the citation even if the original URL wasn't recovered. In this case, the original URL didn't work at least, but someone found a replacement from the authors blog [12] which could have been found without the info that was removed as I said. (Although I still fee it would still be better to keep the original URL i.e. [13] to aide in the search for a replacement.) One good thing, in cases where the full archive.is citation format is used, it seems that at least the original URL is kept [14].

Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted" I don't see how that's the case. I think consensus before anyone had even heard of archive.is is clear, even if a link is dead and never likely to come back, it's worth keeping around in case someone is able to find an archived copy. Perhaps if someone makes a thorough effort to find a replacement URL but isn't able to find one and particularly when there is an alternative citation it's worth removing such citations entirely, but it's definitely not something that should be automated. AFAIK, this consensus hasn't changed.

As me and others have said above, equally questionable to remove a citation just because the only URL is archive.is. As I've said several times now, including the third comment in this thread, IMO the best course of action would be to rescue the original URL (which probably shouldn't have been removed, if it was) from archive.is using the tools being used to remove them. Baring that there are plenty of other options ranging from hiding but keeping the archive.is URL so someone else can resurrect the original URL, to removing the archive.is info completely but keeping anything else and preferably a note about what happened. For reasons I've explained several times now, it seems to me this is better than completely removing citations just because the only URL was archive.is when it's fairly trivial to recover the original URL from there, probably without even visiting archive.is if you're that opposed. In fact, my experience so far is that it's not even clear how many of these are dead URLs, it seems some people have unfortunately added archive.is as the only URL even when the original URL is still working, so even more reason not to remove these citations.

Depending on the depth of the citation info, someone may be dig it up from that. But even if it's a bare URL, it's probably better to keep it around to establish that there is a dead citation, someone just has to recover the original URL from archive.is. While they're at it, they could potentially flesh out the citation info.

How many case are we talking about anyway? If people are really so desperate to get rid of any sign of archive.is that they can't tolerate keeping it in some fashion until someone gets around to recovering the original URL, I could probably do it if it's under 100 (entirely manually) if someone gives me a simple list.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This affects 11584 articles currently. Its been quite a time frame already (~10 months) for people to remove the links. When possible I leave the citation in place, however in some cases the reference refers to a webpage (a online only reference), where after removal the reference is no longer viable and I remove it. If you want to wade through all the pages with archive.is links I can provide you a list, but removal of the links is required via the RfC. With the current restrictions on archive.is the existing links are problematic. Werieth (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, you're stating there are 11584 articles where the citation will be removed by you because it contains only a archive.is URL? As I've said repeatedly, this is my main concern here so I presume we are keeping things on topic as you replied to me. Also how sure are you of the 11584 count. As it stands, there are several examples where you've erroneously removed a citation as 'online only' when it's been demonstrated this was inaccurate and the information you removed was enough to find the citation even without the URL. BTW, how many additional archive.is articles are there. The 11584 figures seems very high, even if there are 90k other articles which use archive.is but where it is not essential or not the only URL, this would mean it's ~10% of articles using archive.is where you need to remove the entire citation Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a total of 11584 (at the last count) of articles that contain archive.is links. I havent gone through all of them to find out how they are used yet. Ive changed my tactics and there should be minimal cases where the entire reference will need to be removed in the future. Werieth (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, can you keep things on topic. I've said multiple times I only really care about the cases where you plan to remove the entire citations with some more limited concerns when you remove the only URL. If you aren't able to provide a number of how many cases you plan to remove entire citations (or at least the cases where archive.is is the only URL), that's okay. But your number seems highly misleading in the context of a discussion which was about cases where you removed entire citations. And in reply to my comment where I indicated my willingless to deal with these specific cases myself.

It's good that you've reduce the number of cases where you will remove entire citations, but IMO not good that you think you will still do so. Can you explain why with these indeterminate number of articles where you still plan to remove entire citations, you aren't choosing another option like keeping the archive.is information (hidden in the source if necessary) but removing the link so someone can recover the original URL since it sounds like you're unwilling or unable to do this yourself. Or just completely leave these last cases where you feel you need to remove entire citations.

As said before, worst case it'll be better to leave the citation even if you feel it's useless without any info on the archive.is URL. Let someone else can work out if it's valid, or even go through the history, find the archive.is URL and use that to recover the original URL. History has shown you're judgement on the citation being useless wasn't entirely reliable, perhaps it would be better now, but perhaps not.

As I've mentioned, I also have a more minor concern about removing the only URL even if the citation isn't removed since the original URL can be trivially recovered from archive.is and the original URL can help to find other archives, it seems more harmful than necessary.

So an even better course of action would be a 3 stage removal. First remove the simple cases, where there is a valid URL (whether it's a working one or not) and the archive.is is only there an an archival URL. You can include in this first pass those cases where the full archive.is citation format is used so you're able to recover the original URL from the archive.is URL which you are already dealing with suitable.

Once you've done so, the community could consider whether anyone is willing to deal with the remaining cases where archive.is is the only valid URL, probably by recovering the original URL from archive.is. If the numbers are still so high that no one is willing to deal with it, you could propose removing the one and only URL to archive.is while keeping the citations, except in cases where you feel the need to remove the entire citation for unspecified (at least here) reasons. There's a fair chance someone can then deal with these last few cases manually rather than you removing the citation. (If 10 months later and still no one has dealt with these last few cases, I might understand your complaint.)

Yes of course it's unfortunate that none of this was done sooner, but many of us can't code so have no options for such automatic edits. And while it's great that you're volunteering your time to deal with this, you still have to listen to the community and should remember to involve it (e.g. by proposing such mass edits before carrying them out, with particular regard to stuff that is likely to be controversial like removing entire citations or even the only URL).

Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As I stated the number of cases where full removal should be minimal. I have run across multiple cases where an archive.is URL is invalid (redirects to the base domain) and recovering the original URLs is now no longer possible. In cases where that occurs removal of the citation may be needed depending on what factors are in the citation and if there is enough to salvage it. Im not going to list every step I have planned because it will probably change depending on what I come across as I progress. Your sort of along a similar track of what Im planning. Werieth (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am still not sure the attitude about removing citations is sounding adequately conservative here. IMHO, removal of the citation information should be avoided if there's anything more than a bare URL that leads to a dead link. It is much better to leave a "citation needed" tag to prompt improvement of a citation than to convert vaguely sourced material into completely unsourced material. I also have not noticed an expression of real interest in repairing the damage already done. The need to remove the archive links does not sound like that high a priority to me, personally. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how many times it happened, or the exact circumstances of each, but this user made many many edits very rapidly, and removing a citation completely when providing a WP:Edit summary that only refers to removing links to an archive is misleading. I found other edits ([15] [16]) that appear to have done this, without looking very hard. Citations are not required to be linked. A citation does not "depend on" a link, although linking is desirable. See WP:DEADREF and WP:OFFLINE. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But they have to have enough detail for a reader to be able to locate without too much effort the original source, and if we are taking a piece of work that only existed online, the URL is required for that. This is different from the case where we did have a formerly working URL that is dead - you usually can verify that URL had information at one point if its not already at Wayback Machine. Without the URL, you're lucky if that can be found, and of course OFFLINE doesn't apply to online-only sources. And if it was an online version of an offline source (eg republishing of journal content by its owner) and there's no pointer to the original offline publication we still have the same problem. A reference that is only just a title, author and publisher, once the archive.is URL is stripped off, is not a usable ref for us even considering DEADREF and OFFLINE. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

But isn't the precise point that Werieth has been removing cases where the citation without the URL was sufficient either for wikipedia purposes, or at least for another editor to find a replacement URL, or even the original URL which is sometimes still working.

Seperately, there's the question of why it's so important to remove any trace of archive.is, when you could leave some info in even if it's just the archive.is ID for the page and let someone else visit archive.is to recover the original URL (the ID can be hidden in such a way it's unlikely anyone but an informed editor will visit archive.is or Google/Bing/whatever to find the original URL).

Since the 10 months was brought up by Werieth, let me throw that back. It's already been 10 months. So would it really be that harmful to leave some trace of archive.is in some fashion in those cases where some people feel the need to remove the entire citation (or better yet, all cases where archive.is is the only valid URL), for at least a few month for, hoping that they can be dealt with perhaps by recovering the original URL from archive.is.

As I said above, we don't even have any idea of the scope of the problem, so have no idea whether it's plausible for these cases to be dealt with manually. The only case I can see for such urgency would be if there was really copyvio concerns but no evidence has been provided for that.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the balance between the harm now that archive.is links can pose, and the harm to the small fractions of articles that, as Werieth has described above, the recovery of the original source is presently impossibe (and thus removal of the entire citation). Just guestimating from Werieth's edits, that's at most 10% of the articles that have archive.is links, or about 1600 archives. For us, we'll take the hit on having missing sources on 1600 articles, the damage there far outweighed by reducing the risk of the suspicious activity that archive.is does otherwise. My take from past actions if we found a site used in a good chunk of articles to be found of copyright violations later, we'd do the same think - wipe the links (and references if needed) to remove the immediate threat and worry about damage control on citations later given that WP is a work in progress. All that is needed is a list of articles that have been affected, and ideally the diff when the archive.is links were removed. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my bot request to do that while leaving a centrally organized list of every removal, complete with the archive.is article tags, has stalled.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible with what you have to at least generate the list of affected pages prior to the immediate closure of the RFC that had archive.is links? (which would not require BAG) Further, might be helpful to go off that last and add the latest diff where archive.is links were removed ? (again, no BAG). This would allow Werieth and others to continue what they are doing and provide a means to track the removed .is links. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Not 100% but probably close to 99.99% of articles that have had an archive.is link in them at one point the last 10 months. User:Werieth/Sandbox Werieth (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It would take a few hours of work. Chartbot is regular expression driven so retargeting it from billboard.com to archive.is is theoretically simple, but you know what they say: if you think that regular expressions are the solution to your problem, now you have two problems.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting it as to quell the complaints that Werieth is removing references without leaving "traces" behind (when really they still are, we're not history-reverting), so that we can possibly put a not on affected pages about the archive.is issue and where they can find a diff with the removed references. But this is only an idea, I believe that the edit summaries I've seen Werieth leave behind should make it easy to find those changes in history alone. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think such removal of archive.is references (by a dumb-bot) should be mentioned on the talk page of the article. I often look at talk pages, but I do not read every edit summary unless I am looking for a specific word/term. The talk page section could be labeled ==archive.is== with a link to the last functional archive.is version of the article. -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I proposed doing both the central list and the per-talk-page comment.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The removal of links to sites spammed on Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable, and a long-standing practice. WP:USEFUL is an argument to avoid, not an argument for continuing to allow spammers to benefit from Wikipedia. Archived links are a minor convenience only. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

An admin may want to talk to this user

Currently I'm speaking with FilmFounder onhis talk page . He came to my attention when he posted this on the OTRS board . I posted a note on his talk page, and he's rsponded . He's not ranting or being incivil, but I sense that he doesn't really understand policy on Wikiepdia.

He and I have spoken back and forth on his talk page, and I'm getting a sense of either him wanting to own the article or posting the history of the festival as he sees it . Either case, additional voices on his talk page wouldn't hurt. I will note he's hasn't edited the page in question The Sarasota Film Festival . Feel free to chime in, or you can trout me if you think I'm getting trolled on his page (trout are yummy anyway :) )! Kosh Vorlon    17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I added a note that should clear up a few things, but reading though, I don't think he is really paying much attention to what you are saying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I rewrote the page and added a bunch of sources. I added it to my watchlist, too. I don't foresee any problems, but I kept {{COI}} on it. I'll remove the tag in a few days if nothing promotional gets added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor reverts closure of RfC due to disagreement with outcome

I closed this RfC (started on 11 April and posted on the Requests for Closure board) five days ago as no consensus, with the rationale you can see here. The editor who started the RfC did not like the close, and started a discussion on my talk page yesterday, where I explained the decision twice. The editor has now reverted my close of the RfC, claiming "wrong conclusion made about discussion". Can someone else review. Thanks, Number 57 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion and your closure and found that you were right to close this as "no consensus". I have reclosed the discussion and left an explanation about the heraldic aspect of the debate. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Number 57 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Number 57 and De728631: And he now tried to rewrite closure to have the desired result [17]. It's getting a little disruptive now. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. It might be a good idea for another admin to have a quiet word with them about their behaviour. Number 57 15:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave a message. GiantSnowman 15:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

IP user 67.222.120.226 seems to be here at Wikipedia for no other reason than to vandalize articles and disrupt. He's been blocked and warned numerous times judging by his userpage and returned from a block here [18] to leave this vile message on my user talk page [19]. Just as a note, I've never come past this IP user before on Wikipedia. I would suggest an indefinite ban of the IP as it's now going on various articles and vandalizing them with people having to warn him. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like someone blocked him even before I finished my post above. Either that or ya'll can see into the future here at the Admininistrative Noticeboards. lol! AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We knew you were going to say that. GJC 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist request backlog

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is heavily backlogged. Please can we have some admin attention there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe if regex wasn't so arcane I would've pitched in. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reformatting and expanding the List of Presidents of Venezuela

Hello everyone! It would be greatly appreciated if someone can help at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela#Reformatting and expanding the article. Also, if you know some users who would be interested to help, please inform them. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-addition of material post-RfC in Stefan Molyneux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A 34-day long RFC about using the term "philosopher" in the lede of Stefan Molyneux was opened last month. After a certain amount of discussion (and a request for closure on this noticeboard), the RfC was closed here at 11:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC). The term was then removed from the lede. A few hours (7) later, the term was re-added to the lede here, supported by a non-English source. The term was re-removed and a talk page thread was opened on the new material. Then the material was re-re-added. In the meantime, the proponent of the new material has contacted the RfC closer, who does not seem inclined to reverse the RfC closing. With this background in mind, three questions are posed for this ANI:

1. Should the immediate post-RFC version of the article be re-established (e.g., without the term)? This may be a moot point. Three editors (User:Thivierr, User:N-HH, and OP) have expressed criticism of the post-RFC addition of philosopher. The addition has now been reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Should the results of the RFC be changed?
3. Assuming that the results of the RFC not be changed, does the new material justify a new result?

– S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting on a reply from the closer on his talk page about some points I think he missed in evaluating the close. This ANI notice is premature, disruptive, and a direct violation of the non-interaction request that I've asked the poster to adhere to with regards to me, as he has a habit of singling out certain editors and subjecting them to various forms of process-trolling. --Netoholic @ 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I posted a notice of this ANI on Netoholic's talk page as a courtesy to ensure s/he knew about this discussion. It is regrettable to see the posting characterized as trolling. It was not until after I had started a BRD on the lede issue that Netoholic said anything on the article talk page about contacting the closer of the RfC. Since Netoholic said s/he'd pursue other remedies if the RFC result was not changed and since RFC closings are rarely changed, it was entirely appropriate to open this ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting closure review of Stefan Molyneux RfC

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

---

This is a request to review the close at [20] to determine whether the closer interpreted the central question, consensus, and policies incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer here. Here are the problems I have with the handling of this closure:

1. The closing statement is only a single sentence, worded incredibly weakly, and provides no elucidation of the closer's thought process as he evaluated the close. It seems to be a quick-and-dirty close statement that did little more than do a raw count of votes, as it does not address some of the critical discussion points in any detail. In particular, he does not address:
   • if WP:RS/WP:V policies were applied either correctly or incorrectly with regards to the key national newspaper and book sources
   • if any of the opinion-based votes were disregarded due to failure to adhere to WP:ASSERT (Assert facts, not opinions)
   • the relative weight he gave to certain arguments over others.
   • "The paradox of excellent sources" (how the most scholarly sources are also very unlikely to call the people they cite by the common name for their occupations).
2. The central question as posed was "Question: Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article?". The closer misinterpreted this as "central question, which was whether he should be described as a philosopher or not". Fundamentally, these are two different questions, and if he misunderstands the central question, then its likely many other factors were misunderstood. Since the central question posed was about qualifiers, the closer would need to specifically gauge that question, which it seems he did not.
3. In subsequent conversation, closer admits that "there was no agreement" in the sub-discussions about exactly what the proper qualifier should be. This should result in the RfC at a minimum being closed as "No consensus".
4. This RfC close does not agree with precedent set at a much more intensive one at Talk:Ayn Rand that was about a very similar central question (and an extensive closer statement). Since the key sources use different qualifiers, then consensus was to exclude them and use the most generic term, and expound in the body text.
5. The potential professional harm that can come to the subject. Molyneux self-identifies as a philosopher, and that is corroborated by national newspapers widely considered reliable, books, and several other secondary less-reliable sources. If Wikipedia takes a formal stand against that self-identification, especially when no sources have been provided to refute that, it could be seen as a severe harm to his professional reputation. No one has provided any formal standard from any scholarly or authoritative philosophy source which would counter his self-identification.

It is my feeling that because the closing statement was insubstantial and the closer seems to misunderstand the central question as worded, that the close was handled without due care, and should be overturned or at least set to "No consensus". Thank you for your assistance. --Netoholic @ 09:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note in response to point two, I did not misinterpret the central question at all. Netoholic has conveniently omitted my response to his original accusation in the discussion on my talk page. Beyond that, I think a wider review of the behaviour at this article is merited. Number 57 09:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't know for sure, but I do wish you'd been clear in your original replies. The way I read those, it seems you did misinterpret the question because you described qualfiers as a "sub-discussion" rather than the central question. I think your later reply was to cover the mistake by saying you left off two words (arguably the most important ones). I'll leave it to others to read the replies in the order you gave to make their own judgment. -- Netoholic @ 10:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there was no mistake. I described the qualifiers as a sub-discussion because the RFC states "Place any discussion, including discussion of alternative terms, or proposed qualifiers (such as have been discussed here on talk) in the Threaded discussion section below." The RFC itself was a straight yes or no on whether he should be described as a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article. Number 57 10:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close: Mr Molyneux can call himself a philosopher all he likes, but his "self-identification" as a philosopher does not mean that he is considered worthy of scholarly interest by actual professional philosophers. I just checked JSTOR and PhilPapers: if Molyneux were considered important by philosophers (as opposed to, say, libertarian activists on YouTube), there would presumably be mention of his thought—hell, even his name—in academic journals of political philosophy. There are no such mentions in any of the JSTOR-indexed journals. Perhaps we might find mention of him in books published by academic presses by some well-known philosophers... oh, wait, no such luck. Google Books does list him as being mentioned in a lot of those books that reprint Wikipedia articles. So there's that. Given the absurdity of the question, the brusqueness of the close is perfectly adequate. He is notable as a libertarian writer and Internet broadcaster. But he does not have any discernible influence on mainstream academic philosophy. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  This reply seems to be a vote in the RFC, rather than a review of the closure. Even still, its incorrect, as even a quick Google Scholar search shows journal references to his work. A longer list is available at User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Journal and paper citations. The last comment is a bit silly... is someone only a musician if they are played or have an influence on "mainstream" music? --Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, yes, those well known philosophy journals LewRockwell.com, PeaceFreedomProsperity.com, mises.org and some random Wordpress blog. Right up there with Noûs, The Monist and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Can you cite anything that you would be able to put into an undergraduate essay without embarrassment? This kind of tendentious nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  The search link includes some non-relevant links mixed in with the journal citations, sure, but that's just noise. On the User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Journal and paper citations page is a citation by "Subotić, Siniša" - a doctoral dissertation that makes extensive use of Molyneux's philosophical book UPB. I would say this is even better than "an undergraduate essay", and its certainly not embarrassing in the least. --Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close An ample number of editors carefully evaluated the entire issue and all relevant issues, and the closing admin went through and made an appropriate decision. Netoholic then added this useless source, where an organization gives a profile a person they're hosting at an event. Such profiles are often self-written, or written to promote the subject. We wouldn't expect them to invite people to watch a debate of a "self-described philosopher" as the Globe and Mail calls him. The problem here is User:Netoholic will never accept any decision that doesn't conform to his views. Let it go, move on, and when there are actual new reliable sources not considered, there can be a discussion, and after that, perhaps a change in the future. Netoholic has to learn that he doesn't personally own the article. --Rob (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Rob is an involved party and a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close – Netoholic's arguments are weakened by the fact that s/he added the newly found material a few hours after the closure. Worse, when Netoholic's change (supported by the newly found material) was reverted, s/he persisted and sought to add the "philosopher" description 2 more times. A far better course of action would have been to post the newly found citation on the talk page and ask for commentary as to whether it supported an addition of "philosopher" to the lede. Had s/he done so, I think the answer would be the same. E.g., editors would agree that the material did not support a change. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  S. Rich is an involved party and a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As is obvious to most, there is no policy for this contention, no policy whatsoever. Netoholic is rehashing the same, feckless arguments. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close - There is a clear lack of consensus for the proposal and even a consensus against it. I cannot see this being closed any other way. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I will also say that non-admins have as much right to an opinion regarding this close as anyone else. Being an admin is no big deal. This is not a vote but a place for people to make their opinions known. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  This is not a place to re-hold the RFC though. People who voted can comment, but they should not be misrepresenting themselves by voting as if they were not involved. Also, the point of a closure review is to get comments from non-involved, experienced admins. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  This is a new discussion about the closure, it is not about the RFC. Someone involved in the RFC can have any opinion about the closing. This is not a vote. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Netoholic, are you sitting down? Good. So, here's the thing: the horse? It's dead. So, Endorse close, and if User:Netoholic is -- again -- unwilling to understand and follow the clear consensus, he or she should be prevented from engaging in further vexatious disruption. --Calton | Talk 17:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Calton is a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review on AN. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  Oh, horseshit. I was wondering what pathetic rationale -- based on your ample track record -- you would gin up to disqualify yet-another endorsement, but this one has to take the biscuit. So, here's another page you should be reading. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  Please stop telling people they should not be voting, this is not a vote and being an admin does not give you special authority.

  You are asking for the review of an admin action, admins are reviewed not just by admins but by the entire community. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, of course, for reasons painfully obvious to everyone but Netoholic. Additionally, Netoholic should be aware that continuing to agitate for contentious labels on biographies of living individuals, when the clear majority of independent sources do not use the label, is disruptive: if you continue this fool's errand, you will most likely end up sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  What is your basis for this accusation? If you limit the list of sources used in the article to just the most reliable (the independent major national newspapers The Times and The Globe and Mail), their descriptions of him ALL include the use of the word "philosopher". Why these significant sources are being disregarded is perhaps the core, perplexing issue here - but no one has call to accuse me of wrong-doing by following what these well-regarded sources say. --Netoholic @ 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  That's not quite accurate. The Times calls him an "Internet philosopher" and the Globe and Mail calls him a "cyberphilosopher". BMK (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  We're both right. "Internet philosopher" is just a statement about where he works - its not some alternate type of profession. Its like saying "bakery chef" or "London author" or "Army doctor". I'd be satisfied to have the article say "internet philosopher" if people like, but that option wasn't strongly suggested by anyone. --Netoholic @ 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I disagree. I read it that both descriptions were used to differentiate him from an actual philosopher. They are both mildly denigrating from a mainstream POV. BMK (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  "Bakery chef" is also mildly denigrating in certain ways as it indicates a slightly lower (or at least more specific) status of chef. If 3 major newspapers described someone as a "bakery chef", so would we. "Philosopher" was chosen because it avoided the question of the variety of qualifiers found in the major sources, but also agreed with his primary self-identification and most of the lesser sources. Frankly, varieties of "philosopher" seems to be used as often as "author" or "speaker", but people seem to treat "philosopher" with some extra controversy for reasons that are neither consistent nor correct. Its very easy for editors with particular POVs to apply subjective standards as it suits them. All I seek is consistency. If a source is reliable and calls him an author, it is reliable when it calls him a philosopher. I'll also note that as of my timestamp, [[internet philosopher]] isn't even a thing. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  No, "bakery chef" is simply a more-descriptive version of "chef", like "real-estate lawyer" or "nuclear engineer". On the other, adding "Internet" to a job title is, outside specific technical categories, more like adding "self-proclaimed" or so-called". I also notice that Molyneux gets Google hits for "self-proclaimed philosopher" or "so-called philosopher", so perhaps we should throw those in, too. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I do not have strong opinions on this topic, so I did not vote in the RfC. However, as far as I can see, the evidence was considered and rejected by a majority of participants, all of whom used policy-based arguments. The close looks legit, and I don't see any policy-based reason to overturn it. I suggest that Netaholic drop it before he exhausts the patience of the community, which looks like a very real possibility if he continues this path. It's not easy to walk away from a debate you're convinced has gone completely wrong, but sometimes you have to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right about Netoholic coming close to exhausting the patience of the community. In this most recent edit s/he has added "host of the online philosophy show" to the lede. This is an attempt to do an end-run on the RFC results. Along with this edit, s/he has added a quote by Jeffrey Tucker back to the lede (whereas the discussion is against positioning Tucker in the lede). Lastly, Netoholic has readded Philosopher categories (which were removed when the philosopher description was taken out of the lede). I think it is time to bring out the boomerang. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the show description, it was always present in the lead and not a subject of the RfC - It was redundant in the previous first sentence, but appropriate now since "philosopher" (the SOLE topic of the RfC) has been removed. The show description has NEVER been a topic of dispute as it already existed.
This is getting out of hand now. I try to make edits which satisfy several concerns at once, and now have to deal with harassment and tattling every edit. Is this going to be your takeaway from this? Can I not even try to make edits that balance all concerns? Tell me know, and I'll go take a wikibreak. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that you haven't addressed the actual concern, the overwhelming consensus -- on- and off-Wikipedia -- that he's not actually a philosopher. Instead, you're attempting new and varied ways to GET AROUND the actual concerns. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit also tries to sneak in the "philosopher" tag, albeit outside the lead, in the section re Brazil. The persistent game-playing that's going on here in a seeming bid to work around the RfC in every which way they can, along with the badgering of every person who dares to comment here – as in the original RfC, where Netoholic not only responded to nearly every single contribution but declared, as they are doing here, that comments and contributors should be discounted or dismissed and even followed nearly every contributor to their own talk page to pester them about what they had said on the main talk page – suggests that their sticking to their declared semi-retirement might be an idea. Otherwise, action to bar them from the page might be the next step. N-HH talk/edits 08:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I tried to be so sneaky by using the precise wording of the source in a place OUTSIDE the lede (which was the only focus of the RfC). you all win. I've been piled on far too much for my taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netoholic (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is time to close this thread. Per the above comment ("you all win") and this comment on the article talk page, it looks like Netoholic is accepting of the RFC closure and the community consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Requested addition to Template:Noticeboard links

Could an admin please add "Extant Organizations", noticeboard found here, to Template:Noticeboard links in the Articles and content section (organized alphabetically)? It's full-protected, so this is an admin-only task. Silverseren^C 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Under "Articles and content"? Miniapolis 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I should learn to read better :-); done. All the best, Miniapolis 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed permanent topic ban for User:Memills from issues related to men's rights, broadly construed

• @Memills: has been sanctioned no fewer than seven separate times under the existing community probation covering topics related to the men's rights movement. I think that some of his recent behavior demonstrates that he is either unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia's policies well enough to productively contribute in this topic area - ever. One rather telling diff can be found in a recent section of his talk page where he asserts that a reception section for a prominent, generally well-regarded author is balanced/NPOV because it contains one positive sourced statement and one negative sourced statement. People have been trying to explain what Wikipedia's conception of a neutral point of view is to Memills for years, and it's incredibly telling that after seven separate sanctions and dozens of good faith attempts to explain it (and other policies) to him, he still either cannot understand them or acts in willful ignorance.

Since Memills has previously repeatedly skirted his previous topic bans, I believe it is reasonable to automatically convert a permanent topic ban in to a permanent site ban upon one violation. Memills has enough experience with sanctions to know what is meant by a topic ban; if he chooses to disregard his topic ban he does so not because he doesn't understand it but because he doesn't think anyone will enforce it.

A full log of the seven sanctions previously imposed by no fewer than four separate admins for violating the MRM probation can be found here.

Here is a collection of diffs of Memill's edits that I believe display his inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field:

• In which Memills declares that feminism is based on the incorrect premise that patriarchy exists and only women are disadvantaged by it
• In which Memills describes the academic field of gender studies as 'inbred' (on the talkpage of a living person who is a distinguished professor of sociology focusing on gender studies)
• In which Memills suggests that a good faith CfD nom equates to 'propaganda by radical feminists'
• In which Memills seemingly suggests that only articles about science have to worry about following NPOV
• In which Memills again appears to think that one positive and one negative statement make an article neutral, despite the number of times people have explained WP:Equal validity to him.
• In which Memills restores a section that had been extensively discussed on the talk page of an article and removed as a blp violation while declaring he had 'no idea' why it was removed.
• In which Memills again demonstrates that he can't or won't accept that articles on Wikipedia are written based on what reliable sources say rather than personal opinion

• With seven previous sanctions under the existing article probation and continued failure to follow or understand our content policies I don't see a reason why Memills should be allowed to continue to edit in this topic area, especially when he makes essentially no beneficial edits in the area. Describing an accepted academic field as "inbred" is a pretty solid sign that he is unable or unwilling to edit neutrally (especially when he does so on the talk page of a professor of that field,) and combined with the rest of his behavior demonstrates that there's really no point in letting him continue to edit in the broad field - all it does is waste the time of good faith editors. Keep in mind that these diffs are not a comprehensive evaluation of the issues in his recent edits, and don't touch at all on his seven previous sanctions, which included stuff like comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin has gotten a little too involved in an intellectual disagreement with me. He apparently thinks that disagreements, including the expression of statements of opinion on Talk pages, are a violation of WP policies. In contrast, expression of his own opinions on Talk pages, or the expression of opinions by others with whom he is in agreement, apparently pose no such problems for him...

The best Kevin can come up with in the list above pretty much amounts to a rant about my opinions. He whines that Memills "declares," "describes," "seemingly suggests," "appears to think," "demonstrates." Where are the violations? Er... there are no violations of WP policy to which he can refer.

This is really a case of WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY apparently in an effort to silence an editor with whom Kevin strongly disagrees (in violation of WP:CENSOR).

Uninvolved editors have previously noted Kevin's behavior toward me:

"...I do not agree with Kevin's treatment directed towards Memills. In this case I think Kevin is reaching, and looking for a reason to have Memills sanctioned, and to be honest it appears to be Battlegroundish behavior." --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Kyohyi at my talk page)

"...(note the) taunting [of memills] by Kevin Gorman... above in this section. --Pudeo' 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Pudeo at my talk page)

Kevin previously initiated an ANI against me here which was declined.

For the background of what is really behind this ANI -- a personal disagreement between two editors -- see the recent discussions between Kevin and myself at my Talk page. Kevin also inappropriately continued these discussions on article Talk pages here (see, in particular, the collapsed section) and here. In these discussions at article Talk pages, I asked Kevin repeatedly to take his off-topic comments and disagreements with me to my Talk page. Instead of doing so, he continued the off-topic personal attacks on me at these article Talk pages. An uninvolved editor eventually closed a discussion because it was off-topic. And, I finally had to tell Kevin that if he continued, I would no longer respond on on the article Talk page (but that I would be happy to do so either here or at my own Talk page).

I suggest that it is Kevin's WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY that, per WP:BOOMERANG, should be examined. Specifically, see previous ANIs against him by others with similar concerns here and hereMemills (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Memills has gotten himself blocked a number of times, and certainly needs to tone it down, but the diffs you post above are evidence of thought-crimes against your own ideology, little else. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view here, as long as we all edit neutrally - you taught me that. As for his assertion that deleting Category:Violence against men is radical feminist propaganda, that was perhaps in response to the nominator who call the category MRA propaganda. so language has become pretty heated on all sides. Indeed, I've been called a misogynist and a shill for the MRA just for daring to populate that category and defend its existence, but no admins have stepped forward to sanction those who made those claims. I think Memills provides an important counter balance. Civility could be improved and he can be stubborn, like me, but ultimately I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a critical policy; either refusing to follow it or failing to understand it isn't some abstract thoughtcrime, it's directly disruptive. If you take a look at this diff and couple it with his edits to Kimmel's page, it is clear that for whatever reason he is unable to edit neutrally. There's nothing wrong with having a different point of view than another editor; there is something wrong with being unable to edit neutrally after the amount of time people have spent trying to explain policy to him. Seven sanctions and continued disruptive editing is a problem - there has to be a point where enough is enough. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose. This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not all of them are actually, and POV pushing on talk pages is problematic in itself. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Following on from a six month topic ban with POV-driven BLP violations (the addition of critical material referenced to an obscure journal) in the Michael Kimmel article is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of academic journals are "obscure." The New Male Studies journal is an academic, international, peer-reviewed journal, and it meets the criteria for a WP:RS. Memills (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A purported academic journal published by an Australian organisation which isn't even in the collections of the National Library of Australia [21] hardly seems reliable, especially given that the NLA is meant to have copies of everything published in Australia regardless of its usefulness. The British Library and Library of Congress also do not list a journal of this name in their catalogues. Similarly, the libraries of the Universities of Melbourne and Sydney and the Australian National University (Australia's main research universities) do not list "New Male Studies" as being part of their collections. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not a requirement for a WP:RS. The journal has been in existence for less than three years (it may take awhile for new journals to get catalogued). The editorial board consists of almost 30 scholars, most of whom are university professors or are associated with research institutes. Memills (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Memills just accused another editor of libel and pressured them to remove their support of a topic ban, as seen in this diff. Even if the libel comment isn't actioned on, whoever eventually ends up assessing consensus here should probably take in to account the fact that one editor apparently wanted to !support but felt pressured not to do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you have just linked to a libelous statement made against me. I asked the author of the statement to remove it. He/she did. Now you re-posted a link to the deleted comment? What does that say about you? I ask you to remove your comment and link above (and with it my comment here) -- it is in violation of WP:LIBEL. Memills (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The original statement wasn't libelous, and posting a diff to it it certainly isn't libelous. The chilling effect that resulted in the removal of the original support !vote is something that may play some role in the assessment of consensus by the closing admin, who would be unlikely to notice it without a comment pointing it out, so I do not intend to remove my comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you state unequivocally that "The original statement wasn't libelous"? That is truly stunning. You do not know. And, the irony is that you wish to suppress legitimate academic criticism of a book by Michael Kimmel that was published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal because it would hurt Kimmel's reputation, yet you endorse without evidence a malicious and libelous statement (that has already been retracted by the author) about me here? Do you not see the self-serving hypocrisy? Memills (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm, that's pretty unequivocal WP:NLT. This looks like an automatic indef until Memills formally forswears all legal threats. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying something is libel is no more a legal threat than saying something is a copyright infringment. It takes a threat of action to be a legal threat. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The following statement from Memill's talk page about this situation is a pretty explicit threat of action "Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.)". Even ignoring that, NLT doesn't only apply to actual legal threats, it also applies to perceived legal threats. Memills falsely accused someone of libel and used the threat of legal action to coerce them in to removing their comment from a discussion. That's a prettty classic example of the type of chilling effect that NLT is designed to prevent, and another demonstration that Memills is either unwilling or incapable of abiding by Wikipedia's policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I was accused of "paid meatpuppetry (with grades)." That is false, malicious and libelous. The author of that statement has retracted it. You have re-asserted it twice now. We can avoid further escalation of what should have been intellectual debate between the two of us. Now, it is has become quite personal.

Let me suggest a way out to de-escalate: Remove the link to the diff, and your comments in this section. If you do, we can both allow this incident stop here.

If you refuse, I really have no other choice but to file a complaint per WP:LIBEL ("It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please... E-mail us with details of the article and error."), and, file an ANI here with a request to sanction you for violation of this WP policy. Memills (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: linking to a statement is not libelous, even if the original statement was libelous. Secondly: the original statement, which you have misquoted, was not libelous. He stated his opinion of your actions, and luckily, I do not live (nor is the WMF or its servers located) in a jurisdiction where opinion can constitute libel. You can disagree with his opinion, but you can't change the fact that it's a statement of opinion. I don't agree that classes using Wikipedia based assignments constitute paid editing or meatpuppetry, but it's an opinion shared by plenty of other Wikipedians. You could try to argue that calling you 'constantly disruptive' was a statement of fact, but in California at least you probably wouldn't succeed, and even if you did, truth is a complete defense to libel in all applicable jurisdictions. Moreover, if you tried to litigate over it you would almost certainly be considered a limited purpose public figure (both for your activities on Wikipedia, and for reasons I can't state publicly without breaking policies,) and would have to prove actual malice.

TLDR version? The statement wasn't libelous when @Hipocrite: made it, isn't libelous now, and me linking it certainly isn't libelous. You've made at least one explicit legal threat quoted in my previous post with the express intention of forcing someone to remove his vote in support of topic banning you, and now you're trying to do the same thing to me. You are in violation of our policy forbidding legal threats - WP:NLT - even after you were made aware of its existence, and you should expect to be indefinitely blocked for trying to use legal threats to prevent people from voicing their opinion about whether or not you should be tbanned imminently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of convenience for any passing admins, here is a diff to an unambiguous violation of NLT, besides what is found in this thread. Stating that you have no plans to take legal action unless an editor restores a non-libelous comment that you intimidated them in to removing is an egregious violation of WP:NLT and inconsistent with being able to edit Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where is the legal threat? There wasn't one. I stated that there was a violation of WP:LIBEL. However, by linking to the comment that the author him/herself had already retracted, it seems that Kevin is now in violation of WP:LIBEL. The author has retracted the libelous statement. Kevin has now re-asserted it by both linking to the comment (deleted by its author) and re-asserting it by stating that "The original statement wasn't libelous." Memills (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear and precise about this.

That statement is libelous. Please remove it.

is not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and asks for voluntary relief.

That statement in libelous, but I will not take any legal action. However, I ask you to remove it.

is also not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement, but makes it explicit that no legal action will be taken over it, and asks for voluntary relief. However,

That statement is libelous, but I will not take legal action as long as it is removed.

is a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and then makes legal action dependent on the actions of the other editor, making it coercive in nature. Suppose, for instance, that the other editor does not believe that the statement is libelous, and therefore there is no reason to remove it, so having not removed it, the other editor will possibly be the subject of legal action. The only way that the other editor can avoid the possibility of legal action is by doing exactly what Memills says he must do. The other editor's freedom of action is restricted by the coercion that's been applied -- and that's clearly a chilling effect.

Unfortnately, the third choice is what Memills has said, in the edit that Kevin Gorman provided a link for:

Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.

The wording is different, but the meaning is precisely the same: "Unless you have not done what I said to do, I will not take legal action" is the functional and logical equivalent of "Do as I say or I will take legal action".

Given this, I think an admin should serve up an indef block for a violation of WP:NLT, until Memills says, explictly, "I will not take legal action", with no conditions or caveats connected to it. BMK (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The ed17 (talk · contribs) has blocked them. I agree with BMK's analysis: there was a clear intention for those posts to have a chilling effect. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I'd have preferred to see more article diffs than discussion diffs as evidence here, but on the other hand, since Memills came off his second topic ban and almost immediately began pushing the same POV, I don't think we need to apply the same standards we do for a first offense. Memills needs to be encouraged to find topics that are completely unrelated to the MRM, feminism, and gender. His work does not appear to be a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. Some of the edits he's making now are ones that failed to find consensus almost a year ago and for which he was reprimanded at the time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Blah, whatever. Arkon (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I can understand people writing this off as yet another content dispute, but taking all the links together shows that the topic would be better off without the persistent pushing of a point of view. The libel issue above shows the passion involved—this is the Internet, and if an editor cannot tolerate a poke from an opponent without testing the borders of NLT, they are not a good fit. Rather than reaching for a lawyer, an appropriate response would be to either confirm that the editor's students have edited or commented in the topic, or deny it with a brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose- while I do agree that Memills needs to be better behaved, it also appears to me that this is at least partially motivated by a desire to punish Memills for having unpopular opinions. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This point was going to be reached sooner or later, and I say right now is the right time. Memills is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he is here to push his POV. I have jousted with him on talk pages and articles, and I can say from experience that this editor is detrimental to the project. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. We need more neutral editors to edit these areas, not to bus in more editors with a strong POV to balance out the other editors with a strong POV. It's fine to disagree with people or to even have a strong viewpoint, but there's a line that gets crossed when you edit to right great wrongs. I probably wouldn't even have bothered to vote in this discussion except for the legal threat, which seems to indicate that this user is drawn to drama. Without that, maybe I'd be able to assume good faith that the drama would eventually die down. This is too much drama and POV for one user. Maybe a break from such controversial areas will help. If he can edit in other areas without drama or accusations of a feminist conspiracy, then I'd support a lift. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support I would've opposed the proposal if Memills had contributed on different pages, subjects. But surprisingly the editor hasn't. He may appeal, but after 1 - 6 months. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Memills' consistent disruptive editing and POV pushing (e.g., pushing for inclusion of men's rights authors [22][23] and obscure men's rights journals like the "Journal of Male Studies" in the article about Michael Kimmel). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Evidence for why this is appropriate can be seen from the user's responses in this very thread. jps (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban based on material presented. I don't know that we actually have permanent bans. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Moot because Memills is blocked per NLT with talk page access revoked. Accordingly, this thread can probably be closed. 69.174.58.36 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A bug in edit messages

• I made these 2 edits to page Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. In both, something added "Bot-reported: " to the start of my edit comment, although I am not a bot. (I am an admin.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a fairly common section edit summary. Werieth (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's the section name. VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dab solver

• A tag at the top of a disambig page advised me to use Dabsolver. Clicking the link sent me to https://tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/dab_fix_list.php , but my Firefox couldn't find the server at tools.wmflabs.org . When is Dabsolver running? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to be working me if I go to https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Dab_solver ... Or have I completely misunderstood the question? Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There seem to be intermittent internet problems in parts of the UK today (quite severe here in Liverpool where there are whole domains inaccessible), so I don't know if that might have anything to do with it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure review: Coat of arms of Mauritius

I have started a closure review for Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius#RfC: Which coat of arms should be used?.

1. 26 May 2014: Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed the RfC after an WP:ANRFC request for closure post I made.
2. 27 May 2014: Kingroyos (talk · contribs) undid the close, writing in the edit summary "i will have to invite more users to discuss it, sorry for the lateness".
3. 28 May 2014–11 June 2014: Further discussion occurred.
4. 20 June 2014: Number 57 (talk · contribs) closed the RfC after a second WP:ANRFC request for closure post I made.
5. 24 June 2014–26 June 2014: Kingroyos discussed the closure with Number 57 at User talk:Number 57#Coat of arms of Mauritius.
6. 25 June 2014: Kingroyos reverted the close, writing in the edit summary "wrong conclusion made about discussion, there is clearly no support to use Escondites COA".
7. 25 June 2014: Number 57 asked for review of the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Editor reverts closure of RfC due to disagreement with outcome.
8. 25 June 2014: De728631 closed the RfC, writing in the edit summary "reviewed and reclosed; I concur with Number 57 that there is no consensus for either version".
9. 26 June 2014: I restored Number 57's close, writing that "This RfC was independently closed as no consensus by two admins".
10. 28 June 2014: Kingroyos edited the close, writing:

    The result of the discussion was: consensus reached. The question here is to choose the best one between the two COA which is available, whether it can still be improve later is a different matter and what specifically need to be change is still unclear. Among the issues raised, it was noted that Escondites COA had a wrong Shield and Banner, there is a clear consensus that the new COA is closer to being accurate as among users who ask for improvements, they did mention the new COA was still better while no one supported Escondites version, and there were votes for Kingyoros' work. Kingroyos (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

11. 28 June 2014: Armbrust reverted Kingroyos' edit to the close.
12. 28 June 2014: GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) wrote on User talk:Kingroyos:

    If you disagree with the decision of the RFC, fair enough; but please file a closure review at WP:AN. You should not revert or change the close. If you continue to do so, then your edits will be considered disruptive and you will be blocked from editing.

I have opened this discussion to allow uninvolved editors to review the close.

Please consider Kingroyos' summary of the consensus and Number 57's and De728631's summary of the consensus. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)