Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 117 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 82 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)

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

(Initiated 65 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals#RFC: Should we add a section about proposals for adding prominent links to crisis hotlines at the tops of articles?

(Initiated 45 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 42 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	5	34	39
TfD	0	0	1	9	10
MfD	0	0	1	5	6
FfD	0	0	1	4	5
RfD	0	0	0	98	98
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

(Initiated 49 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany

(Initiated 38 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Endings by year

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

(Initiated 297 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 145 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 123 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 121 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 111 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)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 90 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 82 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)

Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

(Initiated 47 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 33 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

(Initiated 32 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Requested move 6 September 2024

(Initiated 21 days ago on 6 September 2024). Discussion has died down and last vote comment was a week ago. Raladic (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 21 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_15_September_2024

(Initiated 12 days ago on 15 September 2024) Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, which has several opposes, this is not a "clear consensus to move". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Schools and "presumed automatic notability"

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

---

Can anybody point me to a consensus that outright says schools have "presumed automatic notability", where it absolves creating editors from the need to assert notability, and grants these articles special status based on it? this AFD and village pump (policy). I am not looking to start a new discussion, just for somebody to fill me in where this "presumed automatic notability" that I am hearing so much about originates from (and how I can get some? lol). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some links and such here that may be useful.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't even think about challenging it. Trust me on this: every single clipping from every single newspaper will be mined to prove that there is coverage in reliable independent sources. It is a complete waste of time to even try to delete an article on a school. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: if that is what we have to light a fire and prevent them stagnating (like it was at the time of AFD nom [2]) or being padded with unencyclopedic content (The inability to find a german teacher is not encyclopedic [3]). I re-reviewed the AFD and changed my vote. I fear though that it takes an AFD to get these articles anywhere near encyclopedic. An exemption from A7, and the significant amount of effort to list something at AFD makes it really simple to create stub articles with very little effort. This was my one of my primary concerns. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these articles are also where some of the most atrocious and damaging BLP violations occur.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I quote the WP:VP(p) page — This discussion is confusing "exempt from speedy deletion" as being the same as "automatically notable". Primary schools are most definitely not assumed to be notable, and we normally delete them or redirect them to relevant pages, e.g. for US schools, to the school district article. As far as speedy deletion is concerned, we consider schools important enough that they always should be given a chance, rather than being deleted without several days of waiting and/or discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Even at AfD, high schools are generally presumed notable. Not all are, but most have so much coverage, it's like taking a US congressman to AfD--you've got to be aware that sources will almost certainly be there. Those sources are often local, but almost always massive. At least in the US (building the building, sports, alum coverage, etc.). Hobit (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's more that some people will go out of their way to keep any article on a high school. This amuses me: the school I went to is over a thousand years old - half a millennium older than Eton - and is still considered minor in the real world. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm interesting in learning more about the school, But you don't have to disclose it if you don't want to. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: It's on his talk page. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a good place to start, although is more of a "what has happened in the past" rather than showing where discussions are.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just had my fingers burned at AfD because of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is farcical. Some of the subject-specific guidelines really do need to go. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To flesh out Sitush's point: as was discussed on the India Project talkpage, there are roughly 1.5 million schools in India, including about 250,000 secondary schools. We can prove the existence of each of these schools for a particular year (which as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says is often enough for the article to be kept at AFD) because there is a government database of schools containing some basic raw stats. However for most of these schools, there is absolutely no independent media coverage (or even school websites) so they will fail to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG etc... yet possibly survive both speedy deletions and AFD. At the project-page we were able to dissuade bot-creation of articles on all Indian schools, but nothing really prevents this under current standards used in the area. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much been true at AFD that a high school is deemed notable - whether or not sources exist (ROUTINE or otherwise) for easily a decade now. One of Wikipedia's more idiotic inconsistencies, imnsho. Resolute 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Its because many such discussions have involved Western Highschools where it is easy to find reliable coverage. For instance in the US, pretty much every Highschool has easily generated enough coverage to make a plausible claim of notability, it just requires finding it. While AfD precedents are non-binding, they are informative. If someone is really convince a particular school has no coverage by reliable sources, WP:OUTCOMES doesn't prohibit nominating it for deletion. We just love talking about Highschool related stuff in local and regional newspapers in the US, thus creating notability. Monty₈₄₅ 19:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the editors with an interest in school related articles tend to assume that this also holds true for high schools in other countries, when it doesn't, and pile on in AfDs with keep votes. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We should apply WP:BURDEN a little more often and rigorously. And we should of course discount passing mentions, which includes government lists, directories and so on that basically just verify existence. Most schools in the UK are no more notable than me, and I'm not notable despite numerous appearances in newspapers etc. Yes, there are stories about them but they tend to be trivial things: new headmaster, retiring teacher, a promo piece for good exam results etc: that sort of thing is better hosted on a schools directory website which, I am fairly sure, is what those parents consult who do not just accept word of mouth and the limitations of their catchment area. Or perhaps that is just the parents I know. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• The big problem, as alluded to above, is that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is primarily based on cases involving Western schools in the United States, the UK and Australia where the population is smaller and less dense and self-interest is (and I'm from the last of those three countries) rampant. As Monty rightly points out, local coverage of local high schools is almost inevitable where a wealthier middle-class is available to support incredibly local press (my region has a population of about 1/2 a million and has multiple newspapers; a friend of mine in China said his "town" had a population of 20 million and just one local print newspaper. But there is a need for as many high schools in his town as in my entire country). Of course, as soon as you suggest that a high school in the US is notable (because of extensive local coverage) but a high school in China isn't (because there isn't enough coverage to even confirm the name) you get shouted down on the basis of institutional bias. Embrace the nonsense, is my suggestion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So that is all a local notability - does a local notability really take precedent over a global notability? Anyone who has done a PhD will have some publications, even if it is only in a local (national) science journal. That means that anyone with a PhD is notable because references can be found. Many people going to a secondary school nowadays get articles in local newspapers because they .. made a homerun in the local baseball game, or were dancing in a local ballet performance. If having a local mention equals being notable, then everything is passing that bar. That combined with the problems with these articles (BLP-issues, plain spam/advertising/promotion, etc.) makes it maybe time for a dedicated RfC regarding notability of local schools where the level of notability should be set to a certain national/global standard, followed by implementation of that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that one of the factors in the "presumed automatic notability" is that Jimbo Wales once said this. Deor (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Deor: - heh, so if I would have come in as a newbie and write an article about myself (I've been in local newspapers when I was young), and about my primary school (has been mentioned in local news - I think it recently burned down), and the local supermarket (which IIRC changed a couple of times of owner, and hence was featured in the local news), then all would be fine .. I wonder what would happen if I would try now ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds right, Dirk Beetstra. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a topic, does my school Placer High School, even have enough notability? Granted, we have a few notable alumni like an Olympic Gold Medalist, I'm not sure... -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTINHERITED. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia has moved to much higher standards in terms of source requirements in the last 5-10 years and so this outcome is no longer as clear. Of course, those of us that think that notability!=important but instead notability==reliable sources (even local) would consider that a bad thing... Hobit (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing that frustrated me was a lack of common sense. The first WP:RS added to the article, and I quote, focused on "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes ... ([4]) with the argument for WP:GNG based on the WP:RS coverage. If every recorded faculty related issue/shortage was actually notable, we have a problem in our definition of notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, notability is about coverage. Just because you or I consider it to be a minor issue isn't relevant to WP:N. I realize Wikipedia is going away from that (see my webpage for a bit of prose about this), but our guidelines, as written, don't ask editors to identify "important" just "coverage". And that's no mistake, it was exactly the original goal of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hobit: I agree, but the school wars were bruising and as usual with Wikipedia there was an imbalance of motivation: those motivated to include them were much more committed to the cause than those of us who were more concerned with WP:NOTDIR. I think revisiting it will only cause the same problem again. At least pruning schoolcruft from articles gives a source teachable moments - the editor responsible for adding the cruft might actually learn something about good editing practice. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, while I'm of the opinion we should have these articles, I agree there often can be some pruning and learning that can (and needs) to happen here. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here's the problem that no one seems to want to recognize: the elephant in the room. There is no policy, and never has been, and never will be, which says "Every school of high-school level or higher can have an article at Wikipedia and it can never be deleted". You will never see a policy worded that way, you will never see anything CLOSE to that, nor will you see any policy which says that high school articles are exempt from any Wikipedia policy or guideline explicitly. However, you'll never actually get one deleted. Ever. You can certainly try. You can certainly claim (rightly so, maybe even) that schools are not exempt from the normal standards of articles, and you will even be correct in every one of your arguments, and perfectly sound with regards to policy and everything else. And that all doesn't mean shit. School articles don't get deleted. That's a statement of fact based on almost a decade of deletion discussions and mounds of evidence. Don't look for reasons, you'll give yourself an aneurysm. Just come to accept it as a fact of existence, which lacks any real policy-based backing, but exists nonetheless, and move on. You'll be much happier for it. --Jayron32 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well said, and I will add that similar arguments can be made about other aspects of Wiki-reality as well. It's the difference between things as they should be and things as they are. BMK (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Exactly what I was inferring above, but put far more eloquently. Resolute 22:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• There needs to be an RFC on schools to document and base in the guidelines the longstanding community consensus at AfD: that secondary schools are presumed notable and that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. I've explained the valid rationale for this widely accepted tradition numerous times and am getting tired of it. We don't need to waste volunteer time investigating and fighting over whether this or that school is notable or not — the deletionists need to give a little and the inclusionists need to give a little and we need to accept the way that things have been (per OUTCOMES) is the way that things are. We already auto-keep populated places, rivers, mountains, highways, and professional athletes, etc. — it is not shocking or a departure to auto-keep high schools. Carrite (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but populated places is another crock of crap, isn't it? Define a populated place. Even the street upon which I live, comprising around 30 nondescript Victorian houses right at the bottom end of the "property ladder", and one of around maybe 10,000 streets in the town, could be called a "populated place". I could get the sources now: loads of trivial newspaper mentions - a burglary here, some traffic problems there, a planning application, my neighbour arrested yet again. I could probably do the same for at least half of the individual houses on the street, not one of which holds any real interest at all except perhaps to its present and former occupants. In other words, just like many schools, villages in India and so on. Who can stop me doing this? Why do we delete local heroes because their significant/non-passing mention coverage etc is only local but local schools are kept even though the same often applies? OUTCOMES ended up as it is because of the work of what amounts to an on-wiki pressure group, not because it makes any sense or is "right". At some point, we're going to have to revisit this because we simply cannot handle what we have, let alone what is to come (such as the 1.5 million Indian schools referred to above). - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• An automatically notable populated place is usually an incorporated municipality or a formerly-incorporated municipality (or an equivalent, such as a census-designated place in the U.S.). If it was never incorporated, then the community must pass WP:GNG or be listed in a specialist encyclopedia. (For example, I start articles on any community listed in the Handbook of Texas). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We're certainly not gonna be able to investigate 1.5 million Indian schools on a case-by-case basis at AfD. You are making my case for me that there need to be Auto-Keep and Auto-Redirect rules of thumb, my friend... Carrite (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wait until you see the BLP violations, promo/puffery etc: the load will have to be borne somewhere, regardless. It is bad enough with universities, many of which in India award degrees of no merit whatsoever and exist mainly as part of the corrupt, self-aggrandising society that is the norm there. Private schools and universities (that is, non-public sector) should be treated as if they were businesses, not places of education. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

In the UK the promo and puffery exists, too - and the opposite as well. I was told recently of a senior school leader who created a Wikipedia article, not on his own school, but on a rival school down the road so that he could highlight their poorer than usual exam results the previous year. Given some of the secondary school articles I've seen - and the fact that with the effective cutting of school budgets the number of students they attract is now vital to their existence - I wouldn't be surprised if that happens a lot. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes. It isn't limited to South Asia. I've seen some truly awful US examples and can vaguely remember spending a few days dealing with rivalry-inspired vandalism on one or two of them. The point about India is the sheer number, the fact that someone (from the schools project?) was indeed wanting to bot-create the lot, and the ill-fated WMF "push" there that has mostly just added to our woes rather than improved anything. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And I am going to repeat again, what is true for all of your secondary schools, is practically true for any person as well - there are not a lot of people in the western world who make it through ('notable') secondary schools without a mention in a local newspaper (I'd have to dig in storage, I should have the newspaper clippings showing that I have passed my first swimming diploma once when I was about 6 years old, heck, the archives of that might even be online nowadays). If a secondary school is notable because they got a mention in a local newspaper because of a school recital that took place in the local community hall, then try to defend that people are not-notable when they got a mention in the local newspaper when they got their first swimming diploma. And then, primary schools are not notable when they are mentioned in local newspapers, but secondary schools are? These are just accumulations of disregarded WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-arguments, selectively applied to secondary schools. I again ask for a proper RfC, aiming at setting a minimum level of notability significantly beyond local notability, and a deletion spree which deletes anything that does not pass the bar that has been determined in that RfC. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"If a secondary school is notable because they got a mention in a local newspaper because of a school recital that took place in the local community hall" - That would count as a "routine announcement" which wouldn't count under WP:GNG anyway. When somebody looks for notable info, it means "not-routine" things. Examples: Articles on expanding the building or building a new building, changes in the attendance zone, a scandal regarding test scores, a case study on a good education program, the school's brand-new opening, etc. Many of these articles may be found in "newspaper of record"-type publications.

Speaking of "local" notability, I think any sourcing from regional "newspapers of record" should be exempt from that designation. For example the Houston Chronicle is the "newspaper of record" in the Houston area and I think any concept: person, book, etc. with enough sourcing from such a newspaper should count as passing GNG anyway. Many U.S. metropolitan areas have larger populations than entire countries, and the service areas of these newspapers are often very large. This article from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology states that the Houston Chronicle has a higher proportional readership than a national newspaper such as The New York Times. The readership for the Chronicle is about 40% of the City of Houston while the readership of the NYT is 1.6% of the entire country.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

With regard to an example used earlier on geographic places: we have never held that all streets should be considered notable. In my early years in WP I did argue that a few times, but usually to defend some street where there was a prospect of notability. The problem there, as with schools, comes down to what is counted as an acceptable sources and the difficulty in finding them. With enough systematic work, I could probably document every street in downtown Brooklyn or any similar city where local newspapers going back to the 19th century are available. By current standards, we'd probable call most of these mere notices. Similarly even for geographic features, there's a level of significance we do not go below. We don';t include every marked trail in a national park, we don't include isolated houses on a map, even if they have a local name, when don't include named small parts of bays , or hills or the like. The current version is not totally comprehensive coverage, it too is a compromise. And the same is true even in fields where I think our coverage is already absurdly great like athletics--I could make an argument for including every high school athletic team--again, based on local papers. Everything we do here is in practice a compromise. We try to accommodate everyone's interests to a certain degree, rather than fight over whose interests are the more important, and the operative principle is that I'll put up with your hobby if you put up with mine. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My point about random streets was that someone claimed the schools outcomes thing arose because it is presumed that sources will exist. The same can be said of most streets. If that was indeed the basis of outcomes (which is now a self-perpetuating device) then it needs to be revisited. It is nothing to do with hobbies: this is an encyclopaedia and we should not indulge trivia or things that are better dealt with by other projects and websites. - Sitush (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

People need to be able to participate in Wikipedia as a casual hobby. If they are unable to do that, they may get frustrated and quit... and never become better editors. We're already having user participation issues. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

On the brink of collapse

Lately, especially in the last days, it feels like we're on Titanic after already hitting the iceberg and taking in water, but before starting to sink. Everywhere we look, there are backlogs building up. I just had a look at WP:SPI where there are open cases stretching back to April. WP:ANV looks good right now, but I've frequently seen a 10-hour backlog during which vandals manage a lot of damage. At WP:ANI, more and more discussions are never closed. I'd say an unclosed report is always a bit of a failure; many are not good but could be still be closed. We've come to a situation where backlogs are now feeding themselves. For instance, the lack of a attention to a user's unblock request led to a rant on WP:ANI [5]. (The request was perhaps unfounded, but then it could have been turned down). Despite the pointy cabal accusations, the subsequent discussion showed that many users (and admins) have noted this same problem. Same thing today, again a post on WP:ANI about the lack of attention [6]. In fairness, it was dealt with rather quickly, but it was such an obvious case it could have been quicker. These are just a few examples, but I see more and more such examples and, worryingly enough, more and more good, serious users as well as admins commenting on it [7], [8], [9], [10]. I'm not saying there's one single case that is very serious (I haven't seen it) and I certainly have launched no unaddressed report myself that would require immediate admin intention. But the general picture is beginning to look worrying. Admins do a fantastic job here, an unpaid and voluntary job and the usual "thanks" is abuse and insults and accusations. The last thing I intend is to accuse any admin, and I don't think any other established user do either. Notwithstanding that admins do all they can, though, if this situation continues, Wikipedia will be in problem. The whole structure is reliant on vandals, socks, conflicts and disruptive users being addressed quickly. The more time it takes, the more damage is done which in turns require more time to sort out, and which can push serious users away, and we're quickly entering a downward spiral. Not calling for any quick fix, nor for admin attention to any specific issue, but for a good discussion about what we can all do.Jeppiz (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your links are helpful, thanks. The two most recent discussions I'm aware of are WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_120#Proposed_user_right:_Vandal_fighter and WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_119#Last chance for a while. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, those discussions are very relevant. I agree with the premise. Given the current situation, I think extending some responsibilities to established users in rather straightforward matters would free up some time for admins to focus on the more complex issues.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• While we can certainly use more admins, I disagree with some of what your pointing to. To start with AIV, it is rare for a blatant case of vandalism, were the vandal was fully warned, (4 escalating warnings followed by another act of vandalism) to not result in a quick block. If there is a report there more than 60 minutes old, it is almost always a more ambiguous case. For example, I'm very cautious about blocking genre warriors reported to AIV, because my own understanding of Genre sucks; not in a position to make a judgement either way, genre warrior reports pile up, and may not be actioned for a few hours, creating an appearance that AIV has a long backlog, when it only sort of does. As for reports on AN/I not being closed, until a year or two ago, reports at AN/I were not regularly closed unless it was a specific proposal that needed a consensus determination. Not every thread on AN/I needs to have a definitive outcome, sometimes they just fizzle out and the issue doesn't arise again. There are real backlogs, but its typically not critical time sensitive things like active vandalism, but things like RM, where another month is annoying, but wont be the end of the world. Monty₈₄₅ 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I would probably describe it more as "on the decline" than "on the brink of collapse". I don't really have any "big picture" solutions for you though. I've just been trying to do my part, ie I've recently learned and started contributing to CSD for the first time in these last few months. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I spend some time at AIV, and Monty's assessment is in the right direction. The majority of the backlog isn't accounts that need to be blocked, it's bad reports that need to be declined. I'd say that, most days, far more than 50% of the reports I respond to are not valid AIV reports, and I have to spend a considerable amount of time crafting an explanation as to why they are being declined, usually some variation of "Vandalism is not a synonym for edits I disagree with". Most of the old AIV reports are simply ones admins have looked at and decided no block was needed, but didn't bother to write a decline rationale. You can know this by watching the history of AIV, where the really obvious vandals often only remain mere minutes, but the "This guy keeps changing the genre and I don't like it!" stuff hangs around a long time. The backlog would go away at AIV (and I suspect many other boards) if over-eager vigilantes would stop biting the newbs and creating frivolous reports that have to get dealt with. --Jayron32 01:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jayron, I take your word for it and I'm sure there are lots of bad reports, possibly even bad faith reports. As I said, none of what I address here is a criticism of any admin decision, there is no particular case that made me comment but rather a thought building up over several weeks. I have seen some obvious vandals (who eventually were blocked) remain much longer, but could it perhaps also be a matter of time zones? While English Wikipedia is fairly global, I'd still guess there could be times when there are less admins around than at other times. As as I also said, AIV is probably the least worrisome of the different places I mentioned.Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jayron, would a verbose but standard template be useful to you in declining those inappropriate reports? I'm thinking about something that includes a Venn diagram drawing, to explain that vandalism is only one type of unwanted ("bad") edit—"edits that create problems" and the subset of "edits that create problems and the editor was intentionally trying to create problems". Or maybe we should try better instructions. I have some ideas; I'll post them at WT:AIV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe in templates. If someone is worth talking to, they're worth my time to directly talk to them, not templating. I never use user talkpage warning templates. If I feel the need to explain something to someone on their user talk page, I have the decency and respect to leave a personalized message, TYVM. --Jayron32 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are a few things that could be done. The most logical (and, unfortunately, the most unlikely) would be to tighten registration procedures to ban IP editing and require some sort of significant registration process to edit. This would reduce vandalism by an enormous percentage, lightening workload. Second would be an unbundling of tools to enlarge the anti-vandalism force. Third would be an expansion of the pool of administrators through an easing of the RFA process. We approved a record low 22 new admins in 2014 and are on a pace to set a new record low in 2015. Desysopping of inactive administrators will once again top the 50 mark. There are less than 600 administrators with 30 or more edits in the last 2 months, which is a very loose definition of "active." The question is: how many are really needed? Carrite (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP aspect. A vast majority of the vandalism and misconduct I have to deal with comes from IPs who feel they can hide behind the veil of anonymity. As long as registration is free, I personally don't think that it violates the "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" mantra, though from what I've observed, there's quite an opposition to this though, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are two theories here that could do with being tested and proved, qualified or refuted. The first is that allowing IP editing is the secret sauce that built this site, partly because a large proportion of goodfaith editors start with a few IP edits before they create an account. The second is that most vandals will do the minimum necessary to vandalise wikipedia - so if we require them to create accounts they will do so and thereby become harder to spot, and the editors we lose by requiring registration will predominately be goodfaith ones. Personally I'd expect to see either theory if properly tested would give sufficient grounds to justify continued IP editing. But if someone persuaded the WMF to do the research and both theories were tested and refuted then I would be willing to change my view . ϢereSpielChequers 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Monty, well argued disagreement is always the best thing. Support is nice, badly argued disagreement annoying, but well argued disagreement is both nice and instructive. I agree that I've only rarely see AIV with a big backlog, though those rare occasions are all recent. I agree it's not the my main concern. About AN/I, I would argue that closure is always a good thing. Quite a large number of unclosed cases tend to come back sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that does not happen with closed cases, but if a case has been closed and comes back without any major development, it's a very easy close by just referring to the old one. Even though closing cases take some time, I'd posit it may be a time saver in the long run. And Sergecross73, of course "on the decline" is a more accurate description than on the brink of collapse, pardon my somewhat dramatical exaggeration. But ideally, we would not want decline either, right? Carrite, I think you nail it, thanks for those very relevant (and slightly worrying) statistics. With an already low number of active admins, and an actual decline in the number of admins both in 2014 and (on current trends) in 2015, it's little wonder the situation is becoming more difficult. While I agree with Sergecross73 about decline rather than collapse, it's not rare than a slow decline rapidly becomes a large decline when a critical point is reached. The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go.Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, I do definitely get what you're saying overall. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good to hear, thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The backlog issue has been going on for sometime. The 10hr backlog mentioned in the lead is nothing compared to the one at WP:CFD which goes back to 17 January (as of typing this). I'd like to invite the latest appointments at WP:RFA, namely Jakec, Opabinia regalis and Ritchie333 to help out. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How is this their problem in particular, out of all the people who might help? I'm thinking of the 500 to 600 admins who are still editing regularly, the Wikipedians who could probably become admins if they ran at RfA, and non-admins, who only differ from admins in not having extra buttons to push. Who would want to run for RfA if being a new admin makes you responsible for problems that aren't yours? - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No backlog is anyone's problem, but all these alluded to helping out with backlogs, and surprise surprise, none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being active. I guess not. And speaking of the other 500 to 600 admins - what the hell are they all doing? I bet if anyone started a thread on this very board questioning one of them, it would be locked down in no time at all, but when there's work to be done, they're nowhere to be seen. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, my goal here isn't to get this page "locked down" when you or anyone says something uncomfortable about what admins are or aren't doing; you're asking reasonable questions. There's work to be done here that's not getting done, and there's a wide range of approaches the community might take to make the workload a little easier or get more people doing the work ... I don't have a position on that, and I'd prefer to stay neutral. Until the community makes some progress on this, the best we can hope for is to at least avoid various negative feedback loops that might make the problem worse. For instance, if new admins become scapegoats for the larger problem, then obviously, we'll have fewer new admins. (Not that you're scapegoating them, but that's the risk of focusing on the newest admins.) OTOH, it wouldn't be inappropriate to get the word out to all active admins, and to everyone else who might be willing to help, that we're falling behind on some things that we probably don't want to fall behind on, and help would be appreciated (help of any kind that lightens the load or gets more work done ... for instance, help with triage, or making the jobs easier, or figuring out better ways to delegate work, or increasing throughput at RfA). - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is a volunteer here, not an employee. The problems are not the fault of the 500-600 remaining admins, they are the fault of the stupidity that is RFA. Of course there's going to be a gradual reduction in admins; people lose interest, get jobs, have families, and all the other things that reduce their time to edit here. When I passed RfA in 2007 I had plenty of time to edit Wikipedia; now I don't. I get a few minutes here and there, or if I have a bit of time I hit the AfD backlog for a little while. But the facts are these; in 2014 there were 34 succesful RfAs ... in 2007 there were 408. Until the community gets its act together and makes RfA easier to pass (or gets rid of some of the stupidity that causes admins to not bother any more), the situation will continue to deteriorate. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

22 in 2014, and we're on track to produce fewer this year. It's not as bleak as it sounds, but there are decisions that need to be made. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would run for RfA and reduce the backlog if someone could only convince me that one of the following isn't true: [A] I would go through hell during the RfA, and [B] I would almost certainly lose the election. In other words, I would tolerate going through hell if I thought that there was a chance of winning, and I would take my chances despite almost certain failure if doing so did not involve going through hell. I just want to help the encyclopedia in wikignomish ways and have zero desire for "power" over others.

BTW, I know exactly how to become an admin. Stop getting involved in discussions at AN, ANI, RSN, etc,, stop mediating at DRN, pick a poor-quality, uncontroversial article that nobody seems to be editing or watching and create high-quality content, withdrawing and moving on if anyone disagrees with me in any way, and repeat that pattern for at least a year. In other words, avoid anything that in any way resembles what an administrator is asked to do. Again, I do want to help but the price is too high. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

I agree with User:Guy Macon. The procedure to become an admin has become one of avoiding all controversies and bringing a few articles up to FA status; but bringing articles up to FA status has nothing to do with how the mop is used. The RFA process is seriously broken, and gives too much attention to editors who have Enemies Lists. The English Wikipedia community is not about to come up with a consensus on how to fix RFA. It is time for the WMF to do something, but the WMF thinks that the English Wikipedia is a grand success story, which it is if one looks only at the numbers of articles and editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the community as collectively misbehaving or slow-witted, on this or any issue. I think we decided in previous RfCs that the best course was to avoid any drastic changes ... and, knowing as little as I know, I'm not in a position to say that was the wrong call. I'm not sure how we proceed if a future RfC determines that something should be done, but we can't agree on what to do; that's going to require some finesse. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's all true, to be an admin you have to do things which you wouldn't expect an admin to do and even then do you really want to go through an RFA only to receive your new toys but with a higher scrutiny and a reluctance to ever use them because someone is waiting for you to trip up? I don't gnome in any big way, stuck to RFPP these days but I'd still like to take on the dumb mundane tasks nobody else wants to, we need admins who'll do gruntwork other admins wouldn't because they were selected as content creators, not for their skills in actual areas where an admin is necessary. I wouldn't ever pass an RFA as it stands now so most of this is moot besides the fact we really have no clue how to gain new admins that'll use the tools anymore than how to retain editors. tutterMouse (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I've checked the logs for the three new admins you mention, all have easily enough logged admin actions since their RFAs to qualify as active admins, so I think it unfair to single them out - may I suggest you strike your "none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being [sic] active." We do have admins who have yet to perform a hundred logged actions, none of those three are in that group, and I suspect some who are are among the admins who got the bit in order to get rollback before it was unbundled. We may once have had new admins going through RFA and then not using the tools, but I don't see that happening now. ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice of you to check that and reply on their behalf. I guess they're far too busy to come here to reply in person. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That assumes they knew they you were criticising them and they had something to reply to. How did you inform them of this thread? I don't see a note from you on their talkpages. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

They were linked in my initial post with the username template, so the notification system would have alerted them to this thread. So they either don't have that function turned on (which would be odd in their role) or they've chosen to ignore this. I'll go with the latter. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your ping to User:Opabinia regalis would not have worked because you corrected the user name in a second edit—notifications do not respond to such edits because that would re-notify any correctly listed users. In addition, there have been reports of apparently correct notifications not being received, so in general they should not be relied on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I love how they're being defended to the bitter end. You'd think a board titled Administrators' noticeboard with the heading "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators" would be looked at by administrators on a regular basis. C'mon, lets hear the next poor excuse for them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are inevitably parts of a 5,000,000 article domain (not to metion so many multiples of administrations) that never stood up, so collapse is not possible. Effective triage still occurs, but whole swathes are built not to be cared about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Fundamentally, a consensus driven organization where everyone can participate will never be efficient. It has wonderful virtues, but efficiency is not one of them. If one has to be efficient, one needs fixed authority, and thebest part of our approach to vandalism is some purely mechanical operations, such as the edit filters. I think that part of the problem is our tendency to prefer discussion to work. Looking both here and at ANI, for example, or at some of the other noticeboards, we are spending an inordinate amount of time to decide simple questions, including repeating ones. Some of it is inevitable because we have no way of permanently fixing decisions nor is it easy to think of how a consensus based system could do so. (NOT PRINT is a handicap here, not a help; with print, what is printed is printed & the discussions are limited to the new items) . But some of it could be helped by an agreement on focus and time limits. There are too many of us (myself sometimes included) who often seem to be here primarily to show off how well we can argue. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• I can't improve on what Jeppiz said above: "The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go." The question for me is whether any kind of negative feedback loops are kicking in yet, and if so, what we can do about that, before people get discouraged and the problem becomes harder to solve. Does anyone want to offer to look at supply-and-demand problems concerning admin-related work over the next month or so and make some kind of report? Does anyone want to offer to help close some relevant RfC in about a month? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) (I don't mean this should be formal, only that it would be nice to give everyone a month so everyone gets a chance to have a say and no one is rushed, just as we do for RfCs.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The sad part is that, were I to become an admin, working on various backlogs is pretty much the only admin work I would do. I really have no desire to deal with difficult editors and their behavior problems using any tool other than persuasion. Boring, repetitive work, on the other hand, is very relaxing to me after my real-life job of dealing with disputes between engineers. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a level of adminship that would allow a worker drone to be upgraded to have powers of deletion? I'm guessing not, but Guy highlights a good point that would help. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion is harder to unbundle than blocking. I can't remember the last time we had an RFA fail because the candidate had been making overzealous AIV reports, but we get plenty of RFAs fail because the community doesn't think the candidate is ready for the deletion button. I can think of several RFAs that have failed because the candidate had been overzealous with tagging for speedy deletion at Newpage patrol. ϢereSpielChequers 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Difficulty of unbundling certain tools seems like a problem, but it really isn't. If we as a community decided that we wanted to unbundle deletion, we could simply have RfAs for no-deletion admins, have them promise not to delete, and desysop them if they do. There are all sorts of things admins are not allowed to do that are technically allowed by the Wikimedia software. This would simply become one more of them. There are zero technical obstacles to unbundling. The only obstacle is that we have not agreed that unbundling is something that we want to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the successful unbundlings such as template editing, file mover and of course Rollbacker, there are some common threads. These are tools that can be used independently of the rest of the admin toolset, there are people who wouldn't pass RFA but we would trust with that tool and the solution was to actually separate the tool so it could be given out on its own (I don't know why, but there are a number of RFA !voters who will oppose candidates who give undertakings that they will never use certain parts of the toolset). Blocking new and unregistered vandals fits all those criteria, and non admins can judge whether the block was a good one or not. Unbundling deletion would be a very different kettle of fish - I can't see how anyone could be trusted to delete but not to be an admin, non admins cannot check deleted pages to see if they agree with deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've been keeping an eye on RFA numbers and admin numbers for several years now, and at first glance we have a huge problem with RFA having collapsed in early 2008. But first glances are notoriously misleading, the early 2008 change at RFA came immediately after the unbundling of Rollback, we have since had thousands of rollbackers appointed, and many of us support the flip side of that - "good vandalfighter" is no longer sufficient qualification to pass RFA, some examples of adding reliably sourced content are now required. If Rollback had been unbundled a couple of years earlier I believe many vandalfighting admins would never have gone through RFA. Of course the logical corollary of that is that we should also unbundle "block Ips and Newbies" so that vandalfighters can block vandals but only admins can block or unblock the regulars. The subsequent decline is more troubling and has put us below replacement level, but the good thing is that once people become admins they usually stick around for a long time. So whilst I think the current situation unhealthy, and it can't be a good thing that eventually we will have insufficient admins, but at present I worry more because of the wikigeneration gulf that has emerged between an admin cadre dominated by people who have been admins for many years and an active editing community many of whom rightly or wrongly see adminship as out of reach. To me we will have entered a negative feedback stage when our remaining admins start giving up the tools because the number of stray requests on their talkpage to use the admin tools interferes with their hobby of editing, and from my own experience that is not even close. That said new and returning admins would be welcome, there are plenty of active editors who could easily pass RFA if they ran (if you think that might be you feel free to email me). ϢereSpielChequers 08:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is probably a tipping point for successful RfAs. Candidates need experience, and that bar has risen substantially over the years, but the longer someone has been here the more chance there is that they have upset some people and that those people will come out of the woodwork. I am an extreme example but there is a running gag about how many sockfarms and POV pushers would turn up at any RfA by me. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• There used to be a theory that if you hadn't made admin before you completed 10,000 edits you never would, that theory has been long disproved, now we even have one or two !voters who will oppose candidates who have done less than 10,000 edits. As for the idea that the longer you are editing the more wiki enemies you acquire, I don't see RFA working that way, opposers who drag up old examples are likely to get a response along the lines of "thanks for demonstrating that the candidate wasn't ready two years ago, do you have any examples that would be relevant to this RFA?" though usually more diplomatically phrased. There are some issues that don't get an editor banned but would torpedo an RFA, however in my experience the RFA community is very focussed on recent months, things from years back are relevant if they show that someone has a skill, not if they used not to have it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's pleasant that there is some social pushback against "ancient history" votes, but does a reply like that actually change the vote? After posting a comment like that, do you see people changing their votes from "I am voting against this candidate, because I'm still holding a grudge from five years ago" to "Sure, I guess I support that editor after all"? Or does it stay with "I'm still voting against that candidate, even if WSC doesn't respect my rationale"? RFA is fundamentally vote-driven, and bureaucrats can only exercise a limited amount of discretion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I honestly can't remember any votes that I would dismiss as "holding a grudge from five years ago". But sometimes yes challenging opposes does change a individual vote, more often it sways other !voters. Just look at how this one went from April 25/26 to the end result, yes at least one oppose was struck but more importantly the pattern of voting switched and it ended as a success. On that occasion one issue was whether we judge a former admin on her previous RFA or on the many admin actions she had done after that RFA. We had another one earlier in the year where a candidate was opposed partly because some of their early articles were recently deleted, unfortunately we weren't able to turn that round before the candidate withdrew, but one of the opposers did strike part of their rationale. I'm fairly sure that the opposers in that RFA were assuming that recently having articles tagged for deletion meant recently creating articles that merited deletion, and that the RFA would have gone differently if the nominator had had access to deleted revisions and pointed out that the candidate had created articles on some not quite notable subjects years ago but hadn't objected to them recently being deleted. The later you are in an RFA the harder it is to turn it round, but I have seen RFAs collapse on day 6 or 7, and also seen RFAS that were heading for no consensus turn into successes. ϢereSpielChequers 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Content creation work without the tools is incredibly painful. I would happily do piles of boring admin tasks just to have them back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why? I don't see that at all. It is frustrating having to run around to find an admin but we cannot use tools where we are involved anyway, so there should be no pain due to lack of holding them. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There are lots of simple actions that you can do yourself where WP:INVOLVED does not apply because they are uncontroversial and undisputed. The most common is moving pages from your draft space to the mainspace. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Like this? - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, like that. It leaves behind a redirect. Like me, you have multiple sandboxes and intend to reuse it by overwriting the redirect with another article. But when you have multiple articles to move you have to resort to a CSD request to remove the the redirect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Hawkeye7: That is something I have been pushing for, allowing established users to suppress redirects. Things like phab:T76266 and phab:T71162 could help, but maybe a permission for it, or bundle it with another permission? I brought it up on meta, but there wasn't any support with the way I badly worded my proposal. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Isolated cases of vandalism don't seem to be an existential threat because the problem will tend to be self-correcting — when readers notice significant vandalism, they will tend to mobilise to correct it. The biggest issue seems to be structural problems which require deep knowledge and access rights to correct. For example, AFD is kept running by some mix of templates, bots, tradition and whatever-else. I have been patrolling it for years but still don't fully understand its ramshackle structure. Today, I was reviewing the daily contents at WP:AFD/T and noticed that the list of discussions had a huge list of other stuff embedded in it. I think I've found the cause but am not sure I should interfere. Anyway, my point is that structural glitches like that pose the biggest threat because they make it difficult for the general mass of readers and editors to engage with and resolve the individual detail problems. Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Vandalism is a massive problem and a very serious one for BLPs etc, which extends a lot further than articles just about individual people. AfD is trivial by comparison and is also "self-correcting" in the sense that unless an article is salted, it can be recreated. In fact, it can be recreated even after salting, just not under the same title. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • One of my hopes for WP:Flow is to (eventually) replace the ramshackle deletion structures with a purpose-built workflow tool that does exactly what we want, automatically, every time, with very little need for bots and manually applied templates. (Also, if Commons' proposes to delete an image that is in use here, then I want to be able to read and participate in their deletion process without leaving the English Wikipedia.) Then we can focus on the actual content, rather than the infrastructure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• If I were a closer in a relevant RfC, I'd have to pay more attention than usual to the mountain of text already devoted to the subject, and I'd be sifting through all the suggestions to try to find where they intersect in some kind of minimal recommended change, on the "do no harm" theory. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And one more thing. (You can tell I'm a Wikipedian, I'm replying to myself.) Every time there's an RfC involving RfA, the throughput at RfA goes up ... and then drops down lower than before afterwards. So even if people are making the argument during the RfC that that month's numbers at RfA aren't worrying, the projected number of first-time admins for 2015 that I would be using if the RfC started today would be 12, because RfA has only produced 5 first-time admins over the last 5 months (along with 3 former admins who regained the tools at RfA ... that's an important number too, but it's a different number). - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• I remember when I first started diving into doing a lot of editing back in 2013, I thought about trying an RfA. I even got a little encouragement. But after looking at a few respected editors' evaluation lists for RfA candidates, I didn't see how anyone who hadn't devoted themselves to extensively editing a wide variety of areas of Wikipedia for less than 3-5 years could ever pass. And that is assuming that they haven't made a lot of enemies! And that's really weird when you look at old RfAs and find editors becoming admins after three months of editing and less than 1,000 edits.
  

I look at Oppose votes in RfAs and sometimes they are cast as a result of a single bad call at an AfD or a bad encounter between editors, especially the Opposes that come later on during the week can seem a bit random and offer no explanation. Some editors see decent, qualified editors get shot down at an RfA and decide, "Why put myself through that?" It doesn't help that a fair number of editors who are unsuccessful at an RfA end up then leaving Wikipedia.

If I could change the RfA process, I'd make editing at places like the Help desk, the reference desks, DRN or the Teahouse just as important as writing an FA. It seems to me that being an effective admin relies more on people skills than content creation. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There has long been a concern amongst some editors that admins in general don't adequately appreciate heavy content contributors,(and thus treat such contributors less favorably than we should when it comes to deleting their hard work, or blocking them) and that the solution is to recruit admins only from those who are themselves heavy content contributors. I think this as faded a fair bit at RFA in the last couple years, but even when it was still going strong, it was possible to get through RFA without a huge amount of content work. You just needed to be a good candidate in other respects, and proactively try to address their concerns. But then very few people are perfect, coming to RFA prepared, knowing what people are going to see as deficiencies, and being prepared to address their concerns goes a long way, even if it flies in the face of the no-big-deal mantra. Monty₈₄₅ 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Liz is right. If you want more admins, then you need to stop making RFA feel like a fraternity hazing program. It's not enough to point out the irony between the "no big deal" fairy tale and the reality (which is more like "preparing for the US presidential debate" than like "no big deal"). You have to actually stop punishing candidates for applying. And if you want good ones, then you need to focus on people who have specialized skills (e.g., tech or copyright) or who are good at dealing with people and dispute resolution. It's far more important for admins to be able to deal with people than to produce brilliant prose. People get desysopped for treating people poorly, not for grammar errors or boring writing styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We used to require at least one FA before an RfA, but when we tightened the FA requirements, it was felt that this was too tough on some editors who might otherwise become good admins. We should reinstate the requirement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(TL;DR the rest of this thread) Let's look at WP:ANV now. I count 27 pending reports in the version I am viewing while writing this. 27 vandals bouncing around breaking things. I do agree there seems to be a problem. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a relatively new, semi-casual editor on the sidelines, I'd say I'd consider doing an RfA on the sole basis of helping out with some of the backlogs and other admin-related gruntwork that needs to be done behind the scenes because I just like doing that sort of thing, but I'm similarly deterred by the heavy emphasis placed on frontend content creation and avoiding squabblesome areas out of the way of mainspace... I'm not the greatest at doing more than gnomey edits and I'm not knowledgeable in topic areas that merit new articles, nor do I know enough to improve existing articles to GA or FA-- not to mention I only joined a few months ago, WP:NOTNOW or whatever, so in general there's a whole host of reasons I'd be turned down on the spot. But I just find myself void of things to do and dare I say it bored, after a couple edits and talkpage posts here and there in the articles I feel comfortable editing, which is frustrating when I know there are so many other parts of the 'pedia back-end that could use mopmeisters who are fine working backstage, but the process is so dramatic and unnecessarily latched onto things that don't determine administrative aptitude of an editor that it's not worth the trouble.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't necessarily mean WP is "falling apart" per se, but it'll likely continue shambling along in a lumpy, broken mess unless a few things are tweaked. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think BlusterBlaster put it perfectly. I would enjoy doing behind the scenes admin work, stuff like AIV requests and move requests that need admin closure to complete. I would like to call myself good at communicating with editors and the like... Sure I may not make the most articles, and I may not have been here very long, but I think my editing history shows I have good judgement and a solid knowledge of Wikipedia policies. But if I took that to an RfA, I would get a speedy not now closure with probably less than 10% support.

Speaking as an editor who's been here a reasonably long time (I've even come up at ANI a couple of times!)...I tend to come here to do gnomeish edits as a way of helping out without getting overly-involved (for instance, I tend to avoid WP on evenings and weekends). I'd consider throwing my hat in the ring at RfA (and my User page has indicated such for quite awhile now), but it seems like I'd be inviting a huge spotlight onto myself for, at best, the chance to help out in somewhat more meaningful ways, and at worst, the chance to attract all kinds of attention that I'm happy not to have in the course of my regular Wikipedia editing. It's a shame that editors who want to help, but generally only in a fairly-limited capacity, can't be given precisely the tools they need to do those jobs; perhaps that would diminish the drama somewhat. Anyway, these comments are worth pretty much exactly the amount you paid to read them. DonIago (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm confused on the question of how far we're falling behind in admin chores. Are some apparent backlogs not really backlogs? I don't know the best way to get at this; some kind of RfC where people could discuss problems and solutions might help, unless there's another way to get the information that isn't coming to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  What is actually badly needed, recommended, but does not seem to be ever attempted is a real analysis of backlogs with the conclusion on where we are standing now. What I see already for a long time are just random statements of the type "look, we have an AIV 24h backlog, it is horrible - No, we have a CFD backlog of 3 month, it is the end of the world". From my experience, 24h AIV backlog is indeed horrible and means vandals are effectively not being stopped at the moment, whereas 3 months CfD backlog is certainly not the end of the world - there are too few policies about categories, most discussions inevitably turn subjective, and often opinions bale to shift the consensus are still coming after two months of discussion. I am not sure how and who can perform this analysis for different types of backlogs, but I would find it difficult to discuss unbundling without these data.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed, and I'd also like to know why we promote fewer admins every year. Is it okay with everyone if I spend some time surveying recent graduates of RfA, asking them what factors caused them to wait as long as they did? I'm asking because I don't want to compromise my neutrality, and miss a chance to keep helping as a closer. I wont suggest any answers, I'll just record and present the data. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just find something you care about, be it an article or a particular administrative task, and pour your heart into it. That way all at once you'll enjoy yourself, you'll make a difference, and you'll be making an impact such that what seemed so insurmountable will quickly prove not to be so. A few years ago I took aim at the unreferenced BLPs, and the number at the time went from 450 to 150, all BLPPRODded, in a month and change. Obviously it didn't stay that way, and it also didn't change the fact that I had a good time resolving a serious problem with 350+ articles. Don't get all freaked out if other backlogs that you aren't working on build up, just focus on yourself; if you find you want to work on one of those then go for it, and don't ever force yourself to do something you really don't have your heart set on. There's always someone to do even those things everyone thinks no one wants to do—I don't know how many people have told me I'm crazy for my interest in sorting out the absolute worst of the ethnic conflicts—and there's no sense torturing yourself on the basis that you owe something to a volunteer effort. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we delete RfAs?

Regarding this - I ask the question here, because I figure that Admins, as a group, are likely to know the answer: Do we actually ever delete RfAs? I've seen them courtesy blanked, but deleted? BMK (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, an admin may want to take a look at the contribution list of DL9C, who made the nomination above, and offer him or her some counseling. It's a pretty strange list for an editor who came on board on April 3. BMK (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If a troll starts an RfA for someone else and the target doesn't want it whatsoever, then sure, delete it. G3 may apply. Example: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Salvidrim. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Was the RFA submitted by the subject, or by someone else for the subject? The discussion, which is going to Keep, is to keep it as evidence against the subject. If it was submitted by someone else, e.g., maliciously, then that should be mentioned in the MFD, and a malicious RFA should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It was submitted by the subject. BMK (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Outside of explicit vandalism or other problematic content (BLPvio, NPA, NLT, copyvio, etc.), failed RfAs started by the nominee should be kept (IMO), no matter how misguided the editor was. Courtesy blanking of old silly RfAs could be considered on a case-by-case basis for "reformed" users. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for general & specific answers. The AfD which began this inquiry has been SNOW KEPT. BMK (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Salvidrim 20:48, 13 May 2015, i hope this is not restricted to RFAs created only by trolls, because I had nothing to do with WIkipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia, which was a good-faith IAR nom by a non-troll, which nonetheless was deleted at MfD because I had nothing to do with it. (Just saying' while I happen to be here observing the "Brink of collapse" thread, where I hesitate to weigh in with a concrete example of the change in adminning that has occurred over the years, that makes regular editors have to work so much harder to just keep bios clean,in the DYK-inspired environment of quantity over quality ... but you can all go read the thread at ANI about that matter.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's standard practice to delete RfA pages created by someone other than the nominee, and where the nominee doesn't accept the nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's no reason not to MfD them if you think that's reasonable, IMO, otherwise you can always courtesy blank. WP:NOTBURO. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Govind Kumar Singh

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

---

This page need special attention . Please check editing history . I request you please do needful . One user is deleting all information from article also abused in talk page to Indian . Why need to abuse any Indian ?? We they hate Indians and their achievements ? I am really hurt . I will write this to Indian Prime Minister . Please take action against user who said Indian think Wikipedia is free hosting advertisement site . Why and how they can say . I have checked all editing history . A set of people are involved from beaning of this article to manipulate things . I am really hurt . Please do needful .Thanks .--Rohtak camp (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, your correct course of action is to discuss this on the article talk page without returning your own preferred version of the article until after consensus is reached. Good-faith on your part is shown by allowing discussion to occur before the addition of a contested bit of text, and not demanding that others leave your text in while discussions occur. Usually, it is best to not including something which has been contested, for obvious reasons. Your goal is to convince others that you are correct by presenting evidence in the form of reliable sources, and do so on the talk page. Merely claiming righteousness in edit summaries is not sufficient, and you may be blocked for edit warring if you don't desist. --Jayron32 14:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

After multiple edit/revert cycles, probably 3RR but definitely EW, and direct personal attacks on others, User:Rohtak camp comes here to complain about others' editorial behavior and civility. After that, he received a 3RR warning, and then made the same disputed edit again. I did the needful for 24 hours. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The grammar/style used both by this user and by User:Rainu2006 (which I won't elaborate on per WP:BEANS, but is fairly obvious) might be worth an SPI. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Both accounts are going to fall under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vermapriya1986. I just can't be bothered filing. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the original SPIs. The quacking is loud enough to indefinitely block both, so it's done. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

@Kinu:, they are back as Monu2006 (talk · contribs) - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue not resolved

The section regarding an issue with an editor was archived, but there was no resolution. See 'Persistent bad faith and personal attacks'. diff

What is the best way to seek resolution? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't gone over the specifics of this particular case, but generally if a thread is open for four days and no admin takes any action, it is because they see no cause to take any action. There are various dispute resolution forums available. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to gather more evidence, and decide what action would be suitable.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect my userpage

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

---

User:Koavf Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!:  Not done It's still move protected--nothing changed. Please unprotect. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Koavf appears to be fully unprotected, looking at both the protection log and the protection interface. If your main user page is still coming up protected it sounds like something is broken. I did notice User talk:Koavf was move protected, just to confirm, that isn't what you wanted protection removed from right? Monty₈₄₅ 02:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Koavf: Try purging your cache. BMK (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Judging from Koavf's usual archival method, it may indeed be the talk page he wanted un-move-protected . Koavf, can you confirm? Do you want it reprotected afterwards? Do you want me to just move it to your next archive? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!:, @Monty845:, @BMK: I want it unprotected to archive, yes. You can leave it unprotected, as the vandalism associated with it has long since passed. If it's a problem again, I'm sure someone else can move protect it again. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Koavf: done. Monty₈₄₅ 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: Thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Azeem Ward

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

---

A trending meme is likely to bring a flood of merryment seekers here. Already nominated for AfD, but in the mean time, more eyes are needed to prevent the article from turning into a complete mess. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest semi-protection of the article talk page to prevent it from being nothing but a way for IP addresses to contest the speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend an admin snow it closed as well. 10 !votes + nom to delete with only one admittedly inexperienced editor with a serious !vote to keep. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done, with a pinch of salt as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Offensive username?

User softblocked. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
User subsequently indef blocked by Rschen7754 for obnoxious behavior.

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

---

Is it just me, or is Toe of the Almighty Camel an offensive username? It seems to me to be positively intended to offend women in particular. I thought I'd ask here before confronting the user. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

As a female editor (who may be dense, though :-)), I don't see anything offensive—to women, anyway. All the best, Miniapolis 22:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Camel toe. Sorry, I thought it was well known. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

• The name may be entirely innocent, or it may be a "clever" attempt to poke a stick in the eye of others. Whatever the motivation, the user name does poke a stick in the eye of anyone sad enough to have been exposed to internet "culture", so it is not acceptable. Given that Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk · contribs) (created 19 April 2015) has 30 edits to articles, the user should be asked to change their name to something that does not have any hint of the current issue. If the user declines to immediately start that process, the account should be indeffed on the understanding that the user can create a new account, as they have obviously done in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest asking them to change it, and proceeding to WP:RFC/N if that doesn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I too noticed the name and found it offensive toward women for its suggestive referencing to the phrase. I would recommend changing the name to avoid the unfortunate relation between the two.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and posted on the user's talk page to the effect that the user name needs to be changed. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Gotta be honest, even if my name can be construed as being the term Camel Toe. I'm having a great deal of trouble finding anything on the interwebs that claims Camel Toe to be an offensive term in nature. And as a feminist, I find this premise to be ridiculous. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've softblocked until they agree to change their name. This kind of stuff is unacceptable. And if you're a feminist, realizing that a ton of women will find this name offensive is reason enough to change the name. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• They've changed their name -- it's now just "Almighty Camel" -- but hasn't changed their behavior. Their nonsensical edit warring got Camel toe locked down, and they're cruising the talk pages in a fashion that brings to mind WP:DNFTT. As someone commented elsewhere, this is clearly an existing user (blocked, banned, or just established) who's WP:NOTHERE and is having a jolly old time tweaking our noses.
  On a related subject:

  If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

  BMK (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  I completely agree. Time for a permablock.- MrX 19:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done. To be honest, I think we were being trolled all along. --Rschen7754 19:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  Of course. After a while, you can smell the trolls when they come along! BMK (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Amaris

Hello, The Amaris article has been deleted quite many times in the past due to lack of notable and "unsourced one-liner". Creation of this article is blocked now. Can I request this article to be unblocked? I confident that I can create a better version of this article now to meet the Wikipedia requirements. Thank you. Thien.cc (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If you're intending to post this as the new article, it will likely be rapidly deleted as being advertising for the company. Please also see WP:COI. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And if that is indeed your draft for a new article, anybody is entirely free to delete it at any time for any reason or no reason at all. You'd be better off copying the content and pasting it to User:Amavie thien.cc/Sandbox and working on it there. Once you believe that it meets Wikipedia's standards, ask Stephen Buxton (on his talk page) if your draft may become an article. Because what Nick-D says about the current version is right. -- Hoary (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As I also said at the helpdesk, first, you need to make sure they pass WP:GNG, which requires that there is significant, independent coverage from reliable sources about them. If you believe that they pass WP:GNG, I would recommend creating an article via WP:Article Wizard, and submitting it via the WP:AFC process-this process involves getting feedback on your submission, and how to improve it. Then, if/when a reviewer thinks the article is ready, they can request an admin to unblock it. Note that WP:COI is important, and in particular WP:PROMO will stop it getting accepted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thien.cc has asked me for advice, and I've posted a list of my concerns on his sandbox talk page. There is also a copy of the deleted article in the sandbox history now. Stephen! ^Coming... 06:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please consider closing ANI thread

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

---

Help, please. I don't think I can put this ANI thread (a topic ban discussion) in the Requests for closure template above, since it has been open for less than two days. But there's already a lot of it, it has degenerated rapidly, and is very painful and stressful — obviously mainly for the subject of the thread, but no fun for anybody. It seems to me it would be a good deed if an uninvolved admin would close it and make the call. Since it concerns editing in an area under discretionary sanctions, the idea has been mooted that it should be closed without action and restarted at WP:AE. I don't myself like the idea of dragging it from board to board and repeating all the pain, but of course I'd leave that to the closing admin. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

AE does not have a magic formula for solving bitter disagreements, and restarting the question over at AE would cause some inconvenience. I'd suggest letting this run at ANI for another couple of days. The hardest part for the ultimate closer will be sorting out who is uninvolved, so that the opinions of DrChrissy's content opponents and supporters don't get to be the only ones deciding the matter. Though the discussion may be causing pain, the thread exists at ANI because DrChrissy opened it, though others have since converted it into a topic ban discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Community de facto ban appeal by User:EddieSegoura

I'm bringing this here for consideration following an email request to the Ban Appeal SubCommittee.

Background: This dates from 2006. The user created a new word, exicornt, and created an article for it. He supported the subsequent AFD with socks. His last ban appeal was at ANI in 2009, which failed.

I am appealing this:

• the ban was a result a discussion on ANI. While no ban was explicitly proposed, I was initially indeffed by an involved admin who I've apologized to in the past. I have no intent of attempting to post the neologism in the future.
• consensus can change over the years and the editors who knew me back in 2006 and 2009 when an appeal was made on my behalf are probably no longer active.

User:EddieSegoura, 17 May 2015, via email to WP:BASC.

I'll step back from this now,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unban - Things have changed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban - this user has been gone since 2009; I have no doubt that 6 years is plenty of time for a person to change, so there's been long enough to give the user a second chance. The user has also addressed the original issue behind the ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban, unless more recent disruption is discovered. Promoting a neologism and sockpuppetry is unacceptable, but not inexcusable, and this user had many, many, many years to grow up. If anything, a second chance is justified. Of course, I expect him to "stick to his word" and forget about the neologism completely. I propose the obvious condition: the unban comes with a TBAN from "exicornt" and a one-account restriction. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to articulate that I especially oppose unbanning with the added context that there have been recent (2014) constructive edits from the user under another account but he has now decided to formally request an unban instead of "theoretically socking" quietly and constructively, which I commend him for. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I also support the topic ban unban condition to be for all railroad switches instead of strictly "exicornt". Some have proposed "all article creations", which seems unecessary to me, and wouldn't (for example) prevent editing existing articles about railroad switched in a way that isn't appropriate. So I prefer a TBAN from "railroad switches" to "article creations". I've no problem with the one-account being indef and the TBAN being definite (6 months, a year, whatever, as long as there is some period where the editors shows they can improve other stuff), or even better, "indefinite but appealable after X time" so it doesn't automatically expire but allows an easy way for community review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unban I never expected to see the return of Eddie. The TBAN should cover all railroad switches. And yes I am still here and still willing to give you another chance. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unban. I'm open to users returning if they have changed (and I note I am open to revisiting my position if there is evidence of that), but the rationale specified for this ban appeal does not address the concern arising in the previous ban appeal. That is, I'm not sure about whether the users above understand why the last appeal was declined; it was specifically due to continued chronic and disruptive sockpuppetry (there were 43 socks I counted in 2009). A one-account restriction is all well and good in theory, but it means nothing unless the user restricted respects the restriction; he really should be open to voluntarily disclosing when he last engaged in sockpuppetry. I would have thought that would be the first issue to be pointed out in a ban appeal, and the first undertaking he would have made without prompting - yet, it wasn't. On another point, I think all users who participated in the previous ban appeal should be notified as I find that most of them are in fact active users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and notified them (or at least the accounts who appear to have edited in the last year). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Update: Based on his response which resolves my concern, I've struck my opposition and would endorse the unban per Salvidrim. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC) I have struck my oppose (as it goes towards resolving my concern), but would not be prepared to endorse any unban without the restrictions proposed by Salvidrim being imposed involuntarily for an indefinite duration. If an exception is sought within 12 months, it would need to be considered in the form of some other appeal or he would need to justify it so we have enough time to consider it and make a decision before this appeal is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban. Six years is quite enough time to allow for an editor to have changed their habits. He specifically discounts an intent to reintroduce the neologism that started the problem. bd2412 T 18:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban. Seems like time to offer the user another chance. What User:Salvidrim! says makes sense. I'd like to see a statement from Eddie saying he's read the current policy on sockpuppetry and a pledge to adhere to it. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Um. It's hard to see why someone would want to re-commence editing using that account, given the history - most people would have simply registered another account and gone about their business years ago. However, I'm not opposed to the standard offer. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I'm supporting unban because the editor is willing to edit under the old name, knowing the extra scrutiny would be applied. Lots of editors might have used a new account, and in so doing made the same mistake made before. By coming clean and admitting mistakes, the editor would impress upon me how willing they are to act differently. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with your last sentence, but I'm not comfortable unbanning via just assumption after the issue was so serious; there are many possible reasons why he might have chosen this route. I'm happy to withdraw my opposition if his response discloses the last time he socked and provides an undertaking to edit with a single account hereafter - it would come down to his actual word and us trusting he will abide by it in that case. I left him this message, so it may be helpful if others can transclude that section if needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would usually automatically support any appeal after a such a long time, provided the user seemed to comprehend the problem. Not sure I see that here, they promise not to post that specifc article again, but this is a pretty bad ban appeal. However, as others have pointed out they would be coming back knowing they would be under extra scrutiny when they could be socking instead. Indeed after so long I doubt anyone would have noticed if they had quietly returned at some point so long as they didn't start doing the same things that led to the initial block. So I guess I'm gonna go for somewhat reluctant/cautious support. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support unban (with respect to Beeblebrox above) per WP:ROPE. Miniapolis 21:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Holding. It was a long time ago, but I have to say I'm unimpressed by the wording of Eddie's appeal. It doesn't seem to show great awareness of the issues (the socking, the harassment, the broken promises). And is he actually suggesting there was something improper about Bunchofgrapes' block ? I'll wait to see if Bunch has an opinion, before I fully form mine, but at the present moment I'm inclined to oppose. (Bunchofgrapes is long gone, :-( but I think he probably still watches his talkpage, and I've alerted him.) Bishonen | talk 10:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

• Update: Neutral. I can't quite make myself support, but since Bunchofgrapes, below, doesn't oppose, I won't either. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
• Chopping and changing — oppose after all. Eddie said on his page today that he "would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban".[11] My italics. I'm sorry, but I think it's deeply worrying that he talks — today, not nine years ago — like using several accounts is the normal thing and he'd be willing to stop doing it for six months as a concession. And a temporary ban from what topic — railway switches, also for six months? Sorry for the chopping and changing, but I have to oppose an unban after all. (And Eddie, I know you're reading this: if you want any of your comments ported to this ANI thread, please say so clearly and specifically.) Bishonen | talk 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC).
  • There are some permissible reasons to have multiple accounts; for example, having a backup account in case your main account is compromised, or having accounts used to edit from public computers. bd2412 T 15:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A banned user who appreciates there are concerns about that user's history of sockpuppetry would usually not focus on the length of time for which they would be limited to editing with one account upon being unbanned. If they did focus on the length of time, they would be particularly considerate about the concerns expressed + would frankly disclose why they would want an alternate account or alternate accounts, and the necessity in the near future. If it's just merely "because I might need one later", it could just as easily be requested to the community or through the committee at the point at which the alternate account is actually needed or desired for use. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose see following comment with the explanations currently on their User Talk. Their explanations are "I won't try to use the word I made up" and "Those who were around before probably aren't here any more." If this were an unblock request it'd be denied, because there's nothing that shows they understand what the specific problem were that led to the ban in the first place, and that they understand their behavior was wrong. They also offer up a short list of socks, oh here maybe there's one more... This unban appeal sounds like "I think I can get away with it" rather than "I know what I did was wrong and won't do it again." I wouldn't support an unban without accepting a restriction to one account only and a TBAN on railroad switches, like Cambridge mentions. I wasn't around when this user was active but this unban request is deeply unimpressive so far. Zad68 15:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support, with conditions ... Changing my !vote. Here's a fact: Whether anyone likes it or not, Eddie has been editing and will continue to edit. So what is the best option for Wikipedia given that fact? We can leave him banned and he'll continue to edit using other socks and IP addresses, but he doesn't seem to have that much personal investment in those, and so there's not much consequence if he misuses them. But he does seem to have personal investment in his Eddie account, enough that he's willing to ask for its use after several years. Allowing him to return to using that account I think would give us the best chance for minimum disruption, because of his personal attachment/investment to that account. Eddie has posted on his User Talk what I think is an acceptable understanding of previous wrongdoing and a commitment not to return to it. I also like the fact that he has made personal connections to well-respected Wikipedians, which I think would make him want to keep their respect. Given all this I support the unban, but with the conditions that he is indefinitely limited to one account, is under an indefinite topic-ban of his made-up word and railroad switches, and if he violates either of those conditions he's back to being CBANned again. Zad68 04:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Vague Support. I'm long retired, and you shouldn't care what my opinion is, but I've been encouraged to weigh in here as a very old hand in dealing with Eddie. I guess my comments from the 2009 appeal (which I did not actually oppose) still stand. I'm willing to believe there's a decent chance he won't be malicious, and if the community wants to put up with what a pain-in-the-ass he can be is even when he's being good, there's little reason not to give him another shot. A quick look at his edits as WikiBaseballFan actually have me wondering if he hasn't grown up some in the last six years, even. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Eddie did a lot of damage on en.wikt and caused a great deal of trouble for some of the editors there by impersonating them on other wikis, vandalizing those wikis and trying to frame en.wikt editors. Eddie has never made any attempt to apologize to the people he targeted there. When I mentioned this to him a few years ago, he made excuses instead of taking responsibility, and tried to claim the fact that en.wikt had not blocked his main account as evidence that en.wikt was not troubled by his actions. The reason that we did not block his main account nine years ago was because he was using sockpuppets to carry out the vandalism, and we wanted to be able to talk to him on his main account. As far as I am concerned, Eddie should be banned for life. —Stephen (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per Zad68. I find the lack of awareness in the appeal alarming. Eddie wasn't in trouble for making a word up; he was in trouble for incessant, obsessive socking and harassment. The lack of awareness of this in his appeal gives me no hope that he will behave any differently in a dispute with other users. Sorry, Eddie, but I agree with Stephen, and I see no good coming from an unban. I hope if this is successful you will prove me wrong. Sarah 13:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  I note that Eddie's last disclosed account is User:WikiBaseballFan, an account with a brief but entirely productive and non-controversial edit history. bd2412 T 15:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  True. Unfortunately, I am very jaded by personal experience with Eddie. Last time he appealed, he had a very good looking account similar to WikiBaseballFan, but it turned out he was simply segregating his edits and concurrently running bad actor accounts from public wifi. Part of me wants to support because he has been banned for a very long time, but I just can't bring myself to do so when I still don't see any self-awareness or understanding from him and don't believe he is being open and honest. Sarah 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Anything that is done on Wikipedia can be undone; if Eddie is unbanned and thereafter misbehaves, it will be a lot longer than six years before he is trusted to edit again. bd2412 T 03:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Eddie, I didn't take anything personally, I simply find the lack of self awareness in your appeal statement alarming. I would not support an unblock request or a ban appeal for anyone who wrote a statement that was so lacking in awareness of their behaviour. Yeah, you're right, I do believe that you are still socking. I find it incredibly hard to believe that when you were attending wikimeetups in March that you were actually respecting your ban and not editing. I don't believe that you have ever respected the ban and refrained from editing, but that's just me. Sarah 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support unban. Plenty of people have his talk page watched at this point. A re-ban, if necessary, would be pretty straightforward. HiDrNick! 15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment but leaning to very weak support per Beeblebrox I wasn't around when Eddie was causing all the trouble in 2006/7 as I only started editing under various IP's in 2009 and into 2010, as such I could be considered a neutral party in all this. That being said, I've made sure to thoroughly read up the past history. My thoughts: if Eddie agreed to an indefinite restriction to editing from one account and a minimum 6 month ban from article creation as a starter as well as a thorough acknowledgement of the troubles they have caused in the past. Additionally, there should be a "one strike and you're out" sanction which automatically enables a community ban for a minimum 6 months should the appeal be successful. Blackmane (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • About the reinstatement of the ban if any violations, I thought of that subconsciously but didn't confirm expressly - so would endorse that. Anyway, pinging @Salvidrim!:, @BusterD:, @CambridgeBayWeather:, @Zad68:, @Beeblebrox:, @HiDrNick: to confirm if they intended to agree with this or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a bit messy -- he was not "formally banned", he was indef-blocked and has an appeal declined by the community, which has the exact same result. I'm not sure if unban conditions can come with "rebanned if violated" conditions, but they can sure come with "re-indefblock if violated" conditions, which in the end, are pretty much the same. Such an indef-block will be considered similarly as a de facto ban, and is very unlikely to ever be approved without community consensus behind it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just had it pointed out to me that WP:CBAN explicitle mentions "indefblock appeals declined by the community" as being actual community bans, so part of my above comment doesn't stand -- there is an actual "formal" ban. I'm still not sure if policy is flexible enough to allow a "reban if violated" to the unban conditions but I'd certainly support that. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Prior to it being deleted, I distinctly remember Eddie being listed in the old list of banned users. Appeals against Cbans should come with a parole period as it were. Blackmane (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just realised that the last part of my !vote was not written well. I'll re-articulate it as Additionally, there should be a "one strike and you're out" restriction which automatically re-enables the indefinite community ban should any violation occur. I've struck out the original text and this text should replace it. Others may wish to reconsider their comments after this change. Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Bish raises issues above that she has with comments Eddie made during this appeal regarding topic bans and account restrictions and the manner that his appeal glossed over and ignored the real reasons for his ban. In addition, in comments to me on his talk page today ([12]) Eddie concedes that during the course of his ban he has always continued editing using multiple accounts and IPs because he does not accept the legitimacy of the community-based ban. When I told him that I believed that he is still editing even now, he replied that he is with IP addresses. Nine years is a long time to be under a ban, but it truly amazes me that people are prepared to unban someone who admits that even now they are not abiding by the ban and that they do not respect it because it was a community sanction not handed down by ArbCom. I am not sure how the community can trust him to abide by any community restrictions imposed as a result of this appeal given that he has spent nine years showing, and now even openly admits, that he doesn't respect, or accept as legitimate, sanctions that don't come from ArbCom. I really hope that people who are supporting his appeal have actually read what he is writing and are not simply supporting based on its duration. Sarah 11:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Just to be clear. In this case the community decides the topic ban and the number of accounts not ArbCom. If he cant agree to that then Eddie should not be allowed back. Also I meant that I supported the one account and a permanent ban on railroad switches. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses from Eddie

Eddie's request wasn't 100% clear to me, but I think he has asked me to post these responses of his, which I've copypasted below. Several are undated, but they're all recent. (Please post any further supports/opposes above, not in this section — I think it would be convenient to reserve it for Eddie's responses.) Bishonen | talk 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC).

@Salvidrim!: Reading the appeals and your support on WP:AN, I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban (though I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last). The work I intend to do would be along the lines of User:WikiBaseballFan's contributions. The purpose of this appeal is not so I can edit but to put an end to a 9-year ordeal. I was blocked back in May 2006 and it's almost 9 years to the day. Eddie, Tuesday May 19 2015 at 5:00 am

@HiDrNick: I fully understand I'll be re-banned if I engage in the behaviour that lead Me to this mess back in 2006. That is: making more sockpuppets harassing other users again.

---

@Stephen G. Brown: I stated in My letter to BASC above that I was banned for bothering people on wiktionary. If I didn't apologise to them then, I apologise to them now (though it's prolly too late for that now and the users won't accept any apologies, if you can email a list of names to those who have the battle scars, I'd appreciate it). I also stated I haven't editing in Wiktionary over the past 6 years and no intent on editing wiktionary, just Wikipedia. --Eddie

@Sarah: I'm not surprised in the least by Sarah opposing (the proven sock stuff was from 2005-2009, and Sarah obviously took it very personally). I really want to have nothing further to do with Sarah and I'm sorry for the trouble I caused her. I have a feeling that She probably suspects a current undisclosed user behaving like Me and that I'm still filling the site with disruptive sockpuppets. -- Eddie

@Bishonen:, I said I would be willing to accept a six-month one-account restriction and topic ban, but this is suggestive. I also said I would be willing to let the ArbCom decide how long these restrictions should last. They have the final descision on my topic bans and restrictions and how long I would stick to just one account. Eddie 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving towards closure

This has been open for a few days so I'm looking clarify a few things before closing it.

• First one, has BASC handed it completely over to the community (i.e. do we have full authority to close with community editing restrictions - Roger Davies? Eddie seems to believe that BASC is closing this.) I've written the below anyway.
• I'm seeing a consensus to grant the unban but with conditions. However there isn't really a clear indication of what those conditions should be so I'm listing what has been proposed for comment. Please comment on what you feel is appropriate (these are from suggestions above) so I'll default to indefinite unless there is agreement to a set timeframe - remembering that they can be appealed in the future once there is evidence of constructive editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely the community's responsibility to resolve in whatever way it thinks fit,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the list further (with the exception of BusterD's confirmation which was already done but may not have been obvious for others). I think everyone else who wanted to clarify or confirm has done so. Maybe give it just a few more hours to be sure but I don't really see it changing much more or being much clearer than that without further prompting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

One account restriction

• Salvidrim!
• Ncmvocalist
• BusterD
• Zad68
• Blackmane
• CambridgeBayWeather

Topic ban from "exicornt"

• Salvidrim!
• Ncmvocalist
• BusterD
• Zad68

Topic ban from railroad switches

• CambridgeBayWeather
• Zad68
• Ncmvocalist
• Salvidrim!

Ban from article creation

• Blackmane

Any violations result in a reinstatement of the community ban

• Blackmane
• Ncmvocalist
• Salvidrim!
• Zad68
• (HiDrNick?)

I've made sure to clarify under my initial comment (and under Blackmane's) my stance on the proposed unban conditions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My comment pretty much stands following Salvidrim's clarification; I endorse all of these restrictions except for the article creation ban and the exicornt topic ban (as I prefer the broader measure proposed). I also agree with him that the terminology to be used on the last restriction be amended: that violations would result in a reinstatement of an indefinite block, but I'd add the intended effect that such a block may only be appealed to the community or basc/arbcom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim! and Ncmvocalist: This is covered by the second dot point at WP:CBAN an indef block appeal declined by the community becomes a community ban so it would be reinstating it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Gee, now I look like the fool. Thanks for pointing it out to me, I amended my point above under Blackmane's; I still think it'd be best to "re-ban if violated" but I'm not 100% sure current policy endorses that (as opposed to re-blocking). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My view is that although there is presently an active community ban, it's being enforced through an indefinite block at present. Rather than restoring an active community ban immediately, I'd rather an indefinite block be reimposed if there is a violation - and let him appeal again to determine whether the block should be lifted or whether the community ban should be formally reinstated. If he doesn't appeal, the effect of a formal community ban would be the same anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ArbCom use suspended bans (granted they're only TBANs, that I can think of) so there is a little precedent. I'd have no issues with incorporating it if there is consensus for it. I see it as the community saying 'our (continuing) offer of unban only extends to you as long as you abide by our conditions, if you don't the offer no longer stands'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In any case I'll go where the consensus goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, my preference is equal to the suspended ban proposal. It's equally valid that we shouldn't need to unnecessarily spend any time having to review things again if there continue to be problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a change to my !vote above. My original proposal was quite muddled, so I've clarified it in a following statement. Blackmane (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please delete

Resolved

User talk:Paulkumar Arikrishnan--Musamies (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete this page. However, I did move it to its proper location, User:Paulkumar Arikrishnan. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Musamies: was this really a matter for the admin noticeboard? In future if you need something deleting/moving please use WP:CSD tags like everyone else. GiantSnowman 15:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Behavior of User:BenCaesar

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

---

Really a request for some second opinions. I noticed some unusual activity on User talk:Safiel with a WP:Single-purpose account editor, User:BenCaesar getting rather angry with Safiel for reverting his edits. BenCaeser registered in February and has only made edits to Bob Lynch (comics) and on Safiel's talk page in response to a reversion.

The behavior seemed a little odd and it seems that BenCaeser is a banned contributor to IMDB who has some sort of vendetta against Bob Lynch, who also posts on IMDB. He has boasted of his attempts to get the Bob Lynch article deleted prior to being banned from IMDB.

My gut reaction is to block BenCaeser from editing as his edits are not in good faith. Opinions? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring, if reverts again, then any other uninvolved admin may block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, thanks, but I was really looking for second opinions of other admins. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This threat, "If you try to get me blocked, i will just create another account and deal with you", which BenCaesar edit warred to restore after Safiel removed it, is completely unacceptable, along with other rudeness and attempts to intimidate. I have blocked for 31 hours. Feel free to change if you like, young Fish. I wouldn't object to indef. Bishonen | talk 15:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, I will indef him. After reviewing his editing I don't think his presence is a net positive for WP. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

James Richardson Corporation

I move to draw administator attention to a bizarre long-term edit war involving a set of IPs and two registered accounts on the James Richardson Corporation article. The article isn't particularly exciting or controversial and neither seemingly is the text being edit-warred over. The two accounts in question and most of the IPs have edited only this article - no others. I don't know what to make of it. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is strange, to say the least. I have notified Baysidebetty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (obvious SPA) of this discussion. The IPs involved are constantly changing so I don't see a point in notifying any of them.

That said, I think the article could well be speedied per CSD A7 unless anyone can find a reliable secondary source that asserts any significance of this particular business. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The other user is Special:Contributions/3wiki8, while Special:Contributions/23.251.218.67 appears not to be a throwaway IP, so you may wish to inform them too.

The article may well have met CSD A7 in it's current form if created recently, but the article is over 12 years old now so we're leaving it a bit late side for an SD!

The company runs Duty Free stores in airports in Australasia and the Middle East. I had perused the article with a view to bringing it up to an acceptable standard. I have tagged the notability issue on the article, however. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AnotherNewAccount; something this old shouldn't be speedy-deleted on mundane grounds like A7. I may, however, nominate it at AFD. Not much point in notifying 3wiki8, or doing anything to that user, because the account hasn't edited in quite a while. Same with 23.251.218.67, which has edited only unrelated stuff since January. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have informed 3wiki8 and 23.251.218.67. Speedy deletion may be a bit over the top but then I wouldn't mind an AfD either. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that active user User:Lugia2453 waded into the edit war at one point. I have notified him so he might shed some light on what on earth was going on there! AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit was intended to remove some vandalism that was added into the article. If I had noticed that my edit was removing what was added to the history section, I wouldn't have done the full revert. Instead, I would have just edited out the vandalism - the addition of Alice in Wonderland, Thomas the Tank Engine, and Blinky Bill as "staff members." Lugia2453 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this was a constructive edit and would not have constituted edit warring. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I did notice there had been some childish vandalism from some of the IPs. Admins, I think it is unlikely we're ever going to get any form of explanation out of the users and IPs involved, and I think it's probably safe to close this. I am currently working on improving this article, and I'll keep an eye on it to ensure nothing further untoward happens. Update below. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Baysidebetty has just posted on her user talk explaining that the IPs are disgruntled former employees adding nonsense content. If this it true (and I am inclined to believe her) I would not object to the article being placed under permanent protection. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy Proposal

OK Policy proposal is here . Be sure and take a look and cast your vote (which ever way it may be ) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kosh V. I have taken the liberty of fixing the non-working link above so that people can find your proposal more readily. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Authority control

User:KasparBot seems to be adding {{authority control}} to a rather large slice of Wikipedia articles. I've posted a comment over at Template talk:Authority control asking for clarification, but I find the response rather drenched in incomprehensible alphabet soup. It seems unclear that there is much value added for readers, and the current template is very cryptic (including the aggressive sounding "Authority control"). I am somewhat neutral on the question of whether this template should be added to all of our articles (although I personally don't find it at all useful). But it seems like this was undertaken without sufficient community input regarding exactly what the scope and aims of this project are. Some issues that I think need to be clarified are:

• Does this template actually have value for readers of the encyclopedia? Most of the links are to the Japanese language National Diet Library, not English language library resources (which may or may not be useful – I seem to remember some controversy over similar templates in the past). If not, should this content be included in article space, or would it be more suitable as a talk-page template, or just kept confined to Wikidata for the majority of authority control data?
• What exactly are the goals and aims of this project? Can this be explained in a way that is not confusing to the average reader of the encyclopedia? On clicking the "Authority control" link in the template, we arrive at the article Authority control, which is not very clarifying. Perhaps better would be a link to Wikipedia:Authority control, which also fails to indicate why this template is a useful thing to have in article space. (Also, links to any community discussions about this on the English language encyclopedia are frustratingly absent.)

--Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the authority control tag is pretty much useless, I'd say remove it out of the article(s). KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment The relevant request for approval was granted here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I find authority controls profoundly useful; let me explain. In short, libraries and library consortia have created "authority files" for tons of different topics, with effort taken to ensure that there's only one entry when the subject has different names, and effort taken to ensure that there are multiple entries when the same name is given to different subjects. The point is to ensure that we don't conflate similar topics (e.g. separating John Smith (Peel MPP) from John Smith (Kent MPP)) and that we don't have separate articles for the same topic under different names, e.g. we don't have one article on the UK's contemporary Tory party and another on the UK's contemporary Conservative Party. The point of {{authority control}} is to link our articles to these authority files: it makes the articles more machine-readable (because they match the articles with computer-readable metadata files) and it helps people by demonstrating that the files in other sources are the same as the articles here. For example, if you're looking for a book by John D. Smith, the authority control link will take you to a Worldcat entry with his works: this way you can avoid getting books written by John Derek Smith, for example, and aside from library cataloging errors, you can be certain that you've not gotten books written by a different John D. Smith. I can't speak to the usefulness of the current Japanese stuff, since I've not looked at it. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, can you give an example diff that prompted you to raise this issue? Aside from a few entries that also have links to other databases (e.g. Tottori, Tottori), I can't find any that link the National Diet Library. What's more, you suggest the possibility that this stuff be "just kept confined to Wikidata for the majority of authority control data". That's precisely what's happening here. As far as I can tell, the bot's just allowing Wikidata information to be added here: it identifies pages that (1) don't have any authority control template, (2) that are linked to Wikidata entries, and (3) that have authority control on the Wikidata entries. Once it identifies such a page, it simply adds the template, which results in the page displaying what's already confined to Wikidata. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is one such diff, but my watchlist is full of similar such diffs, so many more are available upon request. I get that the purpose is somehow to make things easier for machines to index our subjects, but I question whether a cryptic template at the bottom of every article on Wikipedia is the best way to do that. Isn't this information already available on Wikidata? Is there some technical reason that machines can't just look this up on Wikidata for themselves? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. With this specific item, the problem is simply that Wikidata doesn't yet include any records from other authority files for 21lbert space (they exist; OCLC has Hilbert space under "authority record number" 2072176, for example), and by adding a link to it now, we make it so that the template won't need to be added later when Wikidata adds records from other authority files. The point is that we're strengthening the ties between the article and the data item; this is also helpful for humans, since without the template, you'd have to follow the Wikidata link, via the "Add links" at the bottom of the other languages list at bottom left, and it's very small and hard to find. Your opposition on aesthetic grounds was soundly rejected in the final section of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 24, where {{authority control}} was nominated for deletion under a previous name. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree most strongly with the characterization that this is "opposition on aesthetic grounds". If it is not possible for the project to make clear what "authority control" is, and why it belongs in the article, then this will have the effect of confusing readers. Any editor who believes that reader confusion is a mere "aesthetic preference" is badly confused about what Wikipedia is. I would ask, rather than defend the template against imaginary complaints, that those who support the template please ensure that any reader who sees the template can, possibly with a single click, determine what it is and why it's there. The name "authority control" is not in common English use, and has rather sinister undertones to the casual reader. The link to Authority control is not very helpful either. If this cannot be done, then I maintain that having cryptic mumbo jumbo on display in every Wikipedia article is not useful, on balance. For every reader out there for whom such a link is useful, there will be a hundred readers who find it simply confusing. At the AfD, it was even suggested that the template should be hidden. This seems like a reasonable compromise for the moment to me, at least until you folks get the reader-friendliness issue under control. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We are here to inform people about the subjects of our articles, which includes pointing readers to authoritative documentation from other sources. Removing human-readable metadata just because you don't understand it and don't think it looks good would be quite counterproductive, and it already got soundly rejected at TFD. If you want modifications, you need to demonstrate that they do a better job at conveying metadata, or you need to convince the scholarly community that authority control is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I should think it's a fairly uncontroversial request to make the template at least point to something that isn't going to leave the average reader scratching his head. Do we agree on this point or not? A typical reader, seeing the template, will say "what the heck is this". He will click a link, finding some Japanese text. Hmm... I don't read Japanese (for most readers). I click Authority control... Not much help there. So, what the heck is this template? Presumably "authority control", because it sounds scary, means I'm not allowed to edit. Right?

So I don't really think it is asking a lot for you folks to clean up the description of what this project is and what its aims are, so that someone without a PhD in library science can understand. That should be linked from the template, instead of the unhelpful article Authority control. Also, please include a link somewhere to the RfC where the community was asked whether we want this template on all of our encyclopedia articles (like Hilbert space, Equation, etc.). Citing an obscure TfD from 2010 as if it were conclusive proof of community consensus that apparently now affects all articles on Wikipedia feels a little bit disingenuous to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Authority Control is both needed and desired -- it strengthens Wikipedia's realiability and meta-data integration. Please don't object to stuff you plainly have no understanding of simply because you don't understand what it is used for. If it helps, it's similar to PERSONDATA in use. Please read Wikipedia:Authority control (for editors) and Help:Authority control (for readers). You do raise an interesting point -- perhaps the template should wikilink to the Help: page instead of the article? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely. I hope no one took the advice given near the top of this discussion to "remove it" from articles. Good idea to link to the help page, too - the article is less helpful to readers. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't object to stuff you plainly have no understanding of simply because you don't understand what it is used for. Perhaps instead of laying the blame on him for not understanding, more efforts could be made to actually explain it in a manner that is comprehensible for readers not versed in metadata lingo? The help page is kinda understandable. Wikipedia:Authority control is a garbled mess for non-specialists. Considering Wikipedia purports to increase the knowledge of their readers, documentation aimed at its editors should probably also be understandable. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• One that has been popping up on my watchlists is the addition of Authority Control links to musical band articles; the link is to their entry at MusicBrainz. The entry looks like this; a link to Authority control (unhelpful), a link to Musicbrainz (well yes, but not really necessary), and then a clickable hex string which takes you to the Musicbrainz entry. The front page of every band's Musicbrainz entry starts with ... a copy of the band's Wikipedia page. Whilst, yes, there is often useful information buried in the tabs at Musicbrainz, this really is not intuitive to the basic reader. They would not be blamed for thinking "eh?". Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thinking "eh?" and asking about stuff is fine, and is a regular happening for every Wikipedia editor, myself definitely included. Suggesting we remove it all because you don't understand what it's for is ridiculous and (IMO) destructive to the overall quality of the project. Help:Authority control annd Wikipedia:Authority Control's first two sections tell me all I needed to know about what it did, and the rest of the project pages (and the template doc) would tell me how it worked if I was ever interested in making use of it myself. Perhaps you can ask someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers if you need a more one-on-one guide to explain in ways you can understand why Authority Control is needed and useful. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 10:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting it should be removed (I understand why it's useful even I'm unconvinced by some of the links like Musicbrainz), I'm suggesting that it should be made more user-friendly. Even the first sentence of the help page, "Authority control is a method of creating and maintaining index terms for bibliographic material in a library catalogue" could be simplified. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of Authority control is In library science, authority control is a process that organizes library catalog and bibliographic information by using a single, distinct name for each topic. That was enough information to satisfy me as to why the template was added. It seems this discussion is predicated on whether "authority" relates to "authoritarian" (def 1) or "authoritative" (def 3). --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How does this template achieve the "process that organizes library catalog and bibliographic information by using a single, distinct name for each topic"? How does having links to incomprehensible Japanese websites facilitate this organization? Yes, it is possible for a clever person to infer what is going on. But it really needs to be made explicit. It should not require someone with knowledge of Wikipedia to dig around, looking for Wikipedia-space documents like Wikipedia:Authority control and Help:Authority control. These should be linked immediately from the template, and the corresponding descriptions of that process should be clarified. If this is something that is added to all Wikipedia articles (which seems like where we are headed), any likely reader of the English Wikipedia should be able grok its meaning, not just native speakers of English who are administrators of the English-language Wikipedia with post-graduate degrees and several thousand edits under their belts. And, quite frankly, the way that some people are defending the status quo against this very reasonable request seems like elitist reader-hate. This is clearly not a constructive attitude, and is unbecoming of administrators. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "supporting status quo", I'm opposing the suggestion that this important improvement to our project should be trashed. I (and others) have all supported your request for a clearer explanation of what "autority control" is. I support changing the wikilink in the AC template to point to the help page. If you think the help page should then be improved for clarity, then go ahead and improve it (or seek help towards its improvement if you are unable to work on it yourself). All that being said though, this is explicitly not an admnistrative issue nor does it need administrator assistance, so there is no reason for a discussion to continue on WP:AN when it should be at Wikipedia talk:Authority control, where you will find the most qualified people to help you make the requested improvements to the template and/or the relevant project and Help pages. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I did not make the suggestion that the improvement should be "trashed". This is a reasonable place to hold a centralized discussion on a matter that apparently affects all articles on Wikipedia, so I have undone your closure of this discussion. We need more centralized discussion of this, not less. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AN is not a place to hold general centralized discussions. It is a place to discuss administrative matters. This is not an administrative matter nor does it require admnistrator intervention. I won't reclose the thread because I have a feeling you will edit-war it open again and I've no desire to engage in such petty back-and-forth. Perhaps you are looking for the Village Pumps, which are appropriate venues for centralized discussions about Wikipedia-wide issues? I still think that discussing your suggestions to improve our Project and Help pages about Autority Control should be discussed on the pages about Authority Control. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It does require administrator intervention: {{authority control}} is edit-protected. So I cannot change the link there to Help:Authority control because I am not an administrator. Perhaps you would be willing to step up and make the change, rather than whine about the choice of venue? Also, it certainly seems to me that adding templates that incorporate data from other Wikiprojects to all of the articles on the project is a matter that indeed pertains to the administration of the English Wikipedia. I mean User:KasparBot was given the green light to go ahead and do this by.. wait for it... administrators (apparently without asking the rest of us if we thought that was a good idea). And a non-adminstrator cannot revoke that ability. Administrators, it just so happens, are also those that are most likely to have the technical knowledge to understand what the purpose of the template is, how it works, and how it interacts with Wikidata. So I am frankly astonished at the suggestion that this is not an appropriate venue for a centralized discussion. Certainly, there are other places that a centralized discussion could have happened. But it is happening here, not in one of those other places. Closing the discussion whilst being an active participant in it just seems like petty sour grapes, and your rationale for doing so is wholly without merit. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A few needed clarifications: The bot was given the greenlight by the bots approval group, which does not equate with "administrators" -- it performs a task that any "regular" editor would perform manually, but since it is a cumbersome but simple/easy process, it is well suited to automation by a bot. {{authority control}} is not fully-protected, it is only template-protected, and thus template-editors could also respond to an {{edit template protected}} request places on its talk page. I agree that at this point though it's mostly useless "jumping through hoops"; the template has alread been changed to Wikilink to the help page instead. And, administrators are not "likely to have technicaly knowledge" about anything -- a lot of us deal with behavioural and editorial issues more than technical ones. We probably have more technically-apt editors than admnistrators! And I'm sorry if I'm coming across as blunt or unhelpful, I just genuinely believe you will find more competent and willing help to upgrade a help page at a venue specialized on the topic than on a general admnistrative board frequented by all manners of editors who may not know more than you already do about Authority Control. I'm trying to help you find help in the most efficient way possible -- which is, IMO, to get in touch with the editors already involved with Authority Control. With their expertise and knowledge, coupled with your own outside view, I'm sure you can collaborate on improving the Help page so that it better informs our readers. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for creation protection

Resolved

I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum... I looked around a bit but couldn't find where to request this. Could someone please SALT Mikie Da Poet and Mike Da Poet? There has been a determined sockmaster recreating this since around 2006 or so. Most recent inception was deleted today. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I did one, the other was already create protected. For future reference WP:RFPP is our dedicated noticeboard for page protection issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

Hi all, on the off chance you've overlooked the banner at the top of your page, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Undo page protection

On John Coleman (news weathercaster), Guy protected the page for three months due to sockpuppetry. This was due to a request at the Fringe theory noticeboard. The noticeboard request said there was daily sockpuppetry happening and "...who continues to give undue weight to opinions on global warming by adding about American Meteorological Society".

Only three edits in 2015 have been done by a confirmed sockpuppet and the last was done on April 20th. The edit on the American Meteorological Society is an edit I took responsibility for. I am not a sockpuppet. I've asked four times at Guy's talk page why the page protection and he has never answered. Discussion has been ongoing at the Fringe noticeboard about the edits.

The reason for page protection at the Fringe noticeboard was not truthful. The reason Guy applied protection, sockpuppetry, is not happening. Could somebody please remove the page protection. Bgwhite (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse protection - For years, this article is daily visited by a sock puppeteer called Sonic2030 aka Marlin1975 who has been socking for over 7 years. (SPIs: 1, 2) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did the right thing by imposing protection on this page and cleaning up a lot of fringe content. Even DoRD hadn't disagreed with the idea of page protection.[13] Last sock edit is from 10 May[14], by the sock who similar to another blocked sock of the sock puppeteer in question.

Bgwhite went to this article because he was wikihounding my edits,[15] he never edited this article ever before.[16] Now that semi page protection has made Bgwhite lose the sock puppet who he was favoring on this fringe subject, just to wage an edit war against me, he just continues to ask same question that has been already answered so many times.(full discussion) I don't see any credibility in this request at all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification The page was semi protected, not protected. There's a big difference. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Protections are of two kinds, one that you have mentioned, other is full protection. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 10th edit was to revert a vandalism type edit and the IP was NOT confirmed to be a sockpuppet. Still, only three confirmed sockpuppets in 2015. Guy has cleaned up the article, but that has nothing to do with protection. Please stop with the personal attacks and just discuss the merits. Bgwhite (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"vandalism type" edit? No it was not. IPs are not confirmed per privacy policy, unless under special circumstances, and there is enough proof to assure that its a sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If it was a sock, that is still only four sock edits in 2015. That is not sockpuppetry happening daily. Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Once the protection is removed from the current version, we will see him there with same thing that he has been repeating for years. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I semi-protected the article, following a credible report of long-term WP:BLP abuse by an anonymous user and some evidence of edit-warring. Bgwhite seems to be part of this, for example reverting with ALL CAPS. His use of primary sources is troubling to me. Reinserting material sourced to YouTube is controversial to say the least, and in this case it is material that serves to make the article subject look like a crank, so is doubly troubling. I think we should not include climate change denialism in articles on people like this unless we can source it to reliable independent secondary sources that establish both its significance and the context, as seen byt he reality-based community. If there are no substantial mainstream sources discussing what is, after all, just a TV weatherman's crank statements, then I don't think they belong in the article at all. I would certainly advocate more eyes on that article. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly as Bgwhite pointed out to you, the use of the source was fine and not a discussion for here anyway as it is a content issue. Secondly that is beside the point - there was no evidence of 'sockpuppetry'. 4 edits in 5 months is hardly a protection issue. When challenged on an admin action, the response should not be 'Well this other bad thing happened and oh it was your fault anyway' - the response should either be an explanation of why the action was correct, or an admission it was a mistake/overreaction/etc. So could you actually address why you protected it for sockpuppetry when there was no evidence of sockpuppetry? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: there is massive evidence of sock puppetry. Article is daily visited by a sock. Have you read my comment above? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I read it, and what you say is not borne out by the editing history of the article. IP's adding (very slowly and intermittantly over a long period of time) something that you dont like is not 'evidence of daily sockpuppetry'. Until you can even state who they are sockpuppets of, its a pointless allegation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death: I already mentioned Sonic2030 above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse temporary semi-protection of a contentious BLP. Miniapolis 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

We have an extensive backlog presently at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Would an available administrator be available to please review? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Review non-admin close of RFC

I posed an RfC on whether alt-med practitioners have a COI, that was somewhat cursorily closed by Kraxler in response to a request for close request for close posted by Elvey (no notice, meh). I asked Kraxler if he would provide a more thoughtful close or withdraw it, and Kraxler had no interest (discussion here.

I posed the RfC to resolve an issue where a user was (in my view) being hounded with claims of COI. The subject has come up at COIN twice before: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Acupuncture and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Middle_8 with no resolution, and at the Talk of COIN here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Template:Connected_contributor. The subject has also been disrupting the acupuncture article. There is no consensus on this recurrent question, so it is time to try to settle it. I don't mind the RfC being closed with no consensus, but there were a lot of thoughful comments, and I think there is more that can be said, to try to provide guidance to the community on the question.

I am looking for the close to be overturned and re-done, because by not even trying to summarize the discussion and find whatever threads of consensus there were, it wasted the time of everyone who responded there. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I don't read very fast, but given the length of this discussion and that Kraxler's previous edit was regarding a different RfC, 16 minutes before closing this, I find it hard to believe that any editor would have been able to read the discussion of the RfC and make a concise decision on consensus in 16 minutes. And given the significant discussion on the topic, this certainly deserves a larger effort and another attempt to find sub-issues that there might be consensus on, even if there is no consensus on the main issue under discussion. ― Padenton|✉   14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't underestimate what I can read in how long a time. Besides, the OP of thr RfC (Jytdog) himself stated the two predominant opinions on the issue, before he asked his question. (See at the top of the RfC). 24 !voters subscribed to the pro-COI argument, 38 !voters subscribed to the anti-COI argument, both sides re-iterating the same things over and over. Both sides are entrenched partisans, and won't budge. Both arguments have their merits. Nothing remains to say. Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Raw counts mean almost nothing. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats a strawman Jytdog, Kraxler also said that both arguments had merit and that the arguments were the same from responders. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I hope this isn't overturned. I was just about to ask someone to close it, because there was clearly no consensus for the proposal. Also, it wasn't a proposal to change WP:COI, so its purpose on that talk page was never clear. For anything like this in future, I think WP:COIN would be more appropriate. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no proposal. There was an open question. Many responders gave thoughtful answers that should have informed and been discussed in the close. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

But he chose not to wax eloquent on the subject and that was his prerogative. That does not make his closing defective. I ultimately said "no" which put me in the majority, but it was a close question, and there was no consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse Kraxler's closure. Seems a reasonable close, and his rationale here matches my reading as well. --Jayron32 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The closure seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. I would have probably made a similar close myself. Chillum 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• I've read about half of the RfC and I've not been able to discern any subtopic to draw a consensus on. Perhaps Jytdog could elaborate on what it is he believes should've been considered? Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Given Jytdog's response below, I also endorse the closure. Alakzi (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome, question closure - That the discussion outcome is a clear "no consensus" seems evident to all. (non-admin closure)'s should generally be used in discussions where the outcome is "near-unanimous" -- and a "no consensus" close is the exact opposite of near-unanimity. I know this sentiment does not match the letter of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Closures of RfC's (which only requires an experienced user), but I'm talking about common practice; NACs sometimes spark unecessary post-closure arguments when the discussion itself was contentious, hotly-debated and/or very divided, and where an admin closure would've not led to the same situation (mostly due to the flawed views that some editors hold in regards to admins and non-admins). However I find no fault with Kraxler's evaluation of consensus in this case anyways; I just want to offer some thoughts that he might want to avoid closing such seemingly controversial discussions, if only to avoid the possible ensuing arguments and trouble. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If editors hold other editors to a higher status based on their privileges, that is something that needs to be addressed; advising non-administrators to abstain from supposedly-controversial closures only serves to reinforce these misconceptions. Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • A fair point! I was just saying this for Kraxler's benefit -- frankly adminship has little to do with it, I'd also advise any admin to avoid closing especially controversial discussions if they would prefer avoiding the probable fallout and ensuing arguments. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

responding to Alakzi surprising question. If I were to try to provide a close given the current discussion, it would run something like this: The RfC asked about application of the COI guideline to a particular class of editors. The relevant guidelines and policies are WP:COI and WP:NPOV, with WP:OUTING at play somewhat. COI is defined in the guideline as being about having an "external interest (something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from)" that conflicts with their work here as an editor. NPOV includes WP:PSCI with states that "when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." OUTING protects the privacy of editors, and is at the core of WP's emphasis on content, not contributors. The crux of the question is whether alt-med practitioners have an interest in legitimizing the field in which they work. What emerged is as follows. The community wants experts to contribute, and at the same is aware that experts (including doctors and alt-med practioners) may have a conflict of interest with regard to the validity of the field in which they work (from Monty's no !vote) or with regard to specific products or services they may offer (several commenters). There was a coherent block for "yes" on the basis that alternative medicine is "alternative" and not mainstream and alt-med practitioners will have a tendency to edit Wikipedia in a biased way to add legitimacy to their field. Within that block was a call to separate more established and tested altmed practices like acupuncture or chiropractic from less scientifically valid ones like homeopathy and truly FRINGE practices like "bleach enemas". There was a coherent group for "no", that were very uncomfortable with "ghettoizing" or "demonizing" a class of expert editors by classifying them as having a COI and made an equivalence between alt med practitioners and mainstream medicine. Some "no" comments were based on concerns about privacy and emphasized that edits should be judged based on their compliance with content policies, not on who made them. These are common stances in any discussion of COI issues. Summary: The policy/guideline based arguments favored "yes" but there was no consensus. In the absence of a consensus for "yes", at the community therefore does not consider that alt med practioners have a COI per se; all experts should be careful to edit neutrally with regard to questions of the validity of the field in which they work" Something like that. THere are common themes that were expressed, that can provide guidance going forward on the question. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC) (striking what has become a distraction. i never proposed to close the RfC Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC))

There's no indication that what you call the policy/guideline-based arguments favoured yes. This is the problem with elaborating; the more the closer writes, the more contentious the close will be. A simple question was asked: does group X have a COI? Most people answered no, as you'd expect. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

no RfC is closed on raw head count. meh. that is not a close and i don't pretend it was. that is just an example of trying to actually gather threads from the extensive discussion - to make a thoughtful close. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you'd have liked for them to have summarised the key points of the discussion. Fair enough; I can definitely see the value in that, especially if the issue is a recurrent one. However, my question was, insofar the RfC is concerned, what did the two camps agree on? The answers appears to be, well, nothing. I do not endorse your proposed closing statement: (a) the interpretation of the policies and guidelines differed; and (b) it is inappropriate to issue a blanket warning to all past, present and future editors who happen to be experts in their field. Alakzi (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah, I responded to the RFC, so I could not close it, but I have closed RFC's as an uninvolved editor. In my experience you are spot on with long closings. Often one side or the other is not happy with the close. When a long close is given it creates wiggle room to question if the close was correct, or wiggle room on how it is applied by the editors on the page. Closers should clarify when asked, but long drawn out closings like Jytdog suggests is a prescription for disaster and more posts like this one on AN. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. There was obviously no consensus; indeed I was in favor at one point but changed my mind. This was not a discussion to change the COI guideline, but rather enforcement of the guideline, so I agree that it probably should not have been at T:COI in the first place, but rather at COI/N. Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom - There was no consensus, and it seems that there will not be a clear community consensus for this particular issue any time soon. Given the very serious nature of this RfC and its potential impact on Wikipedia, it should not be decided by any single administrator. The only logical option left is to send this to the Arbitration Committee and let them decide. -A1candidate 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Wasn't this recently declined by ArbCom? Wouldn't it have to be presented differently in order to have any likelihood of being accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe a motion clarifying this point and appended to WP:ARB/PS might serve better, if we really need ArbCom to rule on the matter (and we might, seeing how the discussion went). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

about the three posts above. Closers don't "decide" anything - they try to discern what the community said. I don't think the specific issue of COI in alt med has been raised at arbcom before. i may be wrong tho. i will not be carrying this to arbcom, that is for sure. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: The closure is accurate. I have seen many other simple closures like this to long winding discussions. Shorter is better in this case: Longer summaries to long discussions often fail to capture what was actually said, probably because few neutral third parties are willing to read every single comment and every diff and reference provided and the context of the diff, etc., as a decision maker in law is required to do. The simple observation, apparent to all is that there was no consensus to the simple Yes/No question, which is why it was appropriate to close and say just that. The proposed lengthy alternative closure language does not accurately summarize and represent what was said and attempts to create an alternative consensus with the statement: "The policy/guideline based arguments favored 'yes'". This was noted by SlimVirgin. The actual closure does accurately describe what happened. David Tornheim (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome, reluctantly endorse closure. The relevant policy is: Closures will rarely be changed by the closing editor, but can be challenged in a closure review: if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. I view this as a clearly good faith challenge. It seems no one disputes that the outcome is correct, but this close makes essentially no attempt to summarize the discussion. The challenger made an eminently reasonable request on the closer's talk page: I don't mind it being closed with no consensus, but I was looking for a more thoughtful close that reflects what people actually said, to try to provide guidance to the community. Please either revise your close to make it more of a read on what the community said (there were thoughtful responses beyond the yes/no) or withdraw it.

This close painfully fails to provide any summary, painfully fails to offer any clarity or focus for further discussion. I did not participate in the RfC, but I was specifically interested in reading the outcome. This close was spectacularly unhelpful. A discussion of this magnitude deserved more. None of us can learn anything from the discussion without each of us repetitively re-reading the entire extensive debate.

I find it disappointing that the closer declined a reasonable request to provide a more thoughtful and more helpful summary of the discussion. However given the clear outcome, and given the clearly valid closing rationale, a dissapointing and unhelpful "summary" is not cause-for-overturn. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• endorse outcome, TROUT to closer I agree with the outcome. But if you are going to close this big/important of an RfC, you should put in the effort to summarize the situation. Especially on a NC outcome. Hobit (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• My view, is this should not have been closed at all, it should have scrolled off the page, when people were done discussing. It asked for an exchange of opinions concerning a proposition, which then maybe would in a subsequent discussion (RfC) amend some policy or guideline somewhere. The variations of views on the proposition were wide ranging - and it's not a discussion that reached any closure - discussion of the hows and ways that being involved with a topic may raise COI in a particular instance will continue on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Clearly correct: there is no consensus in that discussion. That doesn't mean specific practitioners don't have a COI, and in fact many clearly do, so we just have to carry on dealing with it on a case by case basis. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
• I think this request for review ought to have been withdrawn by now (so it can be closed), as it's now simply wasting community resources and time here rather unnecessarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights for paid editors

What should we do if we find that disclosed paid editors have autopatrolled rights? I've already removed them from User:BiH and User:Worthywords per recent COIN threads as it was obvious they shouldn't have the rights, but I couldn't find any relevant guidelines other than to report to ANI. I'm asking because User:BeenAroundAWhile (who discloses that they are currently being paid for a different article here) created Fletchers Solicitors which has been deleted as drafts of another paid editor (see 1, 2, 3 and an SPI). Personally, I'd like all paid articles to be reviewed at AFC and the right is potentially very valuable to paid editors to avoid NPP. Is there already a consensus on what should be done in cases like this? SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any consensus. In my opinion, if an editor is still creating articles that pass quality standards, there is no reason to remove it based on a COI/Paid decleration. If the article is one they are conflicted on, but it still meets the standard of quality expected from an autopatrolled editor, New Page Patrol isn't going to catch the sort of subtle COI issues that we worry about. If the article would get fixed by NPP, the issue isn't that they have the COI, its that they aren't producing articles of acceptable quality. But then I do have a much more Laissez-faire attude with regard to good quality COI/Paid editors than many people. Monty₈₄₅ 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to User:SmartSE for notifying me of this discussion. I agree with User:Monty845. Some other editor was kind enough many years ago to make me an autopatroller — I don't know why because I didn't ask for it — it simply makes it easier for me to check over problematic articles, so I think I should simply keep on keeping on. As for "What should we do if we find that disclosed paid editors have autopatrolled rights?" well, I think nothing. I am not sure what the point of the question is except to make life difficult for a particular class of editor. Raising this question certainly is not going to improve the encyclopedia. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion, I think, is at Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a discussion worth having; having a check over an article written by a paid editor doesn't sound unreasonable. That said, I think I agree with Monty, if an editor is creating articles bad enough to need the kind of check that NPP carries out, the editor shouldn't have autopatrolled regardless of COI. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they have autopatrolled rights if they are complying with policies and writing quality articles? GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Because that's the issue- they were making good articles, then they started being paid for articles, and the article quality declined. They should never have autopatrolled rights, as getting articles by paid editors checked can only be a good thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Joseph2302, but I am greatly offended, since I am the one being discussed here. My article quality has not declined, and I defy you to point out where it has declined. In fact, I have refused contracts where I would have been paid to lower Wikipedia's standards. I am being paid by people who agree with me that WP standards should be maintained. If not, I don't accept their contracts. But having looked up just what this WP:Autopatrol thing is all about, I certainly don't need it, and I agree that any article written on contract should be vetted by the community, but that stricture should be spelled out at the relevant page, and not here. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

But I think I am being singled out for attack, and I am not about to stand for that, because I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: My sincerest apologies, the complaints about article quality were 100% not directed at you. They were about Worthywords and BiH, per some discussions at WP:COIN- in my opinion, they have been sacrificing article quality in order to get money. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion all COI-borne article creations should be done through AFC. All of them, without exception. I don't care if the oldest and most productive account in Wikipedia is involved - if they have a COI then someone else should give the article the green light. This is already encoded in WP:COI, although unfortunately that's a guideline and not a policy. And it applies to all editors, regardless of the quantity or quality of their contributions. In this particular case I make no distinction between someone with 10,000 edits and someone with 10. All new articles should go through AFC, all non-trivial edits should be done per WP:EDITREQ, period. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with this, the more scrutiny that the community gives to paid articles the better. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I dodn't believe we currently have a policy on this particular issue, nor do we need one. Case-by-case basis should on admin discretion, or by case-by-case consensus should there be a discussion of an individual case should be able to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think I agree. In general, paid editors should not have the autopatrolled right. All articles created by declared paid editors should be subject to the most rigourous possible examination at all times. BMK (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that paid editors should not have the autopatrolled right. They are subject to special disclosure requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use, and creating articles violates the "bright line rule" that Jimbo has invoked frequently. Removal of autopatrolled rights is a minor step when viewed against that backdrop. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Jimbo's suggestion of a bright line rule is about paid advocates. Few people people (perhaps only you) are really gunning to prevent librarians and professors from editing. WilyD 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• That stuff about "professors and librarians and widows and orphans and Nobel Prize winners" being paid to edit is one of the hoariest loads of bullshit the pro-paid-editing crowd put up to excuse the paid editing mills. But just to clarify, yes, I am talking about paid advocates. God forbid we should prevent other paid editors from doing their good work. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we used to have disclosed paid editors who are administrators. I do not think this is an issue at all. If the editor is clearly familiar with the policies, they should be autopatrolled. If they are not familiar with the policies, they should not be autopatrolled regardless of whether they ever received anything for their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Given what RfA is at this time, I don't believe any disclosed paid editor could becomes an admin today. Undisclosed paid editors could, but if their status as paid editors came out afterwards, I feel certain it would be brought to ArbCom. The feeling about paid editors has, I think, turned arounded in a way many old-times don't seem to recognize. We are no longer a strugging upstart trying to make our way on the Internet, we are (at least for the moment) the premiere first choice for information online. That means our reputation for NPOV is more important than ever, that we will attract more and more paid editors -- some of whom are totally uninterested in being neutral, and it's more important than ever that their contributions be vetted all along the way. A paid editor being auto-patrolled removes one iniital layer of vetting, making it more likely for NPOV articles to slip by.

I like the idea of paid articles being required to pass through AfC, but that would require that AfC examiners be of a generally higher level than they are now. Perhaps we need a specific AfC for paid editors, something modeled on GA or FA procedures but with emphasis on NPOV, balance, notability and reliable non-biased sourcing. Subsequent exposure of the writer's paid status should then result in mandatory AfD for that editor' articles.

The problem of paid editing is not a small one, and it cannot be fluffed off with "well, it's worked OK up until now," because it hasn't worked OK, it's just been hidden by non-disclosure by paid editors. We need a clear-cut well-defined procedure that enables Wiki-knowledgeable editors to create NPOV articles for which they are paid, but nevertheless keeps them under the watchful eye of the community. Blowing the whole thing off as insignificant sure as heck isn't the answer. BMK (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, currently there is no policy that gives explicit guidance one way or the other. And we aren't in th eight place to do anything about that. An RFC or WP:VP/P would be more appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

True, just floating ideas. BMK (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

On topic: According to WP:Autopatrolled"

It means that the user can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, deliberately or otherwise, and that the user submits new material often enough that it is more efficient to mark it all as approved preemptively.

I believe that basic contention is that once an editor is paid for their efforts, they now serve two masters, Wikipedia and its policies, and whoever is forking over the cash. Under these new conditions, it can no longer be assumed that whatever their knowledge is of Wikipedia policies and guideliness, that they will follow them if they come into conflict with the needs of the people paying the bills. Therefore it seems quite logical to remove the autopatrolled right from any declared paid editor until they have shown they have earned it back. This requires no new policy and no debate. Any admin can remove the autopatrolled right from any editor at any time (actually, for cause, as they have to justify it in the discussion that will follow). Having become a paid editor should be sufficient cause, the change in status introducing conflicting allegiances. BMK (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Glee article

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Hey excuse me, could someone help me, I need help with the "characters of glee" article", could someone add the recurring characters to the table of characters list, the recurring characters are red, the guest characters are blue, and the main characters are green, I just don't know how to add the them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhyboo (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zhyboo. This page is for administrator related issues. You would be better off taking this to the article's talk page: Talk:Characters of Glee. Sam Walton (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are having technical difficulties, such as with the colors, then a good place to ask those would be at the WP:Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

hello

hi their i am noticed about this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MShabazz who delete the sentence in this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=663341476" that saying "The law in saudi arabia required all the citizens be muslim" although there is a reliable source from the cia site that saying https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html "non-Muslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship " and yet he delete it im only want to enter facts into the article can you please block him for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.150.169 (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You want a user blocked for making one edit that you do not aggre with? And when that diod not immediately happen the second you posted this you edit warred over it and used profanity in your edit sumarry? I'm going to go ahead and say no. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know if anybody is going to move this to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I'll reply here. The IP editor has reverted three times in less than 30 minutes, and refused to use the article's Talk page despite being asked to. Perhaps somebody can explain WP:BOOMERANG to her/him. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

first of all i was not got any edit warn and why should i? not agree? so what the cia site is bullshits? it is not me that say that is the cia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC) it was not one edit he undo it in obsession way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

hi their wikipedians

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

---

im deeply mad for you deleting that part and not block the people who insist to undo it. " The law in saudi arabia required all the citizens be muslim." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia&action=history when i gave direct source from the cia that said "non-Muslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship ' https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html i would like you to block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarnetteD and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MShabazz it is getting on my nerved that after i gave a source from the cia site you still in their side. it is not me who not agree with them it is the cia site who does not agree with them now the cia site is less reliable than wiki editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated the information you added together with the reference. Looking at the article's edit history, I have to say the editors removing the text were doing so pretty churlishly; although Itaykaufman12 didn't add the reference to the text, they were citing the url in their edit summary so it was pretty clear that the information was from a reliable source. Frankly, I'd expect better treatment of a new editor than blanket reverting. Number 57 11:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that there is an ongoing discussion of this issue on the article talk page, and given that AN/ANI does not rule on content disputes, I have to suggest that this has not been handled appropriately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, you do realise that this is the same issue as is being discussed in the thread immediately above, :Number 57? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57:, Itaykaufman12 (talk · contribs) is the latest account of an IP edit-warrior who usually edits from the 80.246.133.* and 80.246.130.* ranges, and this account should not have been "rewarded" by having its work added to the article when a discussion on the subject is on-going on the Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not about any editor being "rewarded", it's about whether valid content was being added or not. And it's no surprise they were edit warring given the poor treatment they received from people who really should know better (claiming that the edit was not sourced when it's quite clear that they were attempting to source it – and you weren't the only one doing that). Number 57 17:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, baloney. They were edit-warring because that's what they do. Here are three IPs pulled from my cache: 1 2 3 Look at the page histories of any of the pages this editor has touched. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Andy is of course correct that the admin noticeboard does not solve content disputes. I have protected the page to stop the edit warring and allow some breathing room for the discussion to take place. If there is a dispute about the validity of sources I suggest you use WP:RSN to help resolve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

hi their i edit on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi&oldid=663430969 that "Al-Baghdadi also claimed in 2014 that islamic jihadists would never hesitate to eliminate Israel just because it has the United States support." http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-11/14/content_7369551.htm and yet he undo that and is not my opinion and im not asking you for block him cuz im not agree with his edits. he is deleting what im putting into the article after i already gave reliable source and im even reference to the words that saying in this source. if i had no source i wouldnt ask from you to block him please block him for deleting facts on wiki after reliable source was already given here his account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Shabazz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you the same person as User:Morlvi471? --Jayron32 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think so! Last two articles edited. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A couple things by way of reply:

• Please stop creating new sections of this page every time you have a comment to make
• Please use only one identity in any given subject area
• Please follow WP:BRD instead of edit warring

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need an SPI/CU; even if they're not socking, this editor is disruptive and POV and is heading swiftly towards an indef. GiantSnowman 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

ok than but i gave source right here that saying http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-11/14/content_7369551.htm "ISIS’s leader claims that Islamic Jihadists would never hesitate to eliminate Israel just because it has the United States’ support" " you want to tell me that the wiki editors know better from the cia and china institute of international studies? it supposed to be free encyclopedia that every one can add new facts about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaykaufman12 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Itaykaufman12 and Morlvi471 are  Confirmed. I've therefore blocked Itaykaufman12. It would be helpful if Malik Shabazz could tell me what account he had in mind when he blocked Morlvi471 for block evasion. He can do so privately if that's appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

this is stupid excuse to block me no law in wikipedia saying user not allowed to have multiple accounts?. and i want to talk about this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredim_and_Zionism you undo me when i said "the reason this groups are against zionism is they want halachic state while the zionism supporting secular jewish state." yet i gave here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haredim_and_Zionism#about_haredim_and_halachic_state two reliable sources and quote from them. . unless give me reliable source that claim otherwise than my sources. the cia site dont justify you books dont justify you and hina institute of international studies also dont justify you? if i give reliable source you have no reason to undo me unless is redundant which it was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shay2570 (talk • contribs)

Continuing your socking here is... something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Editors are not forbidden from having multiple accounts but they aren't allowed to use multiple accounts inappropriately, such as using multiple accounts for block evasion, or to create the impression of multiple editors carrying are certain view point when there is only 1, or to prevent people linking problematic edits. This means if you are blocked you shouldn't be editing from any account (except for special circumstances like a minor block months or years ago or a username only block) and it also means if you're going to edit the same or related articles you generally should explicitly link your accounts via a note on your userpage. See WP:SOCK for more details. Incidently, if you are the same editor who has been blocked above multiple times, creating this account makes it very unlikely you will be unblocked any time soon, you really need to stop doing that if you want to have any chance of editing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the Law of holes applies here... --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please keep an eye on this user

Hi, I am requesting some caution with User:Wiki-shield. He/she has a history of trying to remove anything critical of Cogmed and accused me of being associated with Lumosity (cogmed's presumed market rival), which isn't true. This person has a very short history on Wikipedia and most of it is trying to remove anything critical of 'brain training' programs. Here are some of WS's latest edits.[17].

@Taeyebaar, I don't know what is the cause of your personal vendetta with Cogmed and other memory/brain training programs but your history of editing these articles shows crafting the text in negative manner and removing all positive references and all supporting research. As for your statement re Lumosity, interestingly enough I never said (or thought before) that you are associated with Lumosity... Yet, looking at Lumosity history I see now that this is the only memory/brain training program where you didn't do negative edits, assigned to Wiki Skepticism, etc. Should we read your message above as a self-confession in sock-puppetry...?Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not accusing him/her of being associated with anything, but his defensiveness for cogmed (and possibly other programs) seems suspicious. I think a neutral admin or other admins should keep a close eye on this individual and his/her activity. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A lovingly crafted advertisement. Once the PR crap is blasted out, it is a lot shorter but better for it. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Advertisement??? Did you even bother reading about Cogmed before removing 80% of article incl. the history of Cogmed and all supporting research??? Cogmed is the most reputable memory training program and it is used by millions of people around the world as an alternative to ADHD medication. Virtually every mental health professional in the US and Canada recognizes and supports Cogmed training. It is the only program supported and recognized by American Psychological Association (APA). There are over 45 independent peer-reviewed research studies from top universities and research centers supporting benefits of Cogmed training. So far there is only 3 negative studies for Cogmed, but these are dis-proportionally inflated in popular media - being an alternative to ADHD drugs, Cogmed is jeopardizing profits of Big Pharma... I have absolutely no association with Cogmed, but as a psychotherapist who treats ADHD patients, I am very upset with your actions. I urge you to revisit the article and reconsider your edits. There is no point with going into editing wars with admin but I suggest that other admins (especially ones with psychology background) look into this issue.Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)