Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sardanaphalus (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 21 July 2015 (→Missing evaluation: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

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

      (Initiated 98 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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPathtalk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

      (Initiated 13 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
      CfD 0 0 0 32 32
      TfD 0 0 0 5 5
      MfD 0 0 2 6 8
      FfD 0 0 1 2 3
      RfD 0 0 6 44 50
      AfD 0 0 0 1 1

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

      (Initiated 304 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Closure Review

      I find that there is agreement here to overturn to merge, and that there is sufficient approval for this option in the original discussion to adequately support this outcome. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      This is a request to review the close at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Merger_proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion.

      The closure appears to have been made based on the opinion of the editor that closed it rather than the actual consensus. As I said when talking to the editor that closed it, I am aware that consensus is not determined simply by counting heads but there are significantly more editors in support of the merger than against it, and neither side cited any rules. Mainline421 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Overturn and merge as per consensus - and I will tell you for why: The closer concentrated mainly on sourcing/notability of the re-release, however that was addressed clearly by the support voters. Demonstrated notability means that a subject *can* have its own article, not that it *should* have one. In this case the support merge group clearly demonstrated that a re-release of the game for a later console can easily be incorporated into the original article. Its just not that different a product *its the same game*. There are differences but if we had different articles for re-releases of all media.... At best it merits two paragraphs with a list of the major changes and its reception. Secondly a number of the oppose votes are along the lines of 'otherstuffexists' which is not a valid reason for not merging. Lots of other stuff exists. Often those articles have their own reasons, or often, no one has got around to propose merging/deleting them. On the whole, the support merge group had both stronger arguments and none that are against policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ANI is not the place for this. As I previously stated, the closure isn't something I made based on my own opinion. If you look again, another editor did cite that the re-release meets WP:GNG, and WP:Article size was also brought up (even if indirectly). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures this is exactly the place to bring a challenge, I'm not making an opinion on the close but just pointing that out. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Snuggums, as a general rule, whenever someone makes a claim like "ANI is not the place for this", they should specify where they think the right place is. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I am also a bit uncomfortable with the claim you made at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion that "one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons". While technically true, and often invoked when there are a lot of "I llke it/don't like it" !votes, in this case it appears that those who opposed the merge were well aware of the "compelling reason" and did not find it compelling, even if you did. In such cases the opinion of the majority should not be disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd endorse that, because the only real alternative is "overturn to no consensus", and "no consensus" means the status quo ante should continue, so it has exactly the same effect as endorsing the close. I can't see any way to get to "overturn to merge" based on that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Privacy of trans people's original names

      An editor has posted trans activist Jazz Jennings' real first name as revealed by her father on TLC's I Am Jazz. Her original name has not been reported anywhere (save for a few anti-trans sites) even since the disclosure so I don't think it belongs here at all. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Semiprotected for another month. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Protection isn't necessarily a bad idea, however not what I'm looking for. I wanted to know if anyonne else agreed the name should be removed. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Deadnaming people is unacceptable and I've removed it and deleted it per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Do I correctly understand that this name was revealed on a TV program that millinons of people watch? If so, there is no privacy issue whatsoever. BMK (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, possibly. I don't know if that made it into the actual programming although it was in the promotional preview. No secondary sources actually picked up on it so it is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      (non-administrator comment) Yeah, protecting the page and deleting the revisions was a little over-the-top in my opinion. The parents made her birth name public information on a nationally-broadcast TV series; and the material clearly was not added with the intention to harm the subject, and last I saw it it was not presented in a defamatory manner. I do agree with Mark Schierbecker, though, that if this was not reported on by secondary sources and it's not common knowledge, it doesn't warrant inclusion. But I think somebody overreacted just a little bit here. Chase (talk | contributions) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Just pointing out that WP:BIRTHNAME was updated after a VPP discussion too. If the person was not notable prior to transition, no need to mention previous name in lead. I think this goes in general too per BLPPRIVACY (and the fact that she's minor...) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that it shouldn't have been included in the lead; I even removed that occurrence in a now-deleted revision. (The name was also briefly mentioned in the "Early life" section. I didn't feel the need to remove it at the time, but as I said, it doesn't need to be included since it hasn't been widely reported.) I just personally think oversight/revdel was a ridiculous overreaction. Deleting it on BLPPRIVACY grounds doesn't make much sense to me since Jennings is a public figure and the information was disclosed on a recent national telecast by her parents. It's not a big deal, but I just find it strange, that's all. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Her parents != Her. I'm sure there are many things many parents have said about their child that they don't agree or want to be associated with. Unless Jazz wish to make this public information herself by discussing it publicly, privacy should very much still apply. -- KTC (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think there's an issue with erring on the side of privacy either, given that it seems the information shouldn't be in the article anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Some of the details needed to be hidden anyway (Like her parents' fracking real names. Who thought that was a good idea to add??). Mark Schierbecker (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Gee, and here I thought we were an encyclopedia. My miatake. BMK (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Considered for unbanning

      On my talk page, I was referred to this Administrators' noticeboard as the correct place to ask to be considered for unbanning.

      A ban was imposed on my Wikipedia account two years ago (in July 2013), which stipulated that I could no longer edit Wikipedia medical articles (but the ban does not apply to other areas of Wikipedia). It is now two years hence, and if possible, I would very much like to be considered for unbanning.

      The ban originally resulted from an over-heated discussion on the Morgellons Disease talk page, where myself and others tried to get the pseudoscience extricated from that page, but the major editors there were intent on keeping the pseudoscience .

      The reason I am requesting consideration for unbanning is because I would like to partake in this AfD discussion on a Wikipedia medical page that I originally created, namely the page List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens.

      I am not sure whether I can partake in a AfD discussion under a ban, although one editor mentioned in the said AfD discussion they thought my medical ban would not apply to AfD discussions.

      Thank you for considering this. Drgao (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Could you find a diff of the actual wording of the ban and the discussion that led up to it? Chillum 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      This would appear to be it. Given that the wording is "indefinitely topic-banned from articles and talk pages within the realm of WP:MEDICINE" I would think that participating in an AfD is not a violation of the topic ban. Sam Walton (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO, AfD pages are considered "talk pages". Participating in a debate there would indeed violate the topic ban. Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that in that ban discussion retrieved by Samwalton9 above (thanks), the individuals originally asking for the ban only requested the ban to be applied to the Morgellons page and related articles, not to the whole of Wiki medical (in the ban discussion, see the sentence: "I am asking that both Drgao and Erythema be topic banned from Morgellons and related articles"). However, for some reason, the ban was applied to the whole of Wiki medical; I am not clear why the scope of this ban was widened. Drgao (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Because the community felt that a limited topic ban would be less helpful than a full ban from medical topics. Sometimes when someone comes to AN/ANI seeking a resolution, the outcome can be more than they asked for, or less. Just because a request is made seeking a specific action, does not bind the community into 'only that action or nothing' resolution. For what its worth, I support an exemption to contribute to the AFD of an article you substantially contributed to, as its generally considered unfair to (potentially) delete an article someone has created and is now topic banned from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Only in death; it would be nice to have official clarification on this issue of whether I can contribute to a medical AfD. It would also be nice to have the ban removed, if this is possible. I felt that the ban was a little unfair anyway, given that myself and others were simply just striving to improve the Morgellons page. Drgao (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      See also the subsequent talk page discussion, namely the indefblock and unblock under the terms of this ban (which appears to have been a legitimate problem with the original wording). The unblocking admin asked On what page/s in Wikipedia does your topic ban permit you to post on medical topics? and accepted the answer No pages at all.
      That being said, as the AfD nominator I support a provisional modification of the topic ban specifically for the purposes of participating in the AfD. (FWIW, I was not active at the time of the original ban, but based on comments here and in the original discussion I would not support lifting the ban in its entirety at this time.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      (edit conflict)(edit conflict) The reason is clear: Whatever the OP wanted, it's what the voters wanted. At ANI where everyone and his monkey can have their say, that's what happens, although there were in fact several sysops supporting a total ban from Med, and there appears to be no denying the evidence. Kim Dent-Brown just read the consensus and appplied it. I think Drago should be permitted to participate on the AfD, but perhaps he should now also consider making a formal request for full unbanning by stating what he believes to have learned from his ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • The edits at Morgellons clearly establish a systematically incorrect approach to the scientific basis of medicine. It is textbook civil POV-pushing (and tendentious and agenda-driven and a bunch of other things we don't need). The original discussion had only two dissenters: the banned editors themselves. They dissented on the basis that even at that point they still didn't get it, and I think that has not changed. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I was recently informed that a topic ban refers to all pages with "en.wikipedia.org" as the URL, so this means it even applies to a users sandbox.DrChrissy (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I should perhaps mention some of the circumstances of my ban. Originally on the Morgellons talk page, the conversion became quite heated, because some experienced editors there were defending the existing Morgellons article, an article which is filled with what many consider to be pseudoscientific psychological theories describing of the origin of Morgellons disease, a disease with physical symptoms. These experienced editors pointed out that these psychological theories were referenced by secondary sources, and that was the basic reason they wanted to keep this psychobabble in the Morgellons article.

      I appreciate that secondary sources do carry much more weight than primary sources; however, scientific standards for evidence in the world of psychiatry are often much lower than standards found in hard sciences, sciences such as say biochemistry or immunology. Psychiatric theories for physical diseases, and Morgellons is in part a physical disease, often have more of quasi-religious quality than a scientific one. Many psychiatric theories are not even science, in the sense that they cannot be readily empirically tested, and thus confirmed or refuted. Yet because these theories are published in secondary sources, they are given just as much weight on Wikipedia as hard biochemical sciences. I was trying to make the Morgellons article editors aware that psychiatric theories are often pseudoscientific or low quality science, and do not deserve this weight. However, I was told that Wikipedia editors are "not allowed to think for themselves," and must just mechanically go by the Wikipedia rules for reliable evidence, even if those rules result in a pseudoscientific article. I appreciate that following the rules is paramount; but when that leads to a pseudoscientific article, well, what do you do in this situation?

      Really this issue is wider than just the Morgellons article: the issue is about whether psychiatric theories can be considered high quality science, worthy of equal status in Wikipedia to the hard sciences. I would propose that psychiatric theories are often not high quality science. Many psychiatric theories that held sway until recently (like the Freudian psychosexual theories) are now thank goodness finally seen as complete nonsense. Thus, as a wider issue than just the Morgellons article, I think the status of psychiatric published sources needs to placed under review on Wikipedia. It does not make sense that psychiatric sources are given the same weight as hard sciences. Obviously that is going to be very unpopular with psychiatrists. But psychiatrists have been getting away with low standards for scientific evidence for far too long.

      My ban came about as a result of "tendentious editing". Early on in the heated discussion on the Morgellons talk page that led to the ban, I was accused by some editors of getting too personal; so I then complied with their request not to take a personal angle. But then they just got fed up with hearing my arguments, so said that my efforts to improve the article were tendentious, and I was apparently banned for tendentiousness. I do not agree with this, because my efforts were aimed at removing low quality science and pseudoscientific psychiatric theories from the article. Those editors who classed my actions as tendentious could equally have had this epithet applied to them, as they were in intransigent in upholding a psychiatric pseudoscience viewpoint. Drgao (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Oppose lifting topic ban. From reading Drgaou's comments above, it seems entirely evident that this contributor does not accept Wikipedia policies regarding appropriate sourcing for medically-related content, and accordingly the topic ban is justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • oppose lifting the indef As a WP:MED editor who deals with a lot of FRINGE-pushers, I do not support lifting the indef. Drgao seems still very much committed to the FRINGE view that Morgellons has some physical basis, which is not what the medical consensus holds, per MEDRS sources (recent reviews in the biomedical literature and the major medical/scientific bodies that have commented on this (namely the CDC). As there is no statement of change in orientation toward the policy issues that led to the indef (WP:PSCI) there is no reason to lift it.Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose lifting the topic ban because I do not believe that it would have a net benefit to the project. However, if Drgao wanted to e-mail a single, short proposed comment or vote for the specific AFD in question to any willing admin (=not me, since I'm not an admin), then I'd have no objection to an admin posting such a vote on Drgao's behalf. I would even go so far as to making a one-time exception to the topic ban to permit Drgao to post a single vote at the AFD, if it were limited to, say, 300 words or less, and was a standalone vote (not replying to any individual or trying to start a discussion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


      QUOTING AndyTheGrump: "From reading Drgaou's comments above, it seems entirely evident that this contributor does not accept Wikipedia policies regarding appropriate sourcing for medically-related content, and accordingly the topic ban is justified".

      That is not the case at all. I think the MEDRS rules are an excellent system, I strive to comply with them, and I think they work very well.

      The main issue here is not MEDRS, but the unfriendliness of the editors on the Morgellons page, and their unwillingness to listen to numerous other editors with different views. During some of the discussions on the Morgellons talk page, one editor even wrote to me personally said that this level of unfriendliness is not normal on Wikipedia, and that I should not be put off editing Wikipedia as a result of my bad experiences on the Morgellons page.

      When editors are friendly and listening, there is often plenty of scope to modify and improve the article, and in an amicable way, while still fully complying with MEDRS. I was not in any way suggesting that MEDRS rules be contravened, and AndyTheGrump is not correct in surmising that I do not accept Wikipedia policies. I very much do accept these policies, and I understand why these policies are important.

      Note that AndyTheGrump was one of the editors who wants to uphold the low quality psychiatric pseudoscience material on the Morgellons page.


      QUOTING Jytdog: "Drgao seems still very much committed to the FRINGE view that Morgellons has some physical basis, which is not what the medical consensus holds."

      Actually I have very little interest in Morgellons, and if you would consider lifting my ban, but maintaining a ban against me editing the Morgellons article, I would be very happy with that, because I would not want to edit it anyway.

      But incidentally, Jytdog, you are not correct about the medical consensus of Morgellons: there is no medical consensus regarding the etiology of Morgellons, because nobody really knows what causes this disease, and to pretend otherwise is wrong and incorrect. One of the main problems with the Morgellons article is that it vastly overstretches the science: the article takes what is essentially an opinion piece about the nature of Morgellons, proposed by psychiatrists who don't have much reputation for good, solid science, and presenting this opinion as if it were an established and empirical fact. That's wrong. It's being untruthful. In the article, you need to be honest and accurate about the state of knowledge. You should not be overstretching the science to try to create the illusion that Morgellons disease is all understood and all wrapped up scientifically. Hardly anything is known about this disease, so you need to say that in the article. But the article is pretending that Morgellons is well-understood. Overstretching the science is bad in any situation, but is particularly bad if the science is of low quality to start with, and the psychiatric theories of Morgellons etiology are certainly low quality science at best. You certainly do not want to be overstretching these.

      As for the accusation by Guy above that I am pushing a point of view, well, if you care to glance at the Morgellons talk page, over the last two years that I was banned, every few months you have new editors appearing on that talk page, making exactly the same points that I was making. All of these new editors face the unmoving regular editors that just don't listen, so no improvements to the article are made. So this is not just my personal point of view that there are problems with the Morgellons article.


      But as I mentioned, this is an issue that is wider that the Morgellons article. Indeed, one other reason I would like my ban lifted (apart from on the Morgellons page), is that I would like to start a process that instigates a review of MEDRS guidelines when it comes to psychiatric sources. Psychiatric theories are rarely backed up by empirical evidence, so should not be given the same weight as empirically supported theories from the hard sciences. Indeed, if MEDRS were updated so that it recognized that psychiatric theories often have no empirical basis, and are often more akin to religious beliefs, we would have never got into the argument on the Morgellons talk page in the first place.

      Ultimately, this is an issue of revising MEDRS, so that MEDRS does not give high weight to dubious psychiatric theories that do not have a proven empirical basis. Does anyone know what the official route would be to raising a proposal to change MEDRS? I would like to have this matter of unproven psychiatric theories discussed.

      This is what I should have done in the first place: I should have bowed out of the Morgellons discussion, and instead tackled the root cause of this issue, which is in MEDRS itself. Drgao (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Weren't you just asking to lifting to discuss the AFD? Now, you're suggesting that if lifted in full, you'll instead fight at WP:MEDRS, basically expanding the scope of articles where there were concerns? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That issue of MEDRS was something I had at the back of my mind for some time, but sort of forgot about it. It just occurred to me again now, so mentioned it in passing. Drgao (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      oy, that WP:Wall of text is a perfect example of WP:CRUSH. I already !voted above but please do not lift the topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you explain what evidence is that exactly, BMK? I cannot read minds. Drgao (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note to admins: Drgao went ahead and leapt into the AfD here, on the basis that "a few editors" said it was OK, and in that comment made ad hominem arguments; this is exactly the kind of behavior that was described in the ANI that led to their topic ban. I hatted it. My goodness. I just deleted a subsequent comment they made, but they just came right back. I will not attempt to stem them further. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I gave a 72-hour block back on the subsequent comment with an explanation on the editor's talk page. "A few editors" think it's not a violation is not sufficient and not accurate, especially when the editor does come here believing that it would be a violation. I'm not accusing the Drgao as such but it's akin to forum shopping to have a request in multiple places and wait for a few supporters before going forward. The block was not for the duration of the AFD and the editor can be unblocked if they wish to participate further here on removing the entire topic ban or somewhere else not in violation of the topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unbanning - Bans are preventative, not punitive. They are aimed at preventing disruptive behavior, not controlling the content of articles. If Drgao hasn't caused any problems in the 2 years of his/her topic ban then what's the issue here? If he/she becomes problematic again then reinstitute the ban as necessary. Article creators should be allowed to participate in discussions related to the articles they created. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No comment on the larger ban but that sounds very WP:OWNership-y to say that those who create an article have some greater right to comment on discussions about it. Would an editor who was unblocked or banned overall have a right to return due to an AFD on an article they created? I've already felt no one owns an article means that all, contributors or non-contributors to the article, have an equal right (or lac thereof) to opine on things (which falls into WP:RANDY territory if you take it too far I admit). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kindzmarauli, while it is true that "Drgao hasn't caused any problems in the 2 years of his/her topic ban", it seems that he also hasn't made any edits since his topic ban. We have no indication that he is capable of contributing productively, and his behavior during this discussion suggests that the problems which existed two years ago remain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose lifting topic ban. Having re-read the discussion from two years ago, I notice that I participated in it. (I'll be honest, I don't even remember the editor or the discussion.) At the time, the last sentence of my comment was: "It appears, based on the information above, that this is an ongoing, persistent, and otherwise intractable IDHT problem." Given Drgao's behavior during this discussion – and his insistence on immediately violating his topic ban to participate in the AfD (based on very selectively hearing only what he wanted from a few of the comments above) – it appears that the intractable IDHT problem persists. A block for violating his topic ban would not be out of order, either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      IP block extemptions

      What uses of Tor meet the prescribed "genuine and exceptional need" for an IP block exemption to edit, when would you as an admin grant it? Does it have to be because you're editing in a country that has blocked Wikipedia, or can it simply be because you want to exercise anonymity? If the second isn't exceptional enough, why is this? Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The guidelines are at Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Administrator.27s_guide. This may be a better question for Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption than here as any discussion here that actually goes somewhere will be re-hashed on the talk page anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I was specifically asking how administrators evaluate this, without any opinion on the policy itself. That being said, thanks for that link. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Missing evaluation

      Dear Administrators,

      I'm concerned that this ban is not based on a systematic, contextual and non-partisan evaluation of the grounds offered for it. Does anyone agree that this is missing and ought not to be?

      Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=672413262"