Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 54 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 115 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 112 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 112 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.

—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(Initiated 83 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)[reply]

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

(Initiated 64 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 64 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shakshouka#RfC on etymology

(Initiated 57 days ago on 29 June 2024) Conversation seems to have concluded. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 56 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 52 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 48 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)[reply]

The rfc here - Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox - was started over a month ago and has stalled since 11 August. It could do with a closure by a neutral third-party. Helper201 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 41 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 39 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 38 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 36 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 8 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)[reply]

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#Trump photo

(Initiated 3 days ago on 22 August 2024) There are currently two separate RfCs about Trump’s infobox photo. Should there be a procedural close, or should discussion be allowed to continue? Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	23	23
TfD	1	4	5
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	5	80	85
AfD	0	0	0

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

(Initiated 309 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 270 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ricky Ponting#Merger

(Initiated 166 days ago on 12 March 2024) Merger proposal started months ago. Closure may be overdue. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 89 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 87 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 78 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 48 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)[reply]

Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#Proposal:_Kamala_Harris_as_"border_czar"_in_the_Biden_administration

(Initiated 29 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 15 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment

I have started a closure review for Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment. The RfC was closed by Kingsindian (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2015 in response to an WP:ANRFC request. The close was hidden as a contested close by Red Slash (talk · contribs). There is discussion about the closure at Talk:Kosovo#Post RfC.

There is a re-closure request here at WP:ANRFC, where Red Slash wrote:

Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you.

But per the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review:

On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.

Kingsindian put a lot of thought into his close. His close should not be summarily overturned by an admin. Therefore, I am taking the close here for review by the community.

Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsindian did a good job on the close. I say leave it the way he closed it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my version of events.

A short account of the sockpuppet matters.

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

There was some disruption by a sock in the RfC comments. Robert McClenon suggested on WP:ANRFC that the closure be handled by an admin because of the sock disruption. However, by the time I got around to closing, the sock had been blocked and its comments struck out. I asked Robert on his talk page as to his judgment about whether this needs an admin close, and he said that since the sock has been eliminated he does not see any obvious need, and told me to use my judgment. So I closed the RfC.

According to comments on the talk page, Red Slash thinks that my closure is vague and that it is a "supervote". I am not sure what he means by this. I explained my reasoning in detail, and my closure is unambiguous: consensus against option "#1" and consensus for option "#2 and #3", which I even clarified on the talk page. It is not a "supervote" in any form: I just assessed the consensus of a complicated discussion by looking at the arguments for all options, and determined that "#2 and #3" is the best (or the least bad).

As to the point about non-admin closure, my feeling is that Red Slash in not acquainted with policy here (especially since he asked for re-closure at WP:ANRFC instead of starting a closure review, as I advised on the talk page). As I explained to him before, there is nothing special in being an admin; any uninvolved editor can close RfCs, provided they explain themselves thoroughly. Please see WP:ANRFC (point 3). Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian I think you wrote a very detailed closing, and I want to ask before assuming, did you find any consensus in that RFC, or just something close to consensus but not actually consensus? AlbinoFerret 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbinoFerret: I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps my last paragraph in the RfC close is not as unambiguous as I think it is. I definitely found that the consensus is against option #1. For the rest of the options, option "#2 and #3" came the closest, and in my judgement, was close enough to be considered consensus. I clarified this on the talk page here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am another editor closer. I have found when a 50/50 question in my mind arises to just as the person to make sure. While I personally would not have touched this RFC with a ten foot keyboard cable, its a good close. Since the sock issue was cleared up, I dont see why an editor couldnt have closed it.AlbinoFerret 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to comment here, firstly - no disrespect to admins - but just as trained judges are not "superhumans", persons with admin status are not somehow better qualified to cast judgement than any third party uninvolved editors. I cannot help but think that the editor to request admin closure is using this track as a sneaky "appeal" because he personally disagrees with the decision of Kingsindian. Seeing the closing statement by Kingsindian, I see all the hallmarks of a good judge who read every comment and weighed through them to arrive at his rational conclusion. If he became an admin tomorrow I doubt he will have suddenly acquired new observation methods, we are all human beings. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Section transcluded from Technophant's talk page

Please do not directly edit this section; if you must reply in-line, do so on the user talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Technophant

Wasn't there just an unblock request here at WP:AN for Technophant? Did it get removed somehow, or am I just remembering wrongly? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the last bit of his above post -- there was a request for his TPA/email to be restored so he could appeal the block properly. It was successful and TPA was restored to allow him to appeal his block. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to believe that the behavioural issues that led to this block won't return. Technophant was blocked both for the topic ban violation and for repeatedly lying. I don't see anything in his unblock request that addresses the issue that he lied and lied again when he was confronted about the lies. Instead, we get a big waffle about how Wikipedia policies have shifted away from "verifiability, not truth". What would be the motivation for unblocking?—Kww(talk) 03:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing it. The comments from Technophant in this discussion are not at all convincing to me that he's here to edit in a way that will improve the encyclopedia. My impression is that he is trying to Wikilawyer his way out of a block. That does not sit well with me. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. There are half a dozen edits, all in the short period since Talk access was requested. The purpose of the Standard Offer is to allow people to demonstrate commitment to the goals of the project and a track record of acceptable quality contributions - a handful of edits in the last 48 hours does not do this, and the last edits before that were in May. Come back when you have several hundred uneventful contributions over a period of months. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Just to clarify, you are talking about the simplewiki edits, correct? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's the Standard Offer, is it not? Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That consideration was taken out of Offer quite a long time ago. Blackmane (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting new use of "taken out" that I hadn't come across before. "Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects." - Wikipedia:Standard offer #Variations. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: It's under "Variations", previously it was part of the numbered list such that banned editors who seek to return here would invariably go to Simple EnWiki. Simple EnWiki editors raised a complaint that they were feeling like the dumping ground of EnWiki's banned users, hence it was removed as a requirement. That's not to say it's not considered but it's no longer an expectation. Blackmane (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency Although the editor makes a vague reference to a "Wikimedia child porn scandal", their previous account was blocked for one or more WP:FRINGE-related topic-ban violations which have not been addressed. Miniapolis 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The block was apparently related to this notice. This block was quite inappropriate: Technophant was simply remarking about his opposition to the use of "fringe" and using a commonly accepted medical concept as an example. Not alternative medicine and not acupuncture, and unless the ban were extended at some point between the initial banning and the block, this wasn't a ban violation. This is where verifiability, not truth comes in, if I understand correctly: he's saying (quite correctly) that WP:FRINGE is routinely used to advocate The Truth by demeaning positions that aren't widely accepted. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me translate that: FRINGE is routinely used to advocate accepted mainstream scientific and medical positions held by the vast majority of scientists and doctors and validated and verified by more references from reliable sources that you can shake a stick at, as opposed to unproven and speculative fringe positions not accepted by the vast majority of scientists and doctors -- yes, that is quite true. BMK (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which perfectly illustrates the point that he was making. GregJackP Boomer! 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's sorta like complaining that "WP:RS is routinely used to advocate VERIFIABILITY by demeaning sources that aren't widely accepted." BMK (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Technophant: - note that Kww was recently desysopped. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ unblock request. Editors are judging too much on past editing. Technophant has convinced me he has changed and I welcome him to return to Wikipedia. People make mistakes. We are all human. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Strong Support. Anyone you can handle this level of criticism by others and remain cool should be allowed to return. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per QG. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Technophant are you requested both an unblock and a lifting of your topic ban or just an unblock? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see reassurances that high quality sources will be used and paraphrased going forwards as their was issues with both of these in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - User acting in good faith. Desires another chance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional support~~, provided the Alternative Medicine topic ban remains in place and the user commits to stop "banning" people from their talk page and to be less combative. In my opinion the sock block stuck not because the logged out edits were disruptive (they were pretty much harmless) but because Technophant showed an inability to disengage from conflict. There was also some WP:IDHT exemplified by their choosing to interpret an (admittedly less than tasteful) comment as a "death threat" despite evidence to the contrary, and excessive "talk page banning". The user's statement above is encouraging, and I think they're a good candidate for the "standard offer", but I'd like to see more of a commitment to avoid the more serious problems as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Also, could this not have been done with a standard unblock request? This was just a regular old block, not a community-imposed sanction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
EDIT: Removing support based on edits of the past 24 hours, which go directly against the conditions of my "conditional support". Besides, I can't support an unblock request that attacks other editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Believing that any other bans should be raised separately, should Technophant wish to appeal, to avoid them overshadowing the central issue. Per wikipedia's blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users ". Banak (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's been long enough for Technophant to have worked out whether they are going to edit according to accepted norms. If they are, then an unblock is a good idea; if not, then reblocking won't be a problem. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that it's been long enough and they should now be prepared to edit under accepted wikipedia norms. I'm not aware of the topic ban on Alt med that Adjwilley mentions but if it was indefinite it should remain intact. Technophant can later ask that it be lifted. There also seemed to be somewhat of a personal dispute going on here at the time. I don't see a need for a iban but I would urge caution on the part of technophant in interactions. I'd also urge caution in any prior areas of conflict.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a reasonable request. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Technophant was blocked for somewhat minor infractions. I believe the main reason they have remained blocked this long is because of his generally unpleasant disposition, ridiculous talk page banning and his zero-tolerance for criticism of his edits and behavior, resulting is some comments and e-mail that exacerbated the problems. Aside from that his editing was generally pretty good and it has been 8 months since the block, so I'm willing to give another chance.--Atlan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to oppose an unblock at time, per this edit, in which he snubs GregKaye, tells us he isn't answering questions pertaining this unblock request not because he's being evasive but that he simply won't respond to "verbal attacks", and that his block was a "silly misunderstanding". Clearly nothing has changed in the past half year. If you can't even muster a bare minimum of cooperation in an unblock request, you are not suited to edit Wikipedia.--Atlan (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was notified because he and I encountered some extremely peculiar oversighter behavior, where people were being prohibited from mentioning the name of David Cawthorne Haines even though all the non-British and even some of the British media were using it. That was around October 20 and by November 10 he was blocked over a Syria-related edit. I don't have the time let alone the patience to look up the whole history of his life on Wikipedia, but my feeling is that the breakdown in civil order here started at the top with heavy-handed oversighting decisions and that this loss of confidence in the system set the stage for any problems that followed. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user was very thoughtful, kind, and patient with me when I was still learning how to navigate this site, especially in regards to censored topics and the lack of a documented policy in regards to an explanation regarding the need for the censorship. At the time, I had no knowledge of the undocumented policy of site censorship regarding hostages. In hindsight, I understand why it was done, however the lack communication from oversight (there was none) and the lack of an actual documented policy to help guide a new user of the circumstances, in combination with still learning how to navigate the site, created a very frustrating and confusing situation. This user was one of only a small number of users who actually made an effort to help me.MeropeRiddle (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that everyone ought to read User talk:Technophant#Other people's talk page edits, and consider if Technophant has addressed that issue in his unblock request. To read Technophant's talk page one has to look through the history because Technophant has in the past selectively deleted comments which Technophant dislikes (eg diff). While there is no prohibition on doing that, my experience is that editors who do that are often in denial when it comes to understanding why they have been blocked. It concerns me that in the new section User talk:Technophant#WikiProject Syrian Civil War (dated 18 August 2015), Technophant is reopening a contentious issue even before his block is lifted! Not withstanding my comment on Technophant's talk page at 14:13, 16 November 2014 (diff), I am therefore of a mind, that if Technophant's block is lifted, to impose a six month ISIL ban under the SCW and ISIL general sanctions, to see if Technophant has learnt anything from this block, by allowing Technophant to edit in other project areas of Wikiepdia where he is not so emotionally involved with the subject, or other editors. I would be interested to hear if any editors have opinions on such a temporary ban option.-- PBS (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been my impression that Technophant is emotionally involved with the subject, if you are referring to the ISIS page, where I used to edit regularly. His edits there were predominantly on technical matters (layout, etc), not on the subject matter. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved issues In his second unblock appeal here and, with no relation that I could see to a sock puppetry case, Technophant made uncited accusation that I was hounding him. I questioned this at the time in one of the sections of comment that Technophant is shown above to have deleted. In a recent post I again addressed the hounding claim, in what was turned into a talk page subthread to present the view that, "I would prefer for either evidence of this to be presented so that the matter be discussed or for such claim to be struck." Technophant then framed the issue within a context of forgiveness which, in effect, is just another way of revisiting a claim of wrong. I think this fits with the interpretation by PBS that denial may be an issue.

As context to this, on my own talk page another editor commented"I have had many email exchanges with Technophant about all sorts of things and am at a loss to understand why he has been as he has recently, especially to you, .."¹ and "I am glad my words helped in your attempt to settle things with Technophant, but never dreamed they could be influential."². All my edits were made in good faith and I would welcome other editors thoughts on content. In contrast to my talk page interactions Technophant jumps into other editors conversations which in this case involved the cryptic leaving of a pain related reference to a Latin text that I still do not understand.

Greg Kaye 07:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made this comment on a user's Talk page at the end of April this year: "Interesting that three out of four editors here no longer edit in Wikipedia, after various debacles involving them. (1) Worldedixor - indeff blocked; (2) Technophant - indeff blocked; (3) P-123 - three-month IBAN and TBAN, now expired. Only GregKaye - three-month IBAN now expired - still edits. WP has its ways of driving productive editors away to the extent that they no longer wish to return." I still hold to that view. I think there should be no more fuss and that Technophant should be unblocked. It seems to me that he has been given unnecessarily harsh treatment in connection with this block. He was a colleague on the ISIS page from July last year and was very helpful to this neophyte editor. He was also a valuable contributor to the ISIS page, dealing with technical issues in a way that no other editor could match at the time. His loss as an editor would be Wikpedia's loss, in my opinion. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was exactly what I didn't want overshadowing the unblock request, and why I specific didn't want any other blocks or bans to be mentioned here, so they can be appealed seperately. Let's focus on the matter at hand. Banak (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the comment upset you. This unblock request has to be taken in full context, in my view. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mainly to counteract influence of other involved editor P-123 and to present further information relating to the information above. Firstly, Worldedixor, who has not otherwise been mentioned in this discussion, was banned following an I think highly evolved content at User:Technophant/Requests for comment/Worldedixor 2 that I allege was gratuitously co-presented with P-123 and which I have called into question here. In the final section of the RfC Technophant's behaviour of repeatedly refusing to answer direct questions is blatantly apparent and this is a behaviour that Technophant currently persists with on his talk page. Editors must be accountable for the things that they do and say.

The IBAN between P-123 and myself came in response to a reaction of mine to an edit on the ISIL talk page with content "... Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me. It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else. ISIL are also terrorists by any common sense view. Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries." Not wanting to escalate drama on the talk page I raised issues privately with P-123 in this then much edited thread. In my third post on the thread I overstepped the mark by saying "you continue to argue dirty". Again, this wording was presented privately on a talk page, was instantly redacted on protest and came in context of substantiations presented in that thread.

To, I think, P-123's credit her 11:27, 13 December 2014 (as at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 23#RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL) was redacted to remove not only the uncited accusation of the weasel out and twisted or denied with sophistries accusations and also to remove opposition to a proposal that, I think, had otherwise been entirely opposed on the basis of OR.

My only issue with P-123 was on the basis that I did not view it as practical for two editors to edit the same contents effectively with an IBAN in place I, for this reason, raised a number of issues at ANI, a process that we both contest should be for dispute resolution. We both had qualms in regard to the rapid closing of the case which occurred prior to final evidence being presented.

I can also cite efforts that I made to circumvent a difficulty that was arising between Worldedixor and P-123 at latter date and this is just to contextualise both his irrelevant mention here and the irrelevant mention of other bans.

None of this, however, has relevance to the current case which other editors should consider on its own merits. Greg Kaye 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:GregKaye says there "Technophant's behaviour of repeatedy refusing to answer direct questions is blatantly apparent" in the RfC. This comment has to be put in context. The RfC collapsed because Worldedixor was failing to answer the "charges" brought in the RfC and diverted proceedings by asking Technophant questions irrelevant to the RfC. The RfC collapsed after that last set of questions from Worledixor on that page and was then closed down (but not by Technophant). (I might add that GregKaye knew nothing of the events that led to the RfC and his comments on it are out of order, in my opinion.) ~ P-123 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, should editors want to you can follow the links such as at the final section of the RfC in assessment of Technophant's behaviour in regard to the irrelevantly mentioned Worldedixor (whose actual misdemeanors, BTW, I am not defending). Greg Kaye 20:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per BMK, Atlan and Guy. This editor is not ready to rejoin the community, as I see it. Jus da fax 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (This is a withdrawal of previous support.) I'm rather shocked by the "Protective IBAN" request above. I got to my PC and found a ping about this among the 72 tabs(I love Firefox!) I currently have open. It's rather bizarre, considering I actually was among those requested to comment on whether Technophant should be allowed to return. I !voted for them to be allowed back. Now I regret doing do.

Here was my !vote to allow them back, which was seen, accepted, and thanked by Technophant:

I'm somewhat open to letting them back under certain conditions:

No personal attacks on other editors. Focus on content. Agree to disagree agreeably. AGF.
Talk page problems should not happen again. User talk pages are for communication, and that includes communication from editors with which one may be in conflict elsewhere. Even if it's unpleasant, don't block communication by banning other editors from the page or removing their comments and warnings. Be open and discuss. Nothing is secret here. Editors do not have a right to privacy or to be left alone. That's the way we roll here. Don't call warnings and criticism "harassment".
"Informal iban"? I got an email on 9/2/2014 which told me: "Ok well if you don't want to help then please just stay away from me. Informal iban. Stay off pages where I'm a lead contributor." There is no basis in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or culture for taking such an order seriously. This is a form of ownership behavior.
Technophant still has an indefinite topic ban which still applies.
We don't want to see anymore socking problems. They must only use their registered account.

This should be a time limited probationary offer. A review of the editor's interactions during that time should happen before full reinstatement. There should be nothing but peaceful interactions during that time. It's possible to do this even when there are differences of opinion.

None of us is perfect. We have all been newbies, and we've all made mistakes and done things we regret. I hope this renewed attempt to get back in the saddle and ride better will succeed. I wish Technophant success. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to retract my initial support. I extended an olive branch and was really hoping for the best. My trust was obviously misplaced. I hate to be naive, and when in doubt I like to AGF, but this repetition of former behavior makes it clear that we cannot AGF in Technophant. They still have the same basic mentality which got them blocked. (There were many other, and much more serious, issues involved in their blocks than just block evasion and socking.)
The repetition of the weird paranoia over a supposed "death threat" is even more bizarre. Does Technophant have a very short memory? When they first complained about my comment, I explained to them very carefully that they had nothing to fear and that my comment was obviously metaphoric. Then, when they persisted, several other prominent editors and admins also explained to them that they were wrong to persist in this way of thinking. It should be a long-dead matter and deeply buried, but instead of letting this go, they now revive it! There is a lot of deja vu over this behavior. Wikipedia will not be well-served by allowing this unbalanced (by their own admission) individual back.
We have a boomerang situation here. Of all times, while seeking reinstatement here, this is the worst of all possible times to immediately launch into attacks on other editors. It totally violates point number three at the top of this whole thread:

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

Their response to that was:

As per #3, I'm not sure what this was statement is intended to mean but I don't think I've created and "extraordinary reasons to object to a return".

Well, we now have a nasty demonstration. We don't really care much what blocked users do in their private lives while they are blocked and not active here. We DO care how they behave here, and this is beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. Note that the long list of undesirable behaviors in my posted list above was very carefully worded and considered. I didn't just throw out some vague, emotional, personal attacks. Each point will be recognizable to multiple editors who were dealing with Technophant before and up until they were blocked. This attack on me demonstrates that those issues are very accurate, serious, unresolved, are currently lurking, and are already breaking out as behaviors we can assume will reoccur when Technophant returns. I therefore must oppose any return, and we may as well rescind their talk page access and email privileges once again.
My response here may scare Technophant into retracting their request for an IBAN, but that won't solve the matter. They have tipped their hand and we now know what they are really thinking and what they are really like. We're dealing with the same old Technophant. I was prepared to completely let bygones be bygones, AGF, and really start over with a fresh page, but this is a total dealbreaker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More observations:
As I look through his most recent comments during this proceeding, I find disturbing signs that he still does not acknowledge or understand his faults in this whole debacle. He says he was blocked for "a silly mistake", when it was much more complicated. Socking and block evasion were only a minor part of the problems, but since it's easier to make a sock block than a behavior block, the socking was used as the reason for the block. Actually a whole lot of serious behavioral problems were involved, and they were anything but "silly mistakes".
When he again minimized his problems as a "silly misunderstanding", User:PBS rightly called him on it. (Edit summary: "You were not blocked for a "silly misunderstanding."") His very unwise and revealing response was to say that PBS was "making a mountain out of a mole hill."
He also speaks of this AN proceeding as "kangaroo court proceedings" He is clearly not taking this very seriously, but just as something to be endured as a means to getting back here. There is no contrition or understanding.

Here he addresses User:QuackGuru and says that he will forgive/forget QG's past: "People should be judged for who they are now and not what they've done in the past." Yet he then requests an IBAN against me, who poses no threat and has had no interaction with him after his blocks/bans. He's not very consistent.
This adds more damning evidence for why he should not be allowed back. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I will spare the closer from reading yet more prose, but in a nutshell, I simply do not trust the editor is being honest, and don't want to relive more drama when he gets indef blocked again in a month. It boils down to risk vs. reward, and I don't like the odds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Technophant's Request for closure

There is definitely no consensus. In fact, some editors have stricken their ~~support~~ and changed to oppose because you have yet to show any understanding for why you were really blocked. You even attack other editors and still try to shift blame to them. This is the very worst time to do such a thing. You have really shot yourself in the foot.

By failing to respond to other editors' comments about you right now, in this very AN, including mine above, you demonstrate that User:GregKaye is right when he says that you repeatedly refuse to answer direct questions and deal with problems brought to your attention. You haven't even responded to comments above or even tried to defend yourself. Serious charges against you have been made above, with diffs and quotes, but you show no evidence that you have even read them.

Your way of dealing with such things has been (this is a very exact description):

to call critical comments "personal attacks",
to claim that editors with such concerns are "hounding" and "harassing" you,
then block them from your talk page,
then seek IBANs against them, and
continually refactor your talk page and delete unpleasant information so that it was unintelligible what was going on.

That's the exact behavior which got you blocked! This is not how we deal with conflict and disagreement here. First of all, we try to not get into trouble in the first place, than we act like adults and discuss things, even if they are difficult and unpleasant matters.

For the thousandth time, you are NOT in danger! NONE AT ALL! No one has threatened your life. Many editors and admins have explained to you that you misunderstood the comment originally and are now deliberately misunderstanding a metaphoric comment. Even though you misunderstood it in the beginning, I and many others reassured you of the actual meaning and that you had nothing to fear. Here is a notable one from admin User:Adjwilley to refresh your memory:

"Note: BRangifer's comment on my talk page was not a death threat any more than your "cease and desist" comment above was a legal threat, and I have already seen several users correct you on this point. Continuing to repeat this claim in the face of contradictory evidence is not helping your case. (It's also slightly ironic that you invoke WP:AGF in the same paragraph.)" - [User:Adjwilley]]

That you resurrect the matter is on your own head and reveals you have a real problem, one we can't help you with. Your perseveration over an explained misunderstanding is pathological, and Wikipedia and its editors can't help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brangifer, I think you are taking this way too far. Technophant is obviously extremely stressed and seems to be suffering from medical problems at the moment. He seems to think that you somehow have it out for him, and your extended participation here seems to be proving him right, further aggravating him. He's already done more damage to his unblock request than anybody else could have, and you've already had more than your say above. Also, with the many times your less-than-tasteful comment as been dredged up I don't recall seeing anything that looks like an apology from you. That alone would have gone further than all the free advice you've given Technophant. Rant over. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support Adjwilley's judgment and comment. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley, yes, you "probably shouldn't be posting angry rants this late." Let's get some needed perspective here. If you were aware of it you wouldn't have written as you did and you would retract much of what you wrote. Here's the timeline:

I have had no interaction with Technophant since he was blocked (except for getting that very nasty email from him, resulting in him losing email privileges). I had completely dropped any issues with him.
When he applied for removal of the block, I was notified and posted a tentative support for his return. I was trying to help him!
Then this whole AN proceeding started on August 16 without my knowledge. Note that I still have had no interactions with Technophant.
Suddenly I get a ping that he's posted an IBAN request against me above. That was a shock, since I expected a favorable response to my support.
THAT is when I wrote my long Oppose !vote above. He had provoked me without ANY cause and I responded, but only after carefully examining all his edits since his attempt to return. In that search I found plenty of evidence that he's not ready to return, is still the same old Technophant we knew from before his many blocks, and I did what we are supposed to do; I presented that evidence, with diffs, and no one has refuted it, not even Technophant.
Then, still without having responded or interacted with me in any manner, he posts his "Request for closure" above, and in it he doubles down on his attack against me.
That's when I wrote this response. I have only responded to his direct attacks on me. I have not initiated any type of aggressive actions against him. I had supported his return!
Now you object, but I suspect it's because you don't know this history.

Please reconsider/retract some of what you've written. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BR, I was well aware of the timeline, including a point you missed: on 18 August you got a notification of this discussion on your talk page. (Minor point, but it seems relevant between items 3 and 4 in your list.) Anyway, my issue isn't with your reaction to Technophant asking for the interaction ban, or with the substance of your arguments. I too changed my vote when he asked for an I-ban with no provocation. What is bugging me is you becoming accuser #1, creating an entire new section to counter Tp's request for closure, and this when you know that he's in a bad state and wants nothing to do with you. It's like continuing to kick somebody after they're down, when the right thing to do would be to walk away and let an uninvolved admin take care of things. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley, first off, I totally agree that we shouldn't kick someone when they are down. My impression is that, although he is now placing notices that he's having an exacerbation of his mental health issues, at the time he made the attacks on me he wasn't down enough to keep from making strong attacks. I responded. What would you have done?

If you'll look here (Special:Contributions/BullRangifer), you'll see a gap from August 14-22. That notification was on the 18th. I was on vacation and literally out of internet and cellphone range. I was in the mountains and fishing. It was a blessing to get some fresh air and take a break from internet activities. (I also caught 29 trout.) When I returned I had literally hundreds of emails to deal with and many other duties. If I even noticed that message, I chalked it up to a duplication of the other similar notification higher up on my talk page from August 10. The notification you mention had no link to indicate the location of activity, so I didn't do anything about it.

As I wrote above, the first thing I knew about this discussion was when I was pinged by his posting of his IBAN request. I followed the link and discovered that the old discussion was gone, the one where I supported his return, and that there was a new thread in progress. I had no idea it was happening.

I will take your advice seriously and will try to back off. I have not been the aggressor here and have only responded to his attacks. I suggest someone get him to drop his attacks on other editors and follow his own declarations that he was prepared to forget the past. He is obviously not prepared to do that, but seems to be returning here in battlefield mode. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer, Thank you, I think the closing admin will see it that way as well. My own hypothesis is that the stress of having this thread rolling for over a week and not being able to respond in-line contributed to pushing him over the edge (figuratively). Also, I wasn't trying to say that you knew about this new discussion and had chosen not to participate...I figured you had gotten the two threads confused, as did User:Nyttend above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several times I have attempted to shorten some of my comments by collapsing/hatting them, and if successful would hat more of the longer ones, but the codes aren't working. Invariably it ends up with everything (the whole page!) after the code disappearing from view. If someone can help me, please contact me on my talk page in the section about Collapse. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business picking up at WP:COIN

This is a heads-up, not a request for admin action at this time.

COI editing is picking up over at WP:COIN. The latest generation of COI editors mostly follow Wikipedia rules. They disclose their COI, they don't edit war, they add references, and they write well. The end result is heavily promotional. Writing by COI editors is not from a neutral point of view, and presents WP:NPOV problems. Such articles contain only positives for the article subject; negative info is not mentioned. Advertising-like language is used. (My current favorite: “Our design is an integration of volumes that flow into each other and, following a coherent formal language, create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble.” - article about a proposed condo for sale in NYC.) Subjects of marginal notability are pumped up with weak references to give the subject a Wikipedia presence.

All these problems can be dealt with within Wikipedia policies. It's a lot of work. Balancing an article written by a PR firm requires searching for references and writing substantial amounts of text, and may require subject matter expertise. It's not a quick "delete" or "block" action. Toning down promotional language per WP:PEACOCK is quite possible but time-consuming. Dealing with paid editors is a huge time sink for volunteer editors. Deleting a promotional article where notability is marginal means a full AfD, which requires the attention of many editors, especially when the COI editors argue strongly against deletion. For uninteresting articles, getting enough votes to close the AfD may take weeks.

We also seem to be developing an ecosystem where PR firms use a pool of paid editors recruited on freelancing sites, so that no one editor is associated with many articles. (Many ads for such editors are showing up on freelancing sites).[1][2][3] There are people advertising as their portfolio the actual Wikipedia articles they edited for pay.[4].) This is probably sock/meat puppeting as Wikipedia usually defines the term, but it's hard to detect and deal with. This is a growing problem. See the last few weeks of WP:COIN. Somehow we need to get a handle on that. Suggestions?

It was easier when the paid editors were incompetent. Their actions were blatant and obvious. Eventually, they'd be blocked for disruptive editing or sock puppeting. The new generation of COI editors present new problems. We have no way to block a PR agency and all its minions. John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this pulls people off quality article writing to instead having to clean up the COI editor's mess, in order to get it to Wikipedia standards, so we are essentially working for the PR firm, for free, instead of on core articles. Allowing COI editors to edit if they disclose is better than trying to disallow it and forcing it into the shadows, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that WP:CORP has the bar too low for many of these, which get just enough mentions on marginal sources to slide by. The only way to deal with it is to change GPG/CORP to a higher standard for inclusion, from what I can see. Then we AFD the fluff off the site. Changing GNG (and by extension WP:CORP) in regards to corporations would require an RFC and would be a fairly large undertaking with plenty of contention. Personally, I think we have the standard for WP:N too low as it is. Yes, we are digital and there is no risk of running out of space, but the manpower to police every song, every minor band, every minor company is huge and takes away from our core responsibility. The entire encyclopedia suffers due to all this marginal baggage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dennis. Since policing is becoming impossible, raising the notability bar will help. Miniapolis 20:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I was just looking for a NYC condo that is an integration of volumes that flow into each other that follows a coherent formal language to create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble. The place I am living in now has a really incoherent formal language and no overall ensemble sensibility at all.

Seriously, though, other than what we are already doing (COIN, encouraging the good guy paid editors who create encyclopedic and non-promotional articles) there is another method that Wikipedia has not tried. Now I am just throwing this out as an idea, not a polished proposal, but what if the WMF used a tiny percentage of the millions it has in the bank to run some sting operations and get some lawyerly cease-and-desist action going? We could pretend to be a customer, contract for a page that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, study how they respond to our current anti-POV efforts, then sue the bastards. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We might not need to change policy, just interpret it more strictly. WP:CORP, WP:PRODUCT, WP:GEO (which covers buildings) and WP:BIO set out tougher notability criteria than Wikipedia generally enforces. WP:CORP discusses whether all NYSE-listed companies are notable, and says even some giant companies might not be. WP:PRODUCT discourages product articles separate from company articles unless the product is really well known, as with Diet Pepsi. We could take the position that, in the presence of promotional/COI editing, Wikipedia's existing rules should be strictly enforced. We need to think this through, to keep it from being used as a bludgeon. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A major problem is that people take a way-too-loose interpretation of policy in many cases. Nominate an article for deletion because it's gotten nothing but flash-in-the-pan news coverage, and all the keepers claim that they're secondary sources because they're not affiliated with the company. Close a different deletion discussion as "delete", ignoring the keepers because they make the same argument as in the first discussion, and you get hauled to DRV and shouted down by the Randies who call you an idiot and idiosyncratic when you attempt to explain slowly and carefully (using academic sources) that their precious newspaper articles about the subject's latest activities are primary and unable to demonstrate long-term significance. We need to begin more systematically ignoring "keep" votes at AFD from people who haven't a clue about the actual meaning of the terms they throw around. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely within expectations that as WP becomes the major place people go for information, every commercial and noncommercial organization in the world will want a page here. We have various mechanisms to deal with the undeclared paid editors, but we will never eliminate them as long as we maintain that the principle of anonymity is more important than anything else. For declared paid editors, we need to deal with the articles, not the editors. I have three suggestions, which would help individually, but would help best in combination:,

One This requires no policy or guideline change, just a change in our attitude: At afd, accept the argument that Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion.

Two Increase the notability requirements for organizations, particularly new organizations. That's not where all the problem is, but its the key area at present. The problem is how to do it fairly across all organizations. I like a previous suggestion, I think by Kudpung, that the presumption for a new organization is that it is not notable. This would be a change in the WP:Deletion policy or in the guideline WP:ORG.

Three accomplish the same effect by a change in the guideline for WP:ORG or WP:RS that Sources primarily giving information about the motivation for founding a company and its initial financing are not reliable for notability on the basis that they are inevitably PR or inspired by it. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur entirely with everyone here. However, the major problem that everyone is missing is that we only have one firewall against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. It's called NPP and it's the most important single operation on Wikipedia; anything that slips through, 'patrolled' and untagged, is safely and securely in Wikipedia for ever. The total paradox is that unlike Rollback, PC Reviewer, or the AfC that persistently creates more talk than action, NPP requires absolutely no prior experience and no demonstration of maturity or clue whatsoever to check 1,000 pages a day, and the New Pages Feed & Curation Toolbar which I/we fought tooth and nail to get the Foundation to build for us is only as good as the people who use it.

In order to seriously address the issue of professional spammers, we would have to start by significantly racking up the criteria for AUTOCONFIRMED, insisting that all non-autoconfirmed accounts and IPs create their articles through the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard in the non-indexed Draft space, merge AfC to NPP (we already have consensus for that), add a couple more boxes to tick in the Curation Toolbar, and merge Rollback and PC Reviewer together with NPPer into a user right with a suitably high threshold of competence. What's left of AfC which is basically a minor project, could be merged to WP:ARS.

It still wouldn't completely solve the problem of spammers who apply for and get those rights in order to patrol and pass their own articles (it happens more often than one would care to believe) but it would be a major step in the right direction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's proposal, "Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion," sounds like a good start. That would presumably apply to AfD, deletion review, and proposed deletion, and would make it much easier to remove promotional material. How can we make that formal policy?

We might also want to reconsider who can remove a PROD. Right now, WP:PROD policy says "Any editor may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag". That's an old policy, and predates newer restrictions on article creation. This forces many promotional articles to AfD, which takes a lot of editor time. Many such AfDs fizzle out, simply because few editors spend time on the boring process of voting on AfDs for uninteresting articles. Perhaps PROD removal should require the same privileges as those required to create an article without going through Articles for Creation. Also, at present you can remove a PROD on an article you created. Is that a good thing? This requires a bit more thought. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And who tags articles for PROD, BLPPROD, CSD, and AfD? The NPPrs. Some of them (far too few) do an excellent job, but far too many of them don't fully understand what they are doing and haven't read WP:NPP or WP:DELETION before starting to use the Curation tool as a MORPG. If I spend an hour a day at NPP, I find myself spending more time educating the patrollers and correcting their tags than actually patrolling the new articles myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:CorporateM who I suspect may have some valuable insight on this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG and I are on the same page about promotion or misrepresentation of the total body of literature being a factor at AfD. This guide is useful for identifying promotion or coatrack in org pages and already discourages separate articles for companies and products under WP:ORGVANITY. Most promotion is pretty obvious if you know what to look for. Axe dedicated Awards sections, remove promotional quotes lifted from the source, remove primary sources, remove off-topic information about executives, and question articles that contain no negative material at all. If the article is say B class, it is better than what most volunteers write and marginal bias is tolerable. However, I'd say about 85% of requested edits fall under the categories mentioned above (adding awards, primary sources, etc.) and they can be politely rejected, pointed to WP:ORGAWARDS, etc.. Disclosure: I am a sponsored editor. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the article side points that many bring up (and I'm mostly in agreement with), there's also the user side stuff that Nagle brings up. As a first step I think we should start changing our SPI titles in such cases to the names of the PR companies itself, and not the first user. Take a couple of SPIs -- Smileverse and Kabir Vaghela. The former includes a bunch of freelancers who have been working together for multiple PR firms but typically coordinated under the Bangalorean name, while in the latter it is from "EveryMedia Technologies" and the sock farm is plain ridiculous and they've covered everything from Hyundai to Hindi films. Getting the firm names provides COIN patrollers easier identification marks and also a list of clients is more easily accessible to do the spot checking here. At the end of the day this is wasting the time of numerous good-faith editors because these sockfarms are relentless. In less than a week I've had to block a dozen socks for just one article, most of them off SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not entirely related, but there is also an issue with inaction. Regularly I see or I nominate article for deletion that are promotional or plain advertising but not entirely scream that of the roofs. Unfortunately, those article are hard to deal with. Quite often there will be comments like "this can be solved through normal editing". Comments that are blurted out and that nobody, not even the commentator, will act upon. And the article is kept afterwards. This inaction is also allowing a lot of advertising in Wikipedia... The Banner talk 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When we know the PR firm, that's reasonable enough. It's been done before; look up "Rockwick" in the AN/I archives. But often, we don't know, or are not sure. There's also may be a WP:OUTING issue. The inaction problem is a big problem with AfDs. AfDs on promotional take a lot of editor time, and often close as "no consensus" due to lack of interest. There, I'd suggest "Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is a reason for deletion," and "You cannot delete a PROD on an article you created" as policies. This would make it easier to delete promotional articles via PROD, which is mostly automated. I can't speak to the Articles for Creation end of the process; I mostly work WP:COIN, and once something gets there, it's already been created. John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we allow IPs and socks to file requests for arbitration enforcement?

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement redirects to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, which is a low-traffic page. Putting this proposal there would hardly generate sufficient discussion, let alone a reasonable consensus, so here I am. A couple of WP:AE requests against Collect have been filed recently by IPs: 20 August and 23 August. (The second link is just a diff, sorry. Unfortunately I can't give the most helpful kind of link, to a section, since there's an absurd number of recent requests against Collect, all with the same headers.) People have complained in the discussions:

Neverthess, the requests have essentially been discussed in the normal way (then declined), which I believe is noticeboard creep and a waste of time. Of course there have also been earlier AE requests by IPs and new accounts — I think I blocked one of those for abuse of process myself once.

Proposal

We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (=IPs and less than four days old ~~socks~~, I'm sorry, I meant to say new users) filing AE requests. I propose that we don't allow it, and that any user in good standing be encouraged to remove such requests. People should use their main account to complain about others. If indeed that main account isn't blocked; if it is, they shouldn't be posting at all. To believe that a user who genuinely doesn't have an established account would know the background of arbcom sanctions, would find their way to WP:AE, and would comply with the requirements and templates there, is AGF run mad. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Support as proposer. I'll add that IMO, if a request is filed by an account that is gaming the autoconfirmation requirements, or is otherwise an obvious sock (on this particular board it's not really that hard to tell), it shouldn't be removed, but the AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Support While I suppose it is possible a new user would know enough about our proceses and how to find out if an editor is subject to AbrCom sanction it is so unlikely that any potential 'injustice' suffered by the 'new user' is far outweighed by the injustice of bad faith enforcement requests. The same can be said for IP editors although I have heard of, but never seen, a few long time editors who edit only as IPs. Those people have been around long enough to know that there are some things that IPs can not do. Again, the potential 'injustice' of not allowing IP reports is far outweighed by the actual injustice and potential harassment suffered by those who the anonymous report would be made. Jbh^Talk 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. - Disagree with "...AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly" as per the recent AE ArbCom case this would be an Admin action and not easily reversed. If an out of process case is opened by an new user or IP it should be closed but that should not be a bar from an established editor filing an Enforcement request based on the same issue. Otherwise false false reports could be easily used to game the system. Jbh ^Talk 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it absolutely shouldn't be a bar to an established editor filing an enforcement request based on the same issue. I didn't mean to suggest it should. Do you mean re-filing the same complaint would be a reversal of the admin action of declining it before, Jbhunley? I don't think so — it seems far-fetched to me. Certainly, if it was declined for the reason that the filer was not respectable, a refiling by a user in good standing wouldn't be a reversal of that decline. But, anyway, that was just a side comment of mine — not a part of my proposal. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: thank you for clearing that up. My concern was really just how closing/dismissing a request would be effected by section 4.1.5.1 Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate) of the recent ArbCom AE case. I am not familiar enough with the 'usual and customary practices' at AE to know how things would actually pan out but I think any new procedures should explicitly address the matter. Rationally I would guess that a procedural dismissal would not be an 'administrative judgement call' so 4.1.5.1 would not apply but I can see disputants claiming otherwise. Jbh ^Talk 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support only when it's obvious that the IP is acting in bad faith. IP users are users and some people don't want to register accounts. If they make a good faith complaint, that should be treated as such. If it's not, close and dismiss it as a bad faith filing and sanction anyone else who tries to hold it against those named in the filing. If someone else involved in the dispute wants to refile under their account, that would be acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I suggest a threshold of editing for at least 30 days and at least 100 edits before an IP can open an AE request, or something similar. Also, we shouldn't ignore the ubiquitous elephant in the room. ← If you don't know what that means, just ignore it. - Mr X 13:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although if an IP wants to comment or add evidence, I assume this would (and should) still be allowed. Regardless, if a registered user logs out just to file a request, that is the definition of evading scrutiny, thus shouldn't be allowed. As a safeguard, preventing all IPs is a reasonable step as the necessity of an unregistered editor needing to file doesn't exist...they can ask an admin to file or take action at ANI/AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't pointless complains like the ones mentioned already covered by the AE rules? In that big red box at the top is the following line, "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." So wouldn't the vexatious complains qualify those requests to be rejected anyways? I have an issue with banning all IPs from filing with the Arbitration Committee. Some of them have been around a while, edit from static IPs, and are useful contributors. Should they not have the same avenues that registered editors have? Perhaps we should just change the "may" in that warning to "will" and be done with it. If you make a frivolous complain you will be blocked. But banning all IPs from using a part of the dispute resolution process seems a little harsh. --Stabila711 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the idea here is to keep the targets of anonymous complaints from having to answer them. If we say no new/IP editors can file complaints it short circuits the kind of crap Collect just had to go through because the presumption will be that anonymous complaints are not valid rather than the target being required to spend time and effort showing the complaint to be vexatious. The very few static IP contributors can add a note to their filing linking to their contribs. We can then use the oft miscited WP:IAR for what it was meant for - to keep big picture rules from hurting the encyclopedia - and let the request continue as an exception. Jbh^Talk 14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would support contribution restrictions much more than a blanket ban on all IPs. I like how the autoconfirmed restrictions are set up. IP exempt users on a TOR network have to have 90 days and 100 edits before they are autoconfirmed. Perhaps those same restrictions can be used for AE? --Stabila711 (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a lot of things we could do by adding something like a 'voting rights' group or raising the bar for 'autoconfirmed' that would address more issues than just this. The problem is that it still depends on some static identifier (Read UserName) to grant/log those privilages to. IPs change - sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly and in some cases several people are editing from a single IP at the same time - so there is no way to track an editor without an account through IP changes so there is no way for them to build trust. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it would restrict filiers who are avoiding scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly - IP editors are WP:HUMANs and not second-class users. We only restrict IP access or editing abilities on a page when there are clear patterns of abuse, and only then temporarily unless there's years of abuse. Two filings in a week is not an "absurd number" and does not warrant such extreme restrictions. Frivolous filings should be closed as such, not because of the account status of the user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If an IP or user is truly new to Wikipedia then they just do not know enough to make a valid case. If they somehow know enough about Wikipedia to make a valid case then it is likely they are hiding their identity through or evading a block through sock puppetry. Chillum 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to prevent abuse of process and gaming the system by those who would avoid scrutiny.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If a new user wants to file an AE, but are incapable of doing so themselves, they can always contact on the AE enforcers on their user talk pages, or, for that matter, pretty much anyone else, have that other individual look over the request for merit or lack of same, and, if they see fit, have the complaint taken care of in that way. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the scrutiny aspect for me. AE is a heavy hammer. It shouldn't descend by anonymous denunciation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While it should be obvious if an IP is acting in good faith, the examples Bishonen has provided indicate that some threshold is needed so that this process isn't misused to hound others via a throwaway account or IP.--MONGO 16:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being able to edit as an IP can't be compared to being able to bring something to AE. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While one might dream up a plausible counterexample it is so rare that it isn't worth worrying about. In addition, a legitimate counterexample will know how to find ways to arrange for a filing.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No brainer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The only concern is that we may stop someone who has a real problem from solving it. But, getting an account is trivial or waiting four days, and if thats all that stands in the way, its a no brainer. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, this same issue came up months ago with Gamergate controversy editors so it's not a situation limited to the current complaints. Secondly, reading the instructions for the page, it appears as though the procedures have been instituted and changed by the Arbitration Committee and I'm not sure a proposal on AN can be used to revise the filing procedures. Finally, I suggested that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement not to be redirected and to have its own talk page a few months ago but since I was just a AC clerk, I had no authority to make this change. But I think AE warrants having its own talk page to discuss issues that emerge in enforcing arbitration decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the red tape needed to change procedure I find that arbcom is always open to the input of the consensus of the community. This discussion has value even if ANI does not have the authority to make this change(I have no idea if this is the case) because it will inform arbcom of the community's desire. Chillum 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion results in consensus for the proposal, it should IMO be added to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header as well as to the instructions in the editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement). I know you're the arbcom Kremlinologist here, Liz; could you clarify where you see an implication that community consensus wouldn't be sufficient authority to modify the AE instructions? It's not strictly an arbitration page, as far as I'm concerned, and arbs rarely have any input into the business conducted there. A look at the history tab of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (=the AE page instructions) shows editing it isn't restricted to arbs and clerks, the way some arbitration pages are. It would be civil to ask the committee first, no doubt, since this would be a big change and no mere copyedit, and maybe they'd like to pass a motion or something. Though, appearances sometimes to the contrary, I've always assumed they're no fonder of busywork than the rest of us. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

P.S, speaking of the devil, an arbitrator can be seen supporting the proposal in this section, though I presume not as arbitrator. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

~~I've unredirected Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and left a note there~~, and the arb committee has been notified of this discussion via their email list. NE Ent 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out it takes an Act of Committee to change to ... see notice below. NE Ent 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supportper Bishonen. BMK (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WMF: You do not need to create an account to use any Wikimedia Site. . NE Ent 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out the obvious, which should have occurred to even you: AE is not a "Wikipedia site", that would be Commons, Meta, Wikiquotes, another language's Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, stuff like that. AE is an area of this Wikipedia site, which IPs normally have access to unless the community or admins decide that IP editors should be barred, as happens everytime an article is semi-protected. Saying that IPs "cannot use" en.wiki because they can't access a specific part of it is exactly the equivalent of saying that a non-admin "cannot use" en.wiki because certain pages are fully protected. It's a bogus argument, as the suggested change does not violate the quoted WMF policy.BMK (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've also conveniently neglected to quote the end of the sentence "...except under rare circumstances." Clicking on the link provided explains what "rare circumstances" means:
I thought I never needed an account to read or contribute! Under what circumstances would I need to register to read or contribute?

You never need an account to read a public Wikimedia Site. And in most cases, you don't need an account to contribute to a Wikimedia Site. However, there are a few rare instances where you will need to register an account if you want to contribute. A local community of editors or contributors (for example, the English Wikipedia community or the Malay Wiktionary community) or the Wikimedia Foundation itself may decide to place temporary or permanent restrictions on what you can change. For example, a specific page may be temporarily restricted from editing to allow only experienced or administrative users because of vandalism or copyright concerns. You may also not upload content such as images or videos without being logged in because we need to verify that proper permissions have been obtained from the copyright holder (if the media is not already in the public domain) in order to post the content.
So, there is no WMF policy restriction to this proposal. BMK (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with suggested amendment IPs should be allowed to report at AE if they're involved in the situation related to the request and have made substantial edits in the topic area. IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside AE on the other hand... Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside are probably on a dynamic address anyway. The existing scary pink box at the top of the page says "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions," which should be sufficient authorization for admins to deal with bogus IP complaints. On the other, what if an IP posts a totally righteous report after "the rule" goes into place? Are ya'll going to to ignore a AC violation because the reporter didn't have standing? NE Ent 02:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm very sorry to see that you've decided to return to your self-appointed position as contrarian and ombusdman-at-large, as it was rather nice when you had absented youtself from that role. BMK (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - In one of my more ridiculous moments, although, granted, given my history, it's hard to decide what goes higher and what lower on that list, I actually more or less presented the case of an individual who was the subject of an arbitration case because that individual chose not to do so herself, and added my material based on my e-mail exchanges with that person. I think it would always be possible to maybe add a comment, somewhere on the arb pages or in the box, to the effect of "if you find yourself unable to edit this page, there is a list of editors [here] who would be willing to act as intermediaries and post evidence they consider reasonable and appropriate for inclusion that is conveyed to them by others through e-mail, provided, of course, if there are individuals who would be willing to do so, and I guess I might count myself as one of them. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good idea. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming good faith is fine, but perpetual disruption from obviously tainted sources such as a throw-away account or IP proposing AE action is unhelpful. Knowing that an attack is being mounted on someone accused by an IP is corrosive for the community—if the accused needs to be taken to AE, someone in good standing will notice. IPs can't edit semiprotected pages and cannot vote in Arbcom elections, and the WMF don't care about arbitration so long as they don't have to do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users. I've made up my mind, and I feel IPs are still just human beings behind a keyboard, and have as much "propriety" as anyone else. i.e. none. Shame on an experienced user allowing such wooly thinking even close to AN. Pedro : Chat 20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, that's a crudely misleading way of quoting a fragment of my sentence "We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (…) filing AE requests." Shame on you for pretending I've been putting the "propriety" of non-autoconfirmed users in question, whatever that might mean. You're a native speaker, I believe, so surely the syntax wasn't beyond you. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose. You do not have to have an account to edit. IPs are already abused by the regulars and the admins, now they can't complain about it either? GregJackP Boomer! 20:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless the IP's are shown to be socks or some banned editor evading their block, then the case should be allowed IP user or not. Outright dis-allowing IP's to post, just because they're IP's is straight up ABF (again, with the exception previously mentioned being the exceptions!) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not the proposal. IPs are welcome to post at AE—the proposal is to require that an AE request be started by a logged-in editor. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I read the proposal, and again, dis-allowing an IP to post just because they're IP's , anywhere on Wikipedia, even to open a case, except if they're socks or banned users is ABF KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support People who bring cases here should have something to lose if it is judged that the report is not in good faith. I'd restrict filing of cases to autoconfirmed users. Others can add their comments after the filing. Zero^talk 12:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Piling on, for the many good reasons given above. It beggars belief that good-faith IPs would even know about WP:AE, let alone know the proper procedure for filing there. In any case, they can easily create an account, or let other people know, who can assist them in this. IPs are of course human, nobody is preventing them from writing content, this will simply reduce drama. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the reasons outlined here: [5]. There are, indeed, good faith editors who choose not to create accounts but have made useful and insightful comments at AE. I think there are about 3 of them. To my knowledge they've never initiated an AE thread. All the rest are people with accounts evading scrutiny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - IP's creating anonymous AE requests clearly has more negatives then positives. This is not only matter of IP user rights, it is also matter of rights of accused editors who are being dragged to AE. Most obvious reason for such anonymous requests is filing party fearing a potential WP:BOOMERANG action.--Staberinde (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The set of users who happen on one of the topics where an Arbitration remedy is in place, that would recognize a violation of the sanctions, that would know where to report said sanction, that were either newly registered accounts or IP editors with little edit history, that needed to file a new ArbEnforcement petition is so astronomically small compared to the overall set that I feel this rule is reasonable. I would seek one caviat that if the petitioning "editor" has a valid cause that we not close it because they didn't fill the Form 22-B cover in triplicate the right way. Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: IPs and socks

I realise now that although I support this personally, I should have pointed out that at Arbitration Enforcement we pointed out that "Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action." As it is an extension of ArbCom, it seems to me that we are the only ones in the end who can revised the instructions. Doug Weller (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Is there any reason to expect that Arbcom would not assent to a consensus here, assuming that one will be reached? - Mr X 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendement request

I've requested the committee give AE its own talk page. NE Ent 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the extremely unlikely event that as an IP editor I should ever need to initiate a report at AE, I would expect to be able to so, unless the page was temporarily semi-protected due to ongoing vandalism, in which latter case I would hope to be able to submit a semi-protected edit request on the talk page as with any other semi-protected page. Presumably no confirmed editor would approve a frivolous talk page request. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Many Colours

[Cross-posting in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Noticeboard_and_cross-posting.]

Coat of Many Colours (talk · contribs) is hereby banned from the English Wikipedia. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting: Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, Yunshui

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Coat of Many Colours

Request to close AN/I sanction discussion

Could same ~~foolhardy~~ stalwart admin with a lot of patience and some time at their disposal take a look at closing "Hounding by Hijiri88"? The discussion has been open for 11 days, and there's been a request for closure for the past 4 days. I believe that the discussion is just spinning its wheels now, and numerous contributors on both sides of the proposed sanction have agreed that it's ripe for closure. BMK (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Longevity

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Longevity

Whoops

Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I inadvertently made an edit without logging in at Shooting of Michael Brown, then made a dummy edit saying the edit was mine. For the edit where I inadvertently didn't log in, could someone remove my IP address from the history? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blanking stale warnings from IP talk pages

Seeing stale warnings for edits they didn't make is confusing to IP users. I would like to use AutoWikiBrowser to blank the warnings from any IP talk pages with no warnings from 2014 or 2015. Notices regarding the identity off the users' ISPs would be preserved. I am posting here before starting this task to ensure that it has consensus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to read the related essay, WP:OLDIP. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since about 2010, I have been replacing the content of stale IP pages with an {{OW}} tag. This removes harsh and accusatory language, and leaves a minimal footprint and a clear message, while preserving (and pointing to) the edit history of the page for further information. This was actually approved as a bot task in a Village Pump discussion, but it has not been undertaken. bd2412 T 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Activity

[Cross-posting in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Noticeboard_and_cross-posting.]

In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of:

Amalthea (talk · contribs)

David Fuchs (talk · contribs)

and the oversight permissions of:

David Fuchs (talk · contribs)

Ks0stm (talk · contribs)

are removed. The committee thanks them for their many years of service. For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Thryduulf

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Activity

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody

This post is to inform the English Wikipedia editing community that the Checkuser team has identified a very large group of socks creating promotional articles, inserting promotional external links, and otherwise editing disruptively on this project. The investigation is named "Orangemoody" because this was the first sock identified.

During the course of this investigation, evidence has been identified that this group is editing for profit (i.e., that they are paid editors). Only a few of the accounts have made any disclosure related to paid editing, and those which did failed to make complete disclosures. The investigation began in early July. Many functionaries have participated in the investigation and identification of accounts, as well as the review of articles created by the accounts. The Community Advocacy department of the WMF is also an active participant, focusing on issues best addressed by WMF staff.

Graphic image illustrating the close interlacing of sock accounts. Yellow bubbles represent IP addresses, and green bubbles represent accounts.

It is important to note that the 381 accounts identified in this investigation are only those that were editing from the end of April to early August. This reflects the time-limited availability of checkuser data. Many of the identified accounts were editing before that time, and the nature and quality of the edits suggests that this paid editing scheme had been in place for some time before it was fortuitously identified. The WMF in particular will continue its liaison with article subjects, and will be reviewing data to determine further steps that are not directly available to the community.

The socks

There are 381 socks currently being blocked as a result of this investigation. All of the socks are linked by both technical data and behavioural evidence. The list of socks has been posted at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts. All of these blocks are checkuser blocks. They are being performed by EgressBot using a standardized block summary and user talk page template, so that reviewing administrators and editors will be able to identify that they are part of this group. A copy of the block summary and template is posted on the page listing the identified socks. Unblock requests can be brought to the attention of checkusers; this can be done by posting a link at the SPI talk page. It will take the blocking bot approximately an hour to complete all of the blocks; if for other behavioural reasons an administrator needs to block any of the accounts in the interim, the block will be superseded by the bot with the applicable summary and template. The same will apply to any accounts that have already been blocked.

The socks all exhibit at least one of the following behavioural traits:

"Article creation" socks create articles in draft space or user space mainly based on submissions to Articles for creation that had been declined, or articles that had been added to article space and deleted as being too promotional. These articles do not give proper attribution to the original authors. There are occasional variations to this process. Most of the articles created in this way have been moved to article space; a few are still in draft or user space.
"Helper" socks will usually complete a series of useless edits in order to be autoconfirmed. They then continue making gnoming-type edits that will periodically include the addition of spammy external links. Some of these socks also participate in Page Curation, and they will “mark reviewed” articles created by the other socks.
- Examples of "useless edits" include adding {{italictitle}} or wiki-linking words like Asia and United States, or making minor formatting changes.
The groups are not entirely distinct and some socks have acted as both article creators and helpers.

Paid editing

Early in the sockpuppetry investigation, it became apparent that several of the articles and the individual socks were tied to deletion discussions, OTRS comments, and complaints directed at specific administrators, where allegations of either demands for payment or complaints that articles were being deleted despite payment were made. The WMF Community Advocacy team were contacted, and User:Jalexander-WMF and User:Kalliope_(WMF) have both been directly involved in working with article subjects and complainants. The work being done by this socking group is unsolicited.

The editing pattern has been identified as follows:

An AfC draft is declined, usually because of notability concerns or excessively promotional content. There are variations on this, including deletion of articles in article space for similar reasons.
An Orangemoody sock begins work on the article, usually based on the original contributor’s content, and develops it sufficiently to prepare it for a move to article space
- In some cases, the sock will create a redirect page with the article being redirected to another topic. Most of these redirects are very implausible
External contact is made with the article subject and/or the original draft/article creator. An offer is made to publish the article in article space for a fee. The person making the contact will usually claim to be an experienced editor or administrator. The names of genuine editors and administrators are often used (for example, the names of administrators who have deleted related material), and this has been reported to this noticeboard in the past.
Money is exchanged. The article is moved to article space. It will frequently be marked reviewed by another sock, sometimes with the addition of tags.
Some time later the article subject or person who has paid for the article to be moved to mainspace is then contacted again and advised that, for a specific monthly fee ($30/month in examples that have been confirmed), the “editor” will continue to protect the article from vandalism and prevent its deletion, claiming that they had previously done that without charge.

The use of declined drafts (and in some cases deleted articles) to identify and approach potential clients is a new wrinkle in the way paid editing is being conducted. The return to demand further money to "protect" the article is also significant, and we do have examples of socks proceeding to request deletion of pages.

The articles

The list of articles created by the socks is located at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. This list is not considered complete; due to time constraints, there may be additional articles created by these socks that are not included here. Most articles relate to businesses, businesspeople, or “artists”.

Review of this list of articles reveals that the overwhelming majority of them would qualify for deletion under one or more speedy deletion criteria. In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted. It is important to break the cycle of payment demands, and to make it clear that the Wikipedia community, and not a small group of paid editor accounts, controls the content of this project. This mass deletion is without prejudice to recreation by experienced Wikipedians who believe that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article. We emphasize again that all indications are that the editing was not solicited by the article subjects.

Because so many of the articles contain unattributed material and/or copyvios, administrators are urged NOT to undelete articles or move them to userspace.

What the community can do to help

Review the edits of the sock accounts for quality and for spam links, and make repairs as needed
Review the edits of the sock accounts for any undeleted article creations. It may be appropriate to delete these articles as well
Continue to be vigilant for allegations of similar schemes
Review the list of deleted articles and consider creating new, well-sourced, independently written versions of articles about notable subjects. Some suggestions have been made at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles
A special OTRS queue, info-orangemoodywikipedia.org, has been set up. Please feel free to refer any complaints from article subjects to this email address. The English Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team will work with the subjects, and this queue will be monitored as well by WMF’s Community Advocacy team if further assistance is needed.
Please be kind to the article subjects. They too are victims in this situation.

On behalf of the Functionary team, Risker (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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