Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 70 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)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

(Initiated 12 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 131 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 128 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 128 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't mess up the bot, but I struck the two discussions that are already done, to make it clearer that only one discussion still needs to be closed (albeit the big one). TIA to anyone taking it on. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If by "the bot", you mean ClueBot III, which carries out the archiving, you will only "mess up the bot" if you use a level 2 heading, or edit below a line that says "above this line". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 99 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 79 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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

(Initiated 64 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)

@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)

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

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

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 55 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)

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

(Initiated 52 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)

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

(Initiated 47 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

(Initiated 44 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)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

• (Initiated 35 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 29 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	13	28	41
TfD	0	1	1	3	5
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	46	17	63
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

(Initiated 60 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

(Initiated 59 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Template:Empty-warn

(Initiated 52 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

(Initiated 40 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor bibliomaniac15. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15

(Initiated 26 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

All discussions have been either  Closed or relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

(Initiated 22 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Category:Non-fiction books about the African-American civil rights movement

(Initiated 21 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

(Initiated 325 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)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 279 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:PAG#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 171 days ago on 23 March 2024) This discussion died down, unclear what the consensus is. (uninvolved editor) The Banner talk 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 127 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 105 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 103 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 93 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 72 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 31 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)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

(Initiated 19 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 15 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Bazaan

Hello,

I am passing along a Standard offer unblock request from Bazaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This request was sent to UTRS. The user has requested that the content of the unblock request be forwarded to the noticeboard. The relevant content is as follows:

I agree to another Standard Offer if necessary, although it would be the second time. I would like the content of my unblock request to be forwarded to the noticeboard. I promise to never repeat the behaviour which led to my initial block, and the subsequent indefinite block.

Why do you believe you should be unblocked? It's been six months, please give me another chance. At least give me a rope.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Most South Asian, but wide ranging

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I purposefully brought a sock puppetry ban on my account. It's my fault. I have suffered enough, including tremendous personal attacks.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Plenty of accounts have been blocked in my name, although most aren't mine.

The ones used by me are Bazaan, Rainmaker23, Uck22, JKhan20 and Merchant of Asia.

The user has not received any additional blocks on the account and is therefore tentatively eligible for Standard Offer consideration. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• See Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. BMK (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• There were issues concerning Bazaan and his or her socks other then sockpuppetry itself, which the editor doesn't mention. Search on "Bazaan" in the noticeboard files. I'd like to hear what the editor has to say about that behavior. BMK (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've modified Bazaan's block to permit him to edit his talk page: if we're willing to consider unblocking someone, the situation isn't so bad that talk access should remain disabled, and it's easier if the user can post messages on his own talk page instead of relying on UTRS assistance. Nakon, would you mind sending Bazaan an email asking him to make further replies on his talk page? Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've sent User:Bazaan an email update regarding their talk page. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from the sockpuppetry, there was some copyright issues way, way back. Is there anything else, from a content perspective, that would merit a conditional unblock? By which I mean, an "unblock conditional on an acceptance of a topic ban in articles relating to XYZ." Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I may be unusually strict, but I oppose any sort of standard offer when there has been sockpuppetry/ I don't think that anyone who has engaged in sockpuppetry can be trusted at their end, at least not until the twenty-second century. That is my opinion. It just reflects a distinction between editors who make mistakes and editors who choose to game the system. I know that other editors are more forgiving than I am, and I am very forgiving of flaming, but not of sockpuppetryl Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Further note from Bazaan's talk page:

  I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.

  This was left as an unblock request, which I've declined because it wouldn't be right for me to unblock him as this discussion's still ongoing. It was a procedural decline (don't think of it as a frivolous request), and I've asked him to use {{helpme}} when writing future comments for this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Bazaan writes "I believe I have matured over time", but he also writes "The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further" and "I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences." These don't appear to me to be the statements of someone who has "learnt [their] lesson truly well", as they are still blaming others and not taking responsibility for their actions. And for an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to write "Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake." is not acceptable. Perhaps we can accept that one sockpuppet was a "mistake", but what about the other three they admit to? (That's assuming we can take their word that other accounts which were blocked as theirs were incorrectly identified.) I'm not yet closing the door on this, but, at least so far, I do not find the editor's comments to be persuasive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Although I'm often in agreement with BMK's opinions, in this case I do believe a few of Bazaan's statements are somewhat excusable. Articles about the sub continent can be very contentious considering articles about India and Pakistan ended up at Arbcom. Perhaps Bangladeshi articles should fall into that category given the nation's history with India, but that's a discussion for another page. The sockpuppetry issue is certainly of concern. Perhaps a quick check by a CheckUser would alleviate this concern. [Iff] no socking is revealed in the last 6 months, I could probably support a conditional unblock. Bazaan has admitted to having issues in Bangladeshi articles in the past and letting him back into this area may not be healthiest. If no socking is revealed, then I could support an unblock provided a 3 month topic ban from Bangladeshi articles is levied to encourage Bazaan to edit somewhere else so the community could regain some confidence and to truly prove that he has "matured over time". However, if socking is revealed within the last 6 months, then the offer is off the table. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have similar concerns to Blackmane; given how controversial such articles can be, and the past troubles this editor has had while editing them, Most South Asian, but wide ranging doesn't seem the best space to dive straight back into. Perhaps a 3-month topic ban from all sub-continent / South Asian articles would be a good place to start? GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• oppose unblock - I had edited with him and I would say that it was a bad experience. Yes he has evaded his block enough times for like a year, I can see that some of his nationalistic edits on Bangladesh subjects had been removed, a few more are still left to be checked. You need to read his unblock request, "My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV" or "I opened a second account after being blocked" and "I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system"[1] tells that he rejects that he was totally wrong with his blatant policy violations that he has made, which includes vandalism and block evasion. How he can be trusted with this? I understand that I had socked too but blaming others or failing to accept it is not good. Capitals00 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - this is a historically highly disruptive user. Normally I'm quite lenient with supporting standard offers, but this is not a case of an editor going off the deep end one time and then seeing the error of their ways. Here we have an editor who was indef'd for outright vandalism who attempted to abuse a process to erase their history, and then socked through their siteban for almost another full year. That behaviour ended less than a year ago, and I don't think we should even be considering the standard offer until at least that much time has gone by. Call it punitive, whatever: I do think a very strong message needs to be sent to this user. Nevertheless, I have a proposal: that Bazaan be conditionally unblocked, under the conditions that they are indefinitely topic banned from any topics related to Bangladesh, broadly construed, and may not operate more than one account for any purpose; conditions may be appealed after no less than one year. They are encouraged to contribute constructively in other areas and to follow all content and behavioural guidelines during this time. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock as requested Several of the requesters statements seem to indicate that they do no realize which behaviour of theirs was disruptive. Capitals00 has gone over some of those statements. I would not oppose a conditional unblock that involves a topic ban from areas this user was disruptive in in the past. HighInBC 23:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and accept standard offer, though only with close scrutiny, and the understanding that if he even so much as leaves a major edit marked as minor, would be enough for a total site ban. Besides that, I sensed a of ring of truth and sincerity that gave me a rather brief reprieve, but just enough to give him another chance, but only ONE chance.. after this, this is it.. gone for good. I think his gaming the system and bad behaviour in the past is simply his way of beating the system.. he had a genuine interest in improving the project but for whatever reason his way of going about it is breaking some site rules that he seems to feel are not as binding (to him) as they inevitably are; plus his intellect and wit would get him past it it without a scratch, and got a rude awakening that he can't just breeze his way past our site policies. Anyway.. my characterizations may be totally off-beat here but this was my two cents and initial impressions that colored by my decision to support. Thanks very much. -- œ^™ 04:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let me clarify a few things here. First, it is not a good idea to expect Bazaan or any other editor here to be completely perfect. Second, like some others have requested, I would oppose topic ban and it is not needed because he was not topic banned when he was blocked. If he makes disruptive edits we have always got AN or AE for seeking sanction like topic ban. Instead I would say that he should make another promising unblock request, not before next 6 months. He should confirm that he understood the damage that he has done and try not to justify with anything better that he presumably did here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Deceased admin/Dreadstar

Here Dreadstar.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC))

Sad news. –xeno^talk 18:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this is outing but can I ask how this information was obtained? I corresponded with Dreadstar as recently as last fall so this is a surprise to me. Regardless of the fact that he was a former admin, he was a longtime Wikipedia contributor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

News was obtained by Diannaa: [2]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Liz is in the US, so that's the Northern Hemisphere fall. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW: In my past conversations with Dreadstar - I believe that he preferred that his privacy be respected. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Littleolive oil and Ched in particular, I was wondering whether his family or friends (at some later point) could be asked for a good photograph of him for Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, but I can't work out whether he would have wanted that. I think maybe yes, but I'm not sure. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note at WP:BN. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

ANRFC again

Here's a story, for those who haven't met their recommended daily allowance of drama yet: Over the last few months, we've had a series of RFCs at WT:MEDRS, some of which would have benefited from closing statements by experienced admins. Most of these RFCs have dealt, directly or indirectly, with whether sources from a particular country, whose academic journals are under political pressure to publish only The Right Answer™, are desirable sources. (The overall "vote", if you care about numbers, is about 3 to 1 against this idea.)

We've simultaneously, and not really as a result of this, had another one of our periodic fights about the exact scope of MEDRS, with the usual (i.e., very low) level of immediate success, but with some useful and interesting comments that might eventually help us improve that guideline. This fight mostly covered the question of whether and when information about violent crimes needs medical sources, e.g., rather than legal or social ones. Having both of these fights at the same time, and mostly involving the same people, has been more than a little inconvenient.

(I'm omitting names, because identities actually don't matter much, and I don't want to bother with a long string of notifications or to have anyone think that the problem is just one person's personality.)

Order of RFCs:

• The first round was originally closed by a NAC who was TBAN'd (from something unrelated to the RFC) last year. Multiple editors involved in this RFC were also involved in the TBAN discussion. As it happened – I explicitly do not allege any sort of dishonesty here, but rather an unfortunate circumstance that the NAC may not even have noticed – the closing statement was in favor of the minority who favor citing politically manipulated journals and against the editors who voted for the TBAN. "Losing" editors have made this NAC suffer for volunteering to close this enormous discussion.
• Then we had a long fight about whether there exist things that are related to health, but that aren't exactly intended to be covered by MEDRS (e.g., violent crime). Initially, there were two of these RFCs; thankfully, the OP for the first stated that he formally withdrew it in favor of the other, and it therefore did not end up in the laundry list at ANRFC. (If it had, then we might have ended up with contradictory closing statements.) The second one was closed, about two months after it began, by an admin who deserves praise, because this was not a small task and because it was impossible to avoid disappointing some good editors. The thoroughly explained closing statement is getting a few complaints, but IMO they are largely respectful complaints, and I expect the overall dispute to settle down as people find ways to adjust and meet their needs.
• The second round on politically pressured sources demanded that ediotrs pick a way to implement the first RFC even though they objected to everything about the close, from the outcome to the identity of the NAC. This newer one was closed the other day by an apparently innocent editor, who created an account two months ago and has made exactly 384 edits so far, including closing several RFCs and a lot of edits about a movie. The new editor has tried to provide helpful advice, like narrowing down the five options to the two least-contested.
• Now we have another RFC that's trying to force people to pick between the two least-contested wordings about political sources, even though the clear signal from the editors is that they do not want any of those options at all. Realistically, I expect this to either keep going for a month, or for someone to propose a TBAN against the OP.

Why I'm bothering telling you about this:

The fact that two NACs have tried to close some of these incredibly contentious RFCs on hot-button issues means that we have a structural problem with ANRFC. We have a lot of "process" and a lot of "activity", but the RFCs that need admin attention aren't getting that attention.

I don't believe that this is due to having too few admins, because we had too few admins a few years ago, and we didn't really have this problem a few years ago. What's changed since then is:

• One editor has been filling ANRFC with about 90% of the RFCs that have expired. The number of listed RFCs has gone up 3x to 4x compared to 2012, although the number of complicated or highly contentious RFCs does not appear to have changed. (I've checked the RFCs listings for formatting problems off and on for years, so I've got a decent idea of what goes through the pipe.) Listing almost everything might make the signal-to-noise ratio unfavorable for admins. When you see that there are dozens listed, with no sense of priority and with many that can have nothing more than a rubber-stamp on a nearly-unanimous vote, it would not be unreasonable to start ignoring the whole list. It's also on a separate subpage, which means that changes probably aren't appearing in your watchlist.
• We have formally agreed that NACs can and should be encouraged to close all sorts of discussions, and we have relied upon their experience and wisdom to stop them from stepping into a mess like this. I actually saw the ANRFC listing for one of these a while ago, contemplated adding a note warning off NACs, and I decided that such a comment was unnecessary, because it was so obviously contentious that nobody except an admin would touch it. I was wrong. At this point, it might be reasonable for WP:NAC and related advice to stop assuming that all editors have the necessary experience and wisdom figure out which discussions come with a free bull's eye target for their backs.

I'm not really proposing a specific solution here. Instead, I want to point out that there is a problem, and that I have identified two separate factors that I believe are contributing to it. There may be others; I would really appreciate hearing ideas about other probable factors. I think that if we can identify the probable causes for this, then we might be able to find a way to make this system more functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAC is less relevant than WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs and WP:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure. You were wrong in thinking a non-admin would not close the discussion because becoming an admin bestows no magical consensus deciding powers. In fact the majority of admins have little/no more experience in that area than many long-time editors. Not to mention the 'this is a contentious RFC' line is trotted out whenever someone disagrees with the result. Just because people have different opinions does not make something contentious. Although I will agree that most of the MEDRS stuff does follow that path by MEDRS own design. The problem at this point is not with non-admin closures, or closures in general, its that MEDRS is full of people who want MEDRS to apply everywhere. Even when it really shouldnt. Some of the recent articles I watch where people insist on a MEDRS compliant source - crime articles for example - are not remotely medical, yet people are seriously arguing crime is always a health issue so MEDRS should apply. Now couple that with the fact that at MEDRS, people generally fall into two camps, a)editors demanding the highest possible quality source (the inference being: Western published) and b)editors who want the criteria lowered so they can use all sorts of crap as a source anywhere MEDRS applies. This wouldnt normally be a problem (people arguing in their walled gardens) except for the aforementioned over-reach of MEDRS scope. It has the potential to impact large sections of wikipedia. At this very minute people are arguing over wording that (as it reads) says "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions." Anyone who spends any time at RSN knows that (apart from possible country of origin) those are considered all the time. The problem isnt with ANRFC, discussion closing etc, the problem is MEDRS and the crap thats argued over there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that a NAC wouldn't close those discussions because I figured that they had a decent sense of self-preservation, if nothing else, and that nobody in his right mind would really want to close a discussion involving thousands of words and lots of yelling. About half the list at WP:BADNAC and its #Pitfalls section applies, too. But that assumes that the NAC has enough sense to figure out when "a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous". Or even "The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally", for the newbie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this specifc situation but I do agree with WhatamIdoing regarding over-reporting at ANRFC. It's become a bloated mess that is often longer than the whole rest of this noticeboard, and as a result suffers from disinterest. I think a re-organization of ANRFC is in order, something that would make it clear what is a priority that really needs a close and what is just a low-level content dispute that petered out days or weeks ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• When I tried to deal with the over-reporting some time ago, merely removing stuff that didn't need to be listed, I got reverted: [3] and [4] were followed by reversions by Dicklyon (who hasn't touched ANRFC since his unblock) and by the 90%-filling editor. We need to enforce WP:ADMINSHOP — when an admin has responded to your request, don't re-post the request as if it had been removed by accident or by a vandal. If you don't like being told that it doesn't need a formal close, ask another admin privately; I'm not trying to shut down the asking entirely. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I fully support reigning in ANRFC. This even came up at one of the Village Pumps last fall, and I tried to get Cunard to quit spamming ANRFC, but got nowhere. I'm not an Admin, but even I took to knocking out some of those entries a few days back as "Not done" as they were clearly "uncloseable" – a significant percentage of the entries that keep getting spammed to ANRFC simply don't belong there. (As an aside, it might be good if something like that – "Uncloseable" or "Declined" – is added to the other options at ANRFC like "Done" or "Not done"...) But I think it's going to take concerted action from Admins to reign ANRFC back in. Heck, it might even require a temporary Topic Ban in one case... But this is going to have to be done by Admins – after all: this is your page here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• From what I am seeing here, I think a formal RFC on ANRFC is in order to establish some reasonable guidelines and best practices for what should be reported there and how to handle the sheer volume of reports. I have been trying to force myself to take a prolonged break from creating policy RFCs, but I would offer up User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal as guidance for anyone wishing to construct such a process. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• As a NAC that has closed quite a few RFC's on WP:ANRFC, I see no problem with the listing of RFC's in bulk. The editor opening them may not be aware of where to request a close and may just think its automatically done because the header is automatically removed. I honestly believed that when I started editing. The RFC's go down to a respectable level before more are added. As the editor who specifically requested an admin to close the last RFC on MEDRS, even if I were not involved I would not have closed it. Not because it was contentious, all RFC's are contentious to some extent, there is a disagreement, thats the reason a RFC was started in the first place. The reason is that a NAC was completely ignored when last a NAC closed a RFC there. There was no respect for the process and edit warring ruled. The RFC close was not followed, but the larger number of editors edit warred to keep the page exactly as it was. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The problem is that it's obfuscation through volume. I stopped looking there when I realized I was wasting my time going through all manner of discussions that are 1. almost without exception the most stunningly boring issues imaginable and 2. didn't need a formal close anyways. After a little while I felt like it'd be less painful to pound my nuts flat with a ball peen hammer, and judging by the size of it now I don't seem to be the only one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  Agree with TBotNL – a significant percentage of the content getting put up at ANRFC are either, 1) not actual RfCs and thus don't belong there at all, or 2) are RfC's that are "unclosable" either because no real "Support/Oppose" voting took place or because there was too little discussion to even establish "Consensus/No Consensus". I doubt anyone has an issue with real "problem" RfC's being posted to ANRFC – the problem is 1) the volume of postings to ANRFC, and 2) the relative percentage of "junk" entries there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have been checking for non RFC's for the last three months. I have seen some editors request a close of a discussion they are a part of. So far the only discussions that I have seen that are listed as a RFC had a RFC header removed by Legobot. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  I haven't scrupulously checked, so I'll concede that what you say may very well be true. Nonetheless, even if they had proper "RfC headers", some of the ones I've seen were not properly formatted as RfC's, and thus shouldn't have been put up at ANRFC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The bulk listings by Cunard rely entirely on the removal of RFC tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

yep. Just putting {{RFC}} on a page does not mean it has to have a formal close no matter what. Robotically reporting everyhting that has had that header on it at some point without seeing if it really needs a closer is a disservice to the community because it increases backlogs and leads to disinterest in the whole process. Look how bloated it is right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. There isn't currently any way to differentiate "bulk listing just because Cunard wants (almost) every single RFC to get a formal closing statement" from "this one really needs outside intervention", and the sheer volume of the bulk listings discourages people from searching for the critical ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you to the WP:ANRFC closers, particularly the recent prolific closers AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs), Fountains-of-Paris (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), GRuban (talk · contribs), and Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), for your hard work.

  Mariah Carey birth years discussion; a "consensus is clear" close is referenced 16 months later to enforce the consensus

  Here is a "consensus is clear" closure request from September 2013: link. The consensus was already implemented. Mariah Carey's two possible birth years were added to the article. An admin wrote "no need for a formal close of this". I asked again for a close after someone reverted against consensus, and Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed it.

  In January 2015 (16 months later), a new editor disputed the consensus version, saying only one year should be listed. Another editor responded with a link to the RfC, Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year. Had the RfC not been closed by an uninvolved editor, it would have been far more difficult to ensure the consensus is respected. "Read an uninvolved editor's summary of the RfC" is more likely to be heeded than "read this long, unclosed talk page discussion".

  Of course something like this doesn't happen to all "consensus is clear" discussions. But it is impossible to distinguish between the two types because we cannot see into the future. It is impossible to determine whether the consensus will be overlooked or ignored in the future. And it is not worth the time to hazard a guess because as S Marshall noted "Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them" and as Ncmvocalist wrote, "it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted".

  Why closing discussions is important

  Scott summarized it very well at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Too many discussions being added:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  Robert McClenon, one of RfC's dedicated and hard-working closers, explained why formal closure of even seemingly "consensus is clear discussions" is helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Benefits of Formal Closure:

  I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.

  Recently closed RfCs

  1. Talk:Kuwait Airways#RFC: Should a threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation against the airline be included in the article? (closure request):

     The discussion was split 3–2 to include the material in the article, but the closer closed the RfC as allowing the material based on strength of argument. Without an independent closer, the policy-based conclusion would not have been reached. The discussion looks like "no consensus", which means the material is excluded.

  2. Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 5#RFC Victim names (closure request)

     The discussion was contentious and from at a superficial glance looks like "no consensus", which means all of the material is excluded. But the closing editor carefully read the discussion and wrote a nuanced, eloquent summary of the discussion and the applicable policies, allowing part of the material to be included and part to be excluded.

  3. Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: Should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? (closure request)

     The discussion was split 5–3 to say that the glacier is disputed in the inbox. Without an independent closer assessing the strength of the arguments, this could be considered "no consensus". The closer reviewed the discussion and found there to be a consensus based on the strengths of the arguments to say that the glacier is disputed. The closer further noted that there was no consensus about how to word this.

     The close paved the way for a second RfC, Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: How should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? (closure request). The second RfC achieved a consensus for how to word the dispute in the infobox.

  The RfC close that prompted WhatamIdoing's post here

  WP:ANRFC has worked well for the past four years. If there are problems like inexperienced editors incorrectly closing RfCs, then those can be individually handled.

  I think the RfC close that prompted WhatamIdoing's post is Elvey (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country of Origin. An RfC closure review was filed yesterday here. Non-admins have closed contentious RfCs in the past and have done a good job doing so. If there is a problem with this particular non-admin close, then it will be overturned at the closure review.

  Cunard (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

TLDR. The same thing is the reason why ANRFC is pointless; you overwhelm the important things with the trivial. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the RFC closing that prompted this was the one in which an editor with a two-month-old account and a grand total of 384 edits tried to issue a "ruling" in a controversial change to a major sourcing guideline. There is nothing about a closing review process that can fix the busted process that led such an editor to believe this was a good idea.

Also, I believe that all of us who frequent the drama boards are tolerably familiar with your belief that flooding ANRFC is a net benefit and that getting a single editor's view of a one-time discussion enshrined forever as The Consensus™ is a good thing. The fact that I disagree with your view does not mean that I'm unaware of your view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cunard will often request "an experienced admin" vs "an experienced editor". Is there merit to having some categories based on this assessment? Cunard, what's the rationale for asking an admin close an item vice an editor? Alternatively, maybe categories based on Cunard's rough judgment: "likely contentious"/"not likely contentious". Would that poison the well though? --Izno (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing If the problem is that an inexperienced editor closed a RFC, the problem isnt with listing RFC's, but the editor who did the close. I am not placing the blame on the editor though. To my knowledge there is no policy, guideline, or even essay that controls or gives guidance on what qualifies as "experienced", and believe me I have looked. There is a need to spell this out, WP:CLOSE would be a great place for it. Maybe giving a minimum time/edit count to reference if you should be closing as an editor. It wouldnt be perfect because 3 to 6 months editing on a contentious topic to me is a greater teacher than doing a year of spell checking and removing stray commas on seldom edited topics. But at least it would give editors some idea if they should be closing. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You and I are looking at the situation from different perspectives. IMO the important problem is not that an inexperienced editor closed an RFC. (That's easily fixed, with little long-term harm beyond possibly driving away an innocent and potentially good new editor.) The important problem is that the request for a closing statement was not visible to the small number of experienced policy experts who should have closed it.

User:Izno, what do you think about putting Cunard's NAC-suitable requests on a completely separate page? WP:AN would transclude only the smaller number of requests that are made by participants or that Cunard believes shouldn't be handled by a NAC. The less complex ones could go on another page. Perhaps admins would be more likely to see the ones that they need to look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You could technically put them all on the same page and only transclude the interesting ones here ({{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Administrators' noticeboard|<includeonly>}} and etc.), but yes, that was my general gist. Alternatively, you can keep them all on the same page and then just add some more subsectioning e.g. == Possibly contentious RFC == and ==Likely not contentious RFC==; everything still shows up here but I think the admins figure out what they need to then. Those are still solutions which may have problems (c.f. my comment earlier about possibly poisoning the well--Cunard brings up an example above that looks non-contentious but really isn't). --Izno (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my personal opinion is that the latter concept is the better one. In fact, ANRFC was previous "sectioned" until several months ago when somebody decided it was a "brilliant" idea to remove the sections. But, at the least two sections: 'Contentious RfCs' (which would be transcluded here), and then a more general 'Unclosed RfCs' (which wouldn't be) would be a vast improvement. Also, it needs to be clear that non-Admins can "reject" RfCs from the second list if they are not properly formatted RfCs or are otherwise uncloseable, without fear of such judgements being frivilously reverted as a matter of course; also NACs need to have the authority to move entries from the first list to the second one if they determine that an RfC isn't "contentious" enough to require Admin attention... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Whenever sections are introduced, it seems that someone eventually removes them after a few months. Maybe the next time they're restored, there should be a hidden comment saying "Please do not remove these headings even if the section is empty." Sunrise (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall Very sensible idea, I also suggest to allow/recommend that if a NAC sees a RFC that requires an admin in the less contentious area, the NAC can move it into the admin section. AlbinoFerret 23:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant

User:WhatamIdoing, what is happening is because the WMF is refusing to hire competent people to override bad decisions made by editors and admins. Wikipedia is obviously broken. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) See User talk:Nyttend#RFC — QuackGuru's idea of a bad close is one where the admin assesses consensus and closes a discussion likewise, because "The closer must find out who is right or wrong." Would someone mind instructing QuackGuru on the standard method of decisionmaking here at Wikipedia, with a firm reminder that repeated attempts to have decisions closed because one side is right and the other wrong will result in QuackGuru's twenty-fifth block? Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC) According to User:Mrjulesd Wikipedia is not a vote.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC) The WMF will continue to refuse to get involved in content decisions, including the content of guidelines such as this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Admins needed at UTRS

It seems that I am practically the only admin reviewing unblock requests that come in through UTRS lately, and as a result it is getting backlogged. Some of them are appeals of blocks I did, so I can't review them. UTRS is generally actually simpler than on-wiki unblock reviews as it is mostly semi-automated. If you don't have a UTRS account it is easy to get one, see WP:UTRS for details. More checkusers would be handy as well, I'm still pretty new to CU and some of these appeals need a more experienced CU to handle them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your dedication and time Beeblebrox. I don't have a lot of time to respond to appeals these days but I remain the active tooladmin and will approve accounts for any admins who can volunteer some time. Most appeals are either easy declines (trolling or companies) or referrable to on-wiki. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a couple there right now that I'm not sure what to do with. They are from IPs that are blocked as proxies. The persons filing the appeals claim to be in mainland China, which is one of the valid reasons for granting IPBE, but they don't have an account, they just want the proxy unblocked. I know that's a bad idea, but what I'm not sure about is if they can create an account at all while stuck behind the great firewall, so I really don't know how to respond. Any ideas? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a few of them and I'm waiting for blocking admin input on a couple others. I'll do more once my latest headache fades away. Katie^talk 22:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm back from my unexpected break and will be able to help out more. I'm knocking a bunch of the outstanding requests back now.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

PS @Beeblebrox: I created a new template for IPBE requests where the range is hardblocked if you would like to use it in the future. (title: "IPBE request on hard rangeblock").--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Beeblebrox. I have emailed the UTRS admins list to offer my assistance. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. The more the merrier. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yamaguchi先生 I regret to inform you that we have not received an e-mail from you. In any case, to volunteer you can simply register an account here. We're currently developping a new OAuth system to auto-authenticate admins, bypassing the need for individual registration, for that's just a project. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bambifan question

Could someone familiar with Bambifan address WP:RFPP#Bambi II? The article was semiprotected in 2008 after a pile of trivial vandalism, and a new user asked that it be unprotected. The user in question doesn't at all look like a Bambifan account (all other edits are stuff like [6] and [7]), so I'm not questioning the request; I just don't know how we handle these pages that Bambifan loves to mangle. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that, in the absence of any BF activity, the article should be unprotected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC review request: Request for Comment: Country of Origin

Location:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable_sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country of Origin

Specific question asked:

"Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:

Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.

to

Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions.

This proposal is to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline

Concerns over the closing of this RFC have halted its implementation. The question is specific to only High-quality sources.

Discussion

• Endorse The RFC was specifically about High quality sources and this was spelled out in the RFC question. The question had a very narrow focus. The closer rightfully discounted comments that were about low quality sources as off topic. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  This is nonsense; who defines what a high or low-quality source is? There is no clear-cut process that is accepted by all, and actually the entire reason for the guideline. What if you define it depending on "personal" reasons — then you nullify the entire clause? The RfC concerns sources on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 07:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  The guideline already gives reasons not to reject "high quality" sources for reasons like funding so that argument fails. But this is not a place to reargue the merits of the RFC. 13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  No, but it is important to note the actual coverage of the RfC, which is all sources that would go on Wikipedia. CFCF 💌 📧 15:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not all sources, only high quality ones. Your statement is one of the reasons I endorse this close. The RFC was a very narrow focused one and the off topic responses were obviously discounted, and your repeating them here doesnt invalidate the close. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  I'm kind of inclined to go with "this is nonsense", but because Albino has misquoted the guideline again, and therefore his objection is irrelevant (NB not wrong, just irrelevant). A high-quality type of study is not the same thing as a high-quality source. A systematic review is a very high-quality type of study, but it can be a remarkably low-quality source for any given statement. For example, a systematic analysis of whichever studies I have photocopies of in my filing cabinet would be a high-quality type of study and a low-quality source.
  The fact that the closer made the same mistake, not to mention also introducing ideas never mentioned in the discussion at all, are both reasons to overturn it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless if it is "type" or "source", I used source because thats what they are, sources. We are still talking about high quality, and simply because a high quality type or source is from a specific country is no reason to disqualify it. That premise, that just because something is from a specific country it fails, is troubling regardless of what criteria you are looking at. In any event this is off topic for a review as it is just re-arguing the RFC. AlbinoFerret 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Type of study" and "source" really are very importantly different concepts!

• A meta-analysis is a type of study. They are often done well, but they can be done very, very poorly. All meta-analyses are high-quality "types of studies"; some meta-analyses are impossibly bad "sources".
• A good textbook is a source. It is not any kind of scientific study at all. That doesn't mean that the textbook is a low-quality source. It just means that this particular type of source doesn't fall on the levels of evidence scales. A good textbook can be the best source for many medicine-related statements.

The disputed sentence is part of an entire section ("Assess evidence quality") on how to tell which type of study is better evidence than another. A type of study is all about scientific levels of evidence. It's not "simply high quality" or the entirety of whether a particular source can support a particular statement; it's very specifically about "high-quality types of studies" (emphasis in the original). A specific source (=a specific publication) can be a very high-quality source despite containing no scientific evidence at all. Similarly, a source could use a very good type of study – something that rates high in levels of evidence – while still being a very bad source indeed. To determine whether a source is a good one, you need to look at more factors than merely the levels of evidence (="type of study"). "Assess evidence quality" is only one of six major factors that MEDRS encourages editors to consider, (mostly) in addition to the five major factors that RS recommends for all subjects (see WP:NOTGOODSOURCE for a brief list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, that argument failed in the RfC because editors were objecting to certain Cochrane Reviews simply because they had Chinese authors, and since Cochrane Reviews are prestigious reviews of reviews and meta-analyses, that means they are both the "highest quality source" as well as "highest quality study type". For the purposes of the RfC, there wasn't a difference, and editors who objected because of problems with lower quality references (type or source) missed the point and their votes were tossed aside. Objections were raised on the basis of potentially biased low quality Chinese published primary research (RCT's), which wasn't ever the point. Those are low quality sources and study-type . Naturally, the editors raising these objections weren't happy when their off-topic arguments were counted as such. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing You missed my point in again trying to explain type and source again. The point being that regardless if you are looking at type or source, country of origin as a basis for exclusion is troubling. AlbinoFerret 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that if you're bringing this here at this point, you should present the entire context, such as the two subsequent RfCs about the same question. Sunrise (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would rather start at the beginning and discuss one RFC at a time as it may not be necessary to review them all. The next RFC was closed no consensus and as a NAC I agree with that closing, but if someone disagrees with that close they are welcome to start a review for it. Though I dont know why a review for a no consensus close is necessary. There appears to be a current RFC that has recently started that I just became aware of today, but we are far from the close (about 3 weeks) of that RFC for a review, if it is necessary. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that whether the other RfCs should be reviewed is not the point. The point is that you selectively omitted context in a way that favors your preferred outcome. With regard to the current RfC, if you're implying that you didn't perform due diligence by reading the talk page before coming here, then I don't think that helps you. And perhaps you forgot, but you did not "just become aware of" the current RfC, because you commented in it. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to related discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Questions about RFC closure - Country of origin
2. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover?
3. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: How to Implement the Country of Origin Closing

Cunard (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• {{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) 07:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? was on a different topic and section of MEDRS. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Questions_about_RFC_closure_-_Country_of_origin. The closer wrote "Opinion in discussion appears evenly divided between Support for either 1, or 3, or 5 with No Consensus. In addition it is #3 which is the most contested. A new RfC which would rephrase the material as something like a choice between some version of #1 and some version of #5 would likely lead to an outcome." Fountains-of-Paris" The more recent RfC overrides the previous RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

QG your comment is about the second RFC, and a no consensus closing does not override a previous RFC. AlbinoFerret 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does. You did not mention the other RfCs when you began this discussion. Do you stand by that decision. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure I do as posted above this is a discussion on one RFC, all the rest is off topic. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a third RfC that rejects the use of country of origin. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC:_How_to_Implement_the_Country_of_Origin_Closing. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn close. The closer neglected to take into consideration comments made by others.

Revert 1.

Revert 2.

Revert 3.

Revert 4.

Revert 5. The closer was trying to force changes in.

It is suspicious the close was on 18 October 2015 and months later it is brought up here. The other RfCs show a clear consensus to not include the language that is against MEDRS to use low quality bias sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the second editor to perfectly explain why the close should be endorsed. The RFC question was not about Low quality sources but high quality ones. Anyone replying with a low quality source comment was off topic. Also thank you for pointing out that the RFC was ignored and the only reason it was not implemented was edit warring, hence the need for this review. AlbinoFerret 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Using low quality bias sources is against MEDRS. Confirmed bias sources are not high quality sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The RFC question specifically was talking about a section in MEDRS dealing with High quality sources and never mentioned low quality sources. Regardless of low quality sources, can you address why the close was wrong when closing on High quality sources without going off topic into low quality ones and rearguing the RFC? AlbinoFerret 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS should not be used as a platform to include bias sources in articles. A high-quality is not from a country of origin that is known to be bias. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Overturn. I have never edited anywhere near this issue. A well intentioned but inexperienced closer got in the middle of an attempt to rewrite policy to win a content dispute, they gave a consensus contrary to a roughly two-thirds majority (which included some of our most respected editors[8]), and the close explanation effectively affirmed the majority concerns. The close had the good intention of saying people shouldn't baselessly reject reliable sources, but the proposed policy change is pointless once it's re-written to explain that closing intent. The community is now engaged in a clusterfuck of additional RFC's trying to respect that awkward close - by rewriting it in a way that almost no one is going to consider a meaningful improvement. This should not have gotten a consensus against the majority, not unless it's an experienced closer who knows how to send an against-majority close on a constructive course. Alsee (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• If this appeal is going ahead, I'll copy my comment from the long discussion at WT:MEDRS about the original close: "I don't think there's a rule about NACs while under sanctions, but I'd consider it a bad idea myself due to the necessary level of community trust. In this case there are actually connections with the RfC - Elvey's topic ban followed some highly acrimonious interactions with User:Jytdog (one of the editors !voting Oppose), and the t-ban was supported by several other editors who also !voted Oppose here. I read the close as likely being an attempted supervote, especially after their subsequent actions - joining the edit warring over the RfC result, telling editors questioning the close to "drop the stick" and other less complimentary things, and ultimately trying to archive this discussion. But either way, the close unfortunately perpetuated the dispute rather than resolving it." To clarify the first part, Elvey is under a topic ban from COI broadly construed and the closure could easily be interpreted as a violation of that as well, because conflicted sources were one of the points under discussion. Sunrise (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment What I find interesting is that Albino Ferret, who agreed with the close, is actually the editor endorsing its review. That shows character. Every editor opposing it, including those here, were well aware they could have Elvey's close reviewed at this administrator's noticeboard. I, other editors and even an administrator reminded everyone opposed to the close about this review process several times. But the editors who disagreed with the close resorted to edit warring to keep the change off instead of having it formally reviewed. LesVegas (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't actually surprising at all. The closing statement was so far from the actual consensus that editors have refused to allow its few supporters – namely, you and AlbinoFerret – to implement the alleged consensus. Getting Elvey's closing statement affirmed here is the only possible way to get MEDRS amended to permit you to cite studies Chinese journals that have been identified, in academic studies, as being biased due to government pressure to only publish results that support the political party line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of facts I need to correct. First, there have been many supporters beyond Albino Ferret and myself. In the original RfC there were 7 for the change and several more editors have come along since and voiced their support. Even DocJames said the sources in question (Cochrane Reviews with Chinese authors) were undoubtedly of the highest quality. And this isn't about the Chinese published journals you speak about and never has been, although even in the worst case scenario evidence shows that they are still more reliable than much research with industry funding, and we already prohibit rejection of these sources based on funding. That was a point that nobody refuted in the RfC and one that the closer commented on. The final tally was 9 opposed to 7 support (if you read Herbxue's in the misplaced section below), but all but 1 of those 9 votes opposed were votes that failed to stay on topic and didn't stay relevant to the actual question asked in the RfC. As Albino Ferret (who has closed many RfC's) said, an experienced closer would throw these out. The 1 vote opposed that did have a partially relevant point was Richard Keatinge's, and this point was rightfully mentioned in and became part of the close. LesVegas (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, MEDRS does not insist that editors use research paid through industry funding. What it does say is that you can't toss out sources with a higher levels of evidence because of your personal objections (i.e., something not widely supported in academic literature) to the funding source in favor of lower levels of evidence. You may not substitute a cherry-picked primary source for a widely respected meta-analysis merely because you believe that the author is a surgeon and is therefore gets paid to prove that surgery works (=real example, and the one that prompted the addition of that line to the guideline). That canard has indeed been refuted, by me at least twice.

If you're interested in financial conflicts, then you'll want to read the section of MEDRS at WP:MEDINDY.

I agree that you and AlbinoFerret are not the only editors to have supported this change. AFAICT, you two are the only ones who continue to push for its inclusion against the actual consensus there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm afraid this really isn't the forum to discuss this. We've already gone round and round about industry funded primary research making its way into higher levels of evidence many times, which was always the point. So I'll have to politely decline discussing this further here so as to not overburden potential reviewers with in-depth side arguments we have already gone back and forth on many times. LesVegas (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

TFA semi-protection

Hello. Earlier today I semi-protected Banker horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to vandalism from multiple IP editors and newly registered accounts. It has been brought to my attention that this is today's feature article and was not intended as a controversial administrative action. Please review and adjust the expiration time (or remove semi-protection entirely) as warranted. Signing off, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've shortened it to just cover while it's TFA because it's incredibly unlikely any vandalism will continue after that. And no prejudice against any other admin shortening it further if they think even that is overkill. I will note we don't seem to be as leery about protecting TFAs as we once were, so the current situation is probably fine. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Massive MFD reversal required

Hasteur has pointed out that hundreds of MfD discussions have been wrongly decided in terms of this stale theory for Draftspace. There are multiple discussions of the like today. Can someone reciew all past discussions and reverse those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.96.161 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with "probably not". If consensus was that the pages be deleted, they get deleted. WP:REFUND is always available if anyone actually wants to work on any of this stuff again. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly WRONG. Again, the CREATOR of Draftspace says that MFD is wrong. These must be overturned as against policy. Everyone who points this out has been ignored. 107.72.98.163 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Required?" No. "Discussed?" Sure. Hasteur's doing that now. As noted yesterday to the other block-evading IP, retribution is uncalled for. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why the unregistered editor is saying that the consensus is clearly wrong. MFDs, like AFDs, are decided by consensus. What exactly is the unregistered editor saying was done wrong? Drafts can be speedy-deleted (not just MFDd) if they are stale. I have often nominated drafts from MFD if they are in my opinion unsalvageable (especially if created by users who were later blocked as promotional), or if the author is tendentiously resubmitting them without improving them. Why is the unregistered editor saying that the consensus was wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 January 2016‎ (UTC)

He's quoting User:Hasteur who has declared that "I had a hand in creating the Draft namespace, so I tell you with great authority there was no mandate for any form of Stale Deletion. If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong" which is nice and all but he's no authority on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If I see this correctly, then quite a bit of those stale drafts were personal unsubmitted drafts from active editors that were moved into draft space without asking the active editors. Some of those got tagged for deletion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds about right. The issue here is what is the best use of our limited administrative resources. One option is to compile a list of every one of these, go through them one-by-one, and determine which ones may have been deleted inappropriately. Another option is to just restore any draft that is a subject of a request at WP:REFUND, which we would do anyway and requires no further action or discussion. I vote for option two. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the standard WP:REFUND process is available and works; also Hasteur's WP:OWN attitude towards Draftspace is concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, there were no unsubmitted drafts from active users. Those were inactive users. Everyone there claims that I was stealing pages from active but no one can point to one for a good reason, it didn't happen. User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Afrikaner identity politics was a single draft moved to draftspace in February 2014 by Dodger67 (NOT ME), left inactive the whole time, tagged with AFC in August 2015, left inactive another six months and then the editor was given a G13 notice in January 2016 and exploded onto that page screaming about me stealing and deleting pages from active users. Point out a single one and I will move it back and reverse it immediately. An editor leaving a single sentence sitting around for a year and a half in draftspace is not the same as "stealing drafts from active users and deleting them." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll note again that, contrary to what is asserted, there's no indication that any active users lost their drafts. WP:STALEDRAFT is pretty clear that one year of inactivity is sufficient to be considered stale and for them, the pages not deleted per CSD nor blanked nor taken to MFD were moved to draftspace, tagged with the AFC without asking for a review and the editor was notified. The editor was again notified when G13 became applicable and so was instructed to go to WP:REFUND if the draft was deleted. As always, if there's interest in any draft there, I'm willing to refund and move it to whoever wants it. The local consensus expressed there does not seem to be in policy expressed elsewhere (in particular the view that draftspace is exempt from WP:WEBHOST for some reason). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to waste our limited amount of admin hours to manually rethink each and every draft-space MFD; should any be brought to REFUND (you should only do it if you either want it back personally, or are acting on the behalf of someone who seems to), it can be re-discussed there based on your issue here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Check-in on Neelix G6 speedy criterion

Hi admins! On November 24, 2015, the community endorsed the temporary usage of speedy criterion G6 to short-cut deletion of redirects created by Neelix: "Any administrator may delete any redirect created by User:Neelix as uncontroversial maintenance under the WP:G6 speedy deletion criterion, if they reasonably believe that said redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause." Multiple editors have been working at this problem for nearly two full months, and recently some Neelix-created redirects have led to time-consuming discussions again (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 18#Perfumedly for example). Supposedly Legacypac has again begun to receive flack for his work on this issue, and seemingly as a result there are more obvious deletes getting sent to WP:RFD again (see today's log for good examples). Because of this, and because the Neelix G6 amendment was meant to be temporary, I'm seeking to either reaffirm its endorsement, or else rescind it. Also, since the page listing all of the redirects created by Neelix is so long that it crashes my computer, I guess I'd like a progress update. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you for raising this.I assess that of the 50,000 redirects [9] created and only edited by Neelix maybe ten thousand have been deleted, but there are more then 20,000 that remain unchecked but appear very similar to the deleted ones. There are some distinct varieties such as 1. fake or extraordinarily rare words created by adding multiple suffixes [10] [11] 2. non-english words with no affinity for the target [12] and [13] 3. generic phrases that happen to be meanings of non-English names [14], 4. straight up stupid redirects of words and phrases that have nothing to do with the target, or are directed to an obscure target instead of the Primary one. 5. Sliding words together to create fakecompoundwords [15] [16] and I'm sure a few more types I'm forgetting. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work getting rid of this garbage. If there is still that much of it we should certainly keep speedy deleting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ivanvector (and yes, I did mean to ping you this time), Legacypac, and Beeblebrox - I'll be more than happy to slog through checking some of them out in my spare time. However, I don't want to create more work for folks, so here's a question. I checked out 2 just now, the first, Kayte, has a rationale on the page, which seems to be correct. The second, Mathyu, has no rationale, and seems to be simply a very bizarre variant of the name, Matthew. Would that second one be of the type that should be marked G6? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Kayte, to my surprise, survived an RfD [17] leading to the explanation on the redirect page. Turns out it is a rare enough spelling no other bio exists on Wikipedia with that first name. I'd speedy Mathyu [18] as nonsense. Maybe we should start posting "Looks ok" on the talk pages of redirects we have checked out to save others looking at them again? Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My interpretation (and intent, FWIW) was, basically, if you have to ask whether it qualifies or not, it doesn't, list it at RfD. Speedy should be for very obvious cases, and the idea was for this to be a "delete-on-sight" criterion for the most obviously deletion-worthy of them, to save a whole bunch of time and hits on the database. It's working against that idea to be placing tags on the redirects that have been "checked", I think. Mathyu is a borderline case I think. If this had gone to RfD, I think you'd find that some editors endorse it as a phonetic redirect, while others would suggest deletion because of its limited utility, but I couldn't say for sure from here what the outcome would be. On the other hand, a redirect like Tradeunionistic should have qualified for deletion without Legacypac having had to identify it and list it at Rfd first (it was eventually speedied under different criteria), and there have been a large number of those.

I have an idea in my head to make a list of the discussions we've already had at Rfd on Neelix-created redirects and look for common themes, so that maybe we can determine which types of these are not surviving discussions, and provide recommendations that are better than just my wild guessing. I might work on it tonight. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've partly created the list at User:Ivanvector/Neelix RfD list. I've only done a few days' worth and don't have more time to work on it now, but I'll check in on it later. Feel free to edit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll ask again but why are people reverting to restore the entire gigantic list? It's in the archives if someone wants it with the original numbering. All that's doing is discouraging more outsiders from helping something when their computer hangs for no reason. I can't tell what's been reviewed and kept unless I check each blue link manually which is quite silly. Those rules are part of the reason why so few people are helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your question Ricky. There are two lists of Neelix redirects I'm aware of. One by target and one numbered to just over 50,000 - both linked at the top of User talk:Neelix The "by target" one is less useful today because links don't turn red in it. The 50,000 numbered list is better because deleted links turn red, but sadly it does not show what the targets are so each has to be manually checked. It is also a really big file! If anyone has a better list, please post it. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have WP:POPUPS enabled you can hover to see the target of a redirect from the link. That might save some time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not just remove the red links? See User talk:Anomie/Neelix list. I tried to manually remove some to shorten the page when it was started but that's been reverted without explanation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree it would be nice if that list were broken up. My computer can't handle the full list, and lots of people are using computers with less power than mine. It seems to be about 1250kb as a full list. Even if we split it up by 10,000 redirects per page, that would be a significant improvement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I say make a bot request for a bot to just get rid of the red links. The original will still be in the archive, and it'll cut down the list. You could also ask for someone to split the list into smaller chunks but seriously just removing the red links alone will make the page manageable. Plus again the original full list is in the archive so why the absolute desire to keep a monster than is literally unusable by most people on the page? Look I'm just making a suggestion. If everyone here is intent on making this awful for anyone else to help, that's on them. I asked for help and got this 46k list into something manageable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good ideas on making the list more manageable - let's figure that out on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anomie/Neelix_list Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had forgotten how bad it was. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible bot login problems / logged out bots

I've been seeing a few notes in various locations, that changes to the bot logon process may already be in effect. See Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Breaking_change for more technical details. Possible impacts: certain bots may not be able to log in. If the bot checks to ensure it is logged in before operating, it may be out of operation. If not, it may edit without logging in. Please evaluate impact if it appears to be a not logged in before just blocking (e.g. if the edit summary or comments indicate the bot and the edits are not massively disruptive the block may be able to wait). Contact the operator if known and refer them to Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Breaking_change. Should it continue, block as necessary. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Basque&Roll- 79.167.164.4 Vandal and sockpuppeteer

He made several ip disruptive edits (as 79.167.164.4) in Olympiacos B.C.. They were reverted by Jim1138 and myself. As soon as the page was protected, he returned today with the exact same edit he made as ip user (vandalism - POV edit in a matter already discussed and explained over and over again in the past), this time as Basque&Roll. There is a high posibility that he uses even more ips. I made a report for Checkuser here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Basque&Roll, but he keeps vandalizing (see Olympiacos B.C.). At first he vandalizes as ip user, then the page was protected, now he keeps on as Basque&Roll. It's obvious that he has some kind of fixation and as soon as the page was unprotected (after a six-month protection) on 25 December 2015, he came back with the same old story. It's the same drill. I don't want to revert yet again because I'll violate 3RR. I defer to the admins. Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the proof (beyond any shadow of doubt) that he is the same person (ip and account): [19] and after the page gets protection: [20]. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• OK, this isn't really the right place for it, but who cares. EdJohnston, you semi-protected the article, which is fine with me, but I'm not sure I see the IP-hopping. There's a bunch of IPs in that history; are they making these edits? Because if that is the case then there's abuse going on rather than, say, forgetting to log in. Gtrbolivar, filing an SPI with a request for CU is way over the top and, as far as I can tell, premature. To put it another way: I don't mind longterm semi-protection (it's par for the course with sports teams), but I don't see yet that this is some serious socking or account abuse problem. In the meantime I'm going to have a word with the editor--Gtrbolivar, you should have done that already, and you should have notified the editor of this thread. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Drmies Forget to log in? He made edits after edits as an ip user. When the page was protected and he was unable to edit as an ip user, he came back with his account and made the exactly same reversion. Here is the proof: [21] and after the page gets protection: [22]. He comes back from time to time with the same story. We explain it, he goes away and after months/years, when the page becomes unprotected, he comes back with different ips and does the same thing. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• • EdJohnston did absolutely the right thing, the page was protected for six months and the protection ended on 25 December 2015. After that, numerous ips started messing with the page. Every ip user who wants to become basketball coach does it through wikipedia. This 79.167.164.4 - Basque&Roll has a certain fixation-POV regarding a matter which has been discussed and explained numerous times in the past. This page needs permanent semi-protection 100%. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser can't act in this situation since it implies revealing IPs. But if the registered editor continues to repeat these changes it may be best to re-file at WP:AN3. I left a warning for User:Basque&Roll. I wish somebody could explain to outsiders what this war is actually about. (On the article talk page, rather than here). All I see is a bunch of (apparently) non-consensual changes that get reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Gtrbolivar, you gave those diffs already, and they don't prove it is a longterm problem. I am not saying Ed did not do the right thing; I was saying he did. I think you should be careful talking about fixations lest you be accused of having one yourself; next time, if you say something has been discussed extensively, please point to such discussion--which I assume happened on the talk page, and which I hope shows consensus against the other editor. Finally, the account continued edit warring so I blocked them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want me to explain yet again what's this all about I'll do it on the article's talk page. It's something so obvious and self-evident that it's a complete waste of time. The matter was discussed in the edit summaries, not in the talk page because it is something so simple and plain that nobody, except this ip user-Basque&Roll, would spent his time explaining self-evident things in detail. Now the fact that you imply that the fixation may be mine really saddens me, but I won't react because I'm aware that you, as an admin, should be impartial and objective. But it was truly unnecessary and unfair. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't so clear to Ed or to me; and note that things that seem obvious to us aren't obvious to others. Yes, that should be on the talk page. And I believe you should not use phrases like "fixation" since they can easily be perceived as personal attacks. In the end, they have nothing to do with what we should be doing here, which is focusing on content. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion to return Oversight privileges to Floquenbeam

A motion has been posted at Arbitration requests/motions that Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.

Comment from the community is encouraged either at the above linked page or via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee if the comment is private or sensitive.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Kasaragod article

Thread has been moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Request for review of Kasaragod article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion backlog

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old has a backlog of ~370 items. I've just done 50 but while I did, about 50 more were added. If anyone has the time, it's relatively simple work and instructions are provided. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason why these can't be deleted by bot?  Sandstein  13:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a good reason: The tag might have been used in error, or maliciously. Manual checks are required.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much so. I watched this category for a couple months about a year ago, when the backlog was much worse. In my experience, about 20-25% need further administrative attention, running the gamut from nonfree images illustrating biographies, to mangled bot uploads, to full 1080p screenshots being passed off as sufficiently reduced in size, to not actually being non-free at all (typically for failing c:COM:TOO). If all you're doing is clicking on the "Rescaled per F5" link from the simple instructions, you're not doing it right. —Cryptic 06:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Backlog busted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for Trinacrialucente

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello. And yes, this is an actual proposal. I hereby propose we ban Trinacrialucente for removing talk page comments without warning, making personal attacks, canvassing, and copyvio. Evidence found will be below: If you see his talk page history, it is often blanked, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trinacrialucente&oldid=692622766 shows a dangerous edit summary, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ATrinacrialucente is his block log (notice the copyvio), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trinacrialucente&diff=653053041&oldid=652987896 is an old but shocking example For the community, 96.237.20.248 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Non-admin comment My personal suggestion for AN is that whenever the first edit of IP is to come to AN or ANI to suggest a user be banned, it should be speedily closed under WP:DRN, followed by an WP:SPI. Jeppiz (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC) IP blocked for disruptive editing after blanking AN and issuing a PA on his talk page. Katietalk 17:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long term abuse

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_abuse

 – Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Future Perfect at Sunrise case request, integrated version I think we should start thinking about whether TW and the standard UI can be tweaked to provide a "long term abuse" flag, to help build best practice into everyday actions. For example, patrollers may be dimply aware of LTA and may revert edits linked to same (as was the case with Grawp and Willy On Wheels years back), but our structures mean that centralised data collection is difficult. I am not thinking of anything massive here, just a checkbox "possible long term abuse" or some such which flags all parties to step back and cross-check. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This would probably be better at WP:AN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle feature requests belong here (and you need GitHub account). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: I definitely agree that this should be reposted/moved to WP:AN where Admins can discuss it in more detail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I think this is a good idea regardless of the fate of that particular motion. WT:TWINKLE is another good place for suggestions on-wiki. Having a consistent way of labeling actions as LTA reverts would also help in data collection about how much abuse comes from a particular case and how much time and effort is being spent dealing with it. I imagine it'd be more persuasive to show good data about a problem if/when we have to ask the WMF for assistance dealing with it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive Canvassing (WP:VOTESTACKING) to Ensure Deletion

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

---

move to ANI - sorry posted on wrong board LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Need help from a bureaucrat or person with similar access

In the context of my last entry on AN/I, I need both help and advice on how to proceed. At the risk of repeating myself: IP-hopping stalker reverts my edits every chance he gets, disappears for 6 years, comes back doing the same thing. My solution last time was to contact their ISP, making it known that I was doing so. And I got far in the sense that I actually received a response, this is also where I got stuck when I was asked by the ISP abuse department for "server logs", after which I found out I had to contact a bureaucrat here, which I then did, and was told that for all intents and purposes, the article history IS the server logs. Is there any other kind of information that you guys can provide me with or I can somehow get my hands on for when the ISP abuse team starts demanding evidence/data to corrolate IP activity with user activity? Eik Corell (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have no special access to "server logs" or similar. –xeno^talk 14:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want information that correlates IP addresses with signed-in users, only the Wikimedia Foundation has access to that (funtionaries like checkusers and developers may have access to that, but must defer to WMF when someone wants specifics). It's my understanding that WMF will only disclose such info when compelled to by a court order or similar warrant (due to criminal or civil proceedings). You can certainly ask the WMF for help, but they may tell you that you'd need to complain to the police if you think the law has been broken. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the contributions history for a page is the equivalent of server logs, and the WMF certainly won't correlate an IP address with a registered account without something like a court order. They've told me that in the past when someone was after my IP address. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's my understanding that with the modern ToU, the WMF reserves the right to voluntarily disclose the information to ISPs themselves when filing abuse reports. I'm pretty sure they still won't disclose it to third party filers without a court order or similar.

However I don't think this has anything to do with accounts. From reading the linked discussion, it sounds like the editor isn't using an account, so their IP is already exposed via the contrib history. The problem is the ISP is asking for server logs by which I'm pretty sure they mean regular HTTP/S server logs. This is a problem because 1) the WMF doesn't log everything anyway AFAIK only a sample (like 1/1000), although I'm not sure if this applies to edits as well (possibly the CU data comes from such logs just in a more userfriendly format) 2) they're not likely to disclose it even though it relates to an IP editor.

Unfortunately convincing the ISP that the contrib history is in fact better than regular server logs since they clearly and easily link the contribution with the IP is likely to be difficult. Particularly if you're a third party rather than the WMF. (Admitedly want they may want is the contrib history and server logs anyway, even though the later provides little advantage.)

I guess the additional logged info that is accessible to a CU (like user agent) may be enough to convince the ISP regardless of the source or whether it's in a normal log format. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure the WMF won't disclose this to a third party even for an IP and CUs definitely won't. So I guess we do get back to the earlier point namely your only real hope is to convince the WMF to file the abuse report themselves. If the IP is only occasionally doing this, then disappearing for long stretches, I suspect it'll be difficult to convince them to intervene.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming the ISP took you seriously, and you actually got hold of the logs they require (unlikely, the WMF is not going to hand over connection logs to a private third party company absent any court order), the first thing they will do is talk to their customer for a response. That is the point where this ends. Reverting your edits on wikipedia is neither criminal nor harrassment - by design wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and allows non-registered users. Their customer will say to them 'Im having a dispute over content' and thats the end of that. Since they pay their ISP money, unless there is the likely threat of legal action an ISP will not take action against their customers. I say this from long experience of tangling with ISPs over genuine harrassment issues. If there are threats of violence etc, report it to the police, and they can request the info needed if they think its credible enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)