Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 83 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Infobox image

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 September 2024) Survey responses have died down in past couple of weeks. CNC (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

(Initiated 36 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0
TfD	8	8
MfD	0	0
FfD	1	1
RfD	15	15
AfD	7	7

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

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 157 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Suga#Requested_move_21_October_2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 21 October 2024) Could an uninvolved editor please close the discussion :) 52-whalien (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by BD2412. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nasser Hospital mass graves#Merge proposal

(Initiated 191 days ago on 23 April 2024) Opened for more than six months now, no new comments. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrative Actions of Nyttend

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

– Per request of IJBall. Mike V • Talk 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During the course of my IPBE review, I had reviewed the IPBE right of Nathan and found that he did not meet the criteria for using the IPBE right. The right was removed because it was no longer needed since the editor has access to a a non-firewalled IP address. In addition, the reason for granting IPBE ("user in good standing, request seems reasonable") was insufficient and didn't meet the expectations of the IPBE policy. Recently, Nyttend restored the right without first discussing the issue with me. I'm concerned that this falls under a misuse of his administrative tools, as administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. I believe that the reversal was without good cause, as Nyttend is not privy to the checkuser information that would verify that Nathan does not have need of the IBPE right. In addition, I've been presently available and it seems unreasonable for Nyttend to taking any action without first discuss this with me.

I approached Nyttend on his talk page to discuss my explanation further and to ask why he reverted my action without consulting me first. I found his reasoning to be incorrect (as my actions were supported by the policy I've provided), as well as inadequate (I don't see why this was such a pressing issue that it must have been reverted, fully knowing that I would have objected on reasonable grounds.) I've requested Nyttend to permit me to revert his actions, to which he has declined. I'm bringing this to the community to discuss the misuse of administrative tools and to seek a consensus to overturn Nyttend's actions. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, this belongs at WP:AN, not here (esp. if you want more Admin eyes on it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it here since the admin noticeboard suggests using ANI for specific instances. However, I would have no objection to having it moved to AN. Mike V • Talk 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on AN being the better forum is that this is less an "incident", and more a disagreement over the interpretation of Administrative actions/policy. Those of us around ANI who aren't Admins (which is most of us) probably aren't going to have a lot of insight on the details of IP block exemption policy... YMMV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From my vantage point, it seems like your actions were reasonable, informed, and within policy. (IP address exemption is a privilege given to editors who need it). By contrast, Nyttend's response seems arrogant and unyielding. Nyttend should reverse his own action restoring the IPBE or consent to allowing you to do it yourself.- Mr X 00:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read the policy is IPBE should only be temporary as long as the right is needed in order to continue editing articles. I take this from two parts in the policy. First, under the conditions for granting, when the block ends, or ceases to be an issue for the editor, the exemption will be removed by any administrator and second under the removal section, relevant hard IP address block ended and not anticipated to recur; editor has access to Wikipedia through a non-firewalled IP address. As a CU, Mike V has access to information that Nyttend does not have and would be able to make the determination on whether or not the requirement is necessary much more easily. Assuming that Mike V did all the prerequisite work of making sure the editor can edit normally without IPBE, I believe his actions were completely correct. Nyttend's reversal of his action was hasty and not in the spirit of admin cooperation and discussion. The policy does not state that the right may be removed if it is no longer needed. It says it will be removed when it is no longer needed. Mike V was enforcing our policy. Nyttend should reverse their action, permit Mike V to do so, or provide a valid reason why Nathan needs that right (specifically why they cannot edit normally without it). --Majora (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Mike V made a reasonable proposal about reviewing and removing IP block exempt (IPBE) permissions that no longer serve a purpose. Furthermore, if a permission was granted given a poor rationale, I'd expect an administrator to be able to revoke it, no matter what it was. Indeed, No longer needed or insufficient rationale for granting is listed as a typical reason about why IPBE is removed generally. These "no longer needed / insufficient rationale" cases seem entirely separate from cases of abuse, where the preventative vs. punitive distinction is actually relevant, which is what Nyttend has cited as a rationale for reinstating the IPBE permissions. I agree Nyttend should have discussed this concern with Mike V or pointed it out in the discussion first. What I really think is needed here is some rewriting of that section of the policy. Anyone want to help me propose a rewrite there? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple. Remove "However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.", which is little more than a platitude. It's also incompatible with the rule that the right should be removed if it's not needed. "Being needed" is not synonymous with "being preventative."- Mr X 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quick notes (1) I disagree with the interpretation of the policy being advanced here, but if the community either endorses the other interpretation or thinks this is a good time to ignore the rules, I have no reason to complain; my objection is that one individual mustn't unilaterally do it. (2) I endorse any reasonable proposal to rewrite the criteria. If there's a fundamental disagreement regarding what's intended, it's definitely time to clear up the meaning, one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain your interpretation of the policy then? It would be helpful if we knew what rules we are allegedly "ignoring". Is there a talk page discussion you've started on said rules? Can you point us to it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I'd have preferred to see more thorough discussion, though I can kind of see Nyttend's IAR basis insofar as it looked like leaving it off was going to drive away an editor. But I think that sort of matter should be built into the IPBE review policy (i.e., a "restore pending discussion" period where admins/CUs/whoever can review it as a group when the editor in question isn't a risk). I guess my point is I'd rather have seen more thorough discussion prior to restoring the IPBE. I have zero opinion on whether this editor should have IPBE or whether the IPBE policy needs revision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn If checkuser information shows the right is not needed then it should not be there. I don't think either side has behaved poorly, just that there is a disagreement. My 2 cents is that Mike V is in a better position to make an informed decision. A discussion on the policy talk page may yield a policy that is more clear. Discussing the issue with Mike V before reversing it would have been a lot better, and policy really encourages it. HighInBC 04:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit concerned about the (correct me if I am wrong) removals with no warning or discussion on the user's talk page. I have IP exempt because I often do everything through Tor because I am at a remote site where industrial espionage is a real problem (I do consulting work in the toy industry). I often end up waiting around for someone at the remote site so I edit Wikipedia. The thing is, I might go nine months without needing IP exempt then suddenly have to spend a couple of months in China where I need it very badly. I don't want some admin to remove the right without first discussing it with me and giving me a chance to explain my situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am slightly more concerned that since there was no discussion with any of the editors whose rights were removed, how was it determined they no longer had a need for IPBE? Was a checkuser run on every IPBE holder to determine how/where they were editing from? While IPBE allows for review, it doesnt specify how that review will take place and the policy regarding Checkuser use on ENWP does not allow for that sort of fishing around in people's private data held by the WMF. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is an interesting question. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - How would a checkuser have revealed that for the last few months I have had no need for IPBE but next week I might be in China working under a consulting contract that specifies that I must access the Internet is through Tails and Tor? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well it wouldnt, that was rather the point. Since no effort was made to contact the users with the exemption, as far as I can see (and from Mike's comments on his userpage) his decision was entirely based upon the editing history. Which means he would have had to checkuser hundreds of people in order to determine that. And I am still waiting for someone to point to where in the ENWP checkuser policy that is allowed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a check was performed. A check is permitted if done for a legitimate purpose. (The IP audit check is considered a legitimate purpose per the IPBE policy. I went through all available logs and avenues of information to determine the reason that IPBE was applied. (e.g. contacting other checkusers, searching through UTRS, digging through the history of talk pages, etc.) The reason the IPBE was applied was compared to the technical data. If the reason no longer applied, it was removed. If it was still needed, it remained. For those who I needed further information, I contacted via email. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er the checkuser policy defines what is a legitimate purpose for checkuser, not IPBE. And it certainly does not give you permission to CU 200+ people because you think their IPBE needs to be removed. Neither the grounds for checking nor the 'legitimate purposes' section of checkuser give that as a reason. In fact the section you linked plainly states what is a legitimate purpose, and what you haveat given as justification is not it. The meta policy is even more explicit: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. What possible interpretation of your actions passes that threshold? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: The first point of the CU privacy policy states that "Checkusers are given discretion to check an account, but must always do so for legitimate purposes. Broadly, checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." (emphasis mine) That is not exactly a narrow definition of "legitimate purpose." Since reduction in potential abuse of IPBE can "prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption" to the project (per ENWP policy), and can "limit disruption" and "prevent damage" to the project (per meta policy), this appears to me to have been an appropriate use of the tool. If you believe that Mike V abused the tool, then per Wikipedia:CheckUser#Complaints and misuse and m:CheckUser policy#Removal of access you are free to request that it be removed if you feel this issue remains unresolved. (Non-administrator observation) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I appreciate Mike V's efforts to clean up IPBE pursuant to the intent of IPBE, I understand the misgivings about users not being notified that the permissions were being removed; perhaps a new template to be substituted on the user's talk page could be created. I must, however, disagree wholeheartedly with Nyttend's restoration of a permission that is specifically designed to be temporary having neither full knowledge of why it was removed nor discussion with the removing administrator. Discussion regarding the removal of users' permissions is ~~expected~~ preferred before reversion takes place; the only plausible reason I see for reverting the removal of a user's permissions without discussion is a good-faith belief that the original administrator had "gone rogue," in which case I would also expect an ARBCOM case and emergency desysop. I support overturning Nyttend's reversions unless the affected user(s) can demonstrate a bona fide need for IPBE to be retained.

As for the process behind the mass removal, Mike V stated that an audit of IPBE permissions had occurred over the past month. I do not believe that users need to know the exact details and methods of the audit, save that such an audit can only be undertaken by administrators and/or bureaucrats. If a user doesn't trust an admin or 'crat to properly carry out such an audit, then that user is free to request that the bit be removed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – FWIW, I think a discussion among Admins about this needs to be held at WT:IPEXEMPT. I don't agree with the current discussion over there that it should be handed out like candy and never be removed. I also don't think that removal of the right needs to be "pre-warned" in the same way that removal of Admin and Crat rights are pre-warned. But the creation of a template for a Talk page notice, stating that the right has been removed, why it has been removed, and what users can do if they want to re-request it, would be a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Removal without warning or discussion --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to a third. Hi. Mike V, this is not much different from standard dispute resolution in the articles, only it is far more serious. (You two should avoid wheel warring instead of edit warring, right? And the issue is the integrity of Wikipedia, right?) Arrange for you and Nyttend to have another checkuser (or several) review the evidence that only checkusers can see and let him appeal the removal. The advantage of this solution is that it is impervious to the faults of verdicts that arise out of us not having checkuser rights and therefore not having sufficient data to make an informed decision. And skip the issue of Nyttend not have communicated with you first. Consider this: What difference would it have made if he had briefly communicated with you and did it anyway? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This will happen on Monday. See User talk:Codename Lisa# IPBE (2). More on Monday; let's give this a rest until then. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting closure: As the discussion has come to an end, would someone be willing to wrap this up? Mike V • Talk 20:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would close this but now pigsonthewing has taken strong exception to Mike V's removal of his IPBE, for reasons I think are justified. I don't think we're going to be able to sweep this one under the rug. Given this appears to be a grievance between an editor and a checkuser, do we have to send this to Arbcom to adjudicate? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment agree with Richiee333. Sadly, it appears that Mike V is digging his heels in on the "one size fits all" interpretation of one section of a general policy. [1] — Ched : ? 15:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further: As part of this review on 20 February 2016, Mike V removed IPBE from LouisAlain, who has been unable to edit ever since. Mike insists that LouisAlain is editing from a webhost, but it is clear that Mike is relying on inaccurate information which suggests that the range used by LouisAlain's ISP, Free (ISP), is a webhost. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Mike has show no appreciation for the likelihood that he is working from outdated information; LouisAlain, a native French editor with 75,000 problem-free edits across Wikimedia projects, remains blocked on the English Wikipedia, despite an unblock request sitting on his talkpage for over two days. This is beginning to show a pattern and I feel strongly that this should not be closed until all of the issues that have a arisen as a result of the removals of IPBE are properly and fully resolved. --RexxS (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, how does that in any way have anything to do with the administrative action of Nyttend? That is what this section is for. It has nothing to do with LouisAlain, nor does it have to do with the general IPBE right. Having this section continually here seems to be a little unfair to Nyttend since it has their name on top. If you want to start a new topic feel free to do so. --Majora (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure that User:RexxS and I could start a new section, below this one, about the removal of IPBE from LouisAlain's any my accounts. What purpose do you think splitting the discussion in that way would serve? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Majora: I was under the impression that this section was to discuss Nyttend's actions in relation to his reversal of Mike V's removal of IPBE from an editor - please correct me if I am under any misapprehension. If that is the case, then surely you can see that examination of perceived flaws in Mike's removal of IPBE in other cases is most relevant to how we should view Nyttend's reversal of one such action. I expect you are familiar with WP:BOOMERANG and you understand the chilling effect that making a report to ANI can have in stifling dissent. I am steadily reaching the conclusion that Mike V has not only exceeded his remit, but is now unwilling to accept the resultant criticism arising from more than one ill-judged removal of IPBE. While editors in good standing like LouisAlain remain needlessly blocked, and a Wikipedian-in-Residence like Andy (who needs IPBE to counter the potential disruption of a hard block on an institution's IP range) have had that right removed, then it is necessary to question the benefit of slavishly following the letter of some policy against the problems caused to productive editors. This is particularly so where it is clear that the editors involved have had the right for some time without it causing any problems whatsoever. From that perspective, it appears that Nyttend made a pretty sound decision. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do realize that there are better venues for that discussion to take place in right? The one time reversal by Nyttend is probably not going to happen again by any other admin. The removal was done based on confidential checkuser information. Information that normal admins have no access to and would not be able to comment on. Mike V has said repeatedly that if you have issue and need to confirm to either talk with another CU or to bring it up to ArbCom. If you have a problem with the administrative actions of Mike V, there is ArbCom. If you have a problem with Mike's use of CU, there is the Ombudsman commission. This is not the proper venue anymore. Pick one that is. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a point I don't understand. Why is it so inappropriate to discuss these matters with the users involved? I don't understand the attitude that once an action is made, it can't be questioned, and that people with a problem should formally appeal through the appropriate venues. Why is there so much hostility towards a public and reasoned discussion of the actions taken? Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has been suggested that Arbcom may be required to resolve this, but I do think it is reasonable of provide the opportunity to Mike V a less stressful venue to reconsider his options first, which he has heretofore been reluctant to do. I did notice that he had said he was unavailable until after the 14th of March. While it is indeed "Administrative" and "CU" tools that are being questioned, I feel that community input is a step that should not be simply skipped over. Unfortunately, we have at least a couple of users who are unable to have reasonable objections addressed ... short of another CU/Admin. restoring those IP block exemptions. — Ched : ? 23:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RIP

With difficulty I must post this: Please be aware of this. Any and all help would be appreciated. — Ched : ? 11:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

could one of you folks please protect the user page - I think that's standard in these cases. thanks. — Ched : ? 11:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Protection applied. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also sent an "email this user" message with directions if this is in error, or if page changes are needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was stunned to see this edit. I wondered if anyone reached out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried not too long ago to do a little something without seeming to be yet another editor wagging one's finger at her. After a brief talk page conversation, she drifted away. This is quite sad news. Blackmane (talk) 04:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liz - yes, several folks offered an ear, and more importantly - (my understanding is that) it was referred to the WMF. I have no idea where it went from there. — Ched : ? 04:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried to inform Jimbo Wales of the situation this morning, but again, no idea if he even read it. — Ched : ? 04:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that was actually involved with the WMF report and its response (if that's what it can be called). I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to go quite in-depth about it here (after all, this is AN and such things are not "administrative issues"), but I did detail the timeline of the situation over on WO -- probably shouldn't point to a "WP:BADSITE" but you guys know the way there anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a certainty that Lucia Black is deceased? I wish I had gotten the chance to talk to her, since, as someone who has battled depression and suicidal thoughts, which have at times been exacerbated by the stressful work I do (and interactions I have) on Wikipedia, I have personal experience with what she was dealing with. Of course, everyone's experience is different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of at this time. — Ched : ? 02:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is the possibility that the "decease" of Lucia Black is in reference to her account as opposed to her person. However, we are not in any position to truly know and to seek it out would be an invasion of privacy. Until otherwise informed, it would be good faith to assume that the IP means the former and let her family go about their mourning without any prying by strangers. If it were the latter, then it would be to Lucia's benefit as she could have found another avenue to direct her attentions without the baggage associated with the Lucia Black account. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd overlooked that an IP was involved. Normally, I would be cautious of trusting the word of a random IP about something like this, but it seems that due diligence was done in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF's handling of emergencies

User:Salvidrim!, it was brought to my attention that you have indicated that I "pretty much closed the case" of Lucia Black with my final note to you. (Basically, your thread on Wikipediocracy was mailed to me.) This seems to be based on the mistaken belief that we will report back to you what actions we have taken. Our work on emergencies does not include reporting back to our contacts on the outcome of investigations. Our emergency policy does not permit me to disclose how individual reports are handled to you, to any other volunteer, and to most staff (outside of the emergency response team). There are privacy factors at play. But the work that happens on them is begun by, not concluded with, contact with the reporter.

As I noted here in our blog (http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/wikimedia-foundation-emergency-response-system/), we have a reporting system developed in coordination with the FBI. We pass along issues brought to our attention (including suicide and threats against others) to law enforcement according to that protocol. They take the situations from there.

I'm concerned that your misunderstanding of when and how a case is closed may mislead others into failing to report on the mistaken assumption that because they do not know what we do on any one case, we do nothing with them. And this may result in issues not being reported to us...or to law enforcement through us...at all.

Some situations reported to us meet our protocol. Others do not. We report everything that does, with an explicit instruction to err on the side of caution - when in doubt of whether a situation meets the reporting criteria, we report, and the FBI makes the final call. I know of specific cases where this system has led to swift intervention from law enforcement. It would be a shame to lose any avenue of help because of misinformation. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you may have done more than what I was initially aware of. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdennis (WMF): I have questions. Can you please explain why the author of the following comment, Haitham Shammaa, is an emergency contact in the event of suicide threats?

Haitham Shammaa (Senior Strategist) wrote:
Took a look at this.
Sounds of a very low credibility.

--
Haitham

Has Shammaa received any professional training in dealing with people experiencing a mental health crisis? If not, why is he involved with the emergency response team? What are the WMF's criteria for assigning staff to the team? Who else is assigned, and do you record this anywhere public? What training do you provide to those staff members, by whom is it administered, where was it developed, and is it accredited by any professional health organizations?

You do not have to disclose any details of the emergency process itself, but you absolutely should be fully transparent about all aspects of how it is staffed. I look forward to your reply. — Scott • talk 20:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Scott. While he is our newest emergency responder, Haitham has proven a valuable part of the team. I have all confidence in his ability to assess posts against the criteria. He is not a suicide hotline responder; none of us are. I want to be very clear here that we do not provide mental health support to people experiencing mental health crises. We have no training for this. In fact, our policy is that if a suicidal contributor reaches out directly to one of us, the person who receives that report escalates it to emergency for handling by others on the emergency response team just as community does public posts. While we have been looking into the possibility of expanding resources to offer people who are undergoing mental health crises (I spoke to HR recently about whether we could put together material for people), that is not part of our current role. Instead, the law enforcement personnel we contact deploy local, properly trained assistance.

All Support & Safety staff- and only Support & Safety staff- work on emergencies; a few others on staff (including legal representatives) receive reports and may be called upon to assist as necessary and as permitted by the Privacy Policy in follow-ups from law enforcement. Emergency staff are trained in the protocols that we developed with the FBI, including a period of one-on-one observation without action, where they are partnered with an existing staff person. Our process requires multiple team members to look at every threat for the specific reporting criteria. We have been advised against publishing this protocol to avoid its being misused (sadly, people do misuse any access paths to law enforcement), but as I have previously noted one of those factors is specificity. For example, a statement that "I am going to kill myself" meets reporting criteria for credibility on the specificity factor. A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself. Other factors weigh in, and these factors are evaluated as part of the process. It is part of our job to share our thoughts on how the diff we are given fits into criteria. In this case, the conversation was begun accidentally on the email out. The evaluation does not end with reviewing that diff. It is the first point.

On average, we deal with one report every three days (in practice, for some reason they come in clusters). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Maggie (and by that I mean with a great deal of respect), it sounds like emergency response is outside the scope of your area. To suggest that "A claim "I feel suicidal" does not, by itself" merit being reported is either incorrectly worded, vastly outdated, or emergency response procedures have changed drastically since 2012. As I have left my position at our local CERT, my material may be a bit outdated - but if you wish, I could dig up a few of the resources and forward them on to you. Also it should be noted that the "number" of emergencies may have an effect on response time, but not in what is reported or responded to. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying - my apologies.

One thing I had NOT considered when I began this post - perhaps training to Internet threats is different now than other venues. — Ched : ? 22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, our reporting protocols are those defined for us by the FBI. We didn't create those criteria; they did. When a clear threat is not communicated, we evaluate other factors - which is why I say this is the first point, not the final point. An unclear threat does not mean we do not report; it means that further evaluation is necessary. A clearly communicated threat simply expedites that process. (ETA: our FBI liaison is specifically tasked to handling online threats. I would not be surprised if emergency responders in other areas use different criteria, or, for that matter, if some local responders use different criteria than the FBI.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop you an email this evening. — Ched : ? 22:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status

There's a status meter on her userpage that says the following "if there was a new gauge for suicidal. I would probably be right there". Now... I don't want to draw any rash conclusions, but maybe it's best to delete that graphic or at least the thumbnail comment, as it could incite all kinds of ugly speculations, drama and trolling. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hide tag to that image, any admin may revert this for any reason. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi swastika

Please add File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg, File:Ace Christensen2.jpg, File:CurtisHawk.JPG, File:National Socialist swastika.svg, File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg, File:Parteiadler_der_Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei_(1933–1945)_(andere).svg and File:Reichsadler der Deutsches Reich (1933–1945).svg to the bad image list because they contain the Nazi swastika. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickuptha'Musket:. Wikipedia is not censored. The Swastika is a historical symbol despite its recent (in terms of history) usage. Amortias (T)(C) 18:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amortias: Some images containing the symbol are already on the list. Improper use of the Nazi swastika is illegal in some countries too. These are the reasons why I made this request. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ace Christensen2.jpg and File:CurtisHawk.JPG less so than the above but I don't see them being linked to any disruptive behaviour.

How people are using/misusing the images would be their responsibility, Wikipedia is ont responsible for how people use the site either I'm afraid. I can see the last two may warrant inclusion but the first batch I'm not sure would pass the reasons for inclusion

Amortias (T)(C) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until such time as the US wikipedia servers are located in those countries, tough shit for them. Wikipedia isn't required to conform to foreign nations' censorship laws. Jtrainor (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Wikipedia but it is not uncommon for websites to display different versions of their site which are tailored to adhere to that country's restrictions on content. But I imagine this subject of Nazi imagery has been discussed more thoroughly on German Wikipedia than here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickuptha'Musket: You say that inappropriate use of the Nazi swastika is illegal. It probably is, but that doesn't mean that we need to delete all uses of it. It may surprize you to know that it is in use on the German Wikipedia (appropriately, of course) - see de:Flagge Deutschlands. File:Flag of German Reich (1935–1945).svg was the legal flag of Germany from 1935-45, therefore its use in ship articles and lists of shipwrecks during this period is appropriate.
Now, if there are cases where a swastika (or any other symbol) is being used inappropriately, simply remove it and state why in your edit summary. If problems persist either raise at the article talk page or at WikiProject level in the first instance. Persistent problems are probably best reported at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is suggesting that files be deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an ongoing pattern of disruption involving these images, or is this just intended to be preventive? Some of these files are extensively used in articles, and I believe adding them to the BIL would disrupt the writing of other articles where their use is appropriate. I could be wrong re: transclusions, but if there's a problem with having these files displayed in Nazi Germany navboxes, that discussion probably belongs elsewhere. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unreasonable to suggest the addition of these files to the list; it would prevent, for example, vandals adding them to pages on Jewish people; it will not prevent them from being added to relevant articles. However, at least one of them is used as the national flag alongside sportspeople who appeared for Germany during the nazi era, running to thousands of articles. It would be untenable to require each such article to be whitelisted first. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help

What should we do with this? User trying to start an edit war. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Also, see this interesting discussion. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I do not see any discussion of the issue at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we need to hide flags on photos? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The point is: in the event of a dispute you are supposed to discuss it on the talk page before running to this board. Have you informed the editor that you have opened this thread? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what help are you looking, when you are pro-separatist (you are supporting conflict region's independence) and try to push this separatist flag in the article without any discussion. Also this is just city and that "flag" has nothing in connection with urban landscape. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comment on the issue and not on the contributor, and please at the proper venue, which is the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, who are you speaking to? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I left two messages in this thread, the first one was for you, the second one if for Giorgi Balakhadze. However, it is not so much important. Both of you should stop reverting and go and discuss the issue at the talk page of the article. If you can not agree there, try mediation.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in to point out that the mentioned interresting discussion is really interesting. Ilya Drakonov states that Giorgi Balakhadze's been blocked on the Russian Wiki, the Esperanto Wiki and Commons for pretty much the same thing. I checked and I can verify his block on the Russian Wikiepdia | it shows as such on his user page I can also verify the block on commons | here , his | userpage discussion on commons doesn't look very encouraging either. I saw nothing showing that he was blocked on the Esperanto Wiki, although Giorgi does have a userpage on that wiki as well. Looks like Ilya is correct, Giorgi has been pushing the same kind of POV on the Russian WP and Commons and now he's here. I won't suggest a block or anything at this stage , since this is the English Wikipedia,but in lieu of his past behavior a Topic ban might be in order. KoshVorlon 16:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon, re the Esperanto Wikipedia, User:Giorgi Balakhadze was blocked there for one week on 20 February with both e-mail and his own talk page access blocked as well [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore I stand corrected. Thank you ! KoshVorlon 11:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reverting is not my wished but only necessity (after his edits) to have stable and somehow balanced article. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KoshVorlon after your investigation let me have my word, in Russian wiki they blocked me for my own user page, in commons they blocked me because of controversy with with Polish user who were also pushing "independence" of this region, he even told me that "Georgians lose the war and now Abkhazia is independent", you know I am also quite tired doing these things, but if not me or some other one or two guys English wikipedia will be like Kremlin official web-page about these regions. This issue is very hard and sensitive and it needs more attention of administrators, my past mistakes are not reason to make me always wrong and fault. Wikipedia needs to be more competent in case of conflict regions and as it is yet not like that, stick is always broken on such users as me.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KoshVorlon, yes, you are absolutely right. I work in a lot of wikis as a member of the SWMT. This user creates edit wars in a lot of them. Today there was one in Abkhaz wiki, I am speaking with the stewards about that now. Giorgi, we don't want to say that you should stop editing Wikipedia of something like this; we say, that your edits must be in articles, that are a bit further from the political situation in Geogia and breakeaway Abhazia and South Ossetia. I support a topic ban. Always yours, Ilya Drakonov (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Ilya if I should be, same must be with you and many others, because without me you or some other are pushing separatist propaganda in Wiki I am reacting only against them. I am only reverting, reverting your POV edits and not changing article according POV of Georgia, for Georgia there is no de facto Abkhazia and it is just Russian occupied area. For example in this particular situation with Sokhumi, you are putting separatist flag on city which is very sensitive for many people without any discussion. The problem here is not me, but people who try to push separatism in encyclopedia. I will enjoy if someone instead of me will control your or other users edits with this attitude.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KoshVorlon you are too wrong, I am not "now he's here" I was here, I am here and I am going to here because I am part of big Wikimedia Community and I am trying to make it clear from political edits. You are speaking about reverting but not about what was reverted.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support separatism. You don't clearly know what NPOV actually is. You shouldn't support only Georgian position, or only Abkhazian position. We have 2 positions here. And also, I would ask the admins to control that Giorgi hides provocational userboxes on his UP. Also please, don't make theese edits before this discussion isn't closed. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You know what, stop playing drama, and tries to make something "dangerous" from users which are in controversy with you. I am not providing Georgian view, I am against pro-separatism that you do, everybody can see that you support Abkhazia's independence and you starting new edits with this attitude. I am not starting editing (or adding) information into articles from Georgian view (if it was like this I would remove everything about "the RA" and write only about Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia).--g. balaxaZe★ 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no firm views on the question of Abkhazia, but I do not think that this sort of edit summary is in any way helpful. Obviously we don't want the pages to become propaganda for one side or another, but the image which contained as a small part a few flags is not propaganda by any reasonable interpretation of the term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Detailed indices of the archives of this page

A discussion on this topic is open at the talk page, i.e. at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_to_do_with_the_Detailed_Indices_of_this_page_.3F. Reply there (not here) if you are interested. Pldx1 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No answers yet concerning the usefulness of such a detailed index. Pldx1 (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tachlifa the Palestinian

Tachlifa the Palestinian was moved from Tachlifa of the West per a Requested move in August 2011. It has recently been moved back to Tachlifa of the West unilaterally without discussion. This should not have been done, as from the page history, moving the name of this page is contentious. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the request move had no other participant than yourself, so it does not quite hold weight, though the move was successful. I think Sir Joseph's literal version is well grounded in sources. He should have notified the page, of course. But rather than squabble, wouldn't it be best to just proceed to build the article a little? Clarifying,for example, precisely what the 'West', per sources, actually referred to (i.e. the 'Palestine' of that period).Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason other than your bias to have the move to the Palestinian page. Nowhere else is there a "the Palestinian." Throughout the Talmud the term The West is used all the time. We don't need to create articles to suit your POV like you tried to do with your boycott article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for monitoring a user's contributions

With difficulty I must post this: I am sorry to report something like an unwanted edit warring here, regarding to one of the user's improper changes on both English and Persian Wikipedias. Unfortunately, he had been blocked for three days on Persian Wikipedia regarding to some direct ethnic insults and underestimating kindly admonitions of experienced users. But, he has so many improper changes to both English Wikipedia and Wiktionary, some of which has been reverted by several experienced Wikipedians. I do not want to continue useless struggles with him. So, I just want to ask someone, to investigate the user's contributions. There are some Wikipedians on the Persian Wikipedia who have investigated his edits and are monitoring his edits. Thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Hassani, you need to inform the editor (I'm guessing it is X.goodarzie?) of this discussion. Also, your link goes to a discussion on an article talk page, it doesn't show an edit war going on. I haven't read over the content of his article edits but I don't see misconduct here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz. I left a message on his talk page a couple of days ago, and wrote: "I wish we could friendly solve the main problem on the Persian Wikipedia, so that the situation does not lead in such an unpleasant and a distasteful, discourteous case." May be he has not checked the messages on his talk page. The user, repeatedly, continued struggling likewise. It seems that he is an educated person, and also it seems that he speaks English well; but he needs more practicing here on Wikipedia(s). So, I don't like to hear more soft ribaldry, like ethnic insults and underestimating the others. I have informed the Persian Wikipedia's "ANB" as well; but he continued that behavior and repeated it there! I wish he could behave much better someday. Thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia standard on the romanization of Presian. See Wikipedia:Romanization. Possibly this could be addressed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You are right Rich! But the most usual Romanization forms for the discussed name are Khiyaban, Khiaban, Khiyābān, or Khiābān (not even Xiyaban or Xijaban, as the most of modern Persian dictionaries and also the usual Persian Romanization system (based on the language's standard, natural phonological system) suggest, based on the Greek letter Chi = Χ / χῖ) (voiceless velar fricative; a tangible Persian example given in the exclusive article: [xɒːhær], meaning sister). Here are two other famous examples for Romanization as Kh: Ekhtiyariyeh ("a neighborhood in the district of Shemiran in northern Tehran") and Khuzestan Province (also Romanized as Khūzestān), both including Kh (= X) as given in the English WP's article Romanization of Persian (Cf. Comparison table). One more fact on the Persian's second equivalent is Færanse (not Franse*), meaning France in the standard Persian. All the best. :) Hamid Hassani (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Wikipedia editing event

Hello all. An email arrived at OTRS about this upcoming event for International Women's Day [3]. Just thought I'd let the admins know; I know events like this can look strange if there's no prior warning. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely one event connected to Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism which is occurring this month. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request move/merge/split topic ban for User:FoxNewsChannelFan

In January/February, User:FoxNewsChannelFan made a mess copying and pasting material between variants of Circuit City that he was creating, without attribution, and duplicating lots of text. That was cleaned up and the problem explained, but it's been continuing. Since then we've had a copy/paste content fork of Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome [4] to Demolition of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome [5] without attribution (and really no justification for it anyway, and done incompetently by just copying a section from one into a new article to make this), a merge of Visa Europe into Visa Inc. again without attribution (presumably based on a sparsely attended merge request in November 2015, and done incompetently by simply copying the entire Visa Europe article into Visa Inc. complete with duplicate See also, References and External links sections), an attempted split of Lunds & Byerlys into three separate articles - Lunds & Byerlys [6], Lunds [7] (admin only due to external copyvio) and Byerly's [8], which not only included unattributed internal Wikipedia copying again but also a large copy of material directly from the company's own web site. In addition, FoxNewsChannelFan has had copyvio image uploads deleted recently. Considering the disruption this causes and the work needed to fix up these messes, I've indefinitely blocked until we can be sure it won't recur. As a condition of unblock, I request a topic ban from moving, merging or splitting articles, ~~and from uploading images~~ - with an appeal allowed after demonstrating six months of trouble-free and copyvio-free editing on other articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include a copy/paste move of Chrysler [9] to FCA US LLC [10]. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a copy/paste move of Comcast Cable [11] to Xfinity [12] Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the request for a ban on image uploads, as looking again I see they were valid fair use images just improperly labeled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked this editor indefinitely. Is a discussion of editing restrictions needed at this point? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic ban would be better than my indef block, and if it's approved then I'll unblock - he's clearly enthusiastic and seems to be able to make other edits without problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the block in place until and unless FoxNewsChannelFan demonstrates understanding of the copyright policy. Their communication isn't great either. At this point, we might as well wait for an unblock request and work from there. MER-C 05:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense, thanks. Should there be an unblock request, this discussion can be resurrected to decide if a topic ban is needed (as it's not just about copyright, it's also about the inability to do a merge properly). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Banu

A draft submitted to Articles for Creation review appears to have been literally simultaneously rejected [13] and accepted [14] by two different reviewers (neither of which were me). It was initially created at User:Mariebanu. The upshot of all this is that the draft should never have been accepted for the reasons I've outlined at Talk:Marie Banu. Is it possible for an admin to move this article to Draft:Marie Banu? Or do I have to go through the AfD rigamarole? Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about that. IFRC is The International Red Cross / Red Crescent , Oxfam is Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, ISSUU is definitely a site for self-publishing, and therefore, that can be trimmed off as it's not a reliable site, reliefeb.int is actually part of the United Nations, CSIM.in is Centre for Social Initiative and Management Chennai , that appears notable, however, the reference is to an article she wrote, so notability is questionable here, and it could be trimmed out, add to that she works for that organization. The remained of the CSIM references are pretty much the same, articles she wrote. The last reference is to ChennaiOnline.com.

I'm not sure of the notability. However, the only site directly connected with the subject of the article is CSIM, the rest are not, so I think this article may be saveable. KoshVorlon 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the references to the other sites, are simply to copies of reports she co-wrote. They do not discuss her at all. The only remotely independent source is the Chennai article about her receiving an award somehow related to Karmaveer Puraskaar which may or may not be notable. I haven't been able to find any other independent sources about her. My own view is that this BLP article is simply not ready for main space yet and should be worked on in draft space until it is. There's also the issue of the main editor who seems to be editing under two accounts Mariebanu and... er... Webmasterscsim, i.e. Webmasters CISM. I've asked him about that here, but no reply yet. Anyhow, I'll now leave it to others to decide what to do with it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the autobiography for Articles for Deletion. I don't see it as a candidate for speedy deletion. It isn't unreferenced and so isn't a candidate for proposed deletion of a BLP; the references being inadequate do not support WP:BLPPROD. I don't see proposed deletion as plausible. My reading of the deletion policy is that this noticeboard isn't the place for a deletion discussion or for overriding the decision of a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported User:Mariebanu at WP:UAA as a misleading username, because the name is that of a real person with a marginal claim to notability, but the editor states that they are not Marie Banu. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing analysis of POV author in Hebron Pages.

Hebron Conflict of interest and NPOV of sources

After several weeks, it has been determined that the source for a particularly accusatory paragraph against the Jewish Settlers in Hebron was bias and not compliant with the NPOV policy. It was discovered that the author downplayed murders of Jews and and used language which maximized the emotional value of deaths of Palestinians within the conflict. The author was described by a non-participant in the dispute and as anti-Israeli agitator, and best.

The response be the editor of that paragraph has been to remove the observations, lock up the talk section and most importantly, now claims that Wikipedia doesn't adhere to a NPOV policy. How do we get this past an editing war and into a real dispute resolution? It apears that administration tools are being used to block user input on this matter, and particularly that several users have noticed that the quaote author is POV and not objective.

At this point, the editors has accused anyone who disagrees with him as being a member of the community. and that they are being proponent of the community, and he doesn't need to be NPOV on wikipedea, and he keeps avoiding the main point which is that his source is POV and disqualified from being used to support the paragraph that he wrote.

166.84.1.2 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor keeps posting long unfocused rants at Talk:Hebron, both as an IP and logged in. The editor seems to want to remove a source because the source may have a POV, which of course is not a valid reason for removal as all sources have a POV. Sepsis II (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 says (in part):

All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Any page, not just articles. If the IP editor's behavior is disruptive—and I don't believe I've ever edited Talk:Hebron, nor is it on my watchlist, so I don't know if it is—their messages should be deleted immediately or the page should be semi-protected. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough abuse here to justify an admin semiprotecting Talk:Hebron. An IP is editing there who is probably the same person as User:Mrbrklyn. The latter has already been notified under ARBPIA, and has only about 100 edits which doesn't satisfy the 500/30 rule. The registered account has made six edits at Hebron on March 6, which explicitly violates the rule. In my opinion, Mrbrklyn should be warned to stop editing the article *and* the talk page until such time as he has 500 edits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no abuse here other than sloppy administration policy on the part of the admins watching Hebron. This has been a registered account since 2007 not an anonymous IP and the administrators are objecting to my support of the observation that the paragraph in question is not NPOV.

Furthermore, I am obviously not an "anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days" which "are are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." And in fact have FAR more than 100 edits, which is not even a criteria for the talk page limitation or the Hebron limitation. Instead, the admins need to be held accountable to the NPOV regulation for sources, and it should not be allowed that the community with the biggest voice should be able to wrote that an entire Jewish community is messianic fundamentalist and trying to drive the world into the end of days, as was pointedly said in the article based on this biased sourced.

This is all about shifting the discussion from the valid points being made about the source, and the relating paragraph, to blaming the messenger. ~~Ruben Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement above is demonstrably untrue. The account in question has made just 106 edits since 2007; more than half of these have been made in the past three days. The AE restriction is from editing "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"; this includes talk pages just as much as it does articles. Additionally, this editor misunderstands Wikipedia's policy on sourcing and neutral point of view. We do not require sources themselves to have a neutral point of view; indeed, in a topiuc area such as the Palestine/Israel conflict this would be near-impossible, and eliminate at a stroke many of the best sources. Instead, policy requires editors to be neutral in their handling of sources, including biased sources. In his insistence that reliably-sourced text should be removed from the article because he disagrees with the perceived bias of the sou, Mrbrklyn is flying directly in the face of policy. RolandR (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No - your actually wrong about my account. Perhaps your records don't do back to the early 2000's. Aside from that, you are making up your own rules. I am certainly allowed to participate even under you limited view. Finally, there is no misunderstanding on my part about the NPOV rules. They are quite clear and in plain English. Frankly, you are not an honest broker in this matter.

And what else can wikipedia do? You have thousands of "educational facilities" about the world, many with extreme biases, religious agendas, and political functions. Wikipedea can not just ignore the POV which is why we MADE the NPOV as the first matter for the validity of citation. You have a whole world of radicalized education programs publishing works, from Holocaust deniers in Teran, straight through to political repression in China and North Korea. And on top of that, there is no shortage of "peer reviewed" journals who are willing to publish, eagerly for that matter, works from these sources. NPOV is the VERY FOUNDATION STONE of Wikipedea, and when avenues of discussion are brazenly blocked by a group of similarly thinking advocates, in this case pro-Palestinian activists who admit their advocacy on there user pages, then TRUTH can never obtained. Truth and NPOV is a process, not an outcome. There will always be about 13 million Jews in a world dominated by billions of Muslims. and other hostiles, such as in the West. If you can not make NPOV the highest priority with regard to all the articles involving Jewish activities, from the settlements in the Jewish Homeland, to religious activities and terrorist attacks worldwide, then you have NOTHING but a system that echos the repression of a minority like the Jews, and no voice for truth.

The paragraphs in question are highly controversial. They accuse an entire community and the most mainstream Jewish theological movement as being a radical and dangerous entity. The source to support this is not reliable and biased. The author of the paragraph is likewise, biased. The paragraph in question even contradicts other areas in the same article, saying there is no relationship between the current Jewish residents of Hebron and the survivors of pogrom of 1929, and then says that there IS such an affiliation. This just further proves that there is no consideration for truth in paragraph, or the author. At no point is there even a question if it matters. If you kill all the Jews in Hebron in 1929, how does that justify anything about the settlers today? Does that paragraph advocate the removes of these Jews from Hebron based on their relationship of previous generations of Jews, who were slaughtered? Every Jewish editor has been locked out of editing the Hebron pages.

It is not my integrity that is in question here, it is wikipedia.

Ruben Mrbrklyn (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when they blocked the initial discussion, they didn't figure that anyone with a long account would be listening. The group that is involved, a sworn Marxist and anti-zionist, Malik Shabazz, a committed Muslim convert, with radical left leanings, Nishidani, who devotes his entire user space to Palestinian rights, and so on, as a group they will never permit a balanced view of Hebron, or many other articles unless there is broad intervention from the top. It just can't happen. The paragraph in the Hebron section would probably be defined as hate speech in Germany.

Lets look at the claim that Mrbrklyn is not allowed to post. It says this in the talk section of Hebron. Here is the criteria as posted on the page:

"All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"

OK that does not apply. "All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

That can apply but is not the issue. Mrbrklyn is being told he is not allowed to edit at all because he is disqualified.

Maybe it can be explained in plain English why he is not allowed to edit? 166.84.1.2 (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - editors interested in this discussion should be aware that the IP who opened this thread also began a discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard seeking identical redress as is being sought here; arguably "forum shopping".--John Cline (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mrbrklyn should be banned from Talk:Hebron because he keeps posting long incoherent rants there. As for the history of the account, there is no account creation log but there is evidence that the account existed earlier than the first recorded contrib. If there were indeed hundreds of edits back then that don't appear in the contribs, Mrbrklyn should be able to show us some diffs of them. But I think he should be banned from Talk:Hebron anyway. Zero^talk 08:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).

Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Moved to WP:ANI more appropriate for that venue Mlpearc (open channel) 03:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect or add

Hi,

I think there is no need to protect this page any more. If so, update it regarding the proposal, please.--Juandev (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This page is protected as other users may call it using an import script, and it needs to be protected from malicious scripts. I added a {{editprotected}} tag to that talk page, patrolling admins will pick it up and process. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request removal of talk page topic ban

On 18 February 2016 as a result of an AN [15] I was given this ban by Arbcom member Drmies:

"I am hereby banning Martin Hogbin for one year from abusing the talk page Talk:Veganism, and will allow him only one single edit, big or small, in one single thread, written out in one single paragraph, every 48 hours. Violations and attempt to skirt around the limits of this ban are to be punished with a short block".

There was no clear consensus at the AN to topic ban me despite the fact that it was attended by the pro-vegan page regulars. In fact 6 editors (Betty Logan, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, Glrx, GoodDay, Biscuittin, Collect) were opposed to sanctions against me and 7 Editors (Viriditas TREKphiler, Gandydancer, Sammy1339, SarahSV, IjonTichy, Guy) for them (with FourViolas being ambivalent)

There was absolutely no violation of any WP policy by me but there was persistent incivility and personal attacks against myself and others [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] by the other editors calling for my ban, which Drmies completey ignored. It would seem that the regular editors, who are using the veganism and associated articles as a mouthpiece to promote their own extreme brand of animal rights, are able to get dissenting editors banned at will.

The reason for the ban is not clear. Apparently my discussion of the subject, intended to bring to the attention of the page regulars the opinions of many other editors [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. that the page was not neutral but excessivly pro-vegan and has been so for many years, was disruptive.

When asked for evidence of any disruptive activity by myself and another editor Drmies was unable to produce any diffs at all. The entire rational for my ban is summed up here [35], where you will see absolutely no disruption or activity of any kind that is against WP policy.

My recent request for arbitration [36] was declined in the basis that further dispute resolution should be tried, athough several Arbcom members agreed that there was a pro-vegan bias to the article that needed addressing. It is hard to see how that bias can be properly addressed when the one person who has been arguing against it is has unfair and unjustified heavy talk page editing restrictions. I therefore ask that the topic ban, as described above, be lifted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of tired of this. Please note that "Arbcom member" is thrown in here only for rhetorical purposes; Hogbin is insinuating that I am abusing my position. It's slime, and the restriction was placed in my capacity as administrator, of course.
I don't want to go over all this again (a third time?), but please mark that Hogbin is arguing that because he is the only one with a different opinion, he should be allowed to post hundreds of messages on that talk page. Typically, we call that wikilawyering and, worse, editing against consensus. And it's everyone else's fault. It is possible that there are POV issues, but Hogbin is not the right person to help deal with what. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: No clear indication that there was an abuse of administrative discretion, which is the most appropriate standard for an outright overturn of a topic ban. Additionally, Martin Hogbin has given no valid rationale for relief from the topic ban (e.g., evidence of improved conduct). In that vein, I would point out the combative tenor of this request suggests that relief from the topic ban would not be appropriate at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised he has not been restricted like this earlier, and as a matter of general course. I can remember that in the infobox of one article (in a different topic), he prompted an edit war over the words "British" or "Scottish" (spanning 20+ reversions), and he made 111 edits to the article's talk page (62,526 bytes) within about 2 months on that limited issue; that combined with another editor's input constituted 27,000 words. This is a sensationally high volume and frequency of talk page edits. Nobody wanted to go anywhere near it, so he then requested arbitration - which was declined. My comments are more detailed at that case request as seen as seen here.
Now for this appeal, Martin Hogbin appears to have targeted this request for help to Guerillero who was one of the minority arbs who voted to accept the case request. In the message, Hogbin says he needs help from another Arbcom member to review the ban as he thinks other admins will find reversing a ban by an Arbcom member intimidating. I think this is an implausible explanation; ArbCom already declined his case request, the topic ban was imposed by Drmies in his capacity as an administrator acting for the community, and there is no evidence to suggest admins are intimidated if they disagree with an arb. Given the emphasis Hogbin has given in his appeal to merely tallying numbers of participants at the topic ban discussion (which does not in itself determine consensus), I think it's more likely he breached canvassing policy (votestacking) and made a poor attempt to justify the breach.
TL:DR version: I think the type of editing I have just described is problematic on many levels. A restriction is needed to broadly cover all article talk page discussion (not limited to any one topic) so editors and neutral parties are not discouraged from participating due to the posts which are high in volume, frequency, or inappropriate behavior. I think that was the community consensus from the original ban discussion. For this reason, I oppose the removal of the restriction, but would propose the wording of the restriction be changed from "the talk page Talk:Veganism" to "any article talk page on Wikipedia". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of ban - How many bites of the apple is Hogbin going to try and get? The ban is well within an admins discretion, and seems completely justified by the editor's behavior. I believe that found that to be the case at Arbcom as well. BMK (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC) BMK (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. Really, the tactic of pushing a particular argument by burying any opposing arguments underneath a thick blanket of verbose verbiage is self-evidently disruptive. The ban as constituted is quite lenient, still allowing Martin Hogbin to make statements on that talk page, without crowding out other voices in the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support reversal. I've followed this incident since the case request and haven't seen any rationale for the restriction (beyond Drmies "ratio of talk page to article edits too high" argument, which he later retracted.) Further I've reviewed the article history, talk page and talk archives and can find no justification myself. There appear to be a number of (non-Hogbin) editors whose presence in the topic is detrimental, so I'd encourage others here to conduct their own reviews. Suffice it to say given the editors involved, the course thus far and the dismissals above are unfortunately predictable. [[User: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]|James J. Lambden]] (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got to give more than that to support a reversal. As BMK says above, Hogbin got a bite at the apple. There's a much, much higher burden that has to be met here than just conclusory remarks that the ban wasn't adequately justified. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ban is fine, in fact it is generous. An outright topic ban would have been well within discretion, allowing you to still post show an attempt to work with you. HighInBC 04:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I see how Wikipedia now works. It will slowy become a playground for well organised minority groups of all kinds from Scottish nationalist to extreme anti-industry and animal rights activists. The [[WP:pillars| five pillars of Wikipedia including verifiable facts, NPOV, civil discussion have all been abandoned in favour of personal alliances and group politics.

James J. Lambden, thanks for you support. I wish you luck but the writing is on the wall. There is concern that editing of WP is declining but it is not hard to see why. Rather than 'The encyclopedia that anyone can edit', we now have Animal farm or Lord of the flies.

I claim the silver medal in this fight for the original principles of Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA Backlog

I just added a request to examine a username on WP:UAA and noticed there's a backlog going back to 2/29 on there. I thought I would give you all a heads up on this, though I'm guessing you're all aware. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. One thing, though--I wonder if that bot that removes the names works properly. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the bot does remove the names properly. I have the page watchlisted, and I see frequent notes by the bot that a user has been blocked, and that there are still a lot of users on the list. I think that it just doesn't get as much admin attention as, for instance, WP:AIV. There is something to be said there, in that vandalism is more urgent than corporate accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The bot is continuing to work and is reporting the blocks to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was on patrol a week ago and it seemed that names I blocked weren't quickly removed. Yes: a whole bunch of the ones I marked as "no" are still there, a half an hour or more later. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not all reported names are violated, and the ones that are not take up a lot of time. I have asked an editor or two to comment on their nominations or to explain, and they haven't. Those things clog up the board and make the page very uninviting; what folks don't always understand is that this takes time: if you report a promotional user name, an admin needs to look at the edits to to see a. if the report is valid and b. if there's anything else that needs to be done. So the more care is exercised in the reporting, the better it is for all of us. If an offensive user name, for instance, goes along with vandal edits, just report the vandal edits to AIV--that's much quicker and easier. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot only removes blocked users, not those you mark in a list. I would suggest remove names rather than mark them if you do not need a second opinion. This is what I usually do to false positives.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...I thought the bot read all those messages and acted on them... BTW, it would be helpful if, for instance, we decided that user names like Fgcfnvbjhvbhkvgjfjfvbjvcgncxahdfjk222, which are almost always obvious throwaway vandal accounts, are blockable. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably go via WP:Village Pump (policy), but i would support such a proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what do we do with Fagthulhu, an obvious and very witty play on Cthulhu, who claims to be an "angry faggot". I suppose any has the right to call themselves that, but I find it very conceivable that someone would take offense at that. I mean: "Hey Fagtulhu, thanks for signing up for the meetup in Boulder"--I'd have a hard time saying that. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it needs to be blocked by English is not my mother tongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sleeping in R'lyeh lies the Great Cthulhu...I dare say the fag-part of the username together with his angry attitude should be enough for a usernameblock...Lectonar (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working UAA is a real slog sometimes. As Drmies says, the quality of reporting there often isn't what it should be. The bot-reported list is usually borderline useless. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look! Quick! Thanks for helping out, Bongwarrior, Edgar181, and others. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user talk page need some edits

Done by Magog the Ogre. Blackmane (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Syed Baqar Imam Rizvi uswer own out of scope text needs to be removed--Musamies (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continuous personal attacks

Please have a look at User_talk:Vensatry#Re:_harassment. A number of IPs are attacking him for some time (mostly identity/location/caste-related personal attacks). I temporarily semied Vensatry's talk page (and talk's /header). Another admin blocked one of these IPs also. The problem is whenever the semi-protection ends, a new IP comes back. Vensatry has asked for a longer semi-protection. I am interested to know if there is any better solution. Thanks. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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