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. 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 three 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 29 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 142 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 92 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 60 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 46 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 46 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 38 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 29 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 0 days' time on 15 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	48	71
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 55 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 52 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 21 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 112 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 106 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 99 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 92 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 17 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 13 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

user:Kumioko ban review

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/user:Kumioko ban review for ease of access to this page, and to allow for a dedicated talk page for other issues surrounding the discussion. Regards, Crazynas ^t 00:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Postdating to prevent early closure. Mike V • Talk 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason User:Newmancbn has valuable contributions that need to be made to Jewish articles

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

---

@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: I'm not a Christian. I am an Orthodox Jew who is of half Sephardic and half English ethnicity, I was raised non-observant, and am a biblical and Hebrew scholar in training who studied at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, with ambitions to attend Oxford. I am fluent in biblical Hebrew and have expertise in the Tanakh, the Mishnah, the Gemarra, proto-Masoretic texts, Karaite topics, Jewish history, ancient Israel, and archeology, among other things. I made corrections to articles in the topics mentioned above because they contained vital missing information on details of the Bar Kochba revolt, namely how it resulted in the Roman exile, which does not have a page or even a mention on wikipedia, the proper use of the terms YHWH and Yahweh in academic settings, the genetic and historic ties that the Buba clan, Bene Israel, and Palestinian Arabs have to ancient Israel, and the Ipuwer Papyrus, which is not even mentioned in the Exodus article, which currently states no artifacts have ever been recovered that could indicate the Exodus, which is untrue and deceptive to readers, since the Ipuwer has been known for 150 years, and even many atheist scholars think the Ipuwer indicates the charter myth of Israel has some historical basis, who usually think the reference to the Nile becoming blood is a description of a natural phenomena whereby algae discolour the water, and the Hebrews took advantage of the natural disasters and escaped, I am in agreement that the plagues of Egypt could have been all caused by natural disasters, but the Ipuwer Papyrus really needs to be mentioned in the Exodus article, and the sentence "no archeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit" needs a serious qualifier, because as it stands now, it is an actual falsehood appearing in an encyclopedia. Another problem is there should be a page titled YHWH dedicated for the god of Israel as he is seen by Jews and Samaritans, or change the article "Tetragrammaton" to read that way. The reason is you have the article Brahma, and then God in Hinduism, you have Jesus and then God in Christianity, and you have Allah and God in Islam. For us you only have God in Judaism, where is the page for our god? The issue people seemed to raise was not that my edits were inaccurate, but they were un-sourced. I provided sources from scientific papers, the books and chapters from josephus, or whatever other citations were required, but was told they didn't count because I needed the exact quotations from them and not just the name of the paper, a level of rigor I don't really see applied universally across wikipedia, but maybe extraordinary claims (like Palestinains are descended from Israelites) require extraordinary evidence (which exists), but I digress. I think I may understand why these mistakes occur on wikipedia, perhaps I wrongly assumed the errors were intentional in a passive anti-Judaic way, which explains why I came out "guns blazing", like my Rebbe Sgt. Lincoln Osiris from the film Tropic Thunder, and for that I apologize, but now it becomes clear to me. There are billions of Hindus, Christians, and Muslims in the world who will voice their opinions to make sure Hindu, Christian, and Muslim topic articles accurately reflect their history and traditions, however the only people who are qualified enough, and know enough about the Tanakh, Jewish history, and Judaism, to be able to correct the Jewish topic articles, are Orthodox and Karaite Jews, Samaritans, (secular Jews outside of Israel usually know very little about Judaism), the average well educated Israeli, biblical and Hebrew scholars, and some archeologists. The people who wrote and monitor the articles are most likely none of those things, in my discussions with them it seems none are versed in biblical Hebrew, or know extensively about Jewish history, (one in particular named User:Nishidani is an open Japanese anti-Semite and I seriously suggest barring him form editing Jewish and Israel related topics), which would explain the gaps in Jewish history and misrepresentations of Judaism, which are actually very few, and the articles as a whole are surprisingly accurate I must gladly say, however the errors that do exist are rather significant and result in a misrepresentation of Jews and Samaritans. The pool of Jews and other people to speak up for the accuracy of Jewish articles is extremely tiny, which I think better explains some of the obvious errors on these pages, and my frustrations, rather than a cultural bias on wikipedia, or a case of Esaw soneh l'Ya'aqov. I may be back in six months, I may be back in a year, and will have amassed a legion of sentence by sentence, line by line quotations from an exhaustive list of peer reviewed academic journals for each and every one of the above mentioned topics so there can be no ambiguity about the sourcing, or just gather an army of Zionist Israeli scholars from Hebrew University and Bar Ilan University to aid me in correcting and adding the missing bits of these articles. At which point I hope the information can be published, and in the mean time if anyone wants to ask me any questions about these topics, just post it here and I will respond soon. I hope this clears some confusion, and I would love any of you to respond if you have time, sincerely, Newman.--Newmancbn (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Really N? ANI was not the proper place for this and neither is AN. You need to drop the stick because you are not going to get anywhere with this kind of thing. I would suggest that you read WP:GREATWRONGS as well if you ever want the topic ban to be lifted. MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, the person who banned me seemed to direct me here, I'm confused, where should I post this? Also I read Great Wrongs, there is no "great wrong" in history I am trying to correct, I am trying to simply make Jewish articles more accurate about Judaism and Jewish history, like give the details of the Bar Kochba revolt.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32:@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @MarnetteD: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: @Mendaliv: The ban seems like it was founded on the assumption I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, and I actually was never involved in any editing wars. I don't think I ever broke the three edit revert rule, I just reverted several articles when people reverted my edits and I changed it to be a compromise between the two, and I later realized that editing in that way, beginning with the revert button, gives the impression of an editing war, and so I believe Dougweller asked me on my page to not edit that way, which I haven't. The other thing that seemed to contribute was when I changed about 50 Jewish articles with the word 'Yahweh' to 'YHWH', which I thought that would be welcomed from wikipedia because that is the standard practice in scholarship when using the Name when referring to Jewish subjects, because us Jews have a prohibition against speaking it and say Adonai or HaShem, so to write Yahweh on a Jewish topic page is deeply offensive, especially to Orthodox Jews. Some compare it to being more offense to Orthodox Jews than ethnic slurs, like kike or nigger, or like saying Muhammad Pig-Raping bin Abdullah, so it really is a big deal for us. Instead I was blocked for violating the rule of making changes without consensus, I had no idea that was a rule, and when I came back on today I found I have been banned. So I think the entire thing is rather silly. I really didn't do anything wrong, except provide sources without giving the exact quotations, and revert people's edits a few times, but I always took it to the talk page if there was disagreement after a few reverts, and the above mentioned YHWH incident. I didn't brake any rules intentionally, and until the YHWH incident I was engaged in what I thought were fruitful and meaningful discussions on the talk pages. It was said I wrote too much text, and I am working on that. I didn't brake any rules intentionally. I think it is kind of a misunderstanding, do you think so or not? This is not a rhetorical question, but a sincere one.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)--

As I posted on your talk page your faith, in no way shape or form, had anything to do with your topic ban. You have now posted this "Wall of Text" for the second time on this page. You have had useful advice given to you by numerous editors which you have ignored. I am starting to have concerns about WP:COMPETENCE problems. Oh and this post violates the topic ban again. MarnetteD|Talk 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Newmancbn, you're pinging me and everyone else with the same insistence you displayed in the edits that got you topic-banned. This is not the way to turn people your way. One of the problems was that you seemed to care less for working on the basis of reliable secondary sources, and you have an opportunity to prove that you can do that, but in other areas. Good behavior elsewhere (that is, sticking to the community norms--policies and guidelines) is what might get a topic ban lifted eventually. Constantly pinging folks won't, and violating said ban here in this forum won't help either. Thank you, and good luck. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Need for a new page titled YHWH that is distinct from Tetragrammaton or Yahweh, or the rephrasing of "Tetragrammaton" to reflect the views of normative Judaism

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

---

I hope I am proposing this in the right place. There should be a page titled YHWH dedicated for the god of Israel as he is seen by Jews and Samaritans. Or the article "Tetragrammaton" should be changed to read that way (which currently states that YHWH is a pagan god called 'yahweh' from the Canaanite pantheon, a highly speculative theory with little tangible evidence other than the assumption it must be so, because where else did Judaic monotheism originate?). The reason is you have the article Brahma, and then God in Hinduism, you have Jesus and then God in Christianity, and you have Allah and God in Islam. For us you only have God in Judaism, if I type in YHWH I currently get Tetragrammaton and its pagan views, where is the page for our god?--Newmancbn (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A better place to ask about this might be at the talk page for WikiProject Judaism. This is more a noticeboard for administrative issues, rather than article writing issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, this is not really an administrator issue at all. What you need to do is discuss the matter either on an article talk page (such as at Talk:Yahweh), or at the talk page of a WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Administrators don't involve themselves (in their role as administrators) in content issues; this is the board for dealing with technical aspects of the administrator job. Good luck with your discussions! --Jayron32 02:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a violation of the topic ban? MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This post and the one above it are a direct violation of a Topic ban -- see User_talk:Newmancbn#Topic_ban. Time for a site ban, it appears. The Bushranger administered the topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, I just saw that. Newman is topic banned from Abrahamic religions, and a great deal of other topics. See WP:ANI#Topic ban for Newmancbn. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I was told I was banned from editing Abrahamic religions, so does that mean I can't suggest the creation of a new page to administrators? I am confused, I thought the ban only applied to Abrahamic religions? Can I comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism?--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Sorry I messed it up, it won't revert now. I didn't see your edit my bad.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Newman, what a "topic ban" means is that, for the duration of the ban, you are not allowed to edit, discuss, propose, or have anything at all to do with, the entire topic you are banned from. It means you find other areas of Wikipedia to help with. When it says you are "topic banned" from "Abrahamic religions" (among the other things) it means that you don't touch the topic with a 10-foot pole. You don't enter into discussions, you don't edit articles, you don't propose changes, you don't come up with ideas, you don't ask other people to help out with the topic, you do nothing with any thing at ALL related to the topic; as though it didn't exist for you. That's what a topic ban means. Your banned from working on ANYTHING related to the topic, in ANY way. --Jayron32 03:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Okay I understand now. So if it is a violation of the ban for me to request the ban be removed, what is my recourse addressing the ban? Especially since the one who proposed it thought I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, I am a Jew trying to help wikipedia accurately represent Jewish articles, and I think the ban was founded on the wrong assumption.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the ban terms was that you take 12 months before you request it be lifted. The community has lost its trust in your ability to work peacefully and collaboratively in this area. If you want to earn the community's trust back again, you need to show that you are capable of working well in areas you don't have the same emotional attachment to, and show an understanding of Wikipedia community norms, and then we can revisit it in 12 months. It's been one day. Find some other, less controversial area to work with, establish an ability to work well with others, and then after 12 months of that, we can revisit the issue. We're not saying you can never have the ban lifted ever. We're saying that one day is not enough time to establish that you've learned from the mistakes you made earlier, and that you're accepting of Wikipedia community norms. Do that first. --Jayron32 03:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayron32:@The Bushranger: @Dougweller: @Ian.thomson: @Jytdog: @Malik Shabazz: @Drmies: @Zero0000: @Debresser: @Mendaliv: Okay I get it, however the ban seems like it was founded on the assumption I was a Christian pushing a religious agenda, and I actually was never involved in any editing wars. I don't think I ever broke the three edit revert rule, I just reverted several articles when people reverted my edits and I changed it to be a compromise between the two, and I later realized that editing in that way, beginning with the revert button, gives the impression of an editing war, and so I believe Dougweller asked me on my page to not edit that way, which I haven't. The other thing that seemed to contribute was when I changed about 50 articles with the word 'Yahweh' to 'YHWH' on Jewish articles, I thought that would be welcomed from wikipedia because that is the standard practice in scholarship when using the Name when referring to Jewish subjects because us Jews have a prohibition against speaking it, so to write Yahweh can be highly offensive. Some comparing it to being more offense to Orthodox Jews than ethnic slurs. Instead I was blocked for violating the rule of making changes without consensus, I had no idea that was a rule, and when I came back on today I found I have been banned. So I think the entire thing is rather silly. I really didn't do anything wrong, except provide sources without giving the exact quotations, and revert people's edits a few times, but I always took it to the talk page if there was disagreement after a few reverts, and the above mentioned YHWH incident. What are your opinions? I am asking sincerely.--Newmancbn (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Folks with this edit Newman removed the section header that they created and - again - removed posts by other editors. I have been trying to restore them through several edit conflicts but I may have missed something so please feel free to restore anything that slipped by. This has got to stop and I would recommend a block should anything else be blanked. MarnetteD|Talk 03:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD That was an accident, for that I apologize. I was told it was the wrong section, and so I removed it. I didn't know it wasn't allowed. While it was reverted, I was making an edit and when I hit save I saw the revert and the page got stuck. I apologize again. Thank you for restoring the section.--Newmancbn (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Will someone non-involved please close this violation of the topic ban? And inform him he can't use User:Newmancbn/sandbox to violate the ban either? Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

hello sir

my name is rajvir singh randhawa and i make Randeep Singh Nabha,Kulbir Jhinjer and Ammy Virk two of three is deleted sir and one is still there Randeep Singh Nabha i'm blocked on wikipedia but i dot know what i did wrong and if i wrong so why you do not delete Randeep Singh Nabha and if i make good right thing so why deleted Kulbir Jhinjer and Ammy Virk that's it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.13.226 (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

your all bocking me without anything as some of other rajvir singh randhawa but why

Unsourced BLPs

 Done Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can an administrator go through and remove the unsourced BLPs?

Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs jps (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren

 Done Semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Could someone please put an end to IP: 171.207.219.221 constantly inserting lunar calendar stuff whereby deleting data which we all are accustomed to – the Gregorian calendar? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

King Flight

Per a CU on the Commons, King Flight is a  Confirmed sock of Over the Limit/7alawa el3antbly/et al. (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/7alawa el3antbly/Archive for an older local en.wiki CU case). They have continued to upload copyvios on en.wiki (e.g. File:Clothesline from Hell.jpg is NC/ND at Flickr source) after a Commons block. Please take whatever action is necessary. Эlcobbola _talk 18:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged, SPI opened for local sleeper check, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to review the user's uploads, so I'll leave to another admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've closed the SPI and G5'ed the image uploads.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Blatant vandal

User: Freewhitechristianmale has made three disruptive edits so far to 2014 Ferguson unrest, in which he insinuates that Michael Brown's family has connections to ISIS. See [1], [2] and [3]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for all sorts of reasons. Acroterion (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Considering the six (that I'm able to count so far) vandalism hits today (so far) can we get 24 hours of semi-protection to slow things down and make sure things are properly reverted? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I'm disappointed your block reason wasn't literally "for all sorts of reasons". Also, not sure protection is necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was a little pressed for time and have been away since, but I could think of at least half a dozen reasons to block. Perhaps we need a template for "too many reasons to enumerate here." I don't see protection as needed for the time being. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Salvidrim's wish is performed. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Whiffs of Wiki-PR

What are we doing about SPA editors with fairly obvious COI that have no disclosure statements on their accounts? Anything at all? Are we starting SPIs for them tied to the Morning277 account or what? Not naming them now to avoid notification but it's not hard to tell when an account is doing paid editing. There's nothing inappropriate in the article creations, some might even be notable, but some are not. More importantly there is no clear disclosure per WP:COI. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What we usually should first do is tell them to do it, right? See further general discussion here Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what I did. Let's see how it goes. I think we should have a bit more teeth in these cases. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's behaviour that could be the result of someone not knowing/understanding our policies, then it's probably best to assume it is the result of ignorance, and avoid baring our teeth for a while. ( Didn't that used to be a policy round here? ) The Land (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing newbie about the account, and I didn't intend to bite them, but rather make sure that they are adhering to COI, such as it is. But I wasn't sure if for example we were retroactively moving their created articles to Draft for review or something like that. Maybe we should, but that's another matter. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, OK, I think I understand the issue better now. So the question is what do we do when there is good evidence that people are breaching the COI policy (and/or the Terms of Use), but with contributions that aren't otherwise particularly problematic; have I got that right? Well, ultimately, blocking them will be appropriate if polite reminders about the policies don't work... The Land (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. But not following the COI is a problem. Thing is, there is no specific policy-based rationale for blocking someone on the basis that they are not following COI, nor is there a "mandate" for sending all their created articles prior to disclosure to the draft namespace for review (as an example of something we should be doing IMO). Of course they can be blocked for disruptive behavior and whatnot, but that's it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALLs, WP:IDHT and a British IP

There has been a problem with a British IP that has a case of WP:IDHT with regards to sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALLs, and future broadcast dates across a large number of articles. A non-comprehensive list of IPs the user has used in the past:

• 85.211.138.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.195.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.204.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.203.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.142.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.196.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have been hiding the future broadcast dates by commenting them out on the base that they were added in good faith and time will eventually be able to verify the dates, but the editor comes along, sometimes minutes later and removes the comment brackets.

The some of the affected articles include:

• Tokyo ESP[4][5][6][7]
• Rokujyoma no Shinryakusha!?[8]
• Glasslip[9][10]
• Tokyo Ghoul[11][12][13][14][15]
• Argevollen[16]
• Hanayamata [17][18]
• Magimoji Rurumo[19][20][21]
• List of Fate/kaleid liner Prisma Illya episodes[22]
• Rail Wars![23]
• Futsū no Joshikōsei ga Locodol Yattemita[24][25]

—Farix (t | c) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

LGBT topic ban requested

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

---

Following a minor edit war and then a thread on DRN, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Croatia.23.27Public_promotion_of_LGBT_issues.27_bias, I would like the community to consider a topic ban for Plarem, an editor who has a habit of making POV-edits to LGBT articles. A laundry list of edits is laid out in the DRN thread (and I don't wish to add/rehash it), and the two latest additions speak for themselves: this and this. I'm pinging editors involved in the situation: Fæ, Ron 1987, CombatWombat42, Randykitty, Bbb23, Mark Miller, and SPQRobin.

The topic ban should cover LGBT topics broadly considered. The emphasis is on same-sex marriage (or same-sex "marriage", as the editor calls it), Gay Pride events (they rename sections and piped links to articles as "Same-sex promotion" and that sort of thing), and LGBT legislation. I have no opinion at this moment on whether they should be topic-banned from related article talk pages, but others may have one. Thank you for your consideration. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per the evidence presented in both threads mentioned by Drmies. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 16:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support plenty of provocation here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support thank you for raising this request. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per evidence provided via Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Croatia.23.27Public_promotion_of_LGBT_issues.27_bias. User in question is trying to impose his personal views. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support SPQRobin (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I encountered this editor for the first time yesterday and saw some disturbing edits. I raised the issue at the Wikiproject LGBT studies to get other editors to weigh in. From reading his comments, I would guess this editor perhaps lacks the maturity to edit articles dealing with topics he is uncomfortable with. There may also be a language issue (the editor identifies as Polish so English is not his first language) as he does not seem to understand that the word "pride" in this context is not POV and that altering it to his own terminology actually is POV. He seems to be doing credible work elsewhere so perhaps he should stay away from controversial topics. freshacconci talk to me 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I would have done so earlier but it's Saturday and I had to run some errands. I even ate lunch. This is not a language issue. This is a bias issue. He doesn't just say he's Polish on his user page. He says he's against same-sex marriage (twice). He's entitled to hold those beliefs, but he's not allowed to transport them to Wikipedia pages. These edits are not in a gray area. They are way beyond neutral. The terrorism diff is a truly nasty piece of work. (BTW, it should be "broadly construed".)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - And I think calling someone a dumbass in edit summary is enough to lose faith that they could handle a discussion calmly and dispassionately on the corresponding talk pages.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support: even a cursory glance at the evidence at DRN shows me a topic ban is needed. Repeated POV violations, not least the deplorable terrorism comment, and incivility to other editors when discussing the changes. Since I doubt he will have much productive to say, a ban from talk pages is also warranted. BethNaught (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't believe such people should be allowed to contribute to this wiki at all. The user clearly fails to understand what an encyclopedia is. Vogone (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Not a good fit for the topic in terms of competency or neutrality. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an administrator and I rarely support topic bans, and have been outside of the majority view when it comes to them. I don't usually support them unless they're unambiguously disruptive, and I see in this case that it is indeed necessary. The user in question may have a lighter head when they edit areas where they're able to contribute civilly and without a predetermined POV. Tutelary (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The editor is not here to improve LGBT articles, he's here to push an obvious moralistic negative POV on them. They should stick to the topics they don't have a problem with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. User is incapable of editing the topic in a neutral manner. Maturity issues also come into play. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Miniapolis 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, we don't need that sort of bigotry or trolling here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

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