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)

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 36 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	20	39
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	3	5
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	48	71
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

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 111 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 105 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 12 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 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)

Review of Revision Deletion

At the request of Prodego, I'd like to seek some additional viewpoints from other administrators about a recent revision deletion. (The action can be found here.) I don't believe that the revision meets the criteria of purely disruptive material. (Allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, malicious websites, etc.) Personally, I don't think one ping is enough to be considered harassment that requires revision deletion and a simple revert and block would have been appropriate. I propose to reverse the action and would appreciate some input before doing so. Mike V • Talk 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hihacking the top here to give my reply. As I mentioned on my reply on my user talk page (linked by Mike above), in this case I felt a revision deletion was appropriate. This appears to be purely disruptive content (WP:RD3) - specifically an attempt by a user banned for harassing other editors to harass another editor. Harassment is specifically called out as an example where RD3 applies. I came to the conclusion that these edits were harassment and a threat to continue to harass based on the content of the edits, and the use of {{ping}}. I did not rev delete the other edits by this account, which didn't appear to be harassing. I understand the concern though, as I'm usually pretty stingy with revision deletions myself. I'm happy to have some third party review. Prodego ^talk 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I would have gone out of my way to delete these edits, I think it's fair to say they fall under the description of edits which are "of little or no relevance or merit to the project" and I can see the merit in deleting the edits of a banned user trying to get attention. Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the edits have little relevance or merit to the project but that condition is dependent whether or not they're considered to be purely disruptive material. While I don't encourage banned users to get any additional attention, I don't believe that revision deleting the edits is supported by policy. I find it hard to equate highly disruptive edits (linking to malware, threatening others with harm, shock pages, etc.) with the edits linked above. Mike V • Talk 23:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at it, I wouldn't say RevDel was violating policy, but the correct way to deal with this would have been to entirely delete the page per G5. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The criterion for RevDel are sufficiently vague that almost any disruptive edit can be shoehorned into them, so as a matter of policy I can't say these don't qualify for it, espescially when coming from a banned user. That being said, I doubt I would have bothered doing it in this case. Blanking the content and revoking talk page access is sufficient. At the end of the day (or the end of the year) it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've probably done more of these deletions than anyone, and yes, any contribution by a banned editor falls under revision deletion if it can be performed without deleting any contributions by another editor. Since they could be speedily deleted under G5, the contribution can be excised under RD5. It would serve the project well if someone edited the policy to make it clear that RD3 (being "purely disruptive") isn't some kind of gating factor or overriding criterion. It's not: it's just one condition among six.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think I would have gone out of my way to revdel those edits, but they were disruptive and I certainly don't support restoring them. Hut 8.5 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is probably symptomatic of a larger issue. There is a massive disparity between what many admins think is "disruptive" enough to require a revdel. And as Beeblebrox notes, the policy is so vague that almost any vaguely vandalistic edit can be interpreted to meet the threshold. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• In my view, these edits are "purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project", and therefore meet the revision deletion criteria. No opinion as to whether revision deletion was the best way to address this, though.  Sandstein  20:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, close enough to a WP:DENY type deletion. I probably would have just deleted the entire page; and as these are the only edits really no effective difference. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the standards of what should be rev-deleted varies quite a bit. I've looked at deletions that were called insulting and grossly offensive and just found harshly worded disagreements, definitely not obscene personal attacks. I wouldn't have rev-deleted those comments but they could have been seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What to do with articles that actively WP:HOAX, but do so incompletely?

Carnism is a neologism created in Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. The book is somewhat notable, and, as such, the name of the book is quoted, in full, in several sources, often summarising Joy's work, but the term is basically unknown outside of these explicit summaries. The article acts as a WP:HOAX by adding in large numbers of concepts where the sources do not mention carnism, outside of, perhaps, a reference to Joy's book in another part of the work or list of sources. These are then used to claim the concept has expanded beyond Joy's work. There are also at least one person who personally knows the author floating around, which helps muddy the waters

I have analysed the references at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination). As you can see, they're... appalling. 30 of the 59 sources provably don't mention carnism (outside, perhaps, Joy's book title), 10 are Melanie Joy herself, 5 are summaries of Joy's work, 12 are partially or completely inaccessible, one is in French, and one uses the term independent of Joy, but is completely unnotable. However, because the book is notable, it's always possible to find another place summarising the book, or which includes Joy's book in a reference list, and they can always Gish Gallop with a google search.

It's an appalling situation. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

After two deletes and a no-consensus-tending-delete, the fans of the term still have not got the hint? This is a classic case of WP:NEO. I have !voted delete and redirect, which is what we should have done last time, but unless the editors are WP:SPAs there's bugger all we can do about it here, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: While I am certain that you really do believe that this is a hoax, I am concerned that your creation of a merge discussion, a biased advertizement for said discussion on WP:FTN, a deletion discussion that actually argues for the same merge, another biased advertizement for that on WP:FTN, and now this message, has the appearance of campaigning. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I really do wish you wouldn't keep making things up. I linked the discussion of deleting a fringe neologism on FTN, and asked about the problems raised here. I don't quite see where on earth you're getting a claim the deletion is a merge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is this an issue for admins? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are paying attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination), please also note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat. Bit I agree it is not an issue for this noticeboard. (yet) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to bring that up: there's a procedural paradox. Adam Cuerden created a discussion at Talk:Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows#Carnism merge, and people weighed in; then a different editor, seemingly unaware of the un-bannered [1] merge discussion, created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat after the latter page was accused of being a WP:POVFORK of Carnism, and !voters there are expressing opinions about the fate of the Carnism article; and then Adam Cuerden created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination), a nomination which has been accused of forum-shopping and canvassing [2]. How is a closer supposed to decide which discussion has "jurisdiction" here? FourViolas (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a mess alright, but in the end since there's only one subject the only real question is where does the final article go. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alas, it's not that simple. Joy's original book is uncontroversially notable; there are masses of sources in the draft which would be flagrant OR in the book's article or in Carnism; and several editors (including myself) believe that Carnism is notable independent of either Joy's book or Psychology of eating meat. Does anyone have experience closing discussions which have been unintentionally split among forums like this? Do we need to start over with one overarching RfC? FourViolas (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

There's a backlog of almost 5 days at WP:UAA, please could admin(s) take a look? Joseph2302 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Thanks for leaving a note here. I took care of a handful of the oldest cases just now (while on a flying machine— so fancy!) . I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:RfPP backlog

It's only about 15 hours backed up or so, but with NeilN off there are fewer eyes over at WP:RfPP and there's currently a bit of a backlog, so if any Admins want to wander over there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't really have any regular clerking admins, would be nice to have some so we don't have one admin shouldering the majority until another admin steps in. tutterMouse (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We definitely do have regular clerking admins, who are at the time NeilN, KrakatoaKatie, BethNaught, Ged UK and me. I might have missed someone else due to the time difference (I am mostly working in the European morning and evening), which would make it even more admins. But indeed in the last several days we tend to be backlogged for whatever reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually check in throughout the day but I caught a stomach bug last week that's knocked me for a loop. Doing a little better now. It seems its worst to me in the American very early morning and late afternoon/early evening. If somebody with football knowledge could have a look on a regular basis, it would help a lot. The football/footballer articles sometimes sit for a while because we American admins can be clueless about it (I know I am). Katie^talk 13:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As a European, I am fine with the football articles, and also 90% it is transfer rumors not yet confirmed by sources which are persistently added to the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Help me, please!

Look, what a vandal Илья Драконов 2 is doing with my pages! Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

The account was blocked as being an impersonation account of your account it appears. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you protect my talk page for a few weaks? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

I'd suggest going to WP:RFPP for that to request it there. I'm not an admin so I can't help in that regard :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting multi-admin close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)

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

---

This page has become a major time/energy sink, having gone through four AfDs and several DRVs, not to mention various threads at other venues. It's a complicated one, and to give us the best shot at a quasi-lasting outcome, I wonder if we could get a panel of, say, 3 uninvolved admins to do the close. The seven days ends today, and although it wouldn't be unreasonable to relist given the length of the page produced in the first week, it doesn't seem like substantial new arguments are being raised and there haven't been any new !votes in the last 24h.

The precedent I'm drawing from in suggesting a panel of closers is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination), another highly contentious article that spanned many discussions. Of course not everybody was happy with the result, but it seems to have been "sticky", and I imagine that's in part due to the manner in which it was closed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Let me just add that ArbCom has indeed received a report about canvassing; consensus in our secret cabal is that a. it involves (ALLEGEDLY!) a relatively small number of votes, and b. this is nothing that the admins can't handle. Speaking of admins: good luck to the multi-headed panel called upon to close this. I propose a poll is taken to find out which admins are somehow involved in the topic, by which I mean, you know, the actual topic, not the article. Just to be fair. We gotta have representation from all fields of activity. Please do not post results of said poll anywhere. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • So are you saying that you're WP:INVOLVED per that poll, or are you volunteering to help close the thread? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Just bumping this (it'll be the only time). We've passed the 8-day mark without a relist or anyone expressing an inclination to close. Normally not a big deal, but the whole thing seems rather toxic. Better to send this through WP:ANRFC? Or too soon? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I support going to ANRFC immediately. Fatigue is becoming an issue in that discussion. This needs to end. Townlake (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• I know I have not commit any canvassing what the "evidence" which exist it has been fabricated. I do not know those editors and have never interacted with them. It would be unfair to come to a conclusion without all parties involved. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  This in itself is blatant and disruptive canvassing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  This is also blatant canvassing by you, while the DRV was active. Dave Dial (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  Historically you attitude to canvassing depends on what side the canvassee supports. If you agree with the vote then its OK to IAR canvass for keep votes. I'm curious when your epiphany with regard to canvassing was. Such a Damascene conversion requires proper respect. Spartaz ^Humbug!

Did we get any other admins to volunteer? I'm willing to tackle this one, and would like to coordinate the closing statement. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm considering it, need to do a little more reading to see if I have the time though. Sam Walton (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Let me know. Remind me - if the coin lands heads, we Keep it, right? _{I'm kidding, guys.} UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll join, I think this is manageable. And yes, though from what I've seen, if it lands tails we take the discussion to DRV and vote to do a new AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, let me get my thoughts and notes together and we'll see where we are once we get a third. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can we quickly get a third masochist so that we can get this closed asap please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I would volunteer but I am not an admin. However, would anyone be against the idea of salting subsequent nomination pages, as these are starting to become textbook cases of the "I don't like it" argument, and are not becoming worth it to keep having. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There's almost certainly a consensus in that discussion for salting and/or not having any more discussions about this page for a while. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing already? Discussion has only been open for 9 days, do we not normally give 3 weeks to a month? I know now the bias is obvious. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Policy for discussion length: A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Beyond seven days, it's fair game to close it whenever if closing administrators come to a conclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to participate in closing it. Just point me where. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I noted the discussion was being closed on the AfD page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the debate as Delete and Salt, have posted a joint statement explaining the close, and have deleted and salted the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks to Ultraexactzz, Samwalton9, and Nihonjoe for tackling this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• +1 -- Yes, thanks to all. Dave Dial (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Can someone point the way to DRV? This close deserves a relisting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.98.205 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Go here ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 20:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is hidden pretty well at WP:DRV. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

UAA Backlog

Not sure if this has been a regular occurrence recently, but UAA has been filling up. Requests have been open since the beginning of the year, if anyone wants to tackle a few. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I cleared a few out. Now I don't want to sound like a broken record but I can see at least one case where the editor had created one article that was speedy deleted a week ago, there was no warning about the username policy, and there were no edits since. I warned and closed the report as "wait for more edits", then a few hours later, and another admin comes along, slaps a big orange template on their talk and indef blocks them. Sorry, I can't see the point of a block, and it appears to contradict the policy ie: "Remember that blocking a new user is not actually something we want to do, it is something we do when it is needed to protect Wikipedia from harm." - what's the actual consensus for these sorts of things? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

OTOH, accounts in violations of username policy, especially for corpnames, cannot be allowed to edit with that username because of our attribution rules. If there is a not a quick reply-and-rename following the initial warning, then they must be blocked in case they come back to the account weeks, months or years later. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles case modified

The committee has resolved Palestine-Israel articles 1RR by motion that:

• (1) The General 1RR restriction that is part of the Palestine-Israel articles case is rescinded including all modifications of the remedy.
• (2) In its place, the following remedy is enacted: Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from this limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Passed 10 to 0 by motion on 7:30 am, Today (UTC+0)

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Palestine-Israel articles case modified

Genetically modified organisms case modified

DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case modified

Request for mediation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy

Hello, I filed a request for mediation yesterday for this topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy but did not get any notification. As this is my first such request, I am hoping an Admin can help guide me through the process to get a resolution. Much regards, Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence in your edit history that you filed such a request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. Miniapolis 23:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the link I provided in the original request above was not showing under my edit page. I did it a 3rd time and now it is showing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_ItalyTrinacrialucente (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As the request for mediation was rejected by Transporterman, I would like to ask what the next step here is? After on editor challenged me to provide citations and evidence for a topic on the Talk page, I did so. Then another editor (who has been blocked 3 times for edit warring and who did not take part in any discussion on the Talk page) simply reverted the page. This is seriously anti-scholarly behavior and Wikipedia is being held hostage by a few POV-pushing individuals here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests backlog

Some help is needed from autoconfirmed editors to help with the backlog at Category:Requested edits and Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. There are currently 140 requested COI edits and 74 requested semi-protected edits. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at these now. Nakon 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic bans for Gamergate?

Yes, the Gamergate controversy mess again. It is well known that there are SPAs and more-or-less SPAs operating there, of which ForbiddenRocky (talk · contribs) is a prominent one. All sorts of elaborate rules have been created, some apparently by ArbCom, but the net effect seems to be to stifle valid debate about the entire concept of the article, let alone its appearance. The fall-out has, of course, been massive and extends well beyond en-Wikipedia itself. At least anecdotally, there have been site bans here for off-wiki harassment relating to it.

We've got to break this cycle before it subsumes a massive number of experienced contributors who could probably sort things out but, like me, tend to be discouraged by the sheer ferocity and tenacity of those who are far too closely attached to it. I propose that we start with ForbiddenRocky, who recently hatted a comment by me in the belief that it should be on some sort of subpage. Splitting things apart like this falls into the hands of those who want to control through wikilawyering. How many newbies would look at the subpage, or even realise it exists (I certainly didn't until recently). My comment discussed no editor in particular, specifically mentioned "both sides" and was a terse analysis of the problem that is at the heart of why the article is as it is. I subsequently added this.

Yes, topic banning ForbiddenRocky purely on the basis of this one thing is ludicrous but I am becoming very frustrated with the pattern on that article and I am sure that other people could find other examples (I've seen loads but am not in a great state to look for them right now). It needs to be opened up and I think the easiest way to do that is to offload those who spend far too much time there for, apparently, very little gain - bearing in mind that the article seems to be as unstable now as it has ever been and that the same arguments keep arising week in, week out involving mostly the same people.

I'm happy to voluntarily ban myself (I've said very little there anyway and don't think I've edited the article at all) if only we can find a way to break the deadlock. Even topic bans of, say, one month in duration would probably help if we could find some metric for application.

Not sure where to post this - I do realise that it is not an isolated incident, hence here rather than at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I had thought of something based on if an editor's contributions indicated > X% of total edits to this or related articles (which I think are mostly BLPs). However, the 30/500 rule in force might make that impractical - my brain is a bit fried at the moment and I can't work it out. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You did two reverts of ForbiddenRocky, which is not permitted. You should have asked for help before the second revert. However I agree that you talk should not have been hatted. 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

Isn't it on the talk page? That plays straight into the hands of the wikilawyers. Regardless, my main point here is not that specific incident but rather how to find a way out of the morass. Perhaps it needs some sort of revision to past ArbCom remedies - I really don't know because it isn't the sort of thing I'm usually involved with. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor of video game articles, this is one of those topics Id rather not get involved with under any circumstance. However, I am neutral on the matter and could provide a fresh perspective on the whole situation. → Call me Razr Nation 10:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Dont do it. Also no doubt someone will claim you have a COI because you love gaming mice or other such nonsense ;) Gamergate is a conflict between a tiny subset of forum/reddit/chan gamers (and I mean *tiny* given the % of the population of the world who play electronic games), journalists and rent-an-activists. For the majority of the happily gaming population and the entirety of the games industry proper, it is a non-event. Best keep it that way. Let them argue amongst themselves and keep doing your thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend towards this sentiment but then I think, hey, if we keep brushing this under the carpet then the attrition will continue. It only takes a few experienced contributors to turn a mess round, provided they get a level playing field. Quite a few of the higher-profile caste articles were pretty much sorted out in this way and, yes, those too tended to be frequented by SPAs. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

786 edits to that talk page, which is over half their total number of edits. But they rank only #6 for most contributions on that talk page... Drmies (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Only in Death hits the nail on the head. According to recent surveys around 178 million Americans are regular gamers (multiple hours per week). Average age of men being 35, women being 43. 99.9% of these people couldn't care less about GG and the only reason they'd even heard of it, if they have at all, is because of the abuse and harassment GG has heaped on women because that's all they're notable for. The article right now is a battleground of a tiny subset of vocal gamers fighting over something that's barely notable in the community that it concerns. If the article stuck to the actual notable events surrounding GG, that are mostly years old now, it would be a fifth of its size. Capeo (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The claim that you discussed no editor would sound way more plausible if you hadn't responded to a comment of "I've put in an incredibly bold edit," by an editor you have repeatedly attacked as an SPA with, "The idea of SPAs making incredibly bold edits here doesn't surprise in the slightest, although of course they shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the article anyway." 107.72.99.29 (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"They" is plural, ie: SPAs shouldn't be allowed within ..., etc. And this is the last time I respond to an anon in this thread. Anons in this topic area are in my opinion almost entirely people trying to avoid scrutiny. I see, by the way, that ForbiddenRocky has now activated the Wikibreak Enforcer. I suppose that is a start. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sitush - there's a bit of a pattern on that page of people turning up, claiming to be super-neutral and only concerned about article quality, then making the suggestion that we ignore usual source policies/block a bunch of users/include a bunch of stuff that goes against UNDUE/delete the article entirely. This pattern does not generally increase article quality and frequently leads to a suspicion that such users are not really all that neutral after all, I would avoid repeating it. Artw (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly a pattern of people getting shouted down by entrenched contributors, quite a few of whom seem to contribute to little but that and related articles. That so many people have queried the quality and even the "sense" of it (ie: they read it and haven't got much clue what it is dealing with) suggests that new blood would be A Good Thing. Not mine, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

When editors show up to ask and question the neutrality and then get labeled as Gamergate supporters by entrenched editors simply because they are questioning the article's narrative, that is a problem. I note I have not looked at the page since September per my voluntary ban, but what Sitush is saying is what has been happening even before the ArbCom case and was the basis for it. Note that there needs to be a larger discussion on dealing with ongoing controversies and the methods of the media today and how they intersect with WP policies that GG is only one recent example of, as what I've seen happening across WP lately is the use of UNDUE and FRINGE as shotgun approaches to shut down any deviation from mainstream sources, encouraging the type of behavior Sitush describes. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't beiieve this is the right approach to this discussion. This was an extremely contentious arbcom case, bringing it here when the community was already unable to handle the situation seems unlikely to produce the desired result. A filing it WP:AE or WP:ARCA seems like a better approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I did say that I wasn't sure where would be best. I don't think there is anything from the case that could be enforced, so I guess ARCA would be the better of those two options. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nononononono, AE, not ARCA. All the arbs are off this weekend to prep for the Alabama game. Please? Drmies (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

My User Page

Lrwx has logged into the new username, so closing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, can't create my user page. Its on local or global blacklists. Could anybody help me. --Lrwx------ (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If we create it for you, you will not be able to edit it. You could make a draft page, and someone could move it for you. But... How about you chose a username with less than 6 consecutive symbols in it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The talk page will not work either, so definitely change your username . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lrwx------: The rename help page is Wikipedia:Changing username, it also links to the pages where you can ask for a rename.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a flaw in the system that a user could even create a username that the software will not allow a user or talk page for. . Would they even have been warned about this when creating the account? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

hmmm Didn't see it on the blacklist, but I can understand why it would be troublesome, it's a set of linux permissions usually associated to files, so theoretically User:Lrwx---- would mean User(is) Linked (with) read, write & execute permissions. Yeah, I'd say a name change is needed . KoshVorlon 16:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been renamed to Lrwx on commonswiki, cswiki, dewiki, enwiki, enwikibooks, enwikinews, enwikiquote, enwikisource, enwikiversity, enwikivoyage, enwiktionary, frwiki, incubatorwiki, loginwiki, mediawikiwiki, metawiki, nlwiki, plwiki, ruwiki, specieswiki, svwiki, trwiki, and wikidatawiki. You will need to logout of your account, then login again using "Lrwx" as your username and then whatever your existing password is. Hope that helps. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, it may be good to point some developers at this issue so something can be added to prevent such usernames in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Devs probably can't do a lot. It appears to be a local blacklist - so as the account was not actually created here, it would have bypassed it. Nothing can be done, unfortunately. Mdann52 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if it's local, it should still be something looked at in order to prevent such issues in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

User:Bruskom

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

---

Hi, Please see in my opinion the talk page's Bruskom. Urmia lake is located in West Azerbaijan in Iranian Azerbaijan region, Iran and this user write this lake for region of Kurdistan. also west Azerbaijan Province: the majority of west Azerbaiajn are Iranian Azerbaijanis & only large minority Kurds living in province. but User:Bruskom write all of the West Azerbaijan is Kurdistan's geographical my neutralization.please consider it--Samək^Talk 19:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy. Discuss on article talk page. If that fails, follow one of the content dispute resolution procedures, such as third opinion. Report conduct issues at arbitration enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Standard offer request for Bazaan

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of EEng's indefinite block

I think a review of EEng's indefinite block by Nakon is needed. I know EEng and although I acknowledge that his sense of humour is not everyone's cup of tea, I also know that it cannot possibly be the reason for an indefinite block. The block was placed without prior warning with a rationale of NOTHERE with talkpage/email access removed initially, then restored after a complaint by another editor. Also EEng's user and talk pages were blanked. These actions are rather strong and unwarranted in this case, as they concern an editor in good standing. Various editors have talked to Nakon, including myself, but s/he currently appears to have stopped editing. Consequently, I am requesting a review of the block. In an attempt to minimise drama I am requesting the review here rather than ANI. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mistake. But let's give Nakon at least a few minutes to reverse himself, and give Drmies a few minutes to chime in here... "Cowboy unblocks" of other Admins' blocks is one of the more vexing issues we've had to deal with lately, and let's not add this one to the pile... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that caution is needed for any action, I don't think reversing this faulty block asap qualifies as a cowboy unblock. Also Nakon appears to be offline currently. Dr. K. 06:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally we give a reasonable amount of time for the blocking administrator to explain their position. EEng seems to be offline right now too. HighInBC 06:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote the above I had not realized that the blocking admin has already explained their position on their talk page. HighInBC 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies seems offline right now as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree. But this block is extraordinarily bad. In any case, I don't wish to rush anyone. This is just my opinion. Dr. K. 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No – the blocking Admin should be the one to undo their mistakes. This is exactly the problem we have right now – Admins stepping all over each other, which is just leading to bad feelings. If EEng is owed an apology, I fully expect one will be forthcoming shortly. Let the process play out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ideally, I agree that the blocking admin should undo their mistake. But this should be done in a reasonable amount of time. If that time is exceeded, someone else has to step in and reverse the block. Dr. K. 06:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A "reasonable amount of time" is measured in hours (on Wikipedia), not minutes or seconds. Currently, it looks like the 3 main parties to this are offline. The place isn't on fire, so there's no need to rush. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Did I say I wanted this resolved in minutes or seconds? Or that I wanted to rush this? In fact, just above I explicitly mentioned that I don't wish to rush anyone. Dr. K. 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there must be more involved. A bit of snarky behaviour deserves a trouting at best. HighInBC 06:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the background to this block? Is it purely from this discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Meh We can wait. It's pretty clear Nakon's block of EEng was in error (as well as the initial revocation of talk page and e-mail access, and blanking EEng's user and user talk pages, and probably the rollback of EEng's edits] on Wikipedia:Deletion process), but doing it right now makes no difference to EEng: He's probably asleep or otherwise occupied. While I initially saw this block as being so obviously bad that it was probably in error (I initially suspected Nakon had accidentally blocked EEng instead of PokestarFan ‎while handling the thread above), Nakon has argued that the block was appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • EEng is online now, and has announced his wishes with respect to this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In case it's unclear, I support unblock, though I do favor having Nakon do it. This has all the hallmarks of a block by mistake, and I hope Nakon owns up to it as such. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Okay when I made my earlier comment I had not seem that Nakon had defended this block on their talk page. Given the blocking admin has already been approached about this and and defended the block I think that the only option that remains is to come to a consensus to reverse the block here. I support unblocking or reducing to finite block based on the block being very excessive. HighInBC 06:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Extraordinarily bad block. Dr. K. 06:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely support an unblock. This was clearly a misunderstanding. But Nakon needs to be the one to unblock (provided he shows up in the next 12–24 hours). That's all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Have you seen this thread: User_talk:Nakon#Indef_of_EEng.3F? It seems it was intentional and Nakon is standing by it. HighInBC 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm still assuming a misunderstanding here. At the least, Nakon should have the opportunity to explain/defend his actions. I've dealt with Nakon enough to believe that this has just got to be an mistake... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• An error in judgement for sure, but I think their responses "I feel that the indefinite block is necessary" and "I blocked the account for abusive comments, especially this one: [3]" pretty much rule out misunderstanding to me. Seems more like a difference of opinion on what justifies an indef block. HighInBC 07:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking an editor of EEng's stature on WP:NOTHERE grounds strikes me as showing confusion as to the circumstances. The other context here is that I asked Nakon to revdel a BLP violation just minutes before the EEng thing, and the BLP violator clearly was a NOTHERE case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The very first thing I thought was that they meant to block another user, I don't see how that can be the case now after the conversation on their talk page. HighInBC 07:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I pretty much agree with this. While it's a done deal that Nakon intentionally blocked somebody, the circumstances are so strange that I'd be willing to believe Nakon made a mistake in the investigation phase leading up to issuing the block. That said, from where I'm sitting it looks like negligence or recklessness. (I'm editing way too damn many tort law case articles today) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I concede the possibility. HighInBC 07:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with EEng, but Nakon's block would be the 6th block for this editor in 16 months. An indefinite block does seem excessive, but I don't think a wholesale unblock is necessarily appropriate either considering this editors habitual personal attacks. WP:DOUBLESTANDARD is one of the bigger injustices on Wikipedia. Had EEng not have been an "established editor" this conversation would not be happening. I'm in agreement WP:NOTHERE was perhaps not the correct grounds for the block though. Mkdw^talk 07:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• A finite block would be reasonable. HighInBC 07:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps we wouldn't be here if EEng weren't an established editor, but we're here, and there's clearly some kind of problem. Perhaps it's just negligence or a simple mistake as I have hoped elsewhere in this thread, in which case a reminder to Nakon to be more careful would be in order, which Nakon would hopefully take on board, and there'd be a reduced risk of Nakon enacting a disproportionate block against another editor (perhaps a less well-known editor) in the future. In short, even if EEng should've been blocked, this incident will improve Nakon's use of the admin tools in situations that other editors are not so likely to see. And honestly, an indef with revocation of e-mail and talk page access for a non-established editor—even one with six blocks in the last two years—for the same comment would also have been excessive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• And that doesn't include the blanking of his user and talk pages and the placement of a block notice on his userpage. These actions are excessive even in the case of a new editor. Dr. K. 08:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock, per Dr.K, words fail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Piss poor block. Ironically, the point EEng was trying to make (talk one on one before going to ANI) was completely lost here. The snark against Drmies was unhelpful but that's not a hanging offence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would also be helpful to here from Drmies on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unblock, immediately if not sooner. This is hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers. Frankly I was shocked, especially at seeing this referred to as "abusive" and called out by Nakon as one of the primary reasons for the block. I'll note, also, this comment and then this one's of Nakon's - the second heralding the block without giving EEng the chance to so much as reply. Yes, he's snarky. Yes, I've shook my head at some of his peanut-gallery comments at ANI. But he is, IMHO, by no means abusive, and the worst part about this for everyone else is that Nikon has caused a chilling effect on everyone else at ANI who suddenly has to ask themselves if trying to inject a little levity in the grim darkness of the Adiministrators' Noticeboard/Incidents board will wind up with them being summarily blocked with their pages wiped and talk page and email access revoked without so much as a by-your-leave. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)