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

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 52 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 44 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 43 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 43 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)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	12	24
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	35	44
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Pppery. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 15 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not?

(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 August 2023) Could an uninvolved admin please determine whether there is a consensus to add Wikifunctions to the Main Page? Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 118 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)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 112 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:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 98 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 35 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 23 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)

 Doing... Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1#Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 19 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 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)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#New article

(Initiated 10 days ago on 11 May 2024) Split proposal for a new article surrounding an issue under arbitration sanctions - the conflict in the Middle East. Any involved editor closing it will be seen as taking sides, as such an uninvolved third-party admin is needed to close the requested split to prevent tensions on the talk page rising. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

AfD needing a WP:SNOW closure

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

---

Could an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies? There's a very strong consensus there to delete the article as soon as possible. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, just delete it per any reasonable admin exemption to wp::adminaccount. Send complaints to my talk page. NE Ent 02:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that I'd participated in a related discussion in the lead up to the AfD and have, from memory, had disagreements with the article creator in the past, it wouldn't have been a very good idea if I'd speedy closed the AfD discussion and deleted. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Stalking, owning, edit warring, NPOV and Uncivil Comments/accusations on my talk page by Roscelese

Below are incidents of going behind all my edits and changing them which I believe qualifies as edit stalking. They violated no rules. I noticed a comment left on my talk page and checked to see who left it only to find Roscoles reverted all my edits concerning abortion. My edits mostly linked articles with common themes through the see also page and did some minor editing on a couple. Roscoless also accused me of spamming whatever that was meant to imply on my talk page. That was not assuming good faith. They were not unreasonable edits and made it easier to link common articles and did some other minor edits also. Roscoelese clearly does not adhere to WP:NPOV and has stalked my edits. Please warn Roscolese to not stalk me, post on my talk page or consider a block Roscolese for some time if this continues. I do not appreciate Roscoeles's accusations and have asked Roscoelese to leave my talk page alone. After looking at Roscoelese edits and comments I have decided I have no desire to interact with that editor on my talk page. I do not mind edits to my edits but following behind my edits and reverting all of them was not in the best interest of wikipedia's neutral editing goal. An obvious point of view and likely agenda is apparent in Roscoelese's edits.

Ramblings not Really Pertinent to the Above Concern: Apparently Roscolese has some friends who support that type of editing. They are in no doubt done with a extreme bias yet nothing I could see has been done to limit Roscolese from violating Wikipedia rules regularly. Roscoelese likely will email or otherwise contact them. The comments here about my concerns will highlight those in Roscoelese's camp and their similar agendas and edit warring. Oh well what else would one suspect? Welcome to the "honest discussion". I may decide to take another extended break from editing again but who truly cares right? Wiki truly has come to petty agenda pushing and having to resort to this forum all to often. This may be a huge waste of my time that could be spent improving articles that are less agenda driven which I prefer to do but will not be bullied by uncivil editors. That would allow the agenda warriors to win and grossly cast Wikipedia as non-neutral. Apparently some see no need to remain neutral when the bands of mischievous monkeys have formed under the pretense of "consensus". That may sound negative but I bet that statement would have much consensus among the infrequent editors and quite possibly the many regular ones as well. I previously edited as 208.54.40.220 and have no control over the IP changing as millions of others do not also. Sorry to disappoint all you paranoid sock puppet conspiracy buffs. This occurs to millions of internet users, so save your specious claims and learn how the internet works before making accusations based on technology you do not comprehend. I suppose some hyper banner could ban this IP but sometime soon a new one will be assigned which is beyond my control. It is really nice though as I do not have to deal with nasty uncivil comments on my talk page for long periods. I have no desire to give Wikipedia my email address and thus will likely always be an outside infrequent editor as I have for many years. But I believe my concerns can be addressed based on their merits and not a paranoid viewpoint that he's not one of us paranoid behavior. I guess I sound a little negative and apologize for that but I showed much restraint being that I have no fear to not do so. I believe in good faith, don't bite, civility so I have limited my pessimism somewhat. Well off to undue the vandalism of my edits. Maybe this squeaky wheel will get some grease. 172.56.10.73 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits of Roscolese directly following my edits below: 14:08, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-52)‎ . . Abortion-rights movements ‎ (I get what you're trying to say, but this is convoluted and possibly redundant; mine might not be much better, but it's a try) (current) 14:05, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-297)‎ . . National Pro-Life Religious Council ‎ (Reverted to revision 503749238 by 75.114.225.30: Rv spam. (TW)) 14:04, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+290)‎ . . User talk:208.54.40.220 ‎ (→‎Please stop spamming: new section) (current) 14:04, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-293)‎ . . Concerned Women for America ‎ (Reverted to revision 571536139 by Roscelese: Rv spam, unconstructive edits. (TW)) 14:03, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,632)‎ . . Anti-abortion movements ‎ (Reverted to revision 572737582 by Jamesmcmahon0: Rv spam. (TW)) 14:02, 13 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-38)‎ . . Right to life ‎ (It's already in the pro-life orgs category; please don't spam it everywhere) (current)

I'm really tired of this user's harassment (he's already been blocked once under a different IP for harassing me). Dude needs to learn that the right response to a user nominating for deletion an article on something he likes or is affiliated with is not to go ballistic and harass people (or to spam the article into unrelated ones). I think this insane rant really speaks for itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Calling me names shows lack of civility and respect. You stalked me and reverted my edits that did not fit your viewpoint and now you call me names. You continue with false accusations. You need to learn how to be civil and quit stalking editors in order to promote your view. You seem to mock, harass, and ignore sources, editors, and organizations that dares challenge the way you demand things should be. No wonder people leave wiki. You do much more harm to the community by your name calling than good. Your stereotype shows lack of sensitivity to mentally ill people. If I was "insane" as you mocked my character consider how that would be taken. There is no tolerance of that by the wiki community. Please seriously consider that and show some respect to other people even if you do not agree with them. How you can avoid a temporary cooling off block for comments like that are beyond my understanding. Are going to use racists comments or call me mentally challenged next? Shame on you!!! 172.56.10.73 (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, where did Roscolese call you a name? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• I spy, with my little eye, something rapidly approaching that begins with 'B'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

What does providing your email address have to do with anything? Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe we need something like an AN/ANI blacklist for the protectors of the wiki who toil to keep articles on abortion and other fanatic-attracting areas decent? Would that be technically possible? People like User:Roscelese and User:AndyTheGrump get precious little thanks for their good work, and they keep getting dragged to AN or ANI by the zealots they disoblige.

As for "stalking" you, 172.56.xx, each userpage contains a link to the user's contributions. This feature exists among other things to allow people who find tendentious or otherwise disruptive editing to go check what else the editor in question has been doing, and to revert in case those edits were also disruptive. Because that has been known to happen. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Roscelese "following" you in the way you describe. Heck, I follow users' edits in that way all the time. The term "stalking" for Wikipedia actions is discouraged nowadays (please see here), precisely because the word can mislead people into thinking there's something wrong with following someone's edits. If you have wikihounding in mind, please follow the link and see that it doesn't apply here. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

Just some advice, 172.56.10.73: It doesn't serve you well to file a complaint here and then complain about the process and claim it is unfair before people even have a chance to assess your claims. I'm talking about statements like this:

"Apparently some see no need to remain neutral when the bands of mischievous monkeys have formed under the pretense of 'consensus'."
"Sorry to disappoint all you paranoid sock puppet conspiracy buffs."

You might not have been directing them against the readers of your post but they read like they are accusations. You're unlikely to get much sympathy if you assume from the start that Editors commenting here will take sides against you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Harassment from an admin

This may be a new one, but...I feel as though I have been being harassed by User:Spartaz when it comes to pornography-related articles. The situation stemmed from a bad-faith AfD (granted, there wasn't really any harassment there, but it became pretty clear that he doesn't like pornography; more on that later), but recently I re-created the article Elexis Monroe that ended up being speedily deleted (not by him/her), but then when I brought the situation to DRV, Spartaz closed it early because s/he claimed that the situation was getting too heated and that certain users were personalizing things ([1], [2]). I then told him/her on his/her talk page that I didn’t think s/he should have performed the close due to his/her apparent bias, to which s/he once again accused me of personalizing things but s/he also suggested that I take the situation to WT:DRV. I instead opened a thread here, and eventually I excused myself from the whole thing and even went on a wikibreak not merely because people didn’t agree with me, but most of said users were users that I have had disagreements with in the past (some people might conclude that that might be saying something about me, but I think I presented myself fairly).

The thing is, now there’s a discussion at DRV about am adult film star named Deauxma (which I didn’t create, btw; I merely !voted in favor of it), where Spartaz is once again attacking me and accusing me of personalizing things. This seems to stem from the thread creator (User:Rebecca1990) suggesting that all the delete !votes coming from people who don’t like pornography (which I do agree with), but the thing is, when Rebecca suggests something like that and then I (and other users) agree with it, Spartaz doesn’t come after all of us, s/he comes after me alone (this is milder, but this and this are harsher). And then s/he comes and says I'm personalizing things? (BTW, how is this (line 38) personalizing anything; and why isn’t that a good suggestion?) Speaking of that, I didn’t discuss this further at DRV because, frankly, that isn’t what DRV is for; in addition, carrying on a discussion like that is steering away from the purpose of the actual DRV.

Basically, all I want is for Spartaz to leave me alone. Now, this aspect I am personalizing because of how s/he has been coming after me (I’m not sure now if his real bias is against porn or against me). If you don’t agree with me about a topic, that’s fine, but don’t just continue to berate me and then wonder why I get upset about it. Frankly, Spartaz is an admin, and admins are supposed to be setting good examples for other users to follow; this is not one of those examples. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking editors that don't like our pornography articles for editors that don't like pornography. So long as you continue to fail to draw that distinction you are going to appear to be personalizing disputes in this area. Spartaz's actions seem to me to be a reasonable application of admin discretion; if you want to make the assertion Spartaz doesn't like pornography and so imply that he is acting from bias then we would need to see diffs to demonstrate that assertion. CIreland (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"I think you are mistaking editors that don't like our pornography articles for editors that don't like pornography"...and I personally think that's frequently a distinction without a real difference. In my experience on Wikipedia so far, there are obviously some editors that dislike pornography-related articles and will sometimes come up with some pretty far-fetched or invalid ideas for why they should be deleted. A lot of this activity appears to predate my involvement in the Pornography Project, since around March of this year. Is "Spartaz" one of those editors? I'm actually not sure, but "Erpert" and "Spartaz" certainly do seem to rub each other the wrong way IMHO. I actually have a lot of respect for some of the tough calls that "Spartaz" has made as an administrator in the past, but it may be the case that their experiences at DRV (see below) may have colored their usual response to pornography-related articles over time. Guy1890 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your characterization of others' votes is a little off. Guidelines are there as an aid to try and depict and organize the current practices, rather than to codify them in a binding way. Practice can indeed disagree with the guideline and choose to ignore it; and when that happens enough, hopefully the guideline will change to reflect the new practice. I have no opinion on PORNBIO in particular though, as I have no experience with that area of the encyclopedia. That said though, I do think Spartaz needs to calm down. He appears to be sick of you and is overreacting to some of the things you say. I don't think it rises to the level of harassment, but "conduct unbecoming", maybe. I'd say you guys should both keep a distance from each other for a while. equazcion ^(talk) 20:05, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Just for convenience, I wanted to provide a link to the early closure Erpert alludes to: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 8. I do think Spartaz was a little too previously involved with this topic and this user to provide a close. Not so sure about this anymore, most of the quoted issues seemed to crop up subsequent to this close. equazcion ^(talk) 20:23, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

For convienience, here is a link to the previous AN where Erpert complained of my early close. [3]. It appears that his charactarisation of that situation was not supported on review. DRV has zero tolerance of disruptive use of DRVs as platforms to attack other users and my early closure was consistent with DRV practise for years. Also relevant are S.Marshall's comments in recent porn related DRVs where Erpert's (amongst others) aggressive badgering and labelling of opposing views is clearly discouraging them from offering opinions. This clearly is not acceptable and this disruptive behaviour is distorting discussions. . Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Also relevant are S.Marshall's comments in recent porn related DRVs where Erpert's (amongst others) aggressive badgering and labelling of opposing views is clearly discouraging them from offering opinions." I don't get the sense that anyone that might be on the anti-porn side of things on Wikipedia is a "shrinking violet" by any stretch of the imagination. Like it or not, there's a real disconnect between what happens at AfD and DRV when it comes to PORNBIO, and it's not going to get any better unless something is done about it. Maybe this isn't the forum for that. Guy1890 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was reading a little more at DRV and AFD. Does it seem that the people who hang around DRV and AFD respectively have different views on whether or not PORNBIO is to be followed? The so-called "bad-faith AFD" seems to stem in my mind from Spartaz' experience at DRV, where the feeling seems to be that PORNBIO no longer reflects consensus; but it failed because at AFD they still abide by it. This discrepancy (if I'm correct that there is one) seems like it's bound to cause trouble in the future. equazcion ^(talk) 21:19, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)

"This discrepancy (if I'm correct that there is one) seems like it's bound to cause trouble in the future." That's a very true and astute observation. I've recently come to the conclusion that taking pornography-related articles to DRV is a giant waste of time for this very reason, since there appears to be hardly any respect or deferance at all for PORNBIO (which is a guideline that I've had no input into myself) there. Again, a lot of these issues appear to predate my involvement in the Pornography Project, since around March of this year. Guy1890 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The irony of a prolific badgerer like Erpert complaining when I respond to his comments is far from lost on me. What relevance my admin bit has to that discussion is beyond me as I have taken no admin actions in regard to this DRV. I have been a regular at DRV since sometime in 2006 and I do not believe that any of my comments or opinions I have expressed are inconsistant with my practice over the last 7 years of advocating for BLPs and mainspace content to have proper sourcing as required in the GNG/N/V and BLP. That some editors believe that reconstituted press releases and industry awards that garner no real world coverage or commentary are sufficient to justify our maintaining unsourced BLPs does not mean that editors who disagree with this and respond to their badgering and frankly spurious objections and labelling of opponents by reference to community norms and standards are harressing them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There is at least one form of admin abuse occurring. Killiondude (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "That some editors believe that reconstituted press releases and industry awards that garner no real world coverage or commentary are sufficient to justify our maintaining unsourced BLPs"...that's really an unfortunate and not an especially fair representation of the kind of discussions that have gone on at DRV about these topics recently. Guy1890 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It would be outstanding if any animosity or ridicule expressed here were met with an attempt to defuse it rather than escalate it. equazcion ^(talk) 00:40, 16 Sep 2013 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, this is a behavioral situation that needs to be confronted; we are well part the point where defusing it is a plausible alternative. Just a month ago, Erpert made similar accusations against Spartaz, only to have them unanimously rejected here. Rather than accepting community guidance, Erpert has continued to cast aspersions on, and level accusations of bad faith against, editors whose positions he disagrees with. The failure to sanction him for this disruptive behavior has led, unfortunately, to at least two other editors who share his opinions to emulate his behavior (one of whom Erpert canvassed regarding this discussion). The latest dispute has been marked by some deliberate baiting of Spartaz, followed by complaints about his response. This is unacceptable, uncivil behavior, taken in order to gain advantage in a content dispute. Erpert has been repeatedly warned about this type of behavior for nearly two years (I believe this [4] is the earliest occasion), but his refusal to conform to applicable standards has become more pronounced and more disruptive. Summarily closing this complaint as groundless will not likely produce immediate results, but it would be a good first step. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
        • HW, why do you keep bringing that old AfD up? You seem to think everything I do is in bad faith. I clearly explained why I opened this here instead of on the DRV page, so I'm not going to explain that again. Also, notifying Rebecca1990 about it is not canvassing; she is the one who opened the DRV, and WP:AN rules clearly state that she must be notified. And do you think it's disruptive behavior because there are other editors that share my opinion? I'm far from a battler, so if you think that's my intention, you're way off.

Anyway, I'm not even talking about pornography mainly here; I'm talking about harassment. Disagreements are one thing, but people can't just invade every discussion I'm in with accusations (btw, does Spartaz have a different definition of "personalization" than I have?). Speaking of that, Spartaz, you keep accussing me of badgering and labeling people when all I'm doing is responding to other people's comments (and if it were badgering, wouldn't I have been warned via WP:UTM?). And per Guy1890, my intention is never to rub anyone the wrong way; I just feel Spartaz is mean toward me alone (if I'm wrong, prove me wrong right now). When I asked simple questions in discussions like this, people didn't want to answer them; opting instead to make comments like HW made above (thankfully, not many users did that this time around). And saying that I'm disrupting the discussion is ridiculous because I'm one of the people who tries to steer the discussion back to the original topic. For instance, if the validity of a guideline seems debatable, it should be discussed on the talk page of that guideline. Am I wrong about that? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Disputes are very stressful and should be avoided whenever possible. You should all return to Deauxma's DRV discussion only if you can avoid getting sidetracked again. Most of Deauxma's DRV isn't even a discussion about Deauxma anymore. I keep reminding people not to get sidetracked but they keep on swaying away from the main topic somehow. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what are you asking for here, Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???}, an interaction ban? That is unlikely to be successful if you both continue to participate in DRV. I'm not taking sides here, I just wonder what resolution you are hoping to get by filing this here at AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want Spartaz to stop being so rough on me; that's all. I'm not asking for an interaction ban because I know that's impossible; you can't help running into different people here and there. (OAN: Per S. Marshall below, I'm actually not a member of WikiProject Pornography; in fact, I'm not a member of any WikiProject.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 16:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• As one of the DRV regulars who generally leans toward inclusion and has no problem with porn coverage, I do feel that there is a significant problem here. Partly there is badgering on the part of Erpert. Partly there are editors that I would say show up to porn bio discussions with a clear leaning toward deletion. But mostly because of WP:PORNBIO. It does seem to create a SNG where folks are generally notable even though they really have no chance of meeting WP:N if you ignore press releases and reprints of press releases. One could argue that's because mainstream news doesn't really cover these folks, so there is a cultural bias that the SNG addresses. But one could also argue that these just aren't notable folks and in any case we shouldn't be writing articles based on press releases. That fundamental issue needs to be resolved. And I think it can be resolved if we work hard to identify actual reliable sources in the field and find a way to narrow the list of awards that we consider in the SNG. Put another way, personalities are in part to blame here, but mostly its a policy problem. And S Marshall notes, that's solveable by getting a wider range of folks involved in getting these issues (RSes for porn, awards that make one notable) resolved. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion is getting sidetracked as well. My main concern here is mistreatment, not pornography. Will Spartaz actually leave me alone for making simple comments that s/he might disagree with? (Also, Liz, in regards to your earlier comment, I actually rarely frequent DRV.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I really don't think Spartaz has a problem with you making simple comments, Erpert. Everyone's allowed to state their case. I think the problem Spartaz has is with a combination of the sheer quantity of comments, responding to almost every individual point, their tone, the tactic of seeking to control and manage our discussion processes by channelling them onto the narrow track you think appropriate and the tactic of trying to rule out discussions you don't like as "irrelevant" to what you personally want to discuss. You do not have authority to set or manage the topic of discussions. I would advise you to acknowledge that your own behaviour is one of the problems we have here.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't have the authority to do what? "Manage the topic of discussions"? What does that even mean? And you can't call "behavioral problem" just because you and I have different viewpoints. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Close - This request was opened with conclusory phrases such as: harassment, being harassed, bad-faith, he doesn't like, apparent bias, attacking me, accusing me, people who don’t like, his real bias, berate me. Numerous conclusions are being made about Spartaz without any supporting consensus and there is no effort to seek consensus on any of these personal conclusions. AN is then asked to take action based on these personal conclusions. This thread is set up in a way that will not lead to a consensus regarding the basis for the request, but will bring in replies. When replied come into this thread, they are used as opportunity to continue leveling unsupported accusations. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Please could this not be closed quite yet? The accusation that DRV is being unfair on porn-related content is made by several editors above, and it seems to me that this is something that people reading this noticeboard can help us evaluate.—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Reformatted the discussion to create a thread to discuss DRV treatment of porn-related content below. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

DRV treatment of porn-related content

This thread was severed from a "Harassment from an admin" thread to discuss whether DRV is being unfair on porn-related content -- Jreferee (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well now. What's this open can doing here, and why are there worms wriggling around all over the place?

I think the first issue here is that Erpert, Rebecca1990 and other members active in WikiProject Pornography are not getting satisfaction from DRV. That's a major issue from my point of view. DRV is the end of the line: there's no appeal from a DRV. Therefore users have to have confidence that the process is fair. It's essential: this is an editor retention issue.

Now, there are a very small number of users who regularly attend DRV, and Spartaz is at present the main closer, so if you clash with the DRV regulars in general or with Spartaz in particular, there's not much chance of getting any input from others. So for this kind of situation, where it's alleged that the main DRV closer and/or DRV regulars are showing bias, the only fair answer we have is for previously uninvolved editors to review DRV's recent discussions and Spartaz' closes, and decide for themselves to what extent the accusations of bias are well-founded.

This pretty much has to happen. As soon as it's alleged that this small number of users is biased, our formal processes come to a crunching halt: they just don't allow for that possibility. Therefore we're left with the default Wikipedia way, which is for independent, unbiased editors to read, comprehend, think, evaluate, and comment. It's really important that this is happens. Even though I'm a DRV regular and I think we're doing things right and that Erpert's complaint is unfounded, I'd nevertheless encourage anyone reading this discussion please to look closely at DRV's recent decisions and weigh in with their view.

I think the second issue is that DRV takes, and has taken for some time, a very dim view of PORNBIO, and to a lesser extent most other SNGs. We see the GNG as the arbiter of what should be included and will happily overrule SNGs if there's conflict. This is surprising for some editors who have a basic expectation that their WikiProject's favourite SNG will prevail.

In this particular case a further issue is that at least some of us (including me) openly question the reliability/independence of AVN and XBIZ as sources. This questioning is extremely corrosive for WikiProject Pornography, because if AVN and XBIZ aren't reliable/independent sources, then what valid sources do exist for porn articles? If consensus moves in that direction and we do collectively decide to eliminate those sources, then a really high percentage of our pornstar articles are headed for the dustbin.

As a third issue, and this might just be me, I've also wondered whether BLP applies to pornstar articles. For example, is it best to treat that Deuxma article as a BLP? Or is it best treated as an article about a fictional character portrayed by a nameless porn performer? This seems important to me because it helps us decide where the bar for a pornstar article should be.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• About AVN and XBIZ, IMO AVN is pretty more "journalistic" than XBIZ, second I distinguish between the printed magazines and the websites, the websites are actually 85% made of press releases while at least AVN Magazine in its printed form is 85% made of original content including feature length articles, insights, biographical portraits, reviews, interviews, editorials and opinion pieces. XBIZ publishes several magazines, but the ones I checked were very poor of original contents. About BLP Vs. fictional characters, I think it is a mixture of the two things, like for wrestlers or even artists like Lady Gaga, it is an editor's duty to weigh the elements that belong to the one or to the other, eg statements by pornstars who say they are nymphomaniacs, swingers and/or bisexuals should be, in general terms, almost always kept out from the articles. Cavarrone 12:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• It would be hugely helpful if we could somehow draw a clear line between parts of AVN and XBIZ that are or are not reliable. Is there an easy way to distinguish press releases that have been (at most) minimally changed from actual articles? Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• What I said above. Short articles published by AVN/XBIZ in the section "company-news" or marked as "company press" are very likely to be press releases. On the other hand, the printed AVN magazine includes some easily identificable "secondary" journalism (reliable is not the correct word, as a primary source is not automatically unreliable), eg. the 6-pages-article used as a source in Fashionistas, the 10 or 12 pages article about female porn published this month, the columns by Clyde DeWitt, the "editorial desk" column or the yearly June special issue named "The Fresh Issue" are exemples of valid journalism. A different question is if they are sufficient for a claim of meeting GNG, but frankly I have no record of discussions in which anyone claimed a subject passing general notability on the sole basis of his/her AVN/XbiZ coverage, we are generally extra-cautious about that. Cavarrone 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If we're having a real conflict between GNG and SNG (rather than just SNG providing specific guidance or recommendations for how the genre sees itself), that's more signifiant and needs to be resolved first. Otherwise we'll forever be having different DR mechanisms picking whichever one suits each editor's preference. That's no less arbitrary than just scrapping the whole process altogether and relying on individuals to edit-war on each article itself. Or if we generally give deference to "keep" (AfD process requires consensus to delete, vs lack-of-consensus for a del-nom leaves an article existing). Get Wikipedia talk:Notability to put their own house in order. DMacks (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• As one of the DRV regulars who generally leans toward inclusion and has no problem with porn coverage, I do feel that there is a significant problem here. Partly there is badgering on the part of Erpert. Partly there are editors that I would say show up to porn bio discussions with a clear leaning toward deletion. But mostly because of WP:PORNBIO. It does seem to create a SNG where folks are generally notable even though they really have no chance of meeting WP:N if you ignore press releases and reprints of press releases. One could argue that's because mainstream news doesn't really cover these folks, so there is a cultural bias that the SNG addresses. But one could also argue that these just aren't notable folks and in any case we shouldn't be writing articles based on press releases. That fundamental issue needs to be resolved. And I think it can be resolved if we work hard to identify actual reliable sources in the field and find a way to narrow the list of awards that we consider in the SNG. Put another way, personalities are in part to blame here, but mostly its a policy problem. And S Marshall notes, that's solveable by getting a wider range of folks involved in getting these issues (RSes for porn, awards that make one notable) resolved. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that, since the beginning of 2011, DRV has not (per the Wikiproject Pornography deletion list) reversed the outcome of a single porn performer AFD. What the trio of editors is actually complaining about is that DRV is supporting the consensus established at AFD, which they oppose. As Spartaz noted before being driven into a wikibreak, DRV was generally more emphatic about GNG failure overriding a technical pass of PORNBIO language, but it was reinforcing the AFD consensus, not overturning it. It's also worth noting that the objections to DRV don't come from project members as a group, but from three editors who have joined it relatively recently and dismiss previous discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's pretty obvious that this "trio of editors" consists of Rebecca1990, Guy1890 and me, but if you were paying attention, HW, you would notice that I clearly stated that I am not even a member of WikiProject Pornography. Anyway, you can't use the "dismissing previous discussions" argument because an uninvolved editor (finally!) split this thread. And Equaczion and Guy1890 made a good point a few days ago: about the applicability of WP:PORNBIO apparently working differently in AfD than it does in DRV. Why would the same guideline work differently in different venues? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The ban on interaction between Locke Cole and Netoholic imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke_Cole in 2006 is terminated in light of the time that has passed without further problems.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Can't start AfD

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

---

I just tried to start an AfD discussion for the Niggers in the White House article. However, after I added the template to the article and tried to click through to create a page at the AfD location, it won't let me. It says that it is locked and only for administrator access. What's going on? Why is the AfD page that hasn't been created locked? I assume that it's been salted, but why? Silverseren^C 05:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine on my end... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the "nigger" part of the title tripping a filter of some description. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's presumably the title blacklist. Gimme a sec, I'll create it for you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Silver seren: done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go and finish it then. Silverseren^C 05:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't this have waited until the article was off the main page? See point 5 at Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, good catch. I'll close it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you do that, i'll just reopen it. It shouldn't have been let through DYK in the first place. Silverseren^C 06:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think an article on this sort of subject, which is newly created, quite possibly offensive, and has sources that don't seem to be about the subject at all, deserves an AfD even if it is at DYK. Really, this is something the DYK reviewer should have caught in the first place. But I guess they were lured in because the article looked pretty and appeared to have a bunch of sources. Silverseren^C 06:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Any article with "Nigger" in it is bound to be offensive to a select some. I can say no more — a seasoned administrator approved this article, and another seasoned administrator approved it for its Main Page appearance. I'm thinking two seasoned admins can't be wrong about their decisions, but oh well, let's just let the AfD flow. ☯ Bonkers The Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems deliberately provocative. Yes, it has some historical information but most people won't read beyond the title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have warned BTC for comments such as this and this on the article talk page. Provocative, childish, and the latter is outright racist. GiantSnowman 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• On the article itself, I think it could probably be saved with a bit of fancy footwork in the editing arena- I doubt, for instance, that there's actually any reason for that particular adjective to be used anywhere except the title. And arguably it is quite a significant historical issue. Basket _Feudalist 15:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Mop alert

If there's anyone around, there's a hella backlog at WP:AIV. I gotta go to work, myself. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nooo problem, most people here are school children, and it's nearly half-four now so they'll just be settling in front of their computers. Which may or may not be in basements or trailers, I dunno. Have a good day! Basket _Feudalist 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

UTRS help requested

UTRS could certainly do with some fresh admin eyes. I appear to be the only consistently active admin/CU there, and I can hardly review my own blocks. Any help would be appreciated! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It might help if there was information on that page as to how admins can help or at least a link to admin instructions or similar as there are on many pages. I would have no idea where to begin or where to find information. Dpmuk (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/register.php is a good place to start.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're an OTRS user, UTRS works in a similar (but not exactly the same) manner that should feel more or less familiar. Users submit appeals/tickets, which can then be reserved and handled (using templates or custom responses) by administrators with UTRS accounts. Give it a try if you're willing to help out; I find that it's a remarkably user-friendly experience compared to both OTRS and the old unblock-l mailing list. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File needs deleting

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

---

This file is overdue for deletion: File:The Myth of Mental Illness.JPG. 203.118.187.214 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

AWB request

On Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage User:Vanquisher.UA has requested access to AWB again. Earlier I granted it, it was then withdrawn after it was used to remove whitespace. Can an independent admin decide whether or not to grant access for Vanquisher.UA? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban Removal Request

In this thread, I was topic banned on all matters related to the Falkland Islands. This is an area of editing in which I had made a significant and prolific contribution. I am requesting that topic ban is revoked.

The basis of the topic ban proposed by User:Dpmuk was that the constant back and forth between us was making consensus impossible. At the time, I did really defend myself as I was utterly despondent after nearly a year of harassment from User:Gaba p.

As shown here the animosity stemmed from a block as a suspected sock puppet of User:Alex79818. You will please note that one of the factors in unblocking him, was that I gave additional details to User: JamesBWatson. As a result, he was given another chance to edit. Please note that both the original blocking admin and User:JamesBWatson considered the original case for sock puppetry to be compelling.

As a result of this Gaba p continued to follow my edits attacking me personally it was constant and unremitting. He was incapable of commenting on content but was constantly pointing fingers [5], a good example is the archive.

The thread was opened on 13 May. Please note that I agreed to a self-imposed moratorium [6] on April 30, in which I agreed to stop commenting to allow others to comment. An agreement User:Gaba p broke almost immediately [7] wikilawyering to claim it was only on one thread. The only reason I had in fact commented was at the request of User:Dpmuk.

The basis of the topic ban was the allegation of a constant back and forth. As I have noted I had in fact ceased to be active in the talk page for a period of two weeks before this was started. On my talk page [8] User:Dpmuk acknowledged that "my gut feeling is that Gaba_p is more likely the root cause".

I ask it to be noted that I remained civil, I discussed content not personalities, I went to WP:ANI to ask that an editor repeatedly warned for incivility and blocked for personal attacks simply be stopped from bullying me. A number of false allegations were made and diffs falsified (I even demonstrated this was the case). By using smoke screen tactics he got away with it repeatedly.

Can I ask that is the message you wished to send was that remaning civil and discussing content, when faced by an editor that was uncivil and commented on editors not content, is a complete waste of time. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As requested ANI threads, [9], [10], [11] (please note and forgive a certain frustration on the last diff).

Attempts to resolve at WP:DR eg [12] (Note who walked away) and [13] This was a bizarre occasion where I was accused of blocking something I never commented on. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• First, I note it hasn't been six months since the topic ban was imposed, which is the general "ask for a review after this time" line. Secondly, I note that this sure looks like a violation of said topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rubbish. Firstly, a topic-ban cannot remove an editor's right to complain to AN/I for redress, and secondly, the six-months period is effectively imposed on those who wish to show they have understood and appreciated the reason(s) for the TB. If the TB was unfairly / incorrectly given, it should be dealt with immediately. Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 09:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Except that's not a complaint to AN/I for redress - that's an interjecton into a discussion other editors had been involved in on the topic-banned subject, about issues that had arisen after the topic ban was imposed, in which he had not even been mentioned prior to his interjection, and for which the diff he gives that alerted him to a discussion on ANI was for another subject entirely. Although we've sniped a bit in the past at times I like WCM's editing style and honestly thought the initial topic ban was a bit OTT myself, but a topic ban is a topic ban and I'm having a very hard time seeing that as anything other than a violation of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, my comment that you refer to was not about the topic ban but that the two guys I mentioned should be banned from anything to do with WP:MOSNUM relating to units as their advocacy of the metric system leads to damage to wikipedia as a project. The current Falkland Islands discussion is simply another manifestation of it, another example is Munro (a Munro is a mountain in Scotland with a height over 3,000 ft) where User:Michael Glass edited the article to give preference to the metric system (so the lede now gives the definition in one order and the rest of it in the other). It also touched on premier league football, with editing to change height to give preference to metric first. Petty as their campaign may be, its also infuriating and irritating for anyone concerned with article quality. They have caused numerous problems at WT:MOSNUM with various proposals to metricate wikipedia and cannot accept it it doesn't have consensus.

As I commented above and amplified by reference to my attempts to use WP:DR, I consider the topic ban to be both punitive and unjust. Hence, I am asking for it to be removed. When I had problems in the past I have always acknowledged my faults and have not had a problem with editing restrictions being imposed. In this case it is decidedly punitive, treating me as the victim of a bullying campaign as equally problematic as the perpetrator. This is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Following WCM's topic ban I offered to help them in a mentoring role. If WCM is interested, that offer stands. During the discussion of the topic ban I suggested that WCM take a voluntary three month break from Falklands-related topics, a position which did not win any other support. While I don't endorse all of WCM's conduct (especially the edit warring), I think that he or she genuinely means well, so it would be a positive if an arrangement was in place which enabled them to edit Falklands-related topics again - I would suggest that a 0RR or 1RR restriction for six months or so would be particularly helpful. However, I'd be interested in the views of other editors who work on this topic as it's not one which I follow closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I keep hearing the comment it takes two to edit war. Such comments are a rather trite response to something I kept asking and never got a reply to. If you're editing in an area where one editor constantly edit wars to impose their views and you as a good content editor don't revert, then they always win and article quality suffers. If you try WP:DR and WP:ANI and you're constantly told to work with a disruptive editor to get a consensus, with an editor whose idea of consensus is to edit war their views into the article what the hell are you supposed to do? If it were an area of general interest then you do get a number of editors interested who will pitch in but if you're editing a niche area there isn't the wider pool of editors. Then you're left with editor behaviour and I will reiterate I remained civil and focused on content, which was supported by sourcing. You would find it difficult to claim the others involved reciprocated, where their behaviour was uncivil and has remained uncivil and despite repeated warnings to desist no one did a damn thing about it. The lack of action on warnings only emboldened them to escalate their disruptive behaviour and even then I didn't reciprocate.

If you wish to convert this topic ban on me into a 1RR restriction fine, I don't edit war, I was simply placed in an impossible position. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I see Wee Curry Monster is sadly attacking me once again, this time for no apparent reason (not the first time since the topic ban either [14][15]). I won't bother posting long comments about the other side of the story that Wee is obviously leaving out, if some editor/admin wants to hear that the ANIs are a good place to start and they are more than welcome to ask me for anything that needs clarification. That said I'll just make two minor comments: first, when the topic ban was imposed we were told that in order for it to ever be removed we should spend several months outside of the disputed issue editing WP in other areas as a sign of good faith. If anybody cares to look at my contribution history they'll see that I've made quite an effort to start editing on a great number of new topics, which I do to this day whithout a single issue. Wee on the other hand slapped a "Retired" banner on his user page (at least the third time he's announced his retirement from WP) and edited as an IP a couple of Gibraltar articles[16]. It isn't fair that he gets to ask for a removal of the topic ban based entirely on making me look once again as the disruptive user and himself as the victim (which he has been doing for the good part of a year now), something he is forced to resort to since he has absolutely nothing else to show for. Second, The topic ban violation that The Bushranger points to is actually his third one [17][18] as I pointed out at the time.

Before the accusations of WP:HOUNDING begin (or continue actually) I was notified of this post since Wee used my full WP user name which triggers an immediate notification. Wee apparently didn't think it was necessary to post a notice in my talk page about this ANI (something he is required to do, specially since it is is 90% based on me) but he made sure to do so at the talk pages of anybody that he thought could stop by to help him. Had he not resorted to lambasting me as the center of his request I would certainly not be here. Anyway. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[19] This edit was reporting user misconduct of concern to an admin, without violating my topic ban. Please review the full topic and [20] someone having the last word in the usual uncivil manner.

[21] This edit should be read in context with this one [22], where I advised Marshal I would not accede to his suggestion to circumvent my topic ban off-wiki by email. An example of User:Gaba p quoting a diff out context. Please note I don't think, in fact I know, Marshal did not intend anything untoward with that suggestion.

Pls note I edited occasionally as an IP as I did scramble my password and I made sure my edits were identifiable, I reset my password via email and disabled the wikibreak enforcer. I may remain retired as I am still not sure about contributing again. But I want the topic ban lifted as it was and remains unjust. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong 'Oppose I believe that Wee Curry Monster's topic ban should not be lifted. One reason is this foul-mouthed rant. WCM changed this rant - after I called him out over it. However, the fact that he made it in the first place demonstrates the appropriateness of his banning and the desirability for his banning to continue. Michael Glass (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

For information, refactored my comment because the language was inappropriate. The tit for tat nature of Michael's opposition, demanding I provide evidence knowing that I can't reply because of this topic ban. His strong oppose should be read in that light. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree to Topic Ban removal User Gaba p thinks he is clever in what he writes here. He perceives that many administrators are often too busy to go back and look at the entire history of these articles. Gaba p's irrational vendetta against Wee and anyone who disagrees with him stems back to a very old disagreement. When, as an editor on these articles, I agreed with Wee, a sexest and vial remark was put on his page about me in the form of a question by his alter ego, Langus txt, to the effect that I had some kind of inappropriate relationship with the subject editor whom I have never met nor worked with. I will be happy to provide it for anyone who asks. If he thought to run me off he was disappointed in that it made me all the more determined. Apparently he still does not realize that this kind of talk is no longer tolerated by women or Wikipedia. I should have reported him at the time but did not. Now I am sorry I didn't. He has obviously not learned his lession. There is something very strange about this editor's motivations and I, unlike him, will not specualate except to state that it is my firm belief that he sees Wikipedia as a "game" and anyone who comes between he and his "game playing" is shot down in the most vulgar terms. He will act the "innocent" when he reads this as he has before.

The important fact is that the articles have suffered significantly as a result of the departure of Wee and editors who agree with Wee's unbiased POV on these articles. A short read will show they now show a significant non-neutral POV.Mugginsx (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

God Mugginsx please not this again. Every time you make the accustion of "a sexest and vial remark" I am forced to go through the history of my talk page to provide the diff (because you won't) showing how ridiculous it is. Here's the diff with the comment Mugginsx refers to in my talk page. You'll immediately notice two things: 1- it was a completely sensible and reasonable question brought up by the aggressiveness with which Mugginsx both defends WCM and attacks anyone who she see as his "enemy"; 2- the comment was not made by me but by User:Langus-TxT. The fact that it was another editor who made that comment has been pointed out to Mugginsx not only by me but by an admin in a previous ANI but that apparently hasn't stopped her from trying to use it as "evidence" of me being sexist. There's really not much more to say about this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that the remark has been amended to make it less offensive. The "relative" question was not originally in there. Nice try though.Mugginsx (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Amended?? Mugginsx for the love of god I can't believe after all this time editing you still don't know the basics of how WP works. That is a single edit made in a single block. See how before there was nothing and then the comment was made? That is the same comment you referred to and it has been since the moment it was made. If you have any doubts then please go though the history of my talk page and convince yourself that it of course was not refactored ever. Whatever you do please let this be the last time you accuse me of making a sexist remark since the fact that you are wrong has been explained to you over and over again. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You changed it to make it seem harmless. Mugginsx (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to Mugginsx that I can not change what's archived in the history of a talk page? She will clearly never believe me for some reason. Gaba ^(talk) 19:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"She" doesn't know, after five years, how things work here in general, I'm afraid. You may be wasting your breath... Basket _Feudalist 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What's this? another one of your "friends" Or perhaps another alter-ego? You sure can pick them. This is an ANI about whether or not the topic ban should be lifted on Wee. Try to focus.Mugginsx (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Support lifting. The ban was always wrong. Curry Monster has long been an productive editor on Falklands topics, and his knowledge and understanding of the topic have been sorely missed over the past few months.

I said at the time that if we had just banned Gaba and nobody else, the page would have carried on exactly as it has done. Other than an outbreak of the units debate, things have been broadly peaceful. OTOH, if we had just banned another editor (including Curry Monster) and not Gaba, the page would have carried on exactly as it was before, with continual confrontation and no possible progress. No other editor who did not start at Gaba's position was having any more success with reasoning with him than Curry Monster was. It was just that Gaba seemed to have it in for Curry Monster.

I understand Curry Monster's frustration on the current dispute, while the way he put it was not the most appropriate. It is certainly frustrating that editors who have done so much damage to the topic - continually bringing up the same points, over and over again, week after week, month after month, year after year - are allowed free reign with no admin willing to do a thing about it, while he, a good content editor with a strong interest in the topic, is topic banned. Curry Monster should be allowed to edit on these articles, for the good of the encyclopædia. Kahastok talk 20:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense

THIS WAS DELETED BY I.P. 162.198.9.231 SO I REPEAT: Mugginsx, who is MySweetMelissa? Re:this here? Basket _Feudalist 15:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was working on two Wikipedias at once. Mybad. I answered you on your page but something keeps happening. Is there a virus there? Mugginsx (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My IP is not supposed to be revealed here. Would an administrator please remove. This editor is one year old and apparently does not know this guideline. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have posted there and I have answered you each time; you ask if there is a virus on the page and then call me inexperienced? Your I.P. was treated like all vandalising-I.P's, and made public. Perhaps you would like to delete this message too? I don't care if you edit from an IP, but you now have TWO accounts on the English Wikipedia and seem to be going out of your way to NOT have to say so. Basket _Feudalist 16:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is Nonsense as another experienced editor has told you on your talk page. Stop cluttering up the page and learn the guidelines. Mugginsx (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeeees... I'm afraid I take that kind of interjection with a pinch of salt. Far too timely, you see! Actually you probably don't. Never mind. I am willing to reply robustly, wherever I am questioned. In fact, let's keep it public here, rather than on my TP. Cheers. Basket _Feudalist 19:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Why is this on AN? I can't see anything that requires administrator intervention, or even anything that could be of interest to administrators. There is an ongoing discussion on User talk:You Can Act Like A Man (the user account behind the alias "BasketFeudalist"), a discussion that IMHO is an interesting case of attempted cyber bullying, where I have pointed "BasketFeudalist" to Wikipedia's rules regarding multiple accounts. Which, again IMHO, ought to be more than enough. And then I see this... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Mathsci

The Arbitration Committee resolves by motion that

In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk · contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:

• Commenting on, or interacting with, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)
• Commenting on, or interacting with, Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of SightWatcher (talk · contribs).

This motion should be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence final decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Stale AfD

Could an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series). It's been open since 21 August with no comments since 30th. On 11 September the article was redirected to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Original series. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion had been closed by an admin, but was undone by an unregistered user; I've reverted to the closed version. Peter James (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's actually happened several times by anonymous users there. Since there's no real reason for anons to be editing there anymore anyway, I've semiprotected it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist oddity

My watchlist this morning contains several IPs adding the same link to 'archive.is' with the same edit summary (example one, two, and three). Linking to an online archive to maintain the integrity of our sources would appear to be a helpful activity, but is the link legitimate? The IPs have disparate geolocation (proxies?); is this sneaky link spam? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the number using the same summary, but archive.is at least seems okay, and has some pages that archive.org and webcite don't. Chris857 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The legitimacy of archive.is is a matter of debate, but anonymously running bots over a worldwide proxy network is not. The additions of the links are being blocked by filters now, I've been blocking any new IP that tries, and the list of IPs that need to have all their contributions rolled back is at WP:ANI#Mass rollbacks required. I don't have a script for it, but I'm certain that someone does.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)