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 26 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)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 142 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 140 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 123 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 90 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 58 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 57 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)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 52 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 44 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 43 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 36 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 34 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 34 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 27 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	22	29	51
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	4	6
RfD	0	0	37	40	77
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

(Initiated 52 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 51 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 128 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 127 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 122 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 118 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 109 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 103 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:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 103 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 96 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 89 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:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 76 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 69 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 63 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cumnock (original) railway station#Requested move 14 April 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 14 April 2024) No new comments for over three weeks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 26 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)

Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list

(Initiated 16 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 14 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:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 days ago on 1 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)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 10 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 9 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 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

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

---

The closer wrote:

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Moving Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter

From WP:RFPP here:

Would an admin unprotect Kirby Delauter and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter? See this close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter by Spartaz (talk · contribs) (thank you, Spartaz, for reviewing and closing the discussion):

This discussion has stalled. As far as I can see there may be disagreement here about whether the article should hae been deleted but there isn't a killer policy based argument that the delete aspect of the DRV as closed was wrong. Where I am seeing a lack of consensus is around whether the salting should have been reinstated. As the salting was part of the original deletion is is certainly in RoySmith's ambit to reinstate this with the endorse finding but, on challenge, we do not have a clear specific consensus. As such, and bearing in mind that DRVs remit is deletion not salting I think the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close. What does that mean? It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point. The only reason I have not done this myself is because there appears to be a risk of BLP issues to consider and I have not got the time right now to research the question to determine if there is a BLP risk from the unsalting. This does not preclude someone who has got that time from doing so.

Cunard (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not unprotected This should be taken back to DRV; I am not going to override an endorse close there by my own action. Courcelles 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not take this back to WP:DRV for further discussion since this WP:AN close already reviewed the WP:DRV close with the conclusion "the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close". And "It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point" as long as the draft is reviewed by an admin as BLP compliant. Ping User:Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after this is resolved. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• The unsalting is actually rather irrelevant here, surely the question is whether the draft article is sufficient to overcome the original "delete" arguments even if it is BLP compliant. I personally don't think it is good enough notability-wise - it looks to me like this person's "notability" is hung on a minor news event and a load of local news reports. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Borderline notability means that it should be put through AfD. It easily passes all WP:CSD criteria. There never was a BLP concern, BLP1E is not really a BLP concern, and if there is a BLP concern, it exists in Draft space equally as mainspace. This person is a politician. The salting was a knee-jerk reaction accompanying the out-of-process deletion, and this salting appears to be wholly ignored or unsupported at DRV and here. Courcelles was wrong to ascribe an endorsement of the salting at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not often I disagree with you SmokeyJoe, but on few things here I must. Fails WP:NPOL and it's just a drama magnet. Wikipedia is not a social media reporting site, and the only thing of note here is Kirby's brief Facebook rant. Unless or until Mr. Delauter does something notable, then it's best that the article is deleted. Salting removes the temptation of further problems right now. Just IMO, so ...

We don't speedy things to reduce drama. In fact, as this has shown, it just ramps it up. Always has. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and salted — Ched :  ?  10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Hey Ched, maybe this disagreement can be resolved. We are talking about different things? Deleting for failing WP:NPOL is a matter for the AfD process, and is not a CSD criterion, and failing NPOL does not give admins the right to unilaterally delete contrary to the leading sentence at WP:CSD. For me, this is about respect for process, and vigilance against kneejerk reactions by a ruling class of Wikipedian. Did DRV approve the deletion with silent reference to NPOL? Possibly. If it is agreed, as you say, that this person fails NPOL, and further that there is drama magnetism at play, then yes, "Keep deleted and salted" is the right thing to do. But please, User:Floquenbeam, send it to AfD next time. If this were AfD, I would argue that reliable independent secondary source coverage exists, and the appropriate place for the content is at Streisand_effect#Selected_examples, justified by this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with 99.9% of that. The one part I must take exception to is the "knee-jerk". Admins. are supposed to "mop-up" things they see as a mess. In this case it seems more that an admin grabbed the mop and cleaned up a mess before it was reported to the corporate office, and the "please clean" request was filled out in triplicate. Now - I'm wondering if putting Draft:Kirby Delauter up at WP:MFD would help resolve things here? Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-emptive mopping may be questionable. It could be perceived as "controlling". Anyway, MFDing the Draft might be sensible. MfD might be good at the isolated question of whether the page is a BLP violation. If the question goes to NPOL, I for one will shout "wrong forum", MfD is not the approval court for drafts. Better to unsalt, move to mainspace, and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• All very bureaucratic but the varying admins seem to require just that. For the matter to be properly decided by the full editorial community, the draft should be taken to AfD for a proper keep/merge/discharge from draft/delete discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Meh Why would we immortalise this trivia? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Good grief, are we really still debating this? Absent a BLP problem, the closer of this at AN (who is one of the most experienced DRV closers btw) said this could be unsalted barring BLP issues. I don't think anyone has identified a BLP problem, potential problem or even an imaginary problem. unsalt and restore if it needs bolding. Folks, this is getting stupid. Let AfD decide if it meets our notability guidelines. This has never been to AfD for goodness sake. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons

Would an uninvolved admin please be so kind as to peruse the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Icons#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it and review the Non-admin closure that has precipitated the confusion? The contested change has been made three times and reverted twice and there appears to be confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging @Technical 13:. I don't see any issues with the close, personally. Those who are edit warring against the consensus found in the most recent discussion should, as usual, take it to the talk page. HiDrNick! 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• HiDrNick, please see User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close for my thoughts on it. I'll happily review the new discussions when I have some time, about to head to class for 4 hours. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing Technical 13 - in fact I haven't participated in this RFC/discussion at all. It's just that some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles". Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful. If people are happy with Technical 13 making the clarification, that's fine with me – I don't have a dog in this hunt (my peeve is flag icons w/o the name/abbreviation of the nation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). I just felt the opinion of an uninvolved admin might shut everyone up so we can all get back to editing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging User:SMcCandlish who contested the close in December at User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think that the close is over-broad in its interpretation. It appears to make a general statement about sports generally when the discussion was about Forumula One racing in particular, and the conclusion reached actually contradicts years worth of previous consensus discussions. Basically, the F1 editors lobbied very hard to get their way on this, and people who also really, really, really like flag icons are trying to misconstrue the questionable result of that one discussion as an overruling of something like 5 years of previous decisions against festooning articles with cutesy pictures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding these tags and clogging up the page. Allow threads to die a natural death, if that's what they're going to do.. Not everything needs a formal closeure. BMK (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we post a comment here everyday until someone responds – that should keep it from getting archived. Seems clear that @Technical 13: has decided not to clarify his close (despite a cordial reminder on his talk page), so the ambiguity remains. I guess there really aren't enough admins to go around. Is it any wonder we're losing editors? I posted this here when a nascent edit war was developing. Wisely, @Jojhutton: reverted only twice. But, if this is archived without clarification from technical 13 or an uninvolved admin, it raises the additional question of what to do about the edit to MOS:ICON – should it be reverted to the status quo ante or left as is? Mojoworker (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't decided to do or not do anything. My ex's 60+ year old father slipped on some ice in a store parking lot last weekend, broke three ribs, punctured a lung, went in for multiple operations to fix it, and has been in ICU half the week. Clarifying my close on a topic on Wikipedia has been at the very, very bottom of my todo list. I'll get to it in the next week or two when my mind has a minute to regroup and I apologize if I seem brash or uncaring, but in comparison to what I'm dealing with in RL atm, I really don't care. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries Technical 13. Quite understandable given your circumstances. Sorry if my frustration was leaking through into my post. Sadly, an admin could clear this up forthwith, leaving you to care for your family. Guess there are just too few admins. Or too many lazy ones? At least too few that will do anything that requires a little work. Someone on Dennis Brown's talkpage was talking about redirecting Chicken shit to ANI – I guess AN would be just as appropriate. If we can't come here for assistance, then WTF are we supposed to do? I realize admins are volunteers too, but if y'all aren't gonna do anything, then turn in your bits and let someone else do it. Anyway, take your time Technical 13, my gripe is not with you. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can run for admin any time they want, you know Mojoworker, there's no need for anyone to resign and open up a vacancy ;-) Squinge (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Best known for IP"

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP has been updated to reflect the return to LTA status of the IP in question. Drmies and Yngvadottir unblocked the editor based on a 0RR restriction. Both Drmies and the IP have failed to live up the agreement: the IP by not following it, and Drmies by not following through on AN3 reports in order to enforce the 0RR restriction.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• So sue me, Kevin. Drag me before ArbCom. That ANEW discussion was pointless, as pointless as your continued blocks and mass rollbacks. What Hafspajen thinks now of having started that report, I don't know, but at least it served your purpose, didn't it. Did you want me to have blocked Hafspajen as well for their edit warring based on a misreading of user talk page guidelines, or do you think that only some people should get blocked for breaking the law? To a hammer, not everything looks like a nail, apparently. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this IP has on more than one occasion promised not to edit war to be unblocked and proceeds to edit war as soon as they change IPs I think we should just start treating this person like someone who is engaging in block evasion. Chillum 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That is where we were before I attempted to cut the Gordian knot. These long-term abuse pages are a courtesy to fill in background that not everyone can be remotely expected to know, but they're also a scarlet letter, and they are not official. This editor is not under any formal sanction. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since when do we need formal sanctions to handle an IP hopper? Nobody is suggesting that an LTA page = banned. I am suggesting that a long history of blocks for edit warring and block evasion and lying in unblock requests = banned.

This is a user who has been blocked countless times in for edit warring and incivility and who lies to get unblocked while regularly changing IPs. Trying to work with this user was noble but they were just as disruptive. This is not a case of Wikipedia causing a good editor to be disruptive, this is a case of a disruptive user on Wikipedia. This is no different than the last several thousand users who did not want to play by the rules of the project, if not for their regular changing of identity they would have been indeffed long ago. Chillum 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• That's exactly the point. There's nothing unusual in this case except for the efforts to keep him unblocked. He's a disruptive editor that shows no capability of ceasing to be disruptive. There's been no effort to "cut a Gordian knot" here, simply to unblock a misbehaving editor on the basis of content contributions. "A long history of blocks for edit warring and block evasion and lying in unblock requests = banned" is, indeed, standard practice.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question, after years (are we at a decade yet?) of personal attacks, edit warring and block evasion was inexplicably unblocked based on a promise to abide by a 0RR. They quickly "forgot" that agreement under yet another IP and were blocked for a week. One week after that block expired, they were back on the 3RR noticeboard. Why is that not blockable? Well, "They were unblocked under a 0RR condition by Drmies but were subsequently blocked by another admin and served out the block. So the condition has been superseded."[1] You see, if you agree not to do something, do it anyway, get blocked for it and do it again, it doesn't matter. Or something like that. Also expunging their record is that they were blocked for a personal attack and later unblocked by an admin who was unaware of their history. That makes them "an editor among editors".[2] Or something like that. They aren't blocked for 3RR because both editors have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.[3] Or something like that. This editor either cannot or will not follow any rules (including, but by no means limited to 3RR, NPA, CON and EVADE). I no longer care which one it is. I no longer care if any of their edits make sense. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with kww that there is nothing unusual in this case except for effort to keep the IP unblocked. Given that somehow that lack of formal sanction is an issue[4] perhaps we should just make a decision here. Normally a serial block evader could be handled less formally but it seems that the lack of formal sanctions/restrictions is a sore point somehow. Chillum 02:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP was formally blocked. They were unblocked based on an agreement. Two admins involved in the case have argued they are not compelled to enforce that agreement, that being blocked for violating the agreement removes the restriction and, now, that the agreement was not formal. I imagine any formal restriction will need to be lawyer-proofed. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also at a loss to explain why what should be routine is being made so complicated. Chillum 02:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Two points here. The first is that the majority of IPs on the LTA page are dynamic. There is no practical benefit for blocking longer than, say, 24-72 hours. They're also from all over the place, which leads one to reasonably conclude that there is more than one person who finds superlative descriptions to be unencyclopedic. I was more disturbed by the edit-warring to return really poorly worded sentences. I cannot help but wonder what people would do if a registered user copy-edited the junk out of some of these target articles. Assuming good faith is really important here: instead of having a knee-jerk reaction that any edit removing an unnecessary descriptor, read the before-and-after diff. If the article is improved...who cares? Are our readers not better served by such improvements? And why in heaven's name has "is best known for" become a commonplace phrase in this encyclopedia? Risker (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that some of the more far-flung IPs are actually unlikely to be him. If this was only content, I agree that this IP would win on that. His behaviour is abominable, though, and that's the problem. Good behaviour doesn't excuse bad content, and good content doesn't excuse bad behaviour.—Kww(talk) 02:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that removing superlative terms from articles is disruptive. It is edit warring and personal attacks coupled with block evasion that are the issue. Chillum 02:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not about the editor's changes to articles. This is about the editor's edit warring, personal attacks and block evasion. The list of IPs on the Long Term Abuse page is "massively incomplete".[5] - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above: the content of this editor's edits is not at question, although I think the value of it has been overstated at times. The issue is his behaviour, which has been called into question dozens and dozens of times; he has been blocked dozens of times, evaded those blocks and has had a decade or more to address his problem. He has never shown any inclination to curb his disruptive tendencies and co-operate constructively, and worse, has even promised that he would do so simply in order to get unblocked, and then continued where he left off. Decent editing cannot overrule endless disruption, or this project can never function adequately. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We could try another experiment. Given that the IP frequently makes good edits (as we all should) and explains them in edit summaries (as we all should), we could try not to revert them, for no reason and/or with no edit summary. Crazy thought, I know. It'd be interesting to see the total of their article space edits, and how many of them he had to make two, three, or more times, just because they got undone for whatever reason (often no reason). I think we'll see a seriously inflated edit count, and it's not his fault. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Chillum, I thank you for your edit on that "LTA" page. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we experiment with having repeated and egregious personal attacks lead to sanctions including blocks. Crazy thought, I know. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, SummerPhD, given that there's actually not a lot of evidence that this is happening with a single individual editor, I can't understand what you're after here. In fact, the "evidence" we have shows that multiple IP editors get testy and rude when reverted for no good reason. Have you tried doing that yourself? (i.e., editing without logging in) The last time I made a concerted effort to do so, I found 80% of my (well-described, entirely correct and per policy) edits were reverted, most without explanation, and often with a vandalism warning thrown in. I find it entirely understandable that people react negatively to such behaviour, and it seems to me that this focus on IPs that remove flowery prose ("best known for") are now pretty consistently being treated as this IP "vandal", compounding the problem. I've called other editors to task for knee-jerk reversion of IP edits (as recently as last night) and I'll keep doing it, because it's harmful to the encyclopedia. It's baiting behaviour to revert good edits. While I don't approve of snark in return, I think we're missing the point of this project when we treat unregistered users this way. Risker (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that the editor involved has admitted that most of the IPs involved are him, and has gone well beyond "snark". Again, the quality of his edits isn't the issue: he behaves unacceptably, and must be removed from the project for that reason.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is about one unregistered editor with easily identifiable traits who has repeatedly admitted to deliberately evading blocks for years. We are not here discussing the thousands of editors your theory would imply have been edit-warring, making personal attacks and evading well over 60 blocks. Unregistered editors can "reacting negatively to such behavior" all they want. I have not reverted without explanation. The "snark" I got was being called a "fucking retarded little cunt". (Other favorites include "prick", "infantile twat", "fucking moron", "fuck you cunt", "You dopy little fuck", "if you're all upset that I'm rude, well, just stop being a retard", "fucking idiot", etc.) That is not "snark". According to the editor, of course, calling him a "vandal" is more offensive than any of that and he has repeatedly demanded apologies for calling him a vandal. The editor in question is either unable or unwilling to not make personal attacks with very little provocation. The editor in question has stated he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same". The editor in question has stated he sees absolutely nothing wrong with his behavior and evading the dozens of known blocks applied to him. He sees edit warring as perfectly acceptable. All of this is antithetical to our core policies and a collaborative project. It has earned him over 5 years of block time. There is no indication that he sat out any of it, other than a 1 hour block for a personal attack and 1 week for violating his 0RR agreement (which, apparently, means the 0RR was no longer needed at Yngvadottirpedia). They have repeatedly agreed not to edit war, not to make personal attacks and such. Whether they were simply lying, unable to control their own actions, unable to understand what they agreed to or simply decided they could get away with it again is a moot question. As for the current block, one of the two admins actively defending this editor fully expects that he will evade the block.[6] To repeat: After all of this, his biggest defender expects him to continue with the same bullshit that has brought us here repeatedly and, it seems, is destined to continue bringing us here. His behavior is unacceptable and he cannot or will not change. At what point do we accept the obvious and show him the door? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Risker there is no doubt this is the same person coming back. They have a very clear pattern and they even go so far as to ping Yngvadottir and Drmies for help. While some of the IPs on the LTA may not be applicable we are talking about a specific person. This is not some poor soul seeking to improve the encyclopedia and getting bitten, this is a nasty character who reacts badly when people disagree with him. Chillum 06:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I love both Dmies and Yngvadottir dearly, I really do - they are long time friends of mine too. I like the way they show goodwill towards a lot of editors, help them and try to calm down situations where it will be more drama than there is need to be. Very unfortunately for them and myself - I was involved with this IP, (well, obviously) - and it was one of the few editors that succeed driving me mad in a very short period with that style of his that honestly I didn't care any more I was to be blocked myself - because I just couldn't handle this editor. And generally I am a patient person who tries to solve thing, try to discuss - I really tried this time too - but there is no way discussing a thing here with him about his edits. I am just telling that if he succeeded with his behavior to do this - (not with his edits, his edits we could have discussed and we could have come to some kind of consensus) - but with his ways to disregard the other editors as they were a non-existing element - just bothering him in improving his Wikipedia - sorry - but this is a serious issue. That IP frequently makes good edits it's not the issue here. About Drmies - it was a situation that he was trying to bring to an end and he was going to be shouted at by everyone for it. In my "dispute" (for want of a better word) with the IP, Drmies didn't want to upset Yngvadottir by going against the IP but he certainly didn't want to upset me either or risk me being blocked so he took a road that he thought would at least bring it to an end. Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding even more naive than I am, some context. Yes, this is one editor. I got involved at either this noticeboard or AN/I, I believe the latter, where I sought to cut the Gordian knot and have us be able to keep a good editor while not subjecting other editors to vitriolic remarks. The agreement was that the person would stop edit warring and instead contact Drmies or me regarding their edit, and that they would stop hurling insults. We had increasing success with the latter; SummerPhD's examples are all old, and the person (a Brit, with the resultant initial unawareness of the force of the "c-word" to a speaker of US English; they may also have been unaware that Summer is a woman) considerably toned down their invective. Until last week I thought we'd turned a corner and they were now only recognisable by the focus of their edits. We were less successful in getting them to stop edit warring, but I saw improvement there too. Unfortunately the scarlet letter of the Long-Term Abuse page, and some of their choices of articles to edit (to name the two most recent, Tosca is a FA, and at Wilderness hut Hafspajen's method of work and theirs clashed badly) led to their being blocked several times more. Drmies' unblock on a condition of 0R was followed by another admin's block for a different reason. They sat out that block; in fact they've been noticeably not IP-hopping since the experiment started. After that block happened, they made it clear that they didn't wish to be tied to our apron strings any more, and since that block had happened and been served, I agreed, they were on their own. So the experiment is over. I disagree with Kww's rationale, since it rests on the assumption that this is an abusive editor and that that either constitutes a formal sanction they are under or makes one unnecessary. But we've discussed this before, and it appears that view dominates. I think it amounts to assuming bad faith since it ignores the quality of their edits to identify them by their past offenses no matter what, and moreover that the editor addressed the concerns by improving greatly, and that they were and are a net positive. But clearly I'm against administrative consensus in this view, so ... I don't see anything but to chalk it up as a failed experiment, apologise once more to those the IP hurt, and hope that after serving out the current block he or she returns no longer behaviorally recognisable, since he or she refuses to take the other option and register an account. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good faith (which, BTW, the editor does not assume) is not at issue. Whether or not they have tried to stop edit warring and making personal attacks, they have not stopped. When released from a formal block with a hard-fought condition (formally described at WP:0RR) attached, violating that condition and being blocked for it does not demonstrate the condition is no longer needed. It demonstrates the editor would not or could not keep the terms of the condition. When -- one week later -- they go beyond violating the 0RR to violate 3RR, arguing against blocking them with the post hoc argument that they are now "beyond" the restriction is beyond absurd. Arguing against blocking them because it was good faith edit warring does not sound like an argument someone who has read WP:EDITWAR would offer: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." Later saying thatyou expect them to violate their newest block simply reinforces the view that you are placing this editor above our policies. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see that I wrote "that after serving out the current block", or that I wrote that the subsequent block was for another reason. However, we also disagree on whether the editor improved, and since they are on a dynamic IP it is by their edits that they are recognisable, so perhaps the other concerns are understandable given that we differ so radically on that issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It was "technically" the other guardian who said, "I know you'll be back, and it'll count as block evasion (technically correct, of course)". Not truly, formally block evasion. Just "technically", because they famously freed themselves of blocks by breaching the well-known (but conveniently forgotten) agreement that got them out of five solid years of blocks which moves them beyond all that. "Cunt", of course, is not offensive in the UK, it's a term of endearment, like "fucking retarded", "prick", "infantile twat", "fucking moron", etc. It is, of course, big of you to "apologise once more to those the IP hurt". For clarification: Are you apologizing for them because they refuse to or are you apologizing for enabling their edit warring and personal attacks? - SummerPhD (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall. This editor has been reverted many times for many years, by many editors with accounts, and in many cases they were reverted for nothing at all. So yeah, they got angry. So yeah, they got blocked, cause no one cares about IP editors. We do care about civility, but only in the area of dirty words, not when it comes to actual behavior. Let me just hit rollback on a bunch of your edits, like a few thousand of them, for no reason related to content. "Enabling" my ass ("enabling" is a personal attack, of course). Because I don't agree with you, or with those who just block, and block for so long that everything is block evasion? I can't believe you, of all people, would think so simplistically--I'm for you or I'm against you. "Guardian". You don't need a guardian, but the project does. Now, I'm out: there is no point discussing any of this with you. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Could someone possibly explain what exactly this fracas is about? The behaviors described above -- edit warring, calling folks the c-word, are against the rules regardless of whether someone's IP is listed on some page, right? So if an unregistered editor is doing that stuff, why don't ya'll mop-wielders just deal with it? In the context of IPs:

• Name calling / personal attacks should just be given short blocks. A reasonable grown up who starts IP editing should know that already, and if they don't, after being blocked a time or two an editor they'll figure it out. (Assumption here the IPs rotate so it's not the same as marring a registered editor's Permanent record.
• Likewise edit warring; block if the editor has been properly reported to AN3, or simply semi the page for awhile.

Wouldn't that just be so much simpler than trying to figure out if a particular individual who recognizes "best know for" is lame writing is the same as another particular individual or not? Oh, WP:GUARDIAN is a redlink; WP:MOP is not. NE Ent 01:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• And when the same editor violates the same policies hundreds of times and is blocked dozens of times, what normally happens?—Kww(talk) 02:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally, involved admins stay out of it, evasion results in extension of blocks, further violations lead to further blocks, the blocks get progressively longer and the editor ends up here, where they are banned. Further evasion results in mass reverts so they stay gone. Formally. Normally. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Here we are, all of 4 days into a 3 month block and the user is evading already.[7][8] - SummerPhD (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Block user (requesting review of block)

I have blocked User:DeDe4Truth for plagiarism for 72 hours. Was notified of the issue here [9]

This edit [10] has content basically all from [11] including the refs.

We had some discussion of other issue around sourcing before I blocked them. Happy to have someone review this block and unblock if they see that it is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Previous edits were also copied and pasted and the user appear to lack the understanding that this is not allowed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request was declined by User:SarekOfVulcan. I was also going to decline the request with the same reason, but there was an edit conflict. MER-C 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatantly WP:INVOLVED, punitive block -- after this exchange [12] Doc James blocks them over a content dispute? NE Ent 00:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry Ent, but a block for copyvio is not a content block. Whether the block needed to be made in the first place is another matter, but the history of this user is not good; here's the talk page at the time of a block made by FreeRangeFrog. The litanies, the wikilawyering, the lack of basic understanding and the refusal to hear what's being said, the accusations of collusion and corruption are already there, and this time seems to be no different. FreeRangeFrog blocked them after this edit, which, like the maggot edits and the conversations on the topic, combined with the user name, suggest this user is not here to improve the project, but rather to publicize an agenda of truth, or truthiness. Now, and Dr. James, sorry, I don't believe a block for copyvio was warranted, but as far as I'm concerned the user can be blocked indefinitely, since they're NOTHERE and they're a net negative. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• In my experience this user will understand policies and guidelines being repeatedly explained to them only after they are blocked. Before that it was edit warring and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with a side of "but this is the truth" (the username doesn't help, obviously). Having said that, in my case the block did do its job, so there's that. So in this case I don't think it matters who applied the block, I think it was pretty much inevitable. And I'd say it's far more warranted given the topic. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Vietcong nuturlizer

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

---

@User:Vietcong nuturlizer posted a personal attack on my talk page ([13]) after I warned him[14] for personal attack against another user (@User:Mbcap) in his talk pageUser talk:Mbcap# ([15]). --Seyyed(t-c) 14:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This really belongs at WP:ANI, but since it's here...it looks like Mbcap forgave Vietcong nuturlizer for the comment (I'm not sure why s/he would forgive VN after a comment like this, but hey, that's his/her choice). As for the comment on your talk page, Sa.vakilian, I believe some sort of block is necessary for that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• That was a couple of days ago, but a quick perusal of the editor's work makes it clear that they're here only to yell, basically. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The personal attack was originally posted on my talk page. When faced with such a statement, what can you do? The editors seems to have repeated their action on another users talk. I will let the record speak for itself. Mbcap (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Backlog

WP:UAA is backlogged. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we're getting a lot of poor reports there. Many of the reporters are happy simply to click "report at UAA", I think, rather than talk things over or look twice. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OUTING Repeat offender

It recently came to my attention that User:Kristina451 has been posting my personal information (employer) on Wikipedia. [16] [17] [18]

• 1) If you see Kristina451's block log, he was previously blocked for outing with the same information. [19] His two edits on 09:21, 7 June 2014 and 09:18, 7 June 2014 were redacted for this reason. [20]

• 2) He claims to have gotten permission to do this from the administrators, whom he manipulated into suggesting that the outing might be allowed by omitting that he was previously blocked for the same outing. [21]

• 3) The WHOIS info that he is outing me with also seems to be fabricated. [22] If you visit the actual WHOIS link that he provides, the information that he posted is not there, [23]. The only hint of my employer is in the "IP location" field, which does not locate or name my employer correctly. (We are not in Somerville and there are multiple letter typos in the field.)

• 4) The reason that he knows my employer's name was because he created his account name guessing from the above IP location field to resemble my boss's name and provoked me into telling him to stop harassing my employer. [24]

• 5) I believe his account was solely created to harass and provoke me, since his edits have all been on articles about my employer's business. By tracking the character count on his contributions, you can obviously see that this is unusual activity for a bona fide editor:

Kristina451 user contributions: He spends almost all his time arguing on ANI/COIN/SPI. His article edits have mostly been undos, which is reflected by the negative trend in the characters added.

PS: For complete disclosure, this user also started a SPI investigation on me, which I expect to be cleared.

PS2: I refer to him as a male because the username change proves that "Kristina" is not his real name. [25]

PS3: I guarantee you he will begin WP:wikilawyering here very shortly. I would be careful to listen to what he says with a huge pinch of salt, point 2 and 3 show that he is not afraid to manipulate administrators and cunningly fabricate half-truths that he can twist and he has proven to be proficient at that. Quacks like a duck to me.

I haven't edited on Wikipedia for a very long time because of this guy. I'm seriously tired of waking up every day worrying if he would post something on Wikipedia about me that isn't true like the recent SP investigation to hurt my professional life. He claims to know my personal identity with absolute certainty and is borderline using it to blackmail me:

"That's just an arbitrarily chosen alias and I know who he [sic] is with certainty." - Kristina451 [26]

I've been advised to report him to the police and take legal action against cyberstalking. Admins please let me know your thoughts. :(

Thanks. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• My thought is that I'd love to see a CU take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sophie.grothendieck. DoRD? Ponyo? Elockid? Drmies (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've previously asked this editor to contact the functionaries list for assistance. There have been a number of revdels here that admins don't have access to so I'm not sure how much assistance we can be. Nakon 04:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

* Hey Nakon, thanks for your earlier help. One of the partners at my company reached out to them but I think it is taking some time because of the possibility of legal action. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If an Oversighter can confirm that those suppressed edits were indeed outing, then this is entirely unambiguous: the user should be speedily banned. As it is I am blocking per WP:NOTHERE based on a sample survey of the last 100 edits. There seems on the face of it to be a long-term pattern of revert-warring and other issues, largely related to discussion of a number of people in the same line of business as the user self-identifies as pursuing. I am very uncomfortable with the edit patterns and would like to see the user give an account of themselves. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is quite concerning but Kristina451 has been indef blocked now [27] and although I know indefinite isn't permanent, in this case I'm not sure there's much point discussing much further since I think it's unlikely they will be unblocked and in any case, it's difficult to discuss the case when we quite correctly can't see much of the evidence. As for the SPI, well it seems to have been endorsed. While it's unsettling if it came from some who may be trying to out a contributor, if people feel the evidence is strong enough, it should probably be allowed to run. I suspect someone would be willing to take responsibility for it anyway if necessary. Oh and as for the real life stuff, I don't think this is something we really should be offering much advice on except to say if you should probably make any reports you feel are necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear: indef is inevitable for repeated outing, but we don't know if that's happened, we have the word of the OP and only an oversighter can check. I'd say the evidence thus far is plausible, and separately I have looked at the edit history and seen other concerns which I think (as a paid up evil suspicious bastard) warrant a block right now. My standing statement is that anybody who disagrees is free to reverse the block (give or take the usual niceties). Experience suggests this will end up nowhere else other than a ban, but human fallibility and something not obvious on the surface must always be allowed for. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick attention. Was really worried you'd miss this and am sorry if this isn't the right place to post this incident.

* I'm very supportive of the SPI and Oversighter check to clear my name. His rebuttal to Guy hinges on this SPI. [28] Why can't he calmly wait for the verdict of the CU before calling me a "serial sockpuppeteer" or finding excuses to post my personal information? His motive since 8 Sep 2014 has been to post my personal information, pretty sure the SPI is just new pretext he is coming up with to do that.

"If desired, I will provide a short instruction how to find this video on the web and can do so without disclosing information that this editor did not disclose himself already. So here we have this guy's firm/employer and they identified themselves... during a public presentation, ..." - Kristina451, 8 Sep 2014 [29]

* Rest of his defiant tone is telltale. "Simply put, what I did was not outing. Please do restore my recently hidden edits. I believe you are not doing Wikipedia a favor by overprotecting a dishonest, interest-conflicted serial sockpuppeteer." - Kristina451 [30]

* He claims he only has a problem with a few individuals, but he has been using inflammatory language ("propaganda") to describe whole companies like my employer [31].

Best, Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sophie, unless you specifically said that an off-wiki video features you, using information from that video is outing. Given that Kristina has clearly and repeatedly said "Sophie works for X", this is clearly an outing attempt, and WP:OUTING prohibits attempted outing, regardless of whether the attempt be accurate in its claims, i.e. even if you work for a different company, sanctions are warranted. It's one thing to unblock someone who's seemingly become repentant after violating this provision, but seeing that that unblock has already happened and Kristina's done it again (including at his talk page), a block without talk page access is warranted, and there's no reason even to consider an unblock. Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, I didn't mention any video about me on Wiki and the creepier part about it is that I don't even know which video he is referring to (there's a few possibilities). It's emotionally distressing. Thanks for your clarification on this matter, it helps put this incident behind me. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Possible abuse of user talk page

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

---

Vietcong nuturlizer posted a pretty childish personal attack (I guess that's what it's supposed to be) on his/her talk page not even ten minutes after being indeffed. Should talk page access be revoked, or was that too minor an edit to warrant that? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The one about me being gay? And Agnostic Preacher Kid being a lesbian? We're an odd couple, I suppose. Yeah, that's handled--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Pinging while blocked

When an editor has been blocked for an infraction, should that editor be using the ping feature (or similar) to send messages to other editors intended to influence discussion of article content? Seems to me this would be inconsistent with the notion of being blocked. Perhaps the issue has been discussed before; if so my apologies for taking people's time here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if an editor has been blocked for something, their talk page is not to be used for anything except requesting an unblock. Pinging people to influence an article discussion is effectively looking for, at best, proxies, or, at worst, meatpuppets and is a form of canvassing. Blackmane (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've often seen blocked users use their talk pages in beneficial ways, ranging from "I found vandalism here; please fix it" to writing a message for the blocking admin. In particular, when blocking people whom I think might be constructive users (especially simple non-abusive username violations), I've specifically suggested that they ping me if they reply. Modifying the software or modifying relevant policies would be bad ideas, since there are constructive ways of using this feature when blocked; we ought to treat it like any other kind of talk page communication, permitting it unless the person gets to the point of having talk page access revoked. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about ANI closing

If I started a thread that became a fustercluck and then decided to withdraw it (after 2 of the other active posters in the thread also !voted to close with no result), is it okay for me to just close it myself? Or does an uninvolved user (admin?) need to close? I've been out of the game for the while I can't find the rule on this. If I need an admin can someone here do it? It's here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 DoneNE Ent 18:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Hey admins, I know that you are volunteers like the rest of us and that you work on what interests you, when it interests you. But WP:COIN has been mostly bereft of admin attention for quite a while now. Would very much appreciate participation there from folks in the admin corps. Thanks for considering it. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC on exception to OUTING policy for editors advertising Wikipedia editing services for pay

While I am here, I'll take a moment to further publicize an RfC.

RfC is here: Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: the RfC was just amended Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Travelgenio: Anonymous user keeps reverting criticism-edits since January.

Travelgenio Anonymous user with IP 95.39.155.245 95.39.155.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted sections of sòurced criticism on this page about a Spanish travel agency in past two months. His last edit deleted the whole section 'criticism ' while mentioning comment '(Minor edit. Modify broken link and advertising info)', which appears to me that user knows what he/she is doing and tries to stay under the radar. I've put details about reasons for accusation on users talk page.

Revert1 Revert2 Revert3 Flekkie (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the website you're sourcing to looks like it fails RS. When I went there and looked at "About us" it really didn't give me much info, but when I looked at "FAQ's", specifically the question "What do you get from all of this " the following sentence jumped out at me " At the moment - nothing ! We are consumers that have been ripped off by a fraud site and we were incensed by the fact the site was pretending to be a UK website! One day maybe the advertising revenue might help us pay for some nice looking buttons :-) ". There's nothing there to indicate otherwise, so as much as you disagree with the I.P, they appear to be correct to remove that.

This [| revert ] is even more troubling, as you've inserted a nasty comment about the travel agency and your source, although reliable, doesn't mention this at all. You appear to be trying to right great wrongs, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. If you had this same information cited to a reliable website, it would be different , but at this time, I believe I see a boomerang in your future. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear KoshVorlon, thank you for your funded reply and extensive edit on the Travelgenio page itself. First of all: I apologize for the 'nasty' comment (that 'malicious') you refer to. I admit that I added this while being in an excited state after having a bad experience with the company myself*. You can read the details about this beneath, but let's not get distracted by that since this is not a travelagency-forum here.

Secondly, I was not aware of the lack of RS concerning the website scamadviser and I respect your remark about removal. Thirdly I certainly value your new contribution to the article as they are neutral and opinion-free statements.

Still, I like to point that to me it remains clear that the editor 95.39.155.245 serves an other goal than objective reporting of the travel company's structure. The repeatedly deletion of section 'criticism', written by different users, without interacting on talk pages and the recent removal of the complete section criticism with '(Minor edit. Modify broken link and advertising info)' is to me not an edit based on questioning the reliability of cited sources. (note that there is no fixing of any link in that edit btw)

I understand that this by itself can be considered as not enough to deny access for the IP (for now), but apart from it I do think that a section on 'criticism' is a right addition to this article. Based on these series of customer reviews on travel fora, i believe it is quite objective to say that there is at least some criticism on pricing and customer support?:

[lonley planet] [hotukdeals] [moneysavingexpert] [voyageforum (French)]

Surely the 'fraud' suggestion that has been made earlier (by others and me) cannot be sustained without respectable new sources reporting, but I believe that mentioning this kind of criticism is a correct if not needed addition to the article.

but I'd be happy to listen to your advice. Also: do you think its a good idea to use aforementioned websites as refs for this?

(* = they charged me twice my €1900-order without sending any tickets. After which I subsequently called my bank and credit card to cancel all those payments and refund the money)

Flekkie (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• That is a terrible article--a bit less terrible now. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• And Flekkie, if you add that "malicious" commentary again, I will have to block you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Talk:Travelgenio contains nothing but potentially libelous criticism (some from 2014). Should it be deleted? Squinge (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh, Flekkie when you say "funded" reply , are you in someway implying that I'm either paid by that Travelcompany ? I sure hope not, as I'm not, I'd not heard of them until your reply, and the rest of your comment referring to my "extensive edit" on that page is definetly false. I have zero edits on that page. So, may I ask that you strike your remarks about "funded reply" and extensive editing. By the way, if you really think I'm editing that page in any capacity (logged out or not ) feel free to file an SPI on me. Also, the list of reviews you linked to fails WP:RS, so none of them can be used on Wikipedia.KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear KoshVorlon. Sorry to upset you, but not at all, not at all, where these remarks intended that way you just interpreted them. I am not an native English speaker you should know, I am Dutch speaking. I used the word as I thought I could use it like it means in Dutch: 'goed gefundeerd': 'based on something solid', 'legitimate' (see this [dictionary]). I should have looked it up, didn't know that this word does not exist in English. (and very unfortunately has a complete other meaning in this context).

And further on: 'extensive' just reffered to the fact that you had just done an edit of 4800 characters, which was quite a huge edit an a big effort in my eyes and I wanted to stress that. Reàlly I was giving nothing more than compliments :-) There was absolutely no sarcasm involved. Just had a very unfortunate choice of words, sorry to upset you.

And about the whole topic: thanks for all your reply's and edits. I realize that I was (am) too biased to write about this company and will stop doing that. I was apparently strengthend by discovering edits before me that had the same bias. After all, I learned the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS-principle en I surely was completely applicable to me in this case.

Sorry to bother you, thanks for the insight, and please don't shoot me anymore, I really have best intentions for wikipedia. (I'm doing small edits here and there and I am yearly donator), being in this position feels very uncomfortable :-) Flekkie (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After edit: 'well-founded'. That's the equivalent in English I was looking for. Stupid mistake, sorry.

Sockpuppet investigations backlog

Big backlog at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations -- Moxy (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review closed

The Infoboxes arbitration review has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1.1 of the original Infoboxes case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: Pigsonthewing is indefinitely restricted from adding an infobox to any article.
2. Remedy 1 of the 2005 Pigsonthewing case is rescinded. The following is enacted as a restriction of this review: If Pigsonthewing behaves disruptively in any discussion; any uninvolved administrator may ban Pigsonthewing from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the main case page of this review.
3. Notwithstanding remedy 1.1 of this review, Pigsonthewing may include an infobox in articles he has himself created within the prior fortnight.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Block review requested

I'd appreciate it if one or two other administrators would review the events leading up to my recent block of User:Arianewiki1 and the block itself. Potted history, from my perspective:

• I spot an ongoing edit war occurring on User talk:Tetra quark. Arianewiki1 is striking Tetra quark's swearing, and Tetra quark is removing the strikes.
• Since Tetra quark has asked Arianewiki1 (not very politely) to refrain from posting on his talkpage, I point this out and ask her to stop, in the interests of de-escalating the issue.
• A conversation ensues on Tetra quark's talkpage and on my own, in which I ask Adrianewiki1 to stop reverting.
• Noting that Arianewiki1 has continued to revert I warn her for 3RR violations.
• I place a related warning on Tetra quark's talkpage, and a brief discussion results.
• Arianewiki1 continues to revert. I impose a 24 hour block for 3RR violations (she has previously been blocked for a week for edit warring, but it was over a year ago and I'm inclined to keep this block as short as possible).
• Further discussion occurs at Tetra quark's talk; I concede that reverts in his userspace are exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRNO, and he reverts to his preferred version.
• Arianewiki1 requests unblock.

I think that brings us up to date. My problem is that, while I think my actions were in line with Wikipedia policy, I'm less than happy with the outcome. Rather than - as I had hoped - preventing an emerging conflict, I ended up with one editor blocked and the other happily lacing his talkpage with obscenities. I'd appreciate any suggestions as to what I could have done differently to obtain a better result.

I'm heading offline fairly shortly; if any administrator wishes to unblock Arianewiki1 - either because they feel the original block was flawed, or because they accept her unblock appeal - they should feel free to do so without waiting for a comment from me. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared to endorse the block. Both users behaved like idiots, and for such edit-warring on any other page both of them should have been blocked. But since the edit-warring was occurring at the talk page of one of the users, and they are free to do with their talk page what they want, they should not have been blocked. They should have been warned though, and they were. The other user did not stop and was blocked. I do not see any problems with the block, and in fact unblocke was already declined.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would offer an unblock conditioned on Arianewiki1's agreeing to stay off Tetra Quark's usertalk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

He's not quite exempt from 3RR. User page can be exempt from 3rr so long as the user respects the user page guidelines. Per The user page guidelines material that attacks other editors cannot be on the user pages, so I disagree, and believe striking out or removal would be appropriate. But yeah, Arianewiki1 did violate 3rr, so yes a block is warranted for her on that ground. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui:, I don't think you can really avoid that sort of result here, given the way in which the users have carried on. Whether you'd cited 3RR or the user space guidelines, the effect is unlikely to have made a difference in this particular case I think. The only thing which could possibly improve it is the offer Newyorkbrad proposes, but there's no guarantees either way. Certainly worth trying though (whether it's Newyorkbrad, you, or someone else who is online). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would not object to Newyorkbrad's proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I advised you to not make a big deal out of this, considering ariane's history. He/she just likes to put fuel in the fire. Anyway, all I want is my right to be left alone, so I agree with Newyorkbrad, except that I think that ariane really should remain blocked for today. I just don't want any more edits on my talk page coming from that user and I will report to you if that happens in future. Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)