Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

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

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

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

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

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 92 days ago on 12 February 2024)

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

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

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

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

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

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

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	20	39
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	3	5
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	48	71
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 111 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 105 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 98 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

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

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 16 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

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

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrative Actions of Nyttend

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It's simple. Remove "However in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.", which is little more than a platitude. It's also incompatible with the rule that the right should be removed if it's not needed. "Being needed" is not synonymous with "being preventative."- MrX 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Quick notes (1) I disagree with the interpretation of the policy being advanced here, but if the community either endorses the other interpretation or thinks this is a good time to ignore the rules, I have no reason to complain; my objection is that one individual mustn't unilaterally do it. (2) I endorse any reasonable proposal to rewrite the criteria. If there's a fundamental disagreement regarding what's intended, it's definitely time to clear up the meaning, one way or the other. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's now almost two weeks since I requested the restoration of my IP block exemption, and we seem to be no nearer a resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed indices of the archives of this page

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

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

Tachlifa the Palestinian

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

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

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

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

In January/February, User:FoxNewsChannelFan made a mess copying and pasting material between variants of Circuit City that he was creating, without attribution, and duplicating lots of text. That was cleaned up and the problem explained, but it's been continuing. Since then we've had a copy/paste content fork of Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome [3] to Demolition of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome [4] without attribution (and really no justification for it anyway, and done incompetently by just copying a section from one into a new article to make this), a merge of Visa Europe into Visa Inc. again without attribution (presumably based on a sparsely attended merge request in November 2015, and done incompetently by simply copying the entire Visa Europe article into Visa Inc. complete with duplicate See also, References and External links sections), an attempted split of Lunds & Byerlys into three separate articles - Lunds & Byerlys [5], Lunds [6] (admin only due to external copyvio) and Byerly's [7], which not only included unattributed internal Wikipedia copying again but also a large copy of material directly from the company's own web site. In addition, FoxNewsChannelFan has had copyvio image uploads deleted recently. Considering the disruption this causes and the work needed to fix up these messes, I've indefinitely blocked until we can be sure it won't recur. As a condition of unblock, I request a topic ban from moving, merging or splitting articles, and from uploading images - with an appeal allowed after demonstrating six months of trouble-free and copyvio-free editing on other articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to include a copy/paste move of Chrysler [8] to FCA US LLC [9]. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

And a copy/paste move of Comcast Cable [10] to Xfinity [11] Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• I would leave the block in place until and unless FoxNewsChannelFan demonstrates understanding of the copyright policy. Their communication isn't great either. At this point, we might as well wait for an unblock request and work from there. MER-C 05:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, that makes sense, thanks. Should there be an unblock request, this discussion can be resurrected to decide if a topic ban is needed (as it's not just about copyright, it's also about the inability to do a merge properly). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• There won't be an unblock request. Per WP:USERNAME "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product" are not allowed on Wikipedia. This one is using the name "Fox News Channel", which unless I am mistaken should put it squarely in the sights of a username block. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing analysis of POV author in Hebron Pages.

Hebron Conflict of interest and NPOV of sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um....aren't we having problems with IP editors in the 166 range lately ? KoshVorlon 11:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but they're usually from the 166.17x.xxx.xxx ranges. I'd be a little wary of accusing all users in the 166.xxx.xxx.xxx ranges of being one of these banned users. Not impossible, but I'd be more inclined to seek more evidence before applying the brush. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@166.84.1.2: Mrbrklyn is not allowed to edit because his edit count as far as can be judged openly by his contributions list is below 500 edits. The Arbitration committee ruling in ARBPIA3(?) instructed that no user with less than 500 edits is permitted to edit in this area. This injunction was put in place to stop sock puppets, meat puppets and non-long term IP editors from filling the article spaces with filibustering / attacks / disruption / threats / etc. Blackmane (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment There wouldn't be long off topic conversations if the admins on the talk section stayed on the topic, and stopped stretching the rules to suit their needs to create flames. For example, it was stated that I wasn't allowed to post by the arbitration rules. I 100% am allowed to post there since I'm registered. Even if I am registered and posted just 10 times I would have a right to edit in the Hebron page and the talk page. THEN there was the whole side conversation about the images I posted. Then there was a whole side discussion about my ip address. There was a whole conversation about if I was from the community (as if being a member of the Hebron community disqualifies one from editing) We have discussed everything but the facts.

This is the fact, the NPOV rule is being circumvented on that articl. Those that support circumventing it insist that that PLAIN MEANING of the NPOV rule is not effect in the Hebron section. Furthermore, earlier it was pointed out that the paragraph in question echos classical antisemitic texts, and this is academically true. The Jewish belief in the Messiah has repeatedly been used as a reason repress Jews for well over 1000 years. If we focused on these issues with a fair and unbiased assessment, we could quickly come to a compromise and corrected edit of the Hebron page. The POV that elements of the Hebron Community has strong views on the Messiah and are right wing is worthy to be noted (and actually is noted I think elsewhere in the articles). At some authors believe this to make them fundamentalists, is an OPINION and should be noted as such. To say that the entire community is fundamentalist is just WRONG and HATEFUL.

But instead the admins there have spent more time trying to ban those who disagree with them, and to suppress discussion, and to inflame users, than to arrive at an NPOV article. Will Wikipedea continue in this fashion? If it does, it is a very dark turn for Wikepedia and the Foundation.

Reuvain Mrbrklyn (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 yet? You are prohibited from editing that page because you made less than 500 edits. Now you've been told numerous times. It is a ruling of the Arbitration Committee that we are all bound by. So stop editing there. Zero^talk 22:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Zero0000 - can you actualy read ENGLISH or not. Zero0000 should be banned at this point for pruposeful failure to follow the regulations. CLEARLY the arbittration says ANONYMOUS: All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure. CLEARLY I am not anonymous. So your either just bating me, which is a despicable act, or your stupid as a rock, which I doubt, or can't ready Enlgish, which I also doubt.

166.84.1.2 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

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

Unprotect or add

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

---

Hi,

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

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

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

Request removal of talk page topic ban

On 18 February 2016 as a result of an AN [12] I was given this ban by Arbcom member Drmies:

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

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

There was absolutely no violation of any WP policy by me but there was persistent incivility and personal attacks against myself and others [13],[14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] by the other editors calling for my ban, which Drmies completey ignored. It would seem that the regular editors, who are using the veganism and associated articles as a mouthpiece to promote their own extreme brand of animal rights, are able to get dissenting editors banned at will.

The reason for the ban is not clear. Apparently my discussion of the subject, intended to bring to the attention of the page regulars the opinions of many other editors [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. that the page was not neutral but excessivly pro-vegan and has been so for many years, was disruptive.

When asked for evidence of any disruptive activity by myself and another editor Drmies was unable to produce any diffs at all. The entire rational for my ban is summed up here [32], where you will see absolutely no disruption or activity of any kind that is against WP policy.

My recent request for arbitration [33] was declined in the basis that further dispute resolution should be tried, athough several Arbcom members agreed that there was a pro-vegan bias to the article that needed addressing. It is hard to see how that bias can be properly addressed when the one person who has been arguing against it is has unfair and unjustified heavy talk page editing restrictions. I therefore ask that the topic ban, as described above, be lifted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm kind of tired of this. Please note that "Arbcom member" is thrown in here only for rhetorical purposes; Hogbin is insinuating that I am abusing my position. It's slime, and the restriction was placed in my capacity as administrator, of course.

  I don't want to go over all this again (a third time?), but please mark that Hogbin is arguing that because he is the only one with a different opinion, he should be allowed to post hundreds of messages on that talk page. Typically, we call that wikilawyering and, worse, editing against consensus. And it's everyone else's fault. It is possible that there are POV issues, but Hogbin is not the right person to help deal with what. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And thank you for another bit of proof that the topic ban was well warranted. Let's see how many things you've violated in the behavior that got you banned: WP:IDHT, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:CIVILPOV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:DISRUPTION, WP:TE ... I'm sure there are others I've overlooked. As HighinBC remarked, you're damn lucky you weren't topic banned altogether. BMK (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I did not realize I was part of a well organised minority of Scottish nationalists and extreme anti-industry blah blah... Seriously, I don't care about any of that. Thank you for making me feel more confident in my opinion. HighInBC 16:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA Backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• And what do we do with Fagthulhu, an obvious and very witty play on Cthulhu, who claims to be an "angry faggot". I suppose any has the right to call themselves that, but I find it very conceivable that someone would take offense at that. I mean: "Hey Fagtulhu, thanks for signing up for the meetup in Boulder"--I'd have a hard time saying that. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  I would say it needs to be blocked by English is not my mother tongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  Sleeping in R'lyeh lies the Great Cthulhu...I dare say the fag-part of the username together with his angry attitude should be enough for a usernameblock...Lectonar (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  The editor formerly known as Fagthulhu has changed their name to something that no one could find offensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Working UAA is a real slog sometimes. As Drmies says, the quality of reporting there often isn't what it should be. The bot-reported list is usually borderline useless. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Look! Quick! Thanks for helping out, Bongwarrior, Edgar181, and others. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You guys and gals are awesome, thanks! RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuous personal attacks

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

I've had a quick look and the harassment is coming from IPs on a variety of ISPs in the United Kingdom. It is unlikely that a simple block is going to suffice here. It might be that permanent s-protection is the only answer here, and I see no reason to refuse if that's what User:Vensatry wants. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Yes, permanent semi-protection is a good idea. But the problem is they vandalise many of my subpages. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lankiveil: Any update yet? —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I've been away from the Internet except in short bursts, but if nobody beats me to it I'll go through and s-protect the affected pages later tonight. If there's any particular userspace pages you definitely want protected drop me a note on my talk page or send me an email. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: I'm not clear on why indefinite semi-protection is warranted for this user's talk page. As far as I can see, this has only been going on for about a month and spans maybe a dozen total trolling sprees. Two semis were issued by Titodutta, one for three days, the other for about 10 days. I issued a 7 day protection because I noted the disruption on my own, then extended it to a month at the user's request that it be longer, which I think is a reasonable test. But indefinite protection of a talk page should be reserved for serious disruptions, and we haven't even tried the one-month protection, or anything beyond that. What, no account that isn't autoconfirmed should ever speak to this user again? And frankly, the user appears to be feeding the troll in some instances, with reversion summaries like "Saying this for the umpteenth time: Fuck off" and "Dear arsehole go lick Bollywood pages, not my ass". I really think you should restore the 1 month semi and I think maybe Vensatry could develop a thicker skin for this sort of meaningless nonsense. Deny the trolls any recognition.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you that the victim of harassment should just "develop a thicker skin". The harassment has been going long enough and appears to be sophisticated enough (coming from multiple ISPs) that indefinite (not infinite) protection is probably required to keep the drama away, and no concerns were raised for a few days after I proposed it. To be totally honest, I think that raising noise about this is giving these trolls more recognition than a single low profile semi-protection would. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Thanks for that! I'm much relieved now. While I understand that Cyphoidbomb's intentions are certainly good, I wish he had gone through the talk and sub page(s) histories in depth before arriving at half-baked assumptions and conclusions. These disruptions are clearly coming from multiple ISPs (from a single user who operates from the same location) for nearly one-and-half months. Resume attacks either after the page gets unprotected or block gets lifted - this was happening like a routine. Even when I retired (for some personal reasons), they didn't leave me. I had to delete most of my subpages (after they were vandalised with grossly insulting personal attacks combined with ethnic slurs). With in a span of 12 hours, the troll (through another IP) seemed to have recreated (or rather vandalised) my talk header, which was deleted by Tito. I agree, I was a bit harsh in some of my edit summaries, but what made him think the troll's actions are justifiable? I'm not justifying my actions either, but one should understand that not everyone has the same level of patience. Sorry if it hurts, but he should stop giving childish ideas like Women who dress provocatively are partly responsible for rape. Actually, the 'thick skin' advice is even more worse. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Cyphoidbomb's intentions are good, and if it were just a bit of drive-by vandalism I'd agree with them. They do have a point you should consider carefully about the edit summaries, a much blander "rvv" can usually have the same effect and cut down on the troll getting any satisfaction. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Sure. Can you delete those versions and edit summaries (including mine) from my talk page? —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lankiveil: Clearly you do agree with my "thicker skin" argument, because you arrived at the same conclusion: "a much blander 'rvv' can usually have the same effect and cut down on the troll getting any satisfaction." I'm not sure if you simply misinterpreted what I meant, but I thought my statement was clear since it was followed up by a link to WP:DENY. If Vensatry denies recognition (which would require absorbing the attack, thus "having a thicker skin") Vensatry might see the problem abate. We are clearly in agreement. Where we are not in agreement is on how rational it is to leap from a 1 week semi to indefinite semi-protection of a user's talk page without trying anything in between, particularly when policy discourages long-term protection of talk pages. User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. I've no interest in wheel-warring, but I don't think this should be considered resolved unless another admin signs off on it. Vensatry your "rape blame" comparison is asinine. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, you're asking me to keep a develop a 'thicker skin'. But tell me for how long? Even after the SP disruptions continue to happen in some way. I wonder what advice I'm going to get now. Not to sound dramatic, but I'm seriously feeling sick of this project at the moment. WP is no longer a safe place even for long-time editors. I might consider WP:VANISH. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) topic ban

Hi. Looking for some advice, so apologies if this in the wrong place. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has a current ArbCom ban on him creating new articles, due to copyright issues. This was passed about three years ago. What would be the process for getting this lifted? This is on the back of drafts like this at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I'm not really interested in digging up the past of who did what to whom and why, just looking to see if this can be resolved easy(ily) or not. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That can be appealed to ArbCom, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Motion:_Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29. Be sure to also see the more recent amendment. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the most recent amendment was made 16 October 2015. --Izno (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom will not hear appeals which are not made by the sanctioned editor - third-party appeals are routinely rejected. BMK (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, according the October motion, the soonest it can be appealed is six month later which would be April. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone. I thought it would be a longshot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily a longshot, it seems to be a matter of timing and having the editor approach the committee himself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a bit of a longshot, but I'd support it. Hobit (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a long shot. RAN only recently had his ban on creating new article extended to a ban on creating drafts, IIRC, as all the same copyright-violation problems were cropping up in the drafts. I have some sympathy; it's pretty hard to demonstrate that you've learned your lesson when you have almost no opportunity to demonstrate it, but the problems were serious. GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I just read that discussion. I didn't see anyone claiming there were copyright-violation problems in the drafts. Did I miss something? Hobit (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the problems were on the one hand the history RAN had with copyright problems (from 2006-2007 mainly, but continuing until 2013, and with little effort done in the cleanup of those), and on the other hand his continued use (until that last discussion at least) of many and rather long quotes (some public domain, some copyrighted), with some articles being more quote than text. But ignoring the discussion of when a quote gets too long to be fair use, I don't think any new (post-2013) copyvios were found. (I did raise an issue with his use of problematic sources in wikidata entries, and then bluelinking these wikidata entries here as if they were articles, but opinions on whether this was indeed a problem were divided) Fram (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Fram. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I had a look through his userspace drafts a few months ago. While there are no blatant copyvio issues, the problems Fram mentions RE long quotes were still around. There is a related issue of his extensive use of linking to findagrave.com (a user-generated site) usually to pages/biographies he has written there - effectively a run around his restrictions here. Once I realised every draft would have to be checked closely for copyvios AND the external links to his content on findagrave would also need to be checked, I realised it was no wonder he made zero effort to sort out his past problems. It would be too time consuming. He clearly intends to just sit out the ban until its lifted without doing any of the work required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• IPs have created Draft:Richard Arthur Norton movelist. What should we do with that, publicize it as a work queue for uninvolved editors? The list should be moved to a different namespace; Wikipedia: or the user's own space? wbm1058 (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is quite clearly not a draft article, which is the entire purpose of draftspace, so I have moved it to User:103.6.159.93/Richard Arthur Norton movelist. Anyone who wants to can list it on their user page or create a redirect in their userspace. BMK (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• We should move all the articles, then nominate the draft for deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC).
  

Please move it out of my userspace, which is probably the worst place for it. It'll best in Wikipedia space, or in RAN's userspace. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RAN didn't create it, you did. Of course, it could be moved into the userspace of whatever your real account is. BMK (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to be snarky to the guy, anonymity is a well-established and respected principle here. Just review their requests on the merits. An argument against moving this to RAN's own space is that it requires the work of other editors; indeed RAN is prohibited from working the list. Another possibility is making this some sort of subpage of arbitration enforcement, because if it weren't for that, there would be no need for this page. wbm1058 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to be snarky, it was my choice to be snarky. I get that way when someone behaves as if we were all born yesterday and can't tell a long-term editor hiding behind an IP from the real thing. BMK (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As the primary reason for this list is the perceived risk of potential copyright violations, I feel that it is beyond the scope of WP:Requested moves, whose primary agenda is not scrutinizing the content of new articles, but rather simply deciding on the best title for articles, based on their content. In other words, requested moves assumes that articles have already been scrutinized for copyright issues, as generally they are already in the main article-space. While recently there have been more cross-namespace requests for moves from draft- to article-space showing up at RM, these may be viewed by some as infringing on the turf of WP:Articles for creation. This phenomenon seems to be an understandable reaction to the backlog at AFC. Some editors may want to use RM to expedite an end-run around the AFC backlog. I don't think we should sanction this for a work queue that has had restrictions placed on it by the Arbitration Committee. It seems to me that AFC is the proper venue. So then the question becomes, how do we integrate this list into AFC? Should each of the articles on this list simply have {{subst:submit}} tags placed on them, or can this list be added as a "special process list" somewhere within the AFC infrastructure? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions/List for the regular AFC submissions list, also Category:Pending AfC submissions. wbm1058 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And regarding moving this into RAN's userspace, I suppose we should ask @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): about that, as we should respect his wishes as regards whether or how to incorporate this list into his own userspace. wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There is only one other page in userspace that is currently tagged as a {{Backlog}}: User:Mikaey/Broken talk pages. That list is kind of stale, and I'm the only one who has been occasionally working it. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to appeal myself again, it is just a waste of time. If someone wants to ask for a modification where I can again write articles in my namespace, that would be good. I had a backlog of over 300 in namespace. I am also not going to waste time putting a green check mark to each of my initial 100,000 edits to certify they are copyright free. It is the equivalent of digging a ditch and then filling it in again. All is takes it for someone like BMK or Fram to find three words in a row that are the same in a New York Times article and use it to whip up hysteria again. Look at the last appeal where someone used my quoting a 1905 or 1910 New York Times article to show that I was still violating copyright and whipped up hysteria again, and the next three commentators agreed and wanted me banned permanently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): We aren't asking you to appeal or make any edits regarding these drafts yourself. All I was asking was whether you would like User:103.6.159.93/Richard Arthur Norton movelist moved to someplace in your user space, so that other willing editors could help you by checking the article drafts on that list, and moving those they approved into article-space. Or, if you would prefer the list to be maintained and worked from somewhere in the project (Wikipedia:) namespace, let us know that. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Maintained anywhere is fine with me. Wow, I wrote a lot of articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of revision deletion by CJCurrie

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

---

I've just happened across Special:Contributions/Funwheel, which contains a number of contributions which have been hidden from public view. After looking at a lot of them, I cannot see any reason qualifying them for that treatment. For example, this edit changing an external link. The hiding was done by an admin called CJCurrie (talk · contribs · logs), with the reason "Other defamation/personal information issues". Despite the Funwheel (talk · contribs · logs) account having been blocked as a sockpuppet in 2010, its edits do not appear to me to have had such issues. CJCurrie's log displays more worrying misuse of the feature. For example, this concealment that he made in 2014, of comments added to a talk page in 2006, with the bizarre log comment "pending review".

To be completely accurate, I saw CJCurrie's log first, then Funwheel's contributions, because I had noticed that CJCurrie is the latest dormant admin to pop up and make some edits just to hang onto the bit, and wanted to see what he had been doing. I expected there simply to be a long gap, but was unpleasantly surprised to make this discovery. CJCurrie only made one edit in all of 2015, but used revision deletion four times on the same day.

As such, I'd like to request opinions from other admins as to the course of action to be taken. At the very least, I think these uses of revdel should be undone, but I also strongly question the suitability of CJCurrie retaining his administrator status.  — Scott • talk 01:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't figure out the first of your examples either. nor his other revision deletions of Funwheel's edits. For the second, his edit summary on Talk:International Socialists (Canada), "privacy concerns about non-public figures" is more defensible than "pending review". Certainly less bizarre. —Cryptic 01:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now, in the edit history rather than the deletion log. Having reviewed the text in question, I can't agree with the claim of "privacy concerns" on text added eight years earlier. Of the "non-public figures", one is profiled in a student newspaper article from 2004 available online, one is now a college professor with publications in peer-reviewed journals, and another is a politician with a Wikipedia article. None of which mention the International Socialists, but that should probably mean the comments simply be removed as uncited BLP claims, not subject to revision deletion eight years later.  — Scott • talk 02:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A cursory review indicates that at least one of these edits does not appear to follow the revdel guidelines. None of them appear to require immediate action, would like to see if CJCurrie responds to this AN post with additional information. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am usually in favor of giving any admin a chance to explain their actions before undoing them, but given the sporadic nature of this admin's edits we may be watiting a very long time. They were active a few days ago but it seems they are in the habit the last few years of making only a few edits a year. If we haven't heard back in a day or two I would suggest we not wait and proceed as per a consensus of admins here.

That being the case, while I could possbly see removing some of this content due to BLP concerns about weak sourcing, I cannot see any justification for using revdel. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not recommending placing this on hold for perhaps a year, only for day or two - this admin was active within the last 24 hours. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Emailed CJCurrie to join this discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. CJCurrie here. I can remember the circumstances referenced in this discussion.

During a period of inactivity on Wikipedia, I received a few requests for revdel relating to privacy issues. In the first instance, pertaining to this, I provisionally removed the information and submitted my actions for review by an oversight administrator (this is what the designation "pending review" refers to). The administrator's response included the remark that I had done the right thing by acting as I did in response to a privacy concern, even if the action ultimately turned out to be unwarranted or unnecessary.

My recollection is that I did the same thing (i.e., submitted my actions for review) in the other circumstances, though I don't have the documentation in front of me at present. I don't believe I was ever advised that I had acted inappropriately.

If it turns out that any of my actions were inappropriate or unwarranted, I will not object to them being reversed now.

Please bear in mind that I haven't been active on WP on a regular basis for some time and that I haven't kept up with every change in the project's governing regulations. I thought my actions were consistent with WP policy; if I acted in error, then I apologize. CJCurrie (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that, since you have not been active for 2 years, that you received requests for revdel unless they were sent to you a long time ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

All of this happened a while ago. The last such request was in March 2015. CJCurrie (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@CJCurrie: Thanks for your response. As it appears that other admins agree with me that your use of revision deletion wasn't necessitated, and you don't disagree with a reversal, I'll do that. If you intend to stick around, could I please ask that you spend a while reading policy documentation to ensure that you're up to speed with any changes that took place since you were last active.  — Scott • talk 13:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

AddyAddy1

AddyAddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Firstly, not 100% sure I am in the right place, but it doesn't feel as serious as an Incident and so I wasn't sure where to go.

I'm seeking advice on dealing with an editor whose actions I believe are, on balance, positive but still leave a lot of clean up work for other editors.

His/her edits are referenced, but he uses bare links (including sometimes removing information already in references), they tend to overlink and I have never seen him/her engage in a talk page conversation, including on their own talk page, despite the efforts of many editors. This type of history is typical where s/he has made a large number of edits and then several editors have gone back after them to tidy up.

Any ideas on how to engage with them and get them to take on some constructive criticism? They are a prolific editor and have a lot of potential. Mattlore (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm here supporting Mattlore. Though I hasten to add, we have never communicated and I was completely unaware that he was going to post here. For myself, I'm one of those who have tried to engage the editor in question on his own Talk page, in my case regarding exhaustive Wikilinking. I'd spent hours, literally, removing these from the pages of New Zealand Warriors players over the New Year and filling out some refs. The NZ Warriors are just one of sixteen teams in the Australia-based NRL (a rugby league first flight tournament), so you can imagine the extent of the problem. I had thought that he had got the message; I had posted a message about it several weeks ago on his Talk page which would have resulted in a red flag on his logging in, and noted a massive reduction in the Wikilinking. But checking some very recent posts of his, as I did yesterday, before I had seen the above post of Mattlore, now that the new NRL season is under way, I see that he has reverted to old habits. This may be what prompted Mattlore's post.

This isn't to say that his edits aren't valuable. They are and - as Mattlore says - he is prolific. But there is a problem.

NB. posting to his Talk page without using something like ping will not get his attention, I'm afraid. Boscaswell talk 11:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Posting on their talk page generates a notification which should be just as visible as a ping. I think he/she is choosing to ignore those messages. Judging from their contributions, they are competent at English. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I see there is editing behavior that needs to change but I don't think one should interpret a lack of dialogue as passive-aggressive or even belligerent behavior. I've run across quite a few editors who just want to edit and don't want to engage in social interactions, probably for a variety of reasons. I know when I first started editing in 2007 and an editor popped on to my user talk page to discuss an article topic (it wasn't a problem with the edits, they just wanted to discuss the subject more in depth), I logged off for a few weeks. I wasn't expecting my minor edits would attract attention and comments and I was surprised that someone wanted to start a discussion which is not what I was looking for then.

If there are problems with his editing, then I see that a dialogue is required. But there are lots and lots of editors who just want to contribute on subjects that interest them are aren't interested in having a conversation. They are the complete opposite of editors who come here and use Wikipedia as a social network, they go out of their way to not be social. I'm just glad that with this editor, you can appreciate the productive contributions they make even though there are clearly some changes that need to be made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Their editing behavior may not be passive-aggressive per se, but when someone's editing over a long period of time requires substantial cleanup by other editors, they become a net negative to the encyclopedia. It may take a brief block to get their attention. All the best, Miniapolis 22:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In 2 years and nearly 10,000 edits this user has never edited a talk page, not even their own talk page. This is amazing, but hardly consistent with a collaborative environment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have left a friendly note on the editor's talk page, asking them to make a comment. Responding to queries is not optional on this project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Message not received, unfortunately. Mattlore (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have left a follow-up on their talk page. If they have not started talking in the next 48 hours, I will have to consider placing a block on the account. This is not something I want to do with a productive good-faith editor, but there aren't any more subtle tools in the admin toolbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

We have had this discussion over a number of editors. Generally the consensus is to leave them be. Adding barelink refs is fine. The only problem therefore is overlinking. I suggest if no communication is established any other way, edits that substantially overlink are reverted, if the damage caused by the overlinking exceeds the benefit from other changes. This, after all, is how we treat every edit.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

Extra eyes on The Wachowskis‎

Requesting a few extra eyes on The Wachowskis‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The other of the pair came out as a trans woman as well. The page is protected but the talk page has already drawn some BLP violations. The page falls under the Manning naming dispute and WP:ARBBLP arb com decisions. On a side note, we need shortcut for the two "sexology" decisions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz

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

---

I asked Liz (talk · contribs) to accept an WP:INVOLVED status with respect to me,[34][35] but she has refused.[36] Unfortunately this means that I must now explain, as succinctly as I can, why Liz is INVOLVED, and more unfortunately, someone needs to slog through the story. At the end of the trudge it should be completely obvious that Liz is INVOLVED, and I have no idea why Liz won't just accept it and save everyone's time. Six months ago when I informed Liz of problems with her behavior amounting to INVOLVED, she didn't answer[37] -- a breach of WP:ADMINACCT. Now that I have submitted an AE request and Liz is aware of it, INVOLVED actually matters. So here we go (moving to present tense story mode):

User:Tumbleman is caught sockpuppeting. Without examining or understanding the evidence, Liz defends him in the SPI and leaves a message on his talk page saying that editors are "trying to silence" him. The theme is picked up by parapsychology blogs, and Tumbleman would later build an off-wiki harassment website based on this provably false claim that he was wrongly accused of socking because Wikipedia editors wanted to silence him. The main target of the off-wiki harassment is me, as I've caught him socking many times. When an obvious sockpuppet stopped by Liz's page to promote the off-wiki harassment site and thank her, she thanked him in return[38] and did not file an SPI. (I later wrote an addendum to the SPI for those who, like Liz, preferred to draw their conclusions without examining the evidence.)

Tumbleman's friend and former co-worker is Askahrc, who collaborated with Tumbleman at the off-wiki harassment site and promoted on-wiki the conspiracy theory that Tumbleman had been wrongly convicted of sockpuppetry by me.[39] Liz complimented Askahrc for one of his polemics on the subject.[40] After Askahrc was sanctioned for sockpuppetry and harassment (I filed the SPI),[41] Liz claimed that he wasn't sockpuppeting[42] and defended his personal attacks against me.[43] [Edit: Askahrc's sockpuppetry was affirmed by three admins.[44][45][46]]

I told Liz that she was one of my harassers, and I meant that. She added fuel to the still-ongoing campaign to falsely defame me for filing entirely appropriate SPIs. Things may have been different had she not provided the initial spark and subsequent encouragement.

But wait, this was two years ago! Certainly Liz has improved since then? I didn't have to search for an answer to that question -- the thread immediately below mine on her talk page shows a familiar issue of Liz not examining or understanding evidence -- just not getting it.[47] It boggles the mind that Liz would template a regular who was reverting a vandal,[48] and later dig in with "you were party to an edit war".[49] The vandal's contributions scream vandal[50] and even if Liz somehow missed that, it's quite a feat not to recognize the user page as belonging to a vandal, where she left a warning.[51] This is the kind of incompetent behavior that has generated problems for me in the past.

[Edit: This isn't complicated; the WP:INVOLVED policy is clear: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."] Manul ~ talk 05:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a sufficient recent reason for Liz to be considered 'involved' in regards you. I would definitely contend that you seem to have personal issues with this person, but I don't find based on the diffs posted here that the opposite is true. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I promise it's not a personal thing. Others have taken note, for instance Bishonen called Liz's behavior deplorable.[52] (Sorry for the name drop, Bish.) And, like Bish, I don't think Liz has sufficiently developed a "greater understanding of these issues". Manul ~ talk 06:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are using a statement by Bishonen from last July. Made in a specific context. That is not the way to go on this sort of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 06:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's in the very context of the complaint here, the context of Liz joining sides with the sockpuppeteer mentioned here, questioning motives without looking at evidence and suggesting that the SPI was just to "silence" the sockpuppeteer. Manul ~ talk 09:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I am not an administrator but commenting as an editor interested in fairness. I read every diff that Manul provided. I did not see Liz taking sides against Manul in content disputes. Instead, I saw Liz comnenting in an administrative role on Manul's conduct, on Liz's perception of bullying, and on other editor's conduct. Liz may not have been 100% right in everything she said, but who among us ever is 100% correct when trying our best to tamp down bitter disputes? I encourage Manul to abandon their unproductive grudge against Liz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you have a few misunderstandings. Did you know Liz has only been an admin since August 2015? Before that I had virtually zero interactions with her, save for one positive comment on her user page.[53] Liz couldn't possibly have commented "in an administrative role" on my conduct. "Bullying" was the term was used by the sockpuppeteer to cover up his sockpuppetry. (Sorry, catching someone socking is not "bullying".) There has not been one diff produced showing that I was "bullying", and I don't believe even Liz contended that (perhaps toward another editor, but not me). This is ironic because on Askahrc's talk page Liz joined with an actual bully in the on-wiki component of the off-wiki harassment campaign of falsely disparaging me for filing successful SPIs. I consider this to be bullying behavior by Liz. Manul ~ talk 09:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: on second thought I am rather bothered that you consider this matter to be a "grudge". All I want is for Liz to accept the WP:INVOLVED status, which should be a quite uncontroversial request. That's it. I bolded the relevant clause above. Manul ~ talk 09:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can post diffs showing where Liz has been in a content dispute with you, no one sensible is going to consider her WP:INVOLVED as an admin from your evidence. Commenting on an SPI you raised does not make one involved. Since you admit you had almost zero interactions with her prior to her becoming an admin, and from your diffs above all her interactions with you afterwards appear to fall under her remit as an Admin, this is unlikely to go anywhere. Also accusing Liz of harrassing you without posting evidence of harrassment is a Personal Attack and not permitted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Communication on the Internet is sometimes difficult, that's for sure. Despite all my experience with it, I'm sometimes hit with extreme bafflement, like now.

I had typed out a paragraph in response to your comment, but it was largely repeating what I already posted. I had already given the diffs for "Liz joined with an actual bully in the on-wiki component of the off-wiki harassment campaign of falsely disparaging me for filing successful SPIs", see the paragraph "Tumbleman's friend and former co-worker..." When Liz encourages the polemics of a sockpuppeteer that make provably false claims about me, yes I do consider that harassment, particularly when the person Liz is encouraging is part of a off-wiki harassment campaign pushing the same agenda. When Liz supports these false claims without looking at the evidence then yes I consider this to be very bad indeed.

WP:INVOLVED does not say that only content disputes count. It says "past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics". By any reasonable reading, the latter does not subsume the former. Manul ~ talk 14:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

When an obvious sockpuppet stopped by Liz's page to promote the off-wiki harassment site and thank her, she thanked him in return and did not file an SPI. I thanked the editor for letting me know there was a blog post off-wiki that mentioned me. I don't see how that is encouragement. I would thank anyone who let me know I was being discussed in a forum that I don't visit. If I am guilty of anything, it is not seeing "obvious" sockpuppets which sure didn't seem obvious to me. I didn't see No more scary monsters as a sockpuppet so why would I file an SPI? My sockpuppet-radar is a bit better now but I still assume good faith, especially from new editors who are not vandalizing the project. I don't think that anyone can be faulted for NOT filing an SPI if they don't believe an editor is a sockpuppet.

I, too, am baffled at your continuing to hold me responsible for disagreements you had with a sockpuppeteer over two years ago. You have thrown insults and personal attacks my way for as long as I can remember and I haven't returned any in kind. I suggest you move on and stop fixating on me. Posting a notice about exceeding word limits in an arbitration enforcement case on a user talk page is an act I have done with many editors in my capacity as an arbitration clerk and I am in disbelief that you are taking a justified notice personally when your AE statement, originally over 2500 words, exceeded the guideline of 500 words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You have thrown insults and personal attacks my way for as long as I can remember -- absolutely untrue. I raised the behavioral problems I encountered at the RfA and on your talk page, none of which were personal attacks. I did question your competency, which is a sincerely held interpretation of your actions that is relevant to myself and the project, not a personal attack. You say "as long as I can remember", suggesting there was something I negative I said to you before your RfA. There is absolutely no such diff. You should redact the claim and apologize for making it. Manul ~ talk 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• About Liz's giving Manul a standard clerkly reminder of the word limits for AE: I happened to see Manul's complaint when I came to Liz's page for something else (see below), and since Manul had mentioned me, I told both users that that kind of thing isn't really affected by WP:INVOLVED, and isn't worth complaining about: she didn't do anything wrong in reminding him.[54] That said, and considering what went down at Liz's RFA in August 2015, I think it would be reasonable for Liz to generally acknowledge involved status wrt Manul: you know, like "I regard myself as involved wrt to you, but that doesn't pertain to standard clerk actions like notes on word limits." Would that go against the grain? I mean, surely you wouldn't block him, for instance, so why not put it on record? And no, User:Cullen, as Manul has pointed out, this was not a matter of Liz "commenting in an administrative role on Manul's conduct"; she wasn't an admin at the time in question. I also hope I don't get "Oh, August 2015, ancient history, move on". Liz's RFA stirred up powerful feelings on all sides, obviously very much on Liz's, and I don't think any of the people centrally involved in the RFA have really forgotten and moved on. (To some extent I was involved myself, but not personally and painfully like Manul and Liz.) It would be nice if they did, yes. An acknowledgement of involvement from Liz would be a start in calming things down.

• About the other thing Manul refers to, it's a little sideways to the main topic here, but I might as well give my angle on it. Liz recently placed 3rr warnings on both a vandal sock who repeatedly removed an Administrator intervention against vandalism report against themselves, and on Oshwah (one of our best vandalhunters) who reverted them.[55] That was hard to understand. I saw it because I watch Oshwah's page (it's a real honeypot for vandals), and wrote a note of concern to Liz here. I don't know if she thinks she did nothing wrong — I can't tell from her responses to me, as they're rather sphinx-like — but IMO those were more the actions of an adminbot. There's a reason we have human admins, and they're expected to spend a few seconds looking at the context before they warn. Anyway, no doubt it's human also to be reluctant to acknowledge fault, and I'm hoping perhaps Liz did get the point all the same. It's all experience. Still, an even slightly apologetic note to Oshwah, rather than this minimal acknowledgement, would have been nice. (PS, the reason I mentioned admin User:Juliancolton seemingly out of the blue in my note to Liz was that the vandal had named themselves User:Angry Juliancolton — a rather broad hint that Julian had blocked one of their previous accounts, I suppose.) Bishonen | talk 12:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC).

This has to be one of the broadest interpretations of WP:INVOLVED that I've ever seen. As far as I can see, Liz and Manul had a rather blunt discussion over Liz's actions 2 years ago, which Manul has carried forward. Two. Years. Ago. Liz had already accepted that her interpretation of events concerning the sockmaster at the time was not something she would repeat today. Unilaterally demanding an interaction ban, when hardly any interaction prior to that thread exists, is unreasonable. Furthermore, implying that the actions of the sockmaster off wiki is in some way Liz's responsibility is bloody ridiculous. As for being involved in the WP sense, prior to this kerfuffle and unless otherwise shown, Liz has not acted in an admin capacity against Manul. As it stands now, as Bishonen says above, there would be a case to be stated that Liz is now involved with Manul, simply because Manul refuses to drop the issue (the various threads show Manul badgering Liz but not bullying per se, although I do find the tone of Manul's posts to be finger wagging), and should refrain from any future admin actions against them. Apart from that, in my eyes, this is frivolous. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. First, Liz and Manul had a rather blunt discussion over Liz's actions 2 years ago -- what is this referring to? I don't believe such diffs exist. Second, there are two sockmasters, Tumbleman and his former co-worker Askahrc. Liz's encouragement of the latter is central to the dispute here, and to my knowledge she has not expressed any regret. Third, there is no reasonable implication that Liz could be responsible for off-wiki activities others, that is a bloody ridiculous idea. Manul ~ talk 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose application of WP:INVOLVED: Far too attenuated. Wikipedia would be one hell of a place if you could just point to an argument you had with any administrator in the remote past to evade their participation. At worst I think we should consider WP:INVOLVED in this situation to mean we might use a slightly lower standard of review for Liz's administrative actions here than in another case. But grounds for reversal entirely? Or for a de facto one-way interaction ban? I think not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I had thought this would be an easy determination, otherwise I wouldn't have posted here. WP:INVOLVED says "regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute". I've always gone to drama boards only when I felt it was absolutely necessary. I'll make an extra special super effort to avoid them in the future. Manul ~ talk 15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Then the policy should be reworded to clarify that particular sentence is just a general observation. See the beginning of the sentence: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community" (emphasis mine). This does not mean that as a matter of policy, a past dispute of any kind disqualifies an administrator. At worst it means that the community might make an analysis of whether the administrator is involved... and it's pretty clear from this discussion that the community doesn't think Liz is involved. The rest of the section on the policy makes it clear that the situation isn't as absolute as you think. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not "involved" -- But looking at Manul's edit history and their obsession with Liz, her RfA, Talk page and bringing Bishonen, into almost every complaint, I would say that if the editor does not stop these frivolous complaints they should be blocked. Just drop it already. Dave Dial (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a quite unfair characterization. I had avoided interaction with Liz, except for one positive comment on her user page, while she promoted the conspiracy about Tumbleman being "silenced" by me and while she was encouraging a second sockmaster who had been targeting me. When her RfA came up, I sincerely believed the poor judgment she showed needed to be part of the conversation. And, because I was maligned by her on false grounds, I thought it would be a good idea for her and I to agree on WP:INVOLVED in order to head off future problems. That is the total extent of my interactions with Liz. Manul ~ talk 15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Liz: and @Manul: are both acting like jerks with respect to each other, and ought to stop. Manul, please drop the stick: asking an admin over and over again to preemptively declare themselves involved with respect to you is just pointless, and talking it to AN to try to get a ruling on the matter, even more so. We get it: you don't care for Liz - but she's a real human being just trying to help out, so please stop antagonizing her. Civility is a pillar.

Liz, it's not always best to dig in your heels, even if you're right. The best response to a good-faith editor asking you to recuse is almost always "but of course". Manul is a real human being who's feelings are hurt, and there are a thousand other admins, after all. Civility is a pillar. HiDrNick! 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I shall now resume, with enthusiasm, my self-imposed interaction ban with Liz. Please close this thread, thanks. Manul ~ talk 15:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Immediate preemptive close requested

An article talk page has an RFC in progress, slated to end in ten days. A second RFC was opened that substantially overlaps with, and potentially conflicts with, the first RFC. In particular the second RFC is a complete waste of time if the first RFC closes in line with the current leading consensus. All I propose is that any second RFC await resolution of the first RFC. Simultaneous potentially conflicting RFCs is a bad idea in general, it forces people to cast duplicative votes, and WP:Consensus#FORUMSHOP is potentially relevant.

A second editor has requested[56] admin review of whether the simultaneous overlapping RFC was appropriate. A third editor [57] has objected instead you created an RfC to absolutely no effect except wasting peoples time. WP:DROPTHESTICK.

I would have closed it myself, if I had found the second RFC before I responded to the first one.

First RFC: Talk:Time_Person_of_the_Year#Rfc:_Elizabeth_II

• The leading position is to remove all flags, and if they are kept it decides the appropriate flag for a specific entry.

Second RFC: Talk:Time_Person_of_the_Year#RfC:_Criteria_for_flags

• This RFC in part asks whether flags should be removed, and if not, any result is presumably intended to nullify any outcome above.

Alsee (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I agree this is confusing / disruptive — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Closure of RfC by uninvolved admin requested

The RfC I started to gather input about the inclusion of a hardcore pornographic movie in A Free Ride has been closed by User:Francis Schonken. Since this RfC deals with a contentious subject, and since Francis Schonken was involved in earlier discussions, I would like to request that the closure be undone and re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Francis Schonken declined to revert their closure when asked. I have no comment about the closure itself, I simply wish to avoid future argument by ensuring that this closure is procedurally solid. Note that there is an RfC about a similar situation on Debbie Does Dallas, so the question of consistency will undoubtedly be raised soon. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't even looked at the close or at either article or talk page recently, but I strongly and completely agree that only an uninvolved admin should analyze and close these contentious debates. Softlavender (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Also see User talk:Francis Schonken#Please undo your closure. The issue has been discussed to death and Right Hand Drive (talk · contribs) is still an SPA who is wasting community time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, and I do not agree with RHD's position on any of the issues involved (as witnessed by my !votes), but he is 100% correct in my view that only an uninvolved admin should be closing this and similar RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Why an admin only? The involved I get of course. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Because it's very contentious, and the RfC stands to affect dozens of Wikipedia articles by association. (Ideally, there should be a site-wide RfC on the subject of hosting full-length hardcore porn films on Wikipedia article space, but apparently to my knowledge no one has created such a sitewide RfC yet.) Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• I concur. I find it baffling that User:Francis Schonken closed the RFC after participating in an (informal) debate about it elsewhere. Alsee (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Expanding my above comment. I'll acknowledge I was involved - however I'll note that the "no consensus" outcome is effectively in my favor. When people raise concerns with a close that's already in their favor it strongly indicates there's something wrong here. A reclose could potentially go the other way. The closer literally cited Their own prior debate of the issue as the basis for his close. They linked to their own arguments on Jimbo's talk page, which they made while the RFC was in progress. I also find it problematic that they failed to address the strong policy arguments raised by the majority side in the RFC. The close merely hand-waved that both sides were somehow equal. WP:Concensus Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And WP:Close says to discard arguments: that flatly contradict established policy. If a minority is flatly contradicting policy then you can't hand-wave it as "equal". And if the minority weren't contradicting policy then the close should give at least some hint why the majority were wrong about it being a policy issue. (Ping BMK to note additional info.)Alsee (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• If the terms of the close are accurate, properly describe and evaluate the discussion, correctly apply Wikipedia policy, and the closer was uninvolved in the RfC, it makes no difference whatsoever if the closer is an admin or not. It seems to me that this complaint is not at all motivated by it being a non-admin closure, but by the OP disagreeing with the close, and if an admin had made exactly the same close as Francis Schonken did, the OP would be here complaining about the close for some other reason altogether. Unless the OP can show that Schonken's close was inaccurate, improper, wrongly applied policy, or that Schonken was "involved", then they have no legitimate beef here. BMK (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you may be confused. I have stated why I believe Francis Schonken shoudl be considered involved. I have also stated that I am strictly commenting here on a procedural aspect of the closure. I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is. For the record, I did not vote in the RfC. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, let's clear up some of that supposed "confusion". Do you agree with the results of the close or not? BMK (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Which part of "I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is" are you having trouble understanding? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
        • The part where you refuse to say why you started the RfC and what outcome your desired. We all are supposed to accept the outcome of properly-worded and properly-closed RfCs, so saying that you'll accept it is meaningless. You clearly started it with a desired outcome in mind, and your refusal to say what that was only underlines what I said above.
          There was nothing wrong with the close, an admin is not required, FS was not involved in the RfC, that should end the discussion. BMK (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC of project-wide scope on an ESSAY talk page needs a preemptive close

Wikipedia_talk:Videos#RfC:_Full-length_films.2Fvideos_in_articles

Everyone agrees there should be an RFC, however threefour of the last seven people commenting (including myself) have objected that a local consensus on an essay page cannot establish a project-wide consensus to yank a LOT of content out of a LOT of articles. It needs to happen at Village Pump. Whichever way it goes, relevant policy will likely need to be rewritten to clarify the situation. The RFC also needs to be drafted much better, there's a lot of confusion there. The RFC author acknowledges there are valid concerns, but they are reluctant to withdraw an RFC in progress. It has only been open a few hours. Alsee (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

5 of the last 8 are advocating a more appropriate venue and/or improved drafting of the question. (The latest is in the "Clearing up misconceptions" section, rather than the !vote section.) Alsee (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A new person at Village Pump concurs that such an RFC should be at the Pump.[58] That makes it 6 out of 9 people, since the issue was raised. Alsee (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext

There is currently an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Protectedpagetext. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

AIV backlog

The backlog at WP:AIV is getting quite long, with almost 20 reports waiting. If any admin is around and willing to have a look, that would be helpful. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Closer for RM

Requesting that an uninvolved party close the RM: Requested move to Gypsies. I believe it to be straight forward, but the proposal has come up a number of times throughout the existence of the 'Romani people' article, so I think it needs a firm close. Thanks in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Wbm1058. Much appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)