Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

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

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

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

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 92 days ago on 12 February 2024)

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

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

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

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

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

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

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

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

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

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

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

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

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

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

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

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

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

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

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

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

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

Proposed topic ban for User:Basketballfan12

Background

Basketballfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beginning May 19, 2016, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#User:Basketballfan12_-_creating_non-notable_NBA_bio_stubs, Basketballfan12 has been flagged for their track record of creating biographies of non-notable sportspeople, which has placed an undue burden on the community to patrol, nominate, and discuss pages for deletion.

The following AfDs on Basketballfan12 created bios have been closed as "Delete":

Basketball-related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Pauga
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Presson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Swetoha
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Mazzella
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubba Barrage
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Wilson (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Seymour (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Brady (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Swetoha
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxie Esho
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Capers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Murphy (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Daigneault
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Walsh (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris

Baseball related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Marder
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Perlman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Gal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orr Gottleib
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Gould

The following have been speedy deleted:

• Template:Northern Arizona Suns
• Jarrell Christian
• Matt Woodley

Multiple editors have reached out to User:Basketballfan12, but the editor generally not respond, with few edits to talk namespace, and user talk namespace edits generally limited to blanking their own talk page.

Since the discussion on May 19 was started, they have since created more new sports bios at Steve Brown (outfielder), Nate Fish, both of which are dubious of meeting WP:GNG with insufficient independent sources.

Proposal

Unless Basketballfan12 finally engages the community and addresses these concerns, I am proposing a topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc) by Basketballfan12. They are free to create pages in the Draft namespace, where other editors can move the proposed page to the main namespace. Basketballfan12 can request a lift of the ban once they have sufficiently demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's notability criteria. —Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that there are at least 18 other pages created by this user that are currently undergoing active AfD discussions (I will not link them here due to WP:CANVASSING considerations, but I thought this might be relevant information). Full disclosure, I nominated these articles (and many of those listed above) for deletion after finding that this user had created many articles that did not meet notability guidelines. This user has not shown up at any of the AfD discussions, nor interacted with me on talk pages and appears to have no interest in doing so, yet continues to create new articles. Unless Basketballfan12 interacts with the community and displays an understanding and a willingness to fully consider the notability guidelines before creating new articles in the future, I would support the above sanctions.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I missed that less than half an hour before my above reply this user did respond on one of the active AfD pages so I've struck the above comment about it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it was Basketballfan12's first ever comment at an AfD, and it was an hour after they were notified of this AN discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern's a ban is too harsh, We will respond to all future questions regarding sources Basketballfan12 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Basketballfan12: Wait a second - who exactly is 'we'? Are you a paid editor or is this a shared account? Katie^talk 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Basketballfan12 made a comment at Talk:Nate Fish, an article that they created; curiously, Basketballfan12 refers to themselves in the third person when commenting on their own talk page about the Talk:Nate Fish edit: "The author made some comments on the talk page, justifying his notability."[1] Basketballfan12's words imply a group account; moreover; they haven't been very forthcoming here on why a topic ban would not be suitable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Basketballfan12: Unfortunately, your recent response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris was essentially to keep the article, but the AfD was closed as delete. There is still no indication that your view on notability is now in line with the rest of the community.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if @Basketballfan12: is a non-native speaker of English, which would explain the use of the harmless Royal we. Not having seen any of the articles (as they've been deleted), I have nothing to base their grammar on. What about the articles makes them non-notable? Are they regional of local athletes? I remember when I was starting out that I practiced by making articles of people who I thought were notable (they weren't). Fortunately, I had a mentor (my Dad - that's right, I'm a generational Wikipedian) who pointed out how they weren't useful to articles. The point is, the user might not be up to speed on how the collaborative environment works, and is focusing solely on output, ie. article creation. Would it be dumb to offer a bit of AGF here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Judging by their edits, I don't think English is a problem, but @Basketballfan12 could clear up any misunderstandings by participating in this discussion. From what I can tell, the editor assumes that any athlete, even those from minor leagues, is inherently notable. Based off the volume of their article creations that have been deleted, allowing them to continue editing but limiting their creations to the draft namespace was my good-faith proposal. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: If that is the case (English not being an apparent problem, the subsequent use of the Royal 'we', and the apparent misunderstanding of notability plus the lack of necessary discussion), then I think a temporary block of the account is in order. Topic banning them isn't going to get their attention - AfD'ing the articles the user is creating isn't stopping them. I think that a block - for the good of the encyclopedia - will get them talking, if for no other reason than to say, 'why u do dat?' That the problem made it here makes the point of its necessity, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: A block would at least an attempt to address the long-term problem. Still, I'm AGF that their contributions are useful outside of their judgement on article creation, and a topic ban would still allow them to contribute and learn about notability criteria in the draft namespace.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

I think it might be time for an administrator to check in on the back-and-forth editing at that article's intro. Note, the article-in-question is under 1RR sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

An admin might consider 12 hours of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Likely the best option, until today's multiple Democratic primaries are over. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, much too much back and forth; fully protected for 12 hours. Any admin who disagrees is free to lift or shorten the protection. Lectonar (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Aha, the corporate media is now running the Admins' Noticeboard too, huh? Beel the Fern! Drmies (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, their influence now spreads all over Europe...drawing Germany into the Sanders/Clinton/Trump-Wars....Ve haff wayz off meking you tak. Lectonar (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The same issues and behavior are happening at United States presidential election, 2016. A short protection (making sure that m:The Wrong Version is selected...) :) until the polls close at 8PM PST might be worth considering. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been quite calm for awhile, overall the related dispute at that article hasn't been as heated as at 'Hillary Clinton'. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring (guilty as charged) will probably spill over onto other related pages such as 2016 Democratic National Convention as well. ansh666 17:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that article's been quite stable. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Relatively, yes, but I'm just worried that protecting one will move people towards other related articles, and extra eyes can't hurt. That said, no action is really necessary anywhere else either for now or hopefully ever. ansh666 18:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's not give them advice on where to edit-war at next. ~ Rob^Talk 20:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting relief

I was topic banned on 1 February 2016 on Mudar Zahran article, I would like to request relief after I stopped editing article. I was topic banned when I was talking about the users in the discussion, when my words were misunderstood as accusations. 6 months were sanctioned and now more than 4 months have passed since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Links: User banned by @Drmies:for 6 mos. on 04:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) at User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 1#January 2016 per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. HTH. Rgrds. --64.85.216.223 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked the edit history of Mudar Zahran and recommend that you wait out the full duration of the six-month ban. There were some questions on whether the various parties, including yourself, were editing neutrally and as to which sources were good enough to use. Incidentally User:Drmies' semiprotection has expired and I can see how there might be a need to renew it. Since this ban is a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPIA, your appeal options require using the steps given at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, unless you can persuade Drmies personally. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have been subjected to other sanctions if I weren't editing neutrally, the topic ban came after my words in discussion on my talk page were misunderstood for accusations. I know and respect all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, this is shown in the fact that I have never been topic banned anywhere other than this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, six months is six months. I wouldn't have minded an early release for good behavior, so to speak, but what I see here is a failure to recognize what was the problem in the first place. Makeandtoss still does not seem to realize that it wasn't that their comments were misunderstood for accusations: they were, rather, understood as accusations because they were accusations. The link to the archived talk page discussion already provides enough evidence of that. BTW, I do not understand Zero0000's advice about CU and functionaries: there is no way anyone was ever going to run CU on SmartSE based on the wild allegations from Makeandtoss.

  The article that gave rise to this is contentious enough, of course, but I'm mostly worried about this lack of understanding--it's like someone making statements about race or ethnicity and then complaining that their comments were misconstrued as being about race or ethnicity. So I am not going to give this user the benefit of the doubt, not personally; if another admin looks into it and feels differently, they have my blessing. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, my comments were in fact accusations, but that was before you warned me. After you warned me, I made a comment, which you understood as accusation. It wasn't meant as such but if you insist then I am ready to do whatever is necessary to prove that it won't happen again. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

WT:ANRFC discussions

Just a note because WP:ANRFC is related to AN but there are two discussions at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure about limitations for the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Requests_for_comment section of ANRFC. One is to bar the inclusion of AN or ANI discussions from there and the second is a bar on the addition of RFC closure requests by people who have not commented in the RFC itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

{{humor}}Oh man, I can't wait for that RfC to be open long enough to appear on ANRFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So someone can request us to close a discussion that's overdue to be closed about closing discussions that are overdue. 😳 Katie^talk 02:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Joking aside, would both of you consider commenting there? Else it's just three people and ANRFC needs more eyes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made a request for closure of this discussion. It's canvassing. 107.77.229.153 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux and KrakatoaKatie: seems like instead it's this discussion being requested for closure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk call for script writer [cross-post]

The Clerks of the Arbitration Committee are looking for a script writer who will work with the clerk team to automate portions of the clerks' procedures. If you are a skilled script writer and are interested in working with us, please email the clerk team at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Clerks of the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration clerk call for script writer

Request for Rename

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

---

Sport Aerobics to Aerobic Gymnastics please see Talk:Sport aerobics. I have waited long and hard for people to comment on this. I have who agrees and should be renamed and no nays. I've stated it should be renamed because the FIG who controls the sport on an international level calls it Aerobic Gymnastics and it seems to be consistent with other forms of Gymnastics ex. Artistic Gymnastics, Rhythmic Gymnastics and Acrobatic Gymnastics. Even its world championships is called the "Aerobic Gymnastics World Championships". I have made my case and am requesting an administrator 1) help change the name or 2) explain why not and whether or not there is anything I can do to appeal or make the article better or find better sources to support the name change. Please see fig-gymnastics.com which is the International Gymnastics Federation. I believe that should be a good enough source click on disciplines and you will see Aerobic Gymnastics not Sport Aerobics. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend you follow the steps at WP:RM and re-list it, as there was an oppose vote (no consensus) when this was done before. You can use the text you've posted here as your rationale on why you believe it should be moved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was this ever listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I suspect not as I don't see that a {{Requested move}} template was ever placed on the page. I suggest you start again, start a new discussion, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move. The process ought take a week, which is not long given the length of time you have already waited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal information on new user's page

I hope this is the right place to ask this.

A brand-new, young user posted their complete address and birthday on their user page. I deleted that info and explained on their talk page what I had done and why. Does the diff need to be redacted? If so, the user's name is (Redacted). Or else advise me what I should have done instead. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This kind of thing should go straight to the oversight team, and not be posted in a public venue. On the other hand, this user is over 18 so it's probably not to be worried about. You may wish to advise them that they can ask for it to be oversighted if they wish. BethNaught (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They're not technically a minor (in most jurisdictions), so it's not really against Wikipedia policy. However, given that it's been highlighted here, I think it's wise to rev-delete it, which I have done - but if they put it back, then they're considered old enough to make that judgment. As BethNaught says, for any future examples like this, it's better to contact the Oversight team rather than exposing it on this very public board. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the age-18 thing. And thank you, I'll go to Oversight next time. — Gorthian (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Denial of sock puppetry of Moatassemakmal

Yamla had been accused me as a sock puppetry of my user account Moatassemakmal. That's very unfair and untrue, I had been strongly denied of this allegations. It seems the administrator had trying to discredited me off from Wikipedia. I have been 2 months of anger with agony, please help me to clear my name and my reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.171.232 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Fear not; you have neither name nor reputation here. In any case, immediately changing your IP and then continuing the argument is hardly the most effective defence against such a claim. Happy editing! _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that the block applies to you, person-behind-the-username Moatassemakmal. Until your block expires, you are not permitted to continue editing here. To other admins, note that this user brought up the block on WP:ANI and the block was upheld and a permanent ban was discussed due to the user's long habit of problem edits, including but most certainly not limited to a death threat (against another user, only a threat of physical violence against me). --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Niranjandeshmukh

Would any admin consider revoking talk page access for this indeffed user? S/he appears to be abusing UTRS. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Revoking talk page access won't stop them contacting UTRS - in fact, UTRS is the recommended route for people who have had talk page access revoked. As they're not using their talk page, revoking talk page access would have no effect at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

GS/SCW&ISIL clarification sought

Is 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting within the scope of the 1RR general sanction as described here: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR.- MrX 19:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If ISIL has claimed responsibility, surely the article is related to ISIL, broadly construed... RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that ISIL is claiming credit (unconfirmed) and the gunman is reported to have sworn allegiance to them [2], I would say yes. BethNaught (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess I must have been asleep when the community placed such broad-reaching sanctions.- MrX 19:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been numerous reviews of the sanctions after each attack like this, and every one has resulted in their maintenance. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hold on: Are you folks really telling me that discussion is what is being claimed as consensus for casting such a wide net over so many articles? Please tell me that there was village pump discussion in which dozens of editors consented to these general sanctions.- MrX 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The net was cast prior to that discussion. That discussion merely clarified the scope as it was being enforced. The reason I opened that AN thread was because the "Syrian Civil War" sanctions were being used by administrators for anything related to ISIL, because ISIL was related to the SCW. This kind of extension was a bit strange, and I didn't understand it. So, I asked for clarification. It was granted. Indeed, subsequent reviews have maintained that scope. The most recent discussion was this one. General sanctions are never established at the village pump, always at AN. RGloucester — ☎ 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - since i placed the SCW&ISIL notice on Orlando attacks article and have already provided warnings to some editors, i should add that the expansion of SCW scope to ISIL topics and later community agreement to keep those sanctions in-tact, provide a solid basis for inclusion of Orlando event within the scope of sanctions. One important thing - the sanctions are designated to reduce edit-warring and NOT to punish editors. We do have a notification policy for users first engaging on ISIL-related articles, so sanction application on new users comes only after a standard notice is made, in order to make clear what is and what is not allowed; when users are aware of the sanctions, they typically refrain from edit-warring; this is the purpose of such sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Something this far-reaching should definitely be discussed in a more public venue than AN. Is it reasonable to assume that that the one revert in this 1RR means a wholesale revert, and not simply inadvertently removing content in the course of copy editing? I'm all for solutions to prevent edit warring as long as they don't punish people editing in good faith. - MrX 20:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Object (as an editor to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting) - this is a developing news story and it is still not clear if this is ISIL related or not - there have been a lot of back and forth on the article, but most of it has nothing to do with ISIL topic - but about layouts, inclusion/non inclusion of certain lists, reactions, etc - so far consensus discussion has been working well on the talk page - but arbcom sanctions may cause some unintended editor slapping, afoul of WP:AGF. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Object Thin and dubious link to ISIL. All the article needs at the moment is sensible editing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have removed the SCW/ISIL notice from the talk page. User_talk:NeilN#Edit_notice details why. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

President of Brazil

We may need some administrative eyes on this article. An editor (NicolitoPaiva) appears unwilling to accept that Dilma Rousseff is still President of Brazil. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've issued a warning for edit warring. If the user persists, a block should be in order. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Widespread and protracted incivility by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc/Jps

Pinging all those involved on User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318) (section)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@EdJohnston:@1990'sguy:@Isambard Kingdom:@StAnselm:@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:@K.e.coffman:@James J. Lambden:@Johnuniq:@OldTraffordLover:@Tom.Reding:@John:@Roxy the dog:

re-pinging all those involved on User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318) (section)
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, EdJohnston, 1990'sguy, Isambard Kingdom, StAnselm, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, K.e.coffman, James J. Lambden, Johnuniq, Tom.Reding, John, and Roxy the dog: DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that JPS has exhibited disruptive behaviour, particularly incivility, in many areas of Wikipedia for over a decade. They have received at 27 blocks at a rate of at least one block per year since 2006 (except for 2012, which was probably because the ban they received in 2011 extended into 2012). I feel it is time that strong action is taken here to protect the project and other editors from their disruptive editing and sometimes deeply upsetting comments. I feel it is time for, at the very least, the imposition of topic bans for the areas in which they have been incivil and made personal attacks on other editors. Having said this, JPS is undoubtedly an expert editor in astronomy and it would be a great shame to lose this expertise totally. However, even in this area, JPS' behaviour is far from stellar, so I am proposing 1RR for this topic.

JPS in a previous life

JPS once edited as User: ScienceApologist. Even in this previous account, JPS attracted warnings. For example, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience JPS as "ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter".[3] [4] [5]

Proposals

My 3 proposals are
Proposal 1: JPS is indefinitely topic banned from pseudoscience and fringe theories, both broadly construed.
Proposal 2: JPS is indefinitely subject to 1RR on astronomy articles, broadly construed.
Proposal 3: Both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 are adopted.
(I remain open to suggestions of Topic Bans and/or stronger sanctions in other areas needing protection from JPS.)

Decorum on this thread

Please read this – these are comments on editing decorum and other matters related to this thread (collapsed to avoid having to scroll through at each visit)

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. I would like to remind contributors of two areas of editing decorum. First, I respectfully suggest editors familiarise themselves with WP:Casting aspersions in which ARBCOM states An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Second, I suggest we adhere closely to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (see image). Other comments I have my detractors and I am sure they will point to my past behaviour. Let me do this for them. I have two current topic bans and I had my one and only block early this year. I will not mention the subjects of these nor link to them as this may violate my topic ban, but I suspect another editor will be only too happy to oblige. Gross incivility directed toward me and other editors by JPS has been occurring for a long time. I raised at WP:AN the issue of providing diffs simply as an indication of an editor’s misbehaviour and whether this would violate my topic ban. There were mixed answers to this, but some editors opined that simply providing diffs to these would be a breach of my Topic Ban.[6] Therefore, I have not supplied these diffs (which I suspect reduces the evidence I can present by 50%). If I have not listed an incident of incivility here and this affects another editor, it is likely this is because of my topic ban, NOT my judgement that the comment/s by JPS are acceptable. One last comment here. I will not be surprised if editors try to deflect concerns about JPS’ behaviour by indicating JPS does good work in protecting the scientific or mainstream point of view. However, please remember this thread is not about the content/validity/acceptability or otherwise of the subjects that JPS edits on, it is about JPS’ behaviour towards other editors.

Supporting Evidence

JPS’ lengthy block log is here. There have also been warnings for behaviour which are not on the block log, for example,JPS is warned here for 3RR. I have tabulated below, incidents of incivility by JPS for the last 6 months (an arbitrary cut-off point). The diffs are obviously numerous. I recently saw an edit/complaint on ANI that requested an editor who had posted 16 diffs as evidence should trim these to just 4 or 5 diffs. I disagree with this idea, however, I have made the table sortable so that readers can filter to the “Top 10” if they do not wish to read through the others. They may also wish to read the evidence when sorted according to the category of incivility.

Please read this - Evidence of protracted and widespread incivility by JPS (collapsed to avoid having to scroll through at each visit)

Category of Incivility Quote & Notes Month Evidence (diff) Top 10 Ridiculing JPS started a sub-thread with the heading “Proposed Making Fun of DrChrissy”. Note: WP:Civility states Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. June [7] 1 Threat “It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.” June [8] 2 Calling editors “Trolls” ”For readers' information, DrChrissy has been serially-reverting on this page in classic trolling fashion” June [9] 10 Calling editors “Trolls” ”Made trolling smaller for readability.” June [10] 10 Calling editors “Trolls” ”DrChrissy and Fortuna trolling should not be fed” June [11] 10 Calling editors “Trolls” “Below are the trolling actions of those who think jps was uncivil to DrChrissy” [JPS’ formatting for emphasis has been omitted] June [12] 10 Creating non-neutral, personal headers. “The DrChrissy fan club does not like jps” June [13] 10 Lying about editors “I see, you and Fortuna collaborate on articles about fish! It all makes sense now. (For those not in the know, this is high-level trolling. Look for the smell of the feet.)” Note – the lie is about the collaboration, not the odour of my feet. June [14] 5 Calling editors “Trolls” ”So are you just a dramaboards troll then?” June [15] 3 Sexist/Belittling “Topic bans and 1RR restrictions are not enacted at this noticeboard, love!” June [16] 4 Bullying “It would be good if you stayed away from such topics as you've also demonstrated your lack of competence with regards to this particular subject.” June [17] 10 Name calling ”The problem is that the surreality-based editors are often more invested in pursuing their cause than the reality ones (for obvious reasons) and the noticeboards aren't really equipped to handle the longterm.” June [18] 10 Insult “I think you have a reading comprehension problem.” June [19] 8 Insult ”Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.” June [20] 10 Sexist/Belittling “My darling, the issue is clearly stated and the question was answered.” March [21] 6 Poisoning the well Jps started an WP:ANI thread and headed this “DrChrissy (yet again)” April [22] 9 Ridiculing “I think you're being entirely ignorant and laughably wrongheaded if that's what you think is going on, but it is better for you to be honest about what you think is happening than it is for you to beat around the bush in the name of "civility", in my opinion.” January [23] 10 Bullying (an admission) “If you don't like that, then there are lots of other things you can do at Wikipedia, but I don't think you are going to be successful keeping up this particular tactic of claiming that it is all the fault of the people like me who bully you for supporting the fringe-POV.” January [24] 10 Insults "My comment is that your contributions here are garbage." January [25] 10 Casting aspersions ”We can safely ignore SageRad's and your contributions here owing to your obvious and transparent WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISIM, and naked agenda to skew Wikipedia to your preferred POV in opposition to WP:MAINSTREAM scientific evaluations.“ January [26] 10 Chilling behaviour “I have a pretty good idea of who you are, 75.118.11.184.” January [27] 10 Insult “You live in an agnotological bubble. You are a general laughing stock and should be aware of this.” January [28] 7 Ridiculing “Academic use is neutral by definition. The title was crowbarred in by Christian apologists such as yourself to circumvent our WP:NPOV policy. Don't you know that lying (such as you just did about the history of the title of this page) is a sin?” January [29] 10 Casting aspersions “@DrChrissy, your documented promotion of pseudoscience in the past makes me inclined to ignore your protestations. If you prefer, you can form a cabal with zzz and attempt to sway Wikipedia policy towards credulity. I doubt you'll be successful.” January [30] 10 Lying/Casting aspersions “There is plenty of evidence that you have supported the pseudoscientific claims of various people, but we should not talk about this because you are topic banned from the subject. It is perfectly civil to say, in my estimation, your activism in these areas is promotional of pseudoscience. You can disagree with my characterizations and offer arguments to the contrary, but it is perfectly fine and, in fact, in the best interest of the encyclopedia that we identify pseudoscience POV-pushers such as yourself openly and honestly.” Note: My topic ban is not pseudoscience. January [31] 10 Casting aspersions “(See, it's not uncivil to say DrChrissy promotes pseudoscience, and even if DrChrissy takes offense, I don't think there is any way to change the wording without abandoning the meaning.)” January [32] 10

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Could someone please move my signature so that it appears as the last text in the above. Thanks in advance. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Done (I hope this is what you wanted) AIRcorn (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose, but not for the usual reasons. The irritating thing about this report is that it is doomed to fail which is likely to convince jps of his god-like powers to flit above the fray, so he may well continue on his chosen destiny and be indeffed. None of the pings worked (see WP:ECHO), and the timing of this report means it cannot receive serious attention because jps just finished a week-long block for edit warring and mooning the jury at WP:AN3. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and possible Boomerang I would support a possible 2RR on astronomy articles, or an interaction ban with Dr.Chrissy, but besides that, I wouldn't support anything. Banning him from Fringe articles would be a bad idea, and hurt the encyclopedia. I do think that he isn't always civil, but I still think that he is a good editor. @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My responses to examples:

Extended content

I don't think that's that bad. It deserves a warning, but not much else. Not much of a problem Not much of a problem Insulting. A problem, not small, but not very large Small issue Sarcasm. It wasn't an outright lie, it should have been more civil, though. A problem I don't think that's sexist, small issue A bit harsh, but not that big of a deal A problem A small problem, but not that big A very small problem A problem, a stern warning would suffice A problem, though not as large as the previous one A medium problem Not a problem A medium problem A small problem A very small problem A very very small problem

I didn't mean to use up so much space, but an interaction ban, a 2RR on fringe topics, and a stern warning would suffice. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not necessary, and everybody just needs to move on. I agree with the criticisms made by Johnuniq and ThePlatypusofDoom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: With regards to the "threat", jps quickly clarified and said "no threat intended". But that still raises the question as to what was intended and what jps did mean. Also of concern is deceptive behaviour in appealing a block. jps argued that "Those who have commented here all seem to agree that the week length was arbitrary" and then when two editors responded by explicitly agreeing with the length of the block deleted their comments, and continued to argue that editors were agreeing with him. Now, I know that generally editors can remove comments from their talk pages, but this sort of dishonesty should not be tolerated. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

These valid points of concern seem to be ignored here, and this puzzles me. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - DrChrissy was counseled by the community not to pursue this complaint, and chose to anyway. DrChrissy has a history of problematic editing which has resulted in several topic bans, levied by both ArbCom and the community. DrChrissy has a history of pushing the boundaries of his topic bans, to the point that the ArbCom ban was expanded to be more general than it had originally been. Other editors have informed me that DrChrissy makes valuable edits in certain subject areas, and I am in no position to dispute this, but DrCrhissy, with clearly invalid complaints such as this one, is on the verge of becoming a burden to the project, and slowly reaching the point where he will be a net-negative. This will be inevitable unless DrChrissy begins to follow the guidance of the community, and to start understanding the idea of a collegial community of editors intent on improving an encyclopedia. At this point, DrChrissy should not be sanctioned for filing this report, but DrChrissy should clearly understand that the next step will not be another topic ban, but a site ban. If DrChrissy doesn't want this to happen, DrChrissy should straighten up and fly right, and stop filing nuisance complaints against other editors in which he attempts to tell the commenters how they must behave (see above "comments on editing decorum and other matters related to this thread".) BMK (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Meh Based on the observations I have made of DrChrissy continually pushing ther ban edges here and at AE, even going so far into talking themself into a more restrictive topic ban when Arbcom was trying to give them a less restrictive one, I can only imagine what goes on in articles where two strongly opinionated editors like jps and DrChrissy are in conflict. I pretty much feel this is a it takes two to tango situation. Continuing, repetitive behavior while not directly rude is likely to have push back and that is what most of this conflict seems to be. The most this seems to need is: jps be nicer so "jps be nicer". Jbh^Talk 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have redacted a portion of DrChrissy's complaint due to potential OUTING. Jbh^Talk 03:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jbhunley, where do you get "outing" from? It's not outing to mention someone's previous names when he has this list prominently linked on his own userpage. ‑ Iridescent 10:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have put it back, its not 'Outing' by the wording of the policy anyway, and even had they vanished and came back, the acknowledgement on their userpage is enough to link them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Iridescent: The user page pointed to says "This is a previous account of a current user but that the username isn't here for privacy/harassment issues". If they are now publicly linked that message should be removed. Jbh^Talk 12:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I wish some of the science editors would show a bit more restraint with their commentary, many seem to love a good argument even when the argument is already won. And it is nearly always won. There is also a certain amount of arrogance on display from many, but this is understandable to a degree when you consider the level of some conversations they have to deal with. From my perspective I have yet to come across a comment from jps which relates to content where I disagreed with the sentiment, although often I would not have gone for that sort of presentation. Maybe he is brave, maybe I am a coward, but either way he is an asset to the encyclopedia and should not be topic banned from the area where he is most effective. An iban may be beneficial though for both editors and jps should not be violating 3RR so flagrantly (but that is another issue). AIRcorn (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As per almost everything BMK has said. With the exception that at this point I think DrChrissy needs a restriction from noticeboards except where they are directly a party. Quite apart from their recent deliberate entangling themself with Jps where their input was neither needed, wanted, or helpful in any manner. RE Jbhunley - there is no point in admonishing Jps to be 'nicer'. 'Nice' does not work with POV-driven editors. DrChrissy's editing outside of very defined areas tends to the fringey/pseudoscience/lack of basic understanding of subjects, which automatically puts them in conflict with hardline fact-based editors like Jps. There is a reason why DrChrissy has been restricted after a relatively short time here, and despite *mild* incivility Jps has been editing for years without serious problems. This is one of the few times I am minded to recommended a one-way interaction ban. Either way, DrChrissy needs to be restricted from causing more pointless and baseless drama. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• "...JPS has been editing for years without serious problems." Sorry to disagree, but 27 blocks spanning a decade is in my opinion, a serious problem. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Based on what I have seen of DrChrissy at noticeboards I would support some sort of restriction assuming one could be worded that would not create more drama than it avoids. I am also aware that saying "jps be nicer" is a pointless exercise - it is a pointless result for a pointless complaint hence my pointless !vote of "Meh". Jbh^Talk 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Either the restrictions imposed on Tarc ("may not edit any administrative noticeboards") or Abd ("indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.") noted here would work. I favour the latter as more specific and less prone to attemptes to game. Which DrChrissy has shown time and again he likes to push the boundaries of any restrictions placed upon him. The one for TDA ("indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started.") would also work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The third seems best to me but I have only witnessed their Noticeboard behavior. I would add a restriction to originating discussions at administrative/conduct noticeboards since, again from what I have seen, they originate most of the problematic threads. Jbh^Talk 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, as succinctly stated by Only in death; also support this sentiment: "DrChrissy needs to be restricted from causing more pointless and baseless drama." K.e.coffman (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Boomerang. @DrChrissy: is a serial plagiarist (here's the CCI) who has been topic banned by the community from altmed and by Arbcom from GMOs. The same battleground behavior that earned her her topic bans is on full display here. I'll also note that she intentionally followed jps into astronomy articles - an area she had never edited before - to stir the pot because she couldn't poke him on fringe articles. We need to discuss whether the encyclopedia benefits from her continued presence. 73.89.120.105 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK, I also agree that DrChrissy ought to stop with this nonsensical drama. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and it's probably about time for a one-way interaction ban to prevent DrChrissy continuing this type of thing, which simply wastes everyone's time. If an editor is seriously problematic, leave it for someone in good standing to bring the issue up. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and boomerang. I've lost count of how many houndish and tendentious ANI, etc. postings DrChrissy has made now. Others have already explained well that DrChrissy tends to pursue drama by following around editors they are in conflict with. This was also part of their GMO sanctions with an interaction ban with Jytdog there. Coupled with constantly testing the limits of their topic bans on the admin noticeboards and trying to pursue this action after jps already was sanctioned, it does seem like the community has reached the limit of their patience for DrChrissy. A ban from admin noticeboards as described above does seem warranted, as does the one-way interaction with jps to prevent further disruption. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Where to report a hoax Wikia?

Does anyone know where to report a Wikia for vandalism. After years of vandalizing Weekly Shōnen Jump, Manga, and several other articles Cow cleaner 5000 has now created their own Wikia filled with their own blatantly false information. —Farix (t | c) 10:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipolice; but their office is only open weekday mornings and cattle market days. Hurry! _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If it is a blatant and obvious hoax you can add {{db-hoax}} to the article and it will put the article into a speedy deletion category. If it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user you can add {{db-g5}}. -- GB fan 10:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think- on a more serious note (but still nothing to do with us)- the OP means that Cow Cleaner has set up an actual separate and distinct Wikia (not a WP article). I guess he has had to sign up to and adhere to Terms of service of some sort, so if he is breach of them, report him; but I bet they only take stuff down if it's illegal in some way. Just like we do :) I dare say his definition of 'annacurate' probably differs (substantially) to yours. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Wikia is outside the domain of anything related to actions taken here. You may wish to contact Wikia staff regarding the Wikia, but otherwise, there is nothing we can do here. --Izno (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A case of not being able to read, I asked where to go to report a fraudulent Wikia. I did not request any action to be taken on the English Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 12:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, a case of "I doubt your ability to correctly identify where you should be asking your question, taking into account that this isn't it". As it happens, I also provided you a link to a Google search for Wikia staff, so off you go. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to say - Wikia office/staff does not take down content unless a rights holder makes a complaint. Wikia is for-profit - they make their money from advertising on fan-sites. Blatantly incorrect information would not be enough to make Wikia take down a site. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fanboy cruft- The saviour of capitalism _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So a Wikia that attacks a 48 year old manga magazine and publisher by calling it terrorist organization and a front group for ISIS/Al-Qaeda as well as attacks Wikiepeia editors would not be bases for Wikia to take it down? —Farix (t | c) 12:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not unless the situation has changed recently. I have not managed to get Wikia staff to take down blatantly and obvious libellous material before without getting the actual rights holder involved. They just dont care unless someone with standing makes a genuine legal threat to them. They want the ad money rolling in. If it is making accusations against specific wikipedia editors, I suggest you notify the editors and get them to complain - that might get some traction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If only Wikia had a founder as committed to integrity as we have at Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)