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)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 143 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 93 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 61 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 47 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 37 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 30 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)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 0 days ago on 16 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	23	42
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	5	7
RfD	0	0	22	50	72
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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 53 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 112 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 106 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 29 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 13 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 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

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

---

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)

Can we just remove privileges when it comes to article creation? Is that an option? That is probably by far the best option in my opinion, that way Basketballfan12 can still submit articles to AfC if they want, and work on other articles where they have been doing some useful work (i say 'they' because it is fairly clear that this account is being used by multiple people from several of the comments by Basketballfan12.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: There is no specific article creation "right" that can be removed from a registered user. A topic ban is the only option.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Basketballfan12 has created another article on a minor league player, which I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Drossner.—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You might want to also check a couple of other articles: Michael Barash, Charlie Cutler. Yosemiter (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A little update. A few more have been taken to AfD. Note that of the additional 18 additional pages that this user created that have been taken to AfD (by me), 15 of them were closed as Delete (this is not counting the pages listed above). This user continues to create articles about non-notable topics despite clear warnings not to and is wasting valuable editorial time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest PROD As this case drags on without a resolution, Charlie Cutler, another minor league player created by Basketballfan12, has been PRODed by Spanneraol.—Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that Basketballfan12's creation of an article for Steve Brown, regardless of his notability, was a WP:COPYVIO from [2], which has a GNU license which I don't believe is compatible with Wikipedia. I have tagged that article for speedy deletion if someone wants to confirm my analysis. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - I think a ban as proposed would be appropriate, since this editor has demonstrated a persistent lack of understanding of the criteria for creating articles. Rlendog (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note the GNU Free Documentation License is a compatible licence for using content in Wikipedia, but of course its terms must be met: in particular, attribution. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

    GFDL alone is not sufficient. GFDL and CC BY(-SA) are required. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio speedy delete Steve Brown (outfielder) reported above has been speedy deleted by Vanjagenije due to unambiguous copyright violations (CSD G12).—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support proposed topic ban. Editor still has the ability to create drafts but at this point, it's closer to a refusal to pay attention to the appropriate standards and to correct their behavior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest AfDs closed as "Delete" Here's the latest round of AfDs closed as deleted on articles created by Basketballfan12 :

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Tolzman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Hof HaSharon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironi Kiryat Ono
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maccabi Rehovot B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Acre B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Emek Yizra'el
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Migdal HaEmek B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Kfar Saba B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maccabi Bat Yam B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Hevel Eilot
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Be'er Tuvia
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beitar Kfar Yona
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Nesher
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Emek Hefer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapoel Ramat Gan Givatayim B.C.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Boylan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremis Smith

—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc). The evidence seems pretty overwhelming, and conclusive, at this point. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

UK Referendum...

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

---

I'd like to ask the admins opinion on how best to ensure Wikipedia's coverage is accurate regarding this, and that during tommorow it's not vandalised before or after the polls closed. Pre-emptive protection has not generally been popular, but someone on the IRC suggested that enabling Pending changes on relevant articles might be advised.

It was also my understanding that any claim as to an official result, until it's formally announced in a reliable source, would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose any special treatment. An election takes place somewhere in the world virtually every day, most of them without any issues that can't be handled by normal RBI means. If it degenerates into vandalism and editwarring we can protect and block as necessary the same as we do for every other current event. (I don't know who told you It was also my understanding that any claim as to an official result, until it's formally announced in an a reliable source, would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons, but they were misinformed. We'll revert it as a matter of good practice, but Wikipedia is an American website and not subject to British law.) ‑ Iridescent 18:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I know there is also nothing in British law that says such a statement "would have to be immediately removed for legal reasons". I am living in the UK at the moment and it is all very exciting, but it seems to me that claims of results after the polls close do no damage to anything outside Wikipedia, and claims of results while the polls are still open are certain to be removed very quickly by editors who have an interest in this topic. So I agree there is no need for particular concern. MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall a Biritish MP that got into trouble for revealing the result of Postal Votes before the polls actually closed got cautioned by police. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not wanting to state the bloody obvious but Wikipedia is not an MP. The relevant legislation is RoPA 83 §66; unless you're included in (a)every returning officer and every presiding officer or clerk attending at a polling station, (b)every candidate or election agent or polling agent so attending, (c)every person so attending by virtue of any of sections 6A to 6D of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, (d)every person so attending in pursuance of permission granted under section 8 or 9 (observers at Scottish local government elections) of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (asp 14), you're fine. ‑ Iridescent 19:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be a person with privileged access to results not yet made public. I agree that people who have such privileged access to results would be best advised not to publish them on Wikipedia, just like anywhere else. But that would still be their problem, not Wikipedia's problem. Also, for common vandals and people using magical powers to predict the future, there is no such risk of legal difficulties. MPS1992 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) Pending changes might not be a bad idea on the logic that IP's can still contribute (all be it with a minor delay), it will give anyone experienced enough a chance to view before it goes live. Other options are protection which wouldnt be the right thing as we do have various numbers of useful IP editors who shouldnt be excluded any more so than they already are due to no fault fo their own. Or we can leave it be. Pending changes would make most sense to me but as it would be a bit of an IAR situation consensus should rule. Amortias (T)(C) 18:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It's already under a month-long semi-protection due to repeated vandalism by a sockpuppet who has a variety of referendum-related usernames (Create account Opinion polling for the United Kingdom EU membership referendum (talk · contribs) was the last one) so hopefully we should be ok. Number 57 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper, there is no deadline and pages are not protected pre-emptively. Wikipedians are on the ball 24/7 with these sort of things, and I suspect a reliably sourced update within seconds of the result being flashed on BBC News without hesitation; to give an example of the speed we can do things, I seem to recall Mhairi Black got her article created and meeting the notability guidelines within about an hour of her winning her seat at the 2015 election. I strongly predict we will have enough eyes on this to not make things go wonky. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Pending Changes Proposal

I propose that articles related to this topic are pending-changes protected, for 3 days. It will help the article stay objective, as there will most likely be many, many vandals who will target this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's already semi-protected until July so I don't think this is needed. Number 57 18:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the editor proposing this is experienced enough to do so unfortunately. Agree with #57 in any case. _Muffled ^Pocketed 21:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course he's experienced enough. You don't need all that much experience to make a proposal. I disagree with it, but there's nothing wrong with discussing it, as someone else likely would have made the very same suggestion. Please don't bite the newbies; this is why we have a problem with editor retention. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: That's ridiculous. There's no minimum level of experience needed to make a proposal, and you need to take a good look at WP:BITE. Omni Flames (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• The problem with PC in this little case is that it's designed for articles with low edit rates. The reviewers have to approve those edits and tomorrow they'll be overwhelmed if we change over to pending changes. I'm unwilling to change it. Katie^talk 00:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Katie. Moreover, reviewers only look for obvious vandalism, which arguable comes primarily from folks who can't edit a semi-protected article anyway. PC won't keep the article "objective". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose any use of Flaggedrevs/Pending Changes in general, but even if I didn't I still think semi is fine to keep out the trolls. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• I put an edit notice up for the article, hopefully that will alleviate some of the usual editorial issues we usually have to deal with over new of this nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Article looks pretty stable for such a big news story. I think there are plenty of eyes on this one without the need of pending changes. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Need eyes on David Cameron too

Things are fucking up on David Cameron, too. For instance every time I fix something (consolidate refs, fix dates to British style), etc., someone undoes it. It's a free-for-all since he announced his resignation, even though the article is semied. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm....anyone against fully protecting this for some hours? Lectonar (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be semi protected already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes..it is, as SoftLavender stated above...but we have autoconfirmed editors chiming in all the time. Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure full-protection is warranted as long as enough eyes are on it. The trouble is, there are far less British editors than American editors on Wikipedia (population differences), and so there are fewer eyes to go around right now (most Americans are asleep now; and I always see a huge drop-off in WP activity when Americans are asleep and Brits are active). If people could just put the article on their watch lists for several days and observe changes closely, then we'd be ahead of the curve. Coming in after a lot of bollocks has already been done to it is more unwieldy. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Uniformity of Affected Pages Request

Ok, its obvious that this is a political nuclear incident, however I would plead with the folks working on this to attempt to keep uniformity among the affected pages (like same level of protection, same expiration time, same generic notices on talk pages, etc). It does us no good to suffer articles schizophrenia right now, and I would like for things to be uniform enough that we can adjust protection of the effected articles or otherwise to picot to address the major issues that arise as this unfolds.

For the sake of uniformity, I note that following to be up to date as of my time stamp:

• United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 is currently semi-protected until 14 July. An edit notice is in place on the article.
  • This article was apparently split from Withdrawal from the European Union. There is no protection in this article at present.
• David Cameron is presently semi-protected indefinitely.
• Pound sterling is currently unprotected. Judging from the referendum article though this may need to be looked at as the day unfolds.

If anyone else finds an article that needs attention or has been protected, please note it here so we can all stay on top of it for the next few days. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the concern on Pound sterling, but so far the only edits to it in the last week are grammatical & formatting changes to ancient history and a tag which seems well-merited. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree strongly that United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union needs to be semi-protected. It has had a blizzard of activity. And someone needs to read through it carefully to see how accurate it is. (I'm not volunteering because I'm American and it's not my bailiwick). Put it on your watch lists, too, please, if you would. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Its been semi protected until July 1. I added an edit notice to the page as well, though I am gunshy about editing since its about a British/EU issue and I'm an American. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Question about blocked editor

Few days ago User:Damianmx has been blocked for a reason of sockpuppetry, before his block he made many useful contributions, enlarged many articles, provided good sources and etc. After his block some users (e.g. User:Chipmunkdavis and User:LouisAragon reverted his edits without any discussion or revision were they useful or not. I talked to them about that according WP:EVADE Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. [But] This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor. You can see my talk page about that issue and articles' history involved in such reverts Russo-Georgia war and Georgia and also User:Chipmunkdavis's reverts history [3] from 19:56, 13 June 2016. I understand WP:EVADE as I wrote I don't know am I wrong and they are right or am I right and they are wrong, please help to solve this situation. p.s. User:LouisAragon reverted not only Damianmx's edits but also mine not providing any reason of doing that. --g. balaxaZe★ 14:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2/Archive, Damianmx is a sockpuppet account of Satt 2 (talk · contribs), the master account. If that's correct, every edit by Damianmx was an edit made in violation of the block on Satt 2. --Yamla (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And it looks like Satt 2 belongs to Polscience (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yamla Okay I understand that but then what and why WP:EVADE says: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor? I am in questions --g. balaxaZe★ 15:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It means it is optional and not required. If there are any edits you think of value you are welcome to take responsibility for them by restoring them. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edits by a blocked editor may be reverted, but don't have to be reverted. My personal opinion is that edits by people evading blocks should be reverted, because otherwise it encourages them to continue trying to evade their block. Not everyone agrees with that position, though. Wikipedia's official policy is that reverting edits is optional. --Yamla (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Any such restored edits, if contested, should be discussed on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say that goes for any edit. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but some think that those edits have to be removed without any further discussion and just simply revert everything, like this does user:‎Hebel here ► [4]. Please User:HighInBC, User:Yamla, User:Kansas Bear explain to him to undo his revert and let's revert all history until controversial edits of LouisAragon and after that choose what should be removed and will stay in the article. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand material added earlier by blocked users or socks, that has been removed, should not be reinstated verbatim without discussion on the talk page or consensus by other users. Therefore it is suppressed for now. Discuss first, reinstate later if the discussion allows for that. Not the other way around. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Do you read my comments? There is not only blocked user's edits but mine and others' LouisAragon hid that in his descriptions. That is not fair! You are reverting other users edits with no reason. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)~

User:Giorgi Balakhadze, see my Talk page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by a sock or a blocked user don't have to be reverted, but once they are, they are! Looking at the content of the text involved cursorily however, I don't see any very striking POV issues. I think the issues involved can be reasonably discussed on the talk page of the article, which they should be because there is an aspect of block evasion involved AND because it will give other editors a chance to chip in, which is not so easy on a user talk page. I do think that's the first course of action now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, this issue is not only about those comments. As can be seen on their talkpage, Giorgi Balakhadze originally brought it up regarding talkpage comments, so there is I think a wider lack of understanding of our blocking procedures. CMD (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

CMD as you can read other users opinion I understood that policy quite well. Issue is that some users wanted to revert Damianmx edits even before his block but after his block they reverted only specific edits about specific topics not all of them... I won't afraid to say that some users try to use wiki policies only in favor to their personal POV.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No Giorgi Balakhadze, you apparently still do not understand the policy well. As I have told you before, the editor behind Damianmx has been blocked since 2010. There is no "before his block" regarding edits to be reverted. Personally I went backwards through contribution history until I ran out of time, but if you know of edits that have not been reverted, please do revert them yourself or point them out to others. Help would be appreciated. CMD (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis Stop your vandalism reverts (like here), in WP:EVADE and in discussion it is clearly said that you don't have to remove well sourced and 100% useful materials. Your actions are simply vandalism toward Wikipedia and its free knowledge. @Yamla: @HighInBC: @Kansas Bear: @Hebel: Please community stop this outrage--g. balaxaZe★ 23:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting contributions from a blocked user is not vandalism. It may not be mandatory but it is entirely appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

CMD, I understand what you are saying. But apart from the matter at hand here, it should be allowed to start a new discussion about whatever text for the article on the article's talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, I am unaware of any time I have complained about people starting talkpage discussions. If I have I apologise. On the other hand, it is not my modus operandi to describe changing the article to suit my POV as "a few corrections", edit war further, and then have the temerity to warn other users of 3RR and then ask them to observe the status quo. CMD (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors have different personal views about reverting the edits of blocked or banned editors. Some see it as important to revert in order to discourage problematic editors from getting re-involved in the project. Others feel useful content is positive, regardless of who placed it there. Both views are accepted on Wikipedia. Our policy on this is that reverts are allowed, and so it is not an admin issue when someone does revert the edits of a blocked user, unless this is in some way disruptive (such as restoring harmful material that the blocked editor had removed). As well as allowing an editor to revert the edits of a blocked editor, we also allow other editors to restore the material that had been reverted, if they feel the material is worthwhile, and they are prepared to take responsibility for it (ie. they have checked the sources to ensure what is said is accurate, is not copyright material, is not inserting unbalanced views into an article, etc). User:Giorgi Balakhadze, if you feel the material that Chipmunkdavis is removing is a net positive to the article, and complies with our guidelines and policies, then you may restore it. It is generally advised in such circumstances to let the reverting editor know what you are doing, and enter into a discussion with them as appropriate, but you only need come here if some issue arises out of your replacing the material that requires admin intervention. The first approach is to discuss and edit. If discussion breaks down there are dispute resolution venues on Wikipedia which can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SilkTork Thank you very much, finally I've heard something that is right. I will do as you have advised.--g. balaxaZe★ 11:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Be very careful about 3RR, even on an egregious sock, because detecting socks is sometimes hard, counting to 3 is easy. So you can easily be blocked by an admin for your edit-warring, whilst the sock is unchallenged. As SPI refuses to act on IPs, they are especially difficult to deal with.

There is no admin glory in nailing yet another trivial sock. But an established editor is a scalp worth collecting. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Request DYK topic ban

I would like to request a topic ban for User:LavaBaron from Wikipedia:Did you know (shortened DYK) and all associated pages and processes. The problem is not that he or she introduces errors: this is a common occurrence at DYK, and most editors react constructively when real or perceived errors and problems with their hooks (the one-liners that appear on the Main Page) are pointed out and hooks get temporarily removed from the Main Page or the preparation areas to deal with the issues.

With LavaBaron though, the problems are not only too frequent (two articles he created were on the Main Page with an incorrect hook on 21 June 2016, and one article with an incorrect hook he had reviewed was set to go on the Main Page this week as well), but his reaction to the situation is very worrying. The discussions are at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Removed staircase hook from Main Page (first article), Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Aplets & Cotlets (second article), and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep area 3: the fourth installment. He also commented on two other discussions I started, Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep area 3: the village of Oxfordshire.

In the first discussion, it is best if you read it completely, no single diff will indicate the problem but in total it becomes very clear that LavaBaron is unwilling or unable to either admit that he made an error (which isn't a problem), or support his claims that he was right and why with precise sources. The only source he claimed as support was in this edit (which also contains the false claim that I demanded him to quit Wikipedia; a claim he repeated at User talk:Coffee): after I linked to that source and quoted the part that supported my reasoning and contradicted his claim[5], with a request to indicate which page or quote supported his position, he didn't: he didn't reply to that post directly, and when I asked again[6] and again[7], he only claimed that I was wrong and he was right without any explanation how or why, and finally gave some non-apology apology[8]. The article itself was of seriously below-par quality and should never have been proposed or accepted for DYK (my cleanup).

The exact same thing happened at the Aplets & Cotlets discussion, where I asked " which source supports the hook (perhaps give us the quote that does), and is it reliable?", and no reply as to what source actually supported the hook (and how) followed), despite LavaBaron repeatedly replying in defense of the hook.

Instead of leaving it at that, he decided to escalate the matter by applying his failed standards to other discussions about problematic hooks I started. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 3: the many awards of Roya Sadat, I indicated how the hook was not supported by the refs given for it, with explanation of why (per ref).[9]. LavaBaron clamied that the hook was sourced after all and shouldn't have been removed[10]; but again gave no indication of where he found that information. I again asked him "what sources?"[11] but got no reply.

When discussing a hook he reviewed and which contained an error, his reply[12]: "I see no problem whatsoever with it". Not because it wasn't an error, but because it wasn't the main point of the hook.

Someone who believes and defends that knowingly putting a hook with an error on the Main Page is "no problem whatsoever" is not acceptable as an editor in or around DYK. Someone who creates errors which are put on the Main Päge, and then continues to defend these errors against demonstrated facts, claiming to have evidence for his position but never producing it, is disruptive and a net negative at DYK. Other solutions are welcome, my preference would be to simply topic ban him from DYK. DYK is already often enough time-consuming for many editors, and too frequently introduces errors to the Main Page. But most editors agree that this is a problem and try to avoid it. Editors who actively try to defend errors with false claims (or even not seeing the problem with having an error on the Main Page) are not contributing to the process but create an additional timesink. An additional warning that disruptive edits like this (a rather transparent attempt to remove a note about his incorrect DYK on the article from the talk page, while leaving the DYK template in position) will not be tolerated is also welcome.

My apologies for the lengthy post, it is not easy to put problems like this in two sentences and three diffs, it's more something one needs to read completely to fully appreciate. Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• oppose suggest Ritchie333's idea of a two way IBAN between Fram and LavaBaron may be a better idea LavaBaron (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the only interactions we have is me pointing out DYK errors, and you defending them, I don't think such an interaction ban would be beneficial for WP. The only result would be that more DYK errors would get unnoticed. Fram (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Since you've only raised an objection to two of my 148 DYKs and DYK reviews, it's statistically unlikely that would occur (if, indeed, it has occurred at all at this point something, as you know, about which you and I disagree). Ritchie333's suggestion that you "drop the stick" [13] and a two-way IBAN be applied seems in the best interest of the project and community. LavaBaron (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Also an interaction ban would be ludicrous since Fram is one of the very few people preventing the error-ridden crap being visible on the main page. An interaction ban would effectively allow LavaBaron to continue to degrade the front page at their leisure. Given they have shown very little indication that they are in error (despite the overwhelming evidence they have been), removing LavaBaron from DYK until such time as they can demonstrate competence is the fix that actually improves the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Away from DYK, LavaBaron can't learn how to do better. I suggest that for a certain period, every article by LB needs two reviews, and an approval by LB needs a confirmation from a second reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Let's see: as you note, LavaBaron introduced the idea that someone ran 1.3 miles of steps in 1:44 (Mile run world record progression says that the record for one mile, presumably on flat ground, is 3:43.13). As you note with the award-winning: if sources A, B, C, D, etc say that someone has won an award (different award for each source), it's is obvious mathematics (WP:CALC), not a problem, to say that the person has won several awards (not good for DYK, which demands that the claim come from a single source, but not dishonest), but introducing such a claim based on sources that don't say this at all is a hoax, because presenting those sources as citations is a claim that the information came from those sources. Together with the unsourced claim that you're trying to get LavaBaron to leave the project (per WP:WIAPA, unsourced claims about bad personal behavior are considered personal attacks), these are sufficient reason for a significant block; the rest of the stuff you bring up is relevant to the topic ban idea, but I'm not going to offer an opinion there. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment As Fram has noted that two of my 150 submissions and reviews (75 each) are, in his opinion (but not those of the promoting reviewer, apparently), lacking, it is probably germane and non-canvassing - since a TBAN is reflective of an editor's holistic contributions - to courtesy-ping editors who have reviewed my 147 other DYKs and DYK reviews to weigh-in for either the LB "Remain" or LB "Leave" campaigns. As per the note that's been on my user page for a week [14], I'm OOT ATM and am typing via phone, so can't ping everyone but will hit a few regulars, and leave it to Fram to ping the rest - @Wilhelmina Will:, @Notecardforfree:, @David Eppstein:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Epicgenius:, @Georgejdorner:, @Northamerica1000:, @Nvvchar:, @EEng:, @Coffee:. LavaBaron (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite. [15] 130.157.201.59 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an alternative to a block. Making factual errors is common and easily corrected - that's why hooks are reviewed. But repeatedly ignoring requests for the most basic verification? That's not acceptable. Honestly, I don't really care how many DYK's LavaBaron has had approved - we don't (or shouldn't) keep score. But the fact that it happened twice in rapid succession is troubling. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is hardly the first time LavaBaron has had issues with DYK reviews, including approving problematic hooks. A few examples are this one, where the originally approved hook as stated does not appear in the article, one of many incomplete yet passed reviews, and this lengthy one with a disagreement that is reminiscent of the current one. There are more, but I don't have time to look for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. These issues date back to Oct 2015 this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and things have not gotten better. And his attitude is often snarky, which troubles me. When I flagged a number of reviews he did as inadequate, and listed them at WT:DYK as is standard practice, his response seemed to be that the best defense is a good offense. Instead of the much quicker route of just doing adequate reviews. He argued on those nomination templates about review details not being necessary. I ended up doing some of the reviews myself, out of sympathy to the nominators. When things weren't going his way, on the DYK talk page he tried to get RFCs going to do away with the very guidelines he didn't feel like following. And then there was a laughable (to me) "threat" from him regarding an issue that really had nothing to do with him. He just used the opportunity to try to bait me, I guess. I personally have stayed away from him since then, but being active in DYK, I have noticed the attitude problem with others that just never ends. And this is all very sad. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Note LavaBaron has been blocked for reasons related to this thread. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's a 1-month block that is currently being appealed by LavaBaron on his talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Admin note - Reopened this thread, as the block is currently in question. Any requests for a topic ban may continue freely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Block has since been rescinded. Blackmane (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I attempted to review the editors entire talk page history. It is long, and in some cases, I scanned rather than read in-depth. I see some things we would expect - minor short-comings early, pointed out and apparently not repeated. However, while the history is not pristine (whose is?) there's a gulf between identifying some shortcomings that could use some advice from experienced editors... and a topic ban. I am troubled by the Howe Street situation. There were too many warning signs to shrug it off as an understandable mistake, though I think "hoax" is quite an over-reaction. (I'm also troubled that the DYK was approved, but that's a matter for another venue). I don't think a topic ban is close to warranted, although I would urge the editor to take a deep breath and take on board the fact that bad DYK's on our main page are a black eye, and strive to be part of the solution, not the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm the editor who originally approved the Howe Street Stairs hook. As a catalyst for these events and for advancing poorly sourced or downright wrong information, I'm sorry. While reviewing the article for approval, I had some of the questions that Sphilbrick raised at my talk page but figured that I just wasn't understanding information that was confusingly worded (what qualified as a staircase or a flight of stairs, for instance). Of course, I should've asked for clarification instead of assuming that I would be the only one who had trouble with the article. I'll step away from reviewing others' articles on DYK for a week to get a little perspective and take my mind away from the process. In future, I'll go by the rule of trusting my gut–if I'm confused about something, it's couth to ask the nominator for clarification. I'm sorry to have played a part in this and thank everyone for their continued vigilance and good faith. All my best, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Edit: As of 4JUL2016 I've cut-short my wikibreak to address this. Request Suspension of Discussion until July 13 - I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated for the following reasons:

• (a) though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive [16]; I remain out of town and it has been extremely difficult for me to be pulled back into these issues ... it is virtually impossible for me to do a bulleted defense of a WP:WALLOFTEXT accusation. I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue.
• (b) this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk. So far, most of the editors who have opined here are those who !voted "support" in that one. The core issue here deals with interpretation of written reviewing criteria of DYK, and it is a long term issue involving a vocal minority and a less active majority, that latter including myself. In interest of balance, since this is a similar TBAN proposal to the recent failed one, editors who participated in the majority of the last one should be notified it is being re-run at ANI. It is beyond my bandwidth (figuratively and literally) to do that while out of town.
• (c) on top of all this, this TBAN has attracted the attention of the sockmaster of 11+ socks [17] tightly coordinated to a professional WP sanitizer operating on the Frank Gaffney article. For several months I have been the subject of a coordinated railroading effort by a professional sanitizer due to my singular efforts fixing and de-sanitizing the Gaffney article, which have been denounced by Gaffney himself on C-SPAN (the first in a flurry of socks and IP editors who will soon land here have already done so, in the form of IP editor 130..., above). Doug Weller can confirm the veracity of this situation if asked. I have, on holiday here, had to deal with such malicious and persistent vandalism at my Talk page since this TBAN was opened that my Talk page is now in lock-down and protected by action of Huon. To expect me to simultaneously defend myself against (1) a TBAN that has attracted (and will soon be attracting more) socks and IP editors to stuff the ballot box, (2) a (successfully retracted) bad block, and (3) Talk page vandalism from a professional full-time firm, is just far too much to process during a time period I was supposed to be "dark". As an occasional, part-time contributor to WP, I can usually avoid railroadings, but even I can't deal with three trains at once.
• (d) immediately after this TBAN was opened I was blocked for 30 days sans warning or caution (on the same charges leveled in the TBAN) - blocking someone immediately after opening a TBAN on the same topic castrates their ability to mount any defense or explanation. Even though a heroic outcry from fellow Wikipedians resulted in the lifting of the block after less than 24 hours, it burned through the short time I have free to deal with this; I will be unable to access the internet again after this post for at least several days

LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is IP 130.157.201.59. I encourage LavaBaron to provide the evidence he claims to have of a relationship between myself and any "sockmaster" or "professional sanitizer" or "professional full-time firm". There is none. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [18] LavaBaron (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• As a contributor, I'm reluctant to close this myself, but in view of LavaBaron's comment, I think it would be wise to close this for now, and revisit, if necessary after 13 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would first like someone to post a link to the discussion referenced by LavaBaron above, "this seems to me to be a re-run of a recent TBAN proposal against me that failed (not only for lack of consensus, but even for lack of majority support, IIRC), at DYK Talk." I can't immediately find such a proposal (and can't remember being involved with one), and if it happened, then the fact that another editor (me) now also starts such a topic ban proposal points to a continuing problem and is an extre reason to have the ban, not a reason not to have it of course (as the current proposal is for current problems, not an attempt to get a different result for already discussed issues). We can suspend the discussion, but I'm always wary of people who have time to respond for days and many posts (even inserting themselves in other discussions with me, a strange thing to do if you don't even have the time to properly defend yourself in discussion about your own actions), but then no longer can reply the moment it becomes clear that a restriction seems to have support. Avoiding restrictions by being unavailable is too often misused. Impose a topic ban now, and let LavaBaron start an appeal when he has the time to do so properly. Fram (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Fram I think what he is referring to was not a TBAN, but two editors wanted him to be "warned". Click on this in October QPQs and slap-dash reviews, and the wording is "I propose that LavaBaron should be given a final warning that further slapdash reviews will lead to a ban (of an initial month's duration?) from submitting or reviewing any further DYKs." proposed by Prioryman. LavaBaron opposed, and BlueMoonset supported it. But as far as I know, that's all it ever was. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • ErrantX and Jakec seemed 2 reject idea NE "slapdash" reviews were occurring but didn't !vote (presume on grounds that can't !vote to warn someone 4 something not happening?) - sry for brevity, typing from phone LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - in the above, an anonymous IP 130.157.201.59 wrote (in regards to LavaBaron) "A longstanding pattern of abusive conduct by LavaBaron has been noted offsite". I think this comment needs to be ignored and even considered biased. The off-site link the IP provides connects to a tirade on Reddit.com, which character assassinates LavaBaron. Clicking on the Frank Gaffney "Before" and "After" links and the same for "Center for Security Policy" links shows a previous status and the current status of both Wikipedia articles. It appears the "Before" in both instances was most likely POV editing by an Anon IP as discussed here: --> [19].

The Reddit.com tirade also links to this that discussion in an attempt to put LavaBaron in a bad light. However, providing this link does the opposite and shows a side of LavaBaron that is in agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. LavaBaron intiates a thread at a Wikipedia discussion board questioning the IP's POV editing and even takes a stand against the IP later in the discussion - that resonates with standing up for editing according to Wikipedia standards. It is very different from the LavaBaron who has engaged in problematic editing at DYK. Maybe someone can provide insight into this matter? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• What Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow us to call a defense analyst a "conspiracy theorist" and the think tank he heads an "Islamophobic hate group" and how does this possibly pass BLP? I see a slew of hit pieces that came out when Gaffney became Ted Cruz's national security advisor. They all crib from the Wikipedia page which is LavaBaron's opinion which is a curated selection of opposition opinion pieces. Wikipedia established BLP protections to prevent this from happening. Compare the handling of Frank Gaffney's BLP to that of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Is BLP a Wikipedia policy or not? The prior promotional state of the pages does not justify breaking BLP and NPOV as badly as is humanly possible. LavaBaron's work is like replacing the description of John Oliver as a "comedian" or "TV host" with whatever nasty names Ann Coulter decides to call him in her next column. 130.157.201.59 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigation of 130 live here [20] LavaBaron (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support After reading the above commentary, and then the background information provided by User:Fram via the provided links, I think a DYK topic ban for LavaBaron is warranted. From Fram's comments and the DYK admin participating in the discussions that involved a number of DYK editors I can see that it is very important to have accuracy be the norm at DYK. User:LavaBaron seems unable to see the need for accuracy via sourcing or as a norm and so on. He also continually defends this position in discussion after discussion, and seemingly attempts to talk his way around the issues. I think LavaBaron needs to take a time out from DYK. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Errors are fine. We are all human. Sticking by your errors when people point them out to you? That is not fine. Refusing to even reply when asked for proof? That is definitely not fine. At this point in time, I have no confidence in LavaBaron's ability to contrib to DYK in an error free manner. Therefore, in my opinion, a topic ban is the only alternative to protect the integrity of the main page. As a side note, I also oppose the suspension of this thread as LavaBaron has already broken his promise (I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13). --Majora (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"I agree to observe a voluntary TBAN on DYK and will not make any non-userspace WP edits until July 13 if my request for suspension of this discussion in the interim can be accommodated" - my simple request was rejected, so I will not cede my right to speak on my behalf - at great personal expense & inconv & no ability to mount an effective defense via mobile phone edits ... to recap: OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page, I was silenced by an (admitted) bad block [21] for first 24 hours of discussion doubly ensuring i couldn't speak on my behalf, & we have probable socks !voting in this thread - after all that my only simple req. was for a suspension of disc until i could get 2 a comp. & off my phone and it was rejected by OP - this monstrous pile-on is utterly shameful LavaBaron (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When you stated above " though the matters raised by the OP dealt with an issue that predated June 19, it was not opened until after I had placed a template on my Talk page indicating I was out of town and was essentially inactive " I let it pass because you added "I'm certain the OP had a good reason to wait to open a TBAN proposal against me until after I was out of town but it, nonetheless, creates a slight convenience issue." because, while it sounded cynical, you could aalways claim that you meant what you wrote. It now turns out that you were indeed cynical: "OP chose 2 wait 2 open a TBAN re a 13JUN edit until after 19JUN when I placed an out-of-town notice on my page". No, OP (me) started a discussion on the 21st (about one DYK hook, not about a TBan) because that DYK was only promoted the 19th (a Sunday, and I very rarely edit on Sundays) and hit the mainpage the 21st, the day I noticed it and started the discussion. The second one was also on the main page the 21st, and the third one was only promoted the 23rd. Meanwhile, you still found time to incorrectly criticize the pulling of another hook, and responded freely and at length (but without much substance). The TBan discussion was started here the next day, the 24th. No special delays were made, no effort to catch you when you were unavailable. The actions I took wrt your DYK hooks are actions I take all the time when problematic hooks hit the preps, queue or mainpage, regardless of the editor. I don't first check their userpages to look for their availability. Fram (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved editor try to find a consensus in this and close it as such before it gets auto-archived? Discussion seems to have died down. Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose DYK has a formal review process for each article plus additional layers of oversight as the article passes through preparation to the queue to the main page. There is therefore plenty of opportunity to detect and resolve errors in a collaborative way per WP:IMPERFECT. If LavaBaron's work is error-prone then he should be encouraged to put it through such peer-review as DYK. Banning him from such peer review would have the perverse effect of encouraging him to work in isolation where any errors would be less readily detected and corrected. As his work seems to be good faith and the errors seem minor, it would be best to leave matters as they are. The attention given to this matter should naturally cause LavaBaron to be more careful and that seems quite adequate in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Andrew D., the problem is not that LavaBaron makes errors, the problem is that he doesn't care or doesn't recognise them even after they have been pointed out to him. DYK is a collaborative effort, and it has become clear that LavaBaron is not really interested in such collaborations, only in getting his articles on the main page. DYK has trouble enough stopping errors from appearing on the main page, and letting known liabilities continue to contribute articles to it is just making things worse. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I know LavaBaron, he/she is a hardworking contributor, though his/her work appears to be error-prone at times. I do not feel a ban from DYK will do LavaBaron any good, and I agree with Gerda Arendt's suggestion above. The need is to be able to communicate with LavaBaron, who says he/she is away till mid-July. Better keep an eye on their work for a certain period of time and let them know their flaws, as Andrew opines above; I am sure someone who has good faith will not miss an opportunity to improve oneself. As for LavaBaron, he/she needs to understand that you can't ignore the demand for providing sources, and a defensive tone all the time does not do one good. All in all, a ban or a block definitely does not look a solution to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Has anything in this discussion given you the impression that he cares in any way about the errors or understands the problems with his edits and comments? This just seems like postponing the inevitable and forcing a second discussion in a few months, for little or no benefit. Fram (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm a 10,000-word underdog, but just to keep this in perspective, "the errors" referenced involve between 1 to 3 errors (depending on whom you ask, there's not exactly been a consensus) that have been cited in 150 DYKs I've submitted or reviewed. If I seem recalcitrant at not apologizing for only batting a 0.98 it is unintentional and I pledge to both try harder and act with greater humility. LavaBaron (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment While a certain "version of events" has been advanced by another editor in which I am unable to process WP:IMPERFECT collaboration, the fact is I happily collaborate when suggestions for improvement are put to me in a polite and constructive way. Like many people, I do have a personal failing in sometimes having clouded judgment, or becoming defensive, when the first note directed toward me is in the form of attack or belittlement. On my userpage I've linked 15 GAs I've authored and have been passed. I certainly invite anyone to view the GANs those went through to see just how pleasant of an editor I am with whom to collaborate and the fact that 9 times out of 10, I accept suggestions from other editors without a moment of hesitation. However, I pledge in the future not to let personal feelings get in the way and to do a better job collaborating on occasions when suggestions for edits come in the form of a full broadside against my abilities or literacy. Moving forward, I will be the model Vulcan editor, emotionless and stoic. LavaBaron (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification question on topic ban

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

---

I had agreed to refrain from appealing a recently unjustly imposed topic ban pending the outcome of ongoing RFCs, but then one of the people involved in the topic ban discussion closed the RFCs out of process. Am I entitled to ask that the RFCs and their articles' dispute tags be restored in hopes that the RFC process will preclude the necessity of an appeal, and because the early closure was particularly improper because I had agreed to abide by the topic ban without an appeal pending their outcome? EllenCT (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No one asked you to refrain from filing an appeal. In fact I am sure most people involved would rather you get it over with. So phrasing it as 'your agreement' is disingenuous. Secondly, those were not properly formatted RFC's and had zero chance of going anywhere since the material involved was directly the cause of why people voted to topic ban you. A less kind AGF person might think you deliberately threw them up in your usual tactic of attempting to draw out and prolong the process. If anyone actually wants to salvage something from them and open a proper RFC without your POV-driven and misleading input, they are more than welcome to. However it is irrelevant to you because you are banned from the topic. So no, you are not allowed to comment on non-existant RFC's on a topic which you will no longer be editing. Rather than dropping the stick as multiple people have advised you to, your response is to grab it with both hands and keep swinging. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

They were not formatted improperly. I've seen dozens of successful RFCs formatted identically, and they already had comments from uninvolved editors who you have effectively censored by your out-of-process closing. EllenCT (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Which you cannot discuss because you are topic banned from economics. Suggest you go away, read WP:BANEX then drop the stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have read it. I am interested in administrators' opinions on the question. I am not restricted from commenting on the out-of-process RFC closures, as far as I can tell. See WP:GRAVEDANCING#Spotting actual gravedancers. ( EllenCT (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Since disputing the RfC closes is neither reverting obvious vandalism, nor appealing the ban itself – the two exceptions listed at BANEX – I agree completely with OID, you are forbidden to discuss them. If you disagree, please cite the language in BANEX that permits you to do so, considering that the RfC are certainly part of "economics, broadly construed". BMK (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. A broadly construed topic ban means you cannot discuss that subject anywhere at all on wikipedia, unless your edit is exempted by WP:BANEX, which this is not. You were already advised of that on the talkpage of this page when you combined this request with some strange request for a "link" to aid off-site co-ordination, (or something). You then proceeded to add to a closed discussion to rehash the same question. I don't think this will end well if you continue this way. Incidentally, nothing in your GRAVEDANCING link applies to anything that actually happened here. Sadly, that reinforces 2 things: firstly that you relentlessly wikilawyer to the death, and secondly that you disingenuously introduce links which don't actually support your position in any way. These things were fundamental to your topic ban. HTH. Begoon ^talk 18:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) First, one does not "agree" to a community placed topic ban one "abides by it" or ends up site banned. And this is not a legitimate clarification request just because the word was used - it is a continuation of the same behavior she was banned for, a total inability to let go and move on.

  My strong opinion here is that EllenCT should refer to the first law of holes and move on to another topic area. From the results of the just closed community topic ban discussion my impression is that the community is exhausted with her inability to drop the stick and there is a strong likelihood the regretful next step will be a site ban. Jbh^Talk 19:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost moved to suggest such a siteban, since, in essence, we have here multiple violations of the topic ban. But it's a new ban, and we should offer a limited amount of time for the editor to get used to/assimilate it. So I won't suggest that right now. Begoon ^talk 19:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agreed to abide by the topic ban and refrain from an appeal until after the RFCs ran their course. Closing the RFCs out of process under those conditions, after I have made that statement of my intentions concerning appealing, seems absurd and the same as gravedancing to me. Asking whether the out-of-process RFC closures were proper is not discussing the topic of the ban. Again, I am interested in administrators' opinions on this clarification question which I am allowed to ask here per WP:BANEX. I am trying to avoid an appeal, which I expect will not be necessary if the RFCs were allowed to run their course with the proper dispute tags. EllenCT (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard anything anyone said above? Begoon ^talk 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone cares if you appeal or not. Your appeal will go to the same community that banned you. There is no other recourse except for ArbCom, and I wouldn't expect you to find any relief there. BMK (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think its best to file an ArbCom case about the problems in the Economics topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought so too, at one time, but at this point, with a newly minted community topic ban in place, ArbCom is most likely going to reject any case request in favor of giving the topic ban time to have an effect. That's what usually happens in situations such as this. For the same reason, I would expect any appeal to ArbCom from EllenCT to be rejected, as there was nothing untoward about the discussion that ended in the topic ban, and there's been insufficient time to judge whether the ban has been effective or not. BMK (talk)

Yes, but with EllenCT out of the picture there things may look fine in the sense of no editing disputes boiling over to AN/I or elsewhere, but there may still be problems with the way the economics articles are edited. So, I think it's best to keep an eye on these articles and if there are problems then an ArbCom case could be considered (with or without EllenCT taking part). Count Iblis (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay EllenCT final warning. This RFC is under the scope of your topic ban. You are not to comment on the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, this includes declaring an RFC on the subject to be closed out of process. A few people have already told you this but since you want an answer from an admin, here is your answer from me an admin.

You say "I am not restricted from commenting on the out-of-process RFC closures", well yes you are as it is part of the topic you are banned from. If you continue to discuss the topic you are banned from then a block will be forthcoming. You need to leave the entire topic to people who are not you, if something unfair is happening then someone else will notice and do something about it. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you're just dying for an administrator's opinion, I'll give you mine. I sincerely hope you listen to the words because you're on a very short gangplank here of your own creation.

You started those RFCs, they were malformed and weren't going anywhere, and they were closed without prejudice as to their reopening in a correct form. Anyone is free to make another RFC except you. If new RFCs are created, you're not going to be editing them since you're topic-banned from the area. There was no 'agreement' on your part nor was one necessary, as this was a community decision – one in which all editors participated, not just administrators. You've been repeatedly warned to stop picking at this scab, to drop the stick, and to step away. You seem to be unable to hear that, so hear this: if you ask this question again, I will consider it a violation of your topic ban and block you accordingly. Katie^talk 20:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tangent

NB: This is a tangent; you don't have to read this.

A "properly formatted RFC" contains three elements:

• the {{rfc}} tag, ideally with one or more categories;
• some question or other statement, to give respondents some idea what you want them to comment on; and
• a date stamp for the bot.

There is a very large gap between "a properly formatted RFC" and "a useful, productive, and/or wise RFC". Having looked at the disputed RFC, I believe that it was "properly formatted". Whether it was useful, or wise, or moot, is a separate consideration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Appealing a Past Offense for a Clean Start

Hi. I recently created a new account with a new name, since this one was created when I was back in high school and reflect my immaturity if you will. Shortly after creating that account I remembered that I had a topic ban from a long time ago. FYI, before I realized that I only added bullet points (as in the symbol itself) on two pages where it was missing. So, I checked for Wikipedia Help pages to see what is the right thing to do. I realized that while we, members, can have a Clean Start, we still need to take care of past offenses. I consulted with the administrator that issued the ban which I figured was the most direct way of knowing what to do.

My consultation with the topic ban admin here and here. Per that discussion, I chose AN for going forward with it. My goal is to have a complete clean start. I was supposed to do this long time ago but work and life in general got in the way. An empty Sunday afternoon seems to be good enough to give it a try. I looked for a template about such a process but couldn't find one.

Looking back at my history, the topic ban was issued somewhere mid-2010. I believe I appealed it at least twice (1 and 2), which both failed. Since it's been so many years I can't really rely on my memory at all. I'm as much of a stranger to it as the next person. So, everything I can say about it will be based on my User contribution page. There isn't much I can say as well. If I've offended anyone in any way that broke the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia back then, I am sorry. I'd like to have the chance to move on with a clean start. There isn't much I can add to that as I believe that's the essence of it.

If I'm missing any information that should have been here, or any action that I should have performed, please let me know. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something... your first problem is that it appears your still subject to an indefinite block by the Arbitration Committee on your old account... @Risker: @Guerillero: @Hersfold: Was that sanction ever lifted? Monty₈₄₅ 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see, it has not been lifted --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. As far as I'm aware, it was never lifted. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

He was indef banned from Armenian Genocide topics to be sure, and that was 6 years ago. I hadn't , to the best of my memory seen any SPI's on him, his contributions show no posting of anything related to his ban. I'd say give him a chance, especially in light of how many years have passed. KoshVorlon 11:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Not so relevant question. What's an SPI? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  WP:SPI. --Izno (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh, gotcha. Thanks. I never ever made multiple accounts in my life if I wasn't leaving the older one for good. If there needs to be an investigation I can provide the necessary information for that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with regard to the block, but my question is whether we can, or whether that is something only the Arbitration Committee can do in light of the block message. Monty₈₄₅ 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth: If everything you've posted above is accurate, I doubt that anyone will try to stop you from registering a new account because you edited immaturely in one topic-area six years ago. The problem is that since I assume you don't want to publicly link your old account to your new account, there is no way for this noticeboard to reach a final resolution. The solution is for you to e-mail the Arbitration Committee using the instructions here and explain the situation to them. You might also want to explain whether you actually want to edit again on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, and if so what you will do differently now from in the past, or whether you are just raising the topic-ban to make sure you are compliant with the clean-start guidelines. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, that was never mentioned to me before. I've been considering whether I would publicly reveal my older account or not though. Would that make a difference here? Nonetheless, I don't really have any immediate plans to edit in that particular topic, though I would like to be able to in the future. I'm usually a minor edit person at best. Most of my edits were about adding a bullet point here and there (as in the actual bullet point symbol) or fixing syntax and stuff like that as far as I remember. I would prefer to bring an important or considerable edit to people's attention in the Talk page and then go forward with it. That's pretty much what I learned especially in the controversial topics. I might as well do what you propose. However, I would prefer if it could be dealt with here. Is that decided by consensus here? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Guerillero: @KoshVorlon: @Newyorkbrad: Hi again. Given the inactivity, I guess the path Newyorkbrad suggested is the right one to follow. Can I get a show of hands confirming that? Thanks. 62.248.29.111 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Monty845: @Guerillero: @KoshVorlon: @Newyorkbrad: Sorry, forgot to login when I signed that one. It was me. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Standard Offer request for Wackslas

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

---

Hello, I am submitting a Standard Offer request on behalf of Wackslas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wackslas has requested the Standard Offer through UTRS Request #15994 and has provided the following rationale: "I want to be unblocked because I've waited nearly 8 months now and also I've put forward a few suggestions on improving articles while I've been unblocked. And they should copy that onto the noticeboard.". I have no opinion regarding granting or denying this request, aside from a confirmation that Wackslas is eligible for the Standard Offer as the last reported sockpuppet was from October 2015. Please discuss and let me know what consensus develops so that I may notify Wackslas. Thanks, Nakon 00:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty slim rationale to hang an unblock request on - basically, just time served. Don't we generally require the editor seeking on unblock to talk about what they intend to do, and perhaps even show some history of uncontroversial editing on another Wikiproject? This really seems like "OK, I've waited for 8 months, so that's enough, let me loose." Would someone please post the discussion in which they were blocked? BMK (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry block. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with BMK. Not much that would convince me to support an unblock. Blackmane (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - unless something more comes down the track. BMK (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• I would like to note that while the user has indeed been blocked for a good length of time, he has repeatedly trolled helpers on various IRC channels and has been told this will be taken into account when applying for an unblock. Really, the "eight months" means nothing given he is still disrupting various offwiki processes. — foxj 00:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel

While browsing CAT:RFU as I often do, I came across this unblock appeal by Stadscykel. They have been given a 48hr block arbitration enforcement block, per WP:ARBBLP by Coffee, who I will notify shortly. Stadscykel has requested that their appeal be posted here. It bears noting that Stadscykel has not been given the discretionary sanctions warning at any time relating to WP:ARBBLP. Browsing their contributions, it also worth noting that they have not contributed to any talk page discussion and would not have noticed the warning posted there. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel notified

Coffee notified Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy unblock: Terrible, terrible, block - one of the worst I've ever seen. No warning given at all, no way of the editor to know what was expected. The editor in question made a single edit, was warned, but then got slapped with a block after not doing any more. User:Coffee has some serious explaining to do. StAnselm (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Sppedy unblock -with the exceptions of likely bots working at high speeds, sockpuppetry, legal threats, and blatantly bad usernames (none of which apply here), we absolutely never block an account over an edit without the user having been warned and having continued the bad edits after the warning. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: in fact, the wording in question was previously discussed on that page, and Stadscykel was, in fact, merely adding back the consensus wording. StAnselm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on this discussion and the blocked user's reasoning, I have now unblocked User:Stadscykel. Should further discussion here lead to the conclusion that User:Coffee's block was correct I have no objection to a reblock being carried out, but that seems unlikely. WaggersTALK 09:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Definetly a bad block After one non controversial edit he was blocked ? I also vote speedy unblock KoshVorlon 16:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Blocking administrator comment - I'm glad none of you have any experience with page restrictions (WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions), which this user had violated. Click edit at either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump and see for yourself where the warning is. Waggers I suggest you reverse your unblock immediately. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And @Waggers: you also may want to familiarize yourself with the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal, specifically:

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

And:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. (emphasis added)

Either you didn't know there needed to be a "clear and substantial consensus", or you actually think 3 editors with no experience in enforcement actions constitute one... either way, those aren't acceptable answers and I don't think you should be making administrative decisions in this area. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The block can't be a DS block as the editor was not aware per awareness and alerts. Per Awareness and alerts

"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

1.The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or

2.The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or

3.The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict."

--Kyohyi (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions, which is the relevant policy when dealing with page restrictions. Page restrictions have a different warning system than other DS. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee:, that page also says "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." Is there any reason why you failed to log this at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#American politics 2? StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The page restrictions were logged, and one can easily see that in the section. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the page restriction, but about the sanction. But I think you're right - the sanctions don't have to go in the log. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

While you were allowed to block him under page restrictions, you were not allowed to make it a DS block without the editor being aware. Since it's not a DS block, any admin can unblock per normal unblock rules. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Waggers: You should voluntarily reinstate the block until there is consensus. I'm aware of at least two admins that were desysopped specifically for reversing an Arbitration Enforcement block out of process. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it is necessary for Waggers to reverse the unblock at this time. I'm familiar with the rules about reversing AE blocks out of process, but I am not sure whether they have been applied to blocks that, while based on an arbitration ruling, were never the subject of any discussion at AE. In any event, while we can debate how much of a consensus for an unblock is required, I see support for an unblock here from at least two uninvolved administrators and I am going to be the third.

There is indeed a warning that comes up when an editor seeks to edit the Clinton or Trump articles, to the effect that: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." I can understand why this editor did not perceive this warning as relevant to the edits he was going to make, if indeed he noticed it at all. He did not make more than one revert (indeed, it is not alleged he made any revert). And, from the unblock request, and Stadscykel's limited editing history in this area, it is apparent that Stadscykel had no idea that he was making a "potentially contentious edit."

The purpose of requiring warnings before invoking discretionary sanctions against editors who have not been sanctioned before—which is a requirement that I personally wrote into the sanctions procedures when I was an arbitrator—is to avoid having good-faith editors entrapped by requirements they are unaware of. When an editor knowingly violates revert restrictions, edits against consensus, and the like, that is one thing and perhaps in clear cases of such things, a generic warning in an editnotice might possibly be sufficient.

In this case, though, we have a good-faith editor who thought he was making good-faith improvements to two prominent articles. If counseled that his edits were impermissible, I'm sure that he wouldn't have made or repeated them. This is not an editor who is trying to weasel out of a sanction by making a technical argument about warning levels. This is not an editor with some POV to push, about American politics or Trump or Clinton or religion or anything else. Rather, this is a good-faith editor who tried to make what he thought was a good-faith improvement to two high-profile articles, got caught up in the bureaucracy, and must now be wondering "WTF?" at all of us. The unblock should stand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on. There's a reason why that wording was chosen in the page restriction, and I'm literally the only active enforcement admin I know of on these articles. Perhaps if you reviewed the many months long discussions that have gone into religions being, or not being, in the infoboxes you'd understand why such a seemingly trivial edit was block worthy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: I know and you know of the long discussions about these candidates and about religion in infoboxes. The point is that Stadscykel clearly didn't. If you wanted to "discuss this with the editor," then as an uninvolved enforcement administrator (which I appreciate), you had every right to discuss it with the editor. You accomplish that by discussing it with the editor, that is, by posting a note on his talkpage explaining what the issue is and how he should edit differently. There is no reason to believe he would not have taken your guidance into account in future editing. Even in discretionary sanctions areas, blocking should very rarely, if ever, be the administrator tool of first choice in response to good-faith edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write the requirements for page restriction warnings, ArbCom did. If you feel that an editnotice is not sufficient, you need to take that up with ArbCom and get them to change the policy. But, right now, the policy states that an editnotice is all that is needed. Whether their edits were good-faith or not is something I refuse to presume, that's why the warning was made so absolutely clear. If the editor had shown that they intended to discuss such edits in the future, (which what the restrictions are intended to force on these articles), then yes I would have unblocked them myself. But, I didn't even get a chance to do that before logging in today to see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you and I disagree on what would have been the best approach to this situation. Rather than repeat myself or even amplify, I'd be interested what others may think, particular admins with experience in contentious areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee:, I really you need to step back from things here. The fact that you can't see how your block was out of order is very disturbing. As I mentioned above, the edit was actually in accord with the specific consensus on that page. Even if Stadscykel had read and understood the warning, he might still have gone ahead. He did not make any reverts; he did not make a controversial edit contrary to consensus. He was not given a warning. Instead, he was slapped with a 48-hour block. As I said, one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. But perhaps the worst thing of all is that you can't see this, won't apologise, and won't back down. And that makes me wonder whether you should be making any blocks at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh go find some other pot to stir StAnselm. You literally say this every time I have a block review, and it's getting old. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You know, I'd forgotten about previous interactions here, but now I see that I said in 2013, "I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the banning policy." Also in 2013 was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#User:Coffee, which was also about your misuse of the admin tools. I think they were the only ones, but they do suggest a pattern. The question is, what are you going to do about it? And if nothing, what should the community do about it? StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The honest answer, getting past your hyperbole, is that I need more admin support on these articles. This could have easily been avoided if I knew another admin would be online to enforce the page restriction when I logged off. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but it seems like this sort of thing could easily happen again, and that's not an acceptable outcome. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It won't happen again if more admins start volunteering to watch these articles (which have been subject to abhorrent violations, which caused the restrictions in the first place). It's really that simple of a solution. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that these and related articles have been subject to "abhorrent violations" does not, by any possible rationale, justify blocking for inadvertent minor violations (much less for edits that arguably are not violation at all). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on the how much of a consensus is required to reverse a DS block, I do agree with Newyorkbrad that Stadscykel probably didn't know that this was a contentious area. To anyone not familiar with this particular mire it would seem a very routine change. I do think that a more articulate back and forth of words could have prevented this block.

I also think Coffee should have been given time to respond here before action was taken. In my experience they are very receptive to the concerns of the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have likely handled it without this even making it to AN, this block was for purely preventative purposes - nothing more. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• The block was a monumentally bad one, as sanctions should not be applied to a good faith editor making one edit that it is reasonable to assume they might not have known was controversial. Speaking to the editor on their talk page to explain the problem should have been the first step here, not stomping straight in with a block to stain their untainted record. Also, I find Coffee's complete inability to hear what multiple experienced editors (including a number of admins and an ex-arb) are saying here - such intransigence reinforces the bad image of admins that so many people have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not that I don't hear them, it's that we disagree on our approaches. Like I've said above, if more admins volunteered to be enforcement admins on these articles I wouldn't worry about having to block for first offenses at all (outside of obvious libel or vandalism of course). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Trying to blame others for not being there doing the same work, and claiming that that forces you into blocking for good-faith first offences, is shameful - do you really have no sense of self-awareness here? Your block was wrong and your continuing arrogance in defence of it is wrong, it's as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Not blaming anyone, just stating a fact. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • You're saying "If X, then I wouldn't have to do Y", where there's a very clear consensus among your peers that Y is wrong and you should not do it regardless of X. Yet you refuse to accept the consensus and accept your mistake. That is not how admins are supposed to behave. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Looking over Coffee's block log, a see a similar (but slightly different) situation happened a couple of weeks ago - User:Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. What makes it different to this situation was that Aaaaaabbbbb111 had introduced a (presumably) controversial edit here, it was reverted without comment or discussion here, and then Aaaaaabbbbb111 reinstated the edit with a reference. For this, Aaaaaabbbbb111 was blocked without warning for 72 hours. I realise that this comes out of an ArbCom decision, and the talk page warning is a strong one, but again there is no evidence that Aaaaaabbbbb111 even saw the talk page. This sort of blocking has got to stop. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Further comment: In any case, I really don't think Coffee is blocking "according to the rules". If these blocks are made per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, then the rule stated there must apply: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. Now, does the warning that appears when you click "edit" count? Apparently not: An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months... the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict. Wait? Isn't the article warning an alert? No, it is specifically defined as follows: these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message... is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. So there you have it - Stadscykel and Aaaaaabbbbb111 did not receive the necessary DS warning. Am I wikilawyering? Perhaps. But what Coffee is doing is against both the spirit and the letter of the rules. The only question that remains is whether we should ask ArbCom to rule on this. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stadscykel's comment

It's probably my turn to say something here. To answer all the questions here, let me go through the bullet points:

• No, I had no idea that there is some controversy regarding religion in infoboxes. All I've seen is a number of articles on politicians all across the political spectrum, from Newt Gingrich (by the way, how could I guess that his former religions were somehow more notable than Trump's or Clinton's current ones?) to Elizabeth Warren, and I presumed that the articles simply lack that information - well, Wikipedia is not complete yet, isn't it?
• Let me quote the warning: "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." And let's go through it:
  • "not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" - obviously not applicable.
  • "must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits" - how does one exactly expected to know what "potentially contentious" means? Well, I would say that claiming that Trump is not a Presbyterian (I'm sure there's a lot of speculation about it out there) - now that's something contentious, and I would never write anything like that.
  • "are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page" - alright, let's read Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions then:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

• The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
• The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
• The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

Obviously, neither of that applies to me. Which brings us to the following point:

• "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware [...]". The application of "arbitration enforcement" to me was never allowed from the beginning, and User:Coffee's reference to the Arbitration Committee's policy on AE block reversal is therefore invalid - I was never allowed to be sanctioned from the beginning. Because of this, Coffee's idea to "reinstate the block until there is consensus" cannot be seriously considered.

Now, let me answer to some other comments made by Coffee.

• "I still would have liked to discuss this with the editor to ensure they tread more lightly in these areas from here on". Wow, thanks for the provided ability by blocking me e.g. from this discussion! After I've done my edits, User:Guy Macon has indeed left a comment on my talk page (User_talk:Stadscykel#Controversial_edits) so it became known to me that the content of the infoboxes is that controversial. By the way, I actually thank Guy Macon for the warning - I guess if I unknowingly proceeded with making similar edits I would have blocked by Coffee for a year - or probably indefinitely? You never know what punishment is sufficient for such a vandalizing editor like me.
• "this block was for purely preventative purposes" - and once again, I have received the warning and never continued to make similar edits. If we try to follow Coffee's logic, every editor should be blocked just in case they suddenly decide to break the rules of the project - that's probably not such a good idea? (Coffee should really read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals, by the way.)

Conclusion

I do not intend to provide my opinion in this discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be a part of the infoboxes (nor is it relevant to this discussion), but it is now known for me that there is a consensus against the religion field. Meanwhile, I have spent a lot of time finding out how to make an appeal to unblock, read the rules regarding blocking, unblocking, and arbitration enforcement originally written for obviously disturbing edits and not any good-faith edits like mine (Wikipedia:Assume good faith anyone?) - and I could have spent that time editing actual Wikipedia articles instead. Instead, I have seriously considered quitting the project altogether, because volunteering under such vague rules ("one can always expect an instant block following any edit") just did not seem right.

It is now clear for me that User:Coffee's actions can only be described as misuse of administrative tools, and I urge the community to seriously consider applying sanctions to Coffee. I have no opinion on what kind of sanctions can or should be applied to Coffee, and this is absolutely not some kind of personal revenge for me, but a necessity in order to protect other good-faith users from Coffee's unjustified rulings. Best regards, Stadscykel (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this long note, Stadscykel. These edge cases can be hard to deal with, and we sometimes screw up. I think everyone is sorry about the way this turned out. It seems that User:Coffee was technically following "the rules" as written, even though, in hindsight, everyone can see a better way to approach it. Rather than sanctioning Coffee for making the effort to work in a complex and dispute-prone area (and it is very hard, with people ready to scream at the slightest less-than-perfect outcome), I think it might make more sense to fix up our procedures. If we don't address the gap between "the rules" and "best practice", then this sort of thing will just happen again in the future, with the only difference being a different admin and a different article and a different editor being completely surprised by a block. With your recent frustrating experience, I would not be surprised if you better understand the importance of preventing a recurrence of this situation, than anyone else in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I agree that a clarification of the rules is needed in that case, for example it would be logical to assume that there should be a clear list of violations for which blocks without an initial warning can be issued, otherwise editing any article e.g. on Eastern Europe (another "area of conflict" according to the rules) turns into a minefield for new editors. My problem here though is Coffee's unwillingness to recognize their wrongly (as per opinions on this page) issued block, instead it has been suggested by them that my block should be reinstated. Stadscykel (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am entirely open to discussing anything about the merits of the block itself, but it is simply not correct to state that sanctions were not allowed. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions (the relevant piece to that ArbCom policy) clearly states: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. ... Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The policy page does not state anywhere that the "Page restrictions" section somehow invalidates the rest of the page. Besides, if there's an explicit consensus prohibiting the addition of the religion field, it should have been mentioned in the mentioned template, Template:ds/editnotice. The idea that stating "Religion: Presbyterian" in an article stating as a matter of fact (Donald_Trump#Religious_views) "Trump is a Presbyterian" should be seen by any editor not aware of the previous discussions as "potentially contentious" is ridiculous. The rest of the page says e.g.:

• "The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion"
• "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict"
  • I could comment at the same time that in this case the area of conflict most definitely is not American politics (since the statement that Donald Trump is Presbyterian has neither been added nor removed from the article) but the style guide for infoboxes in general (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes), so one could question whether any of these rules apply.
• "[...] administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum"
• "For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans"

As far as I understand from the page, the section you mention simply allows the administrators to choose to which pages the rules descripted in the rest of the policy would apply. I see no source confirming that the rest of the policy is invalid in this case. Stadscykel (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, that's just plain wrong. Stadscykel was not allowed to make uncontroversial edits without consensus. Quite apart from whether or not what he added was "controversial", and whether he not he was aware of various previous discussions, there was indeed explicit consensus to include the words, per Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 11# Donald Trump Religion. StAnselm (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware here. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of that page cannot override the total community consensus that was established at the village pump to depreciate the religion parameters. --Majora (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, once again this raises the question as to how Stadscykel could possibly have known all that. But religion parameters are still, it seems, allowed in some infoboxes (under certain conditions), so there is no reason to believe that the local consensus is being used to override the total community consensus. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Just saying that perhaps the best course of action would be to actually enforce the community wide RfC and remove the parameter from the infobox options. That way, this "contentious" edit would be technically impossible in the future. --Majora (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, we have a parameter in the template with a capital punishment for use? A big red button with an obscure, hidden instruction, "Do not push!" ??? That sounds like an ANI waiting to happen. <Joke>Let's leave it in the template and see how many others we can catch! </joke> Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: The language you cite still leaves some room for interpretation. In my view, the key phrase is Editors ignoring page restrictions.... In my view, to ignore a restriction requires that you know of the restriction's existence, and violate it anyway, thus ignoring it. To me, this fits with the general design of discretionary sanctions, which require prior knowledge of the existence of the sanction. That said, I can also see how you could interpret it differently. In fact, the definition of ignore includes both interpretations, though according to Wiktionary, yours is obsolete. Perhaps Arbcom should clarify the language to avoid this type of issue. Monty₈₄₅ 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no serious ambiguity requiring clarification. An interpretation suggesting that an editor may be blocked for a first-time good-faith edit made with no knowledge that it was in violation of any policy or sanction would be so contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia that no one can have intended such an interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

NYB as you well know, this place has a lot of rules, and it is difficult to make broad pronouncements that don't have an exception here or there. For example, your broad pronouncement that we could never possibly intend to block an editor for a good faith edit without knowledge of a violation of policy sounds eminently reasoanble, except... it isn't true. If a brand-new editor creates the user name XYZ corp and edits XYZ corp, they get blocked. No notice, no warning no anything except a block. And it appears we intend to do this as it happens every day. I clean up after literally hundreds of these cases. They get an explanation which is often not understood. You and I both know why they are blocked, and know it is not a big deal but they don't know that until I do some hand-holding. My point is that we do impose rules that sound reasonable, then have actual cases that follow the rules and we realize we need to rethink the rules.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Well, that's obviously a different situation from what I have in mind, but I take your point. (I happen to think that the way in which we interact with new editors in the circumstances you describe is very troublesome, and I've said so for years, but let's not divert this discussion in that direction.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The relevant part of the username policy is: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." I assume you are talking about the above section, however the policy does not provide for blanket blocks of promotion/corp usernames that edit the 'corp' article. Merely creating a username "DavesHardware" and editing "Dave's Hardware" absent problematic editing is not blockable by the policy as written. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to the admins, many of them will not agree that a user "DavesHardware" who is editing "Dave's Hardware" is engaged in non-problematic editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Page restrictions are limited to "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)." Coffee has at least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for random content restrictions, not less. Very disturbing that the interpretation was no notice about the list of "certain content" needs to be provided. --DHeyward (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on User:Coffee

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

---

In light of the bad block and Coffee's inability to see how it was bad, there seems to be competence issue here, as well a need to protect new and inexperienced editors from these sort of blocks. I therefore propose that User:Coffee be prohibited from blocking editors for a period of six months. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not We don't restrict admin tools. You have a problem with Coffee? Take it to ArbCom. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't think I've seen a blocking prohibition be requested against an admin! The issue has been discussed here, and I will echo Majora's comment above that if you would like to take this further, please contact ArbCom -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not realistic This is not how we handle things. If you think you have a case take it to arbcom. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• OK, I'll withdraw this proposal, and possibly take the issue to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • See now I thought (hell, hoped) we were finally getting past the need for hyperbole in our discussion above, and then I see this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm totally uninvolved here, but I usually always follow discussions that I find interesting across the three noticeboards (AN, ANI, ANEW), and that what I've been doing here. Coffee was not acting in bad faith, so I don't believe any sanctions against them or even an Arbitration Committee case are warranted. Let's all just move on and go on about our business. If something like this ends up happening again, it can be dealt with then, but mistakes happen—though note I'm not saying anyone made mistakes here—to the best of us and bringing out the pitchforks over something like this is rather unproductive. If something of this nature, for anyone, becomes a pattern, then yes, start off with a discussion and go from there; however, if it's just little mistakes every now and then, it's really no big deal—though just to make it clear again, I'm not saying anyone here made any mistakes. Amaury (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not just the mistake, of course - it's the inability to see that it was a mistake that puts other new and inexperienced at risk. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose No way. It's either ArbCom or nothing. Blocking is a fundamental tool for admins. Coffee was acting in good faith, there is no reason. I'm not sure if it was a mistake at all, or the right thing to do. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Back to basics

The bottom-line issue here is that User:Stadscykel didn't know about the sanctions in place on those articles, so made good faith edits and was blocked for the privilege. From this conversation and others it's fair to surmise that Stadscykel is now aware of those restrictions and is very unlikely to repeat those edits - so a preventative block is no longer necessary. There are then discussions around whether or not User:Coffee was correct to block Stadscykel in the first place and, to a lesser extent, whether I was right to unblock the same user, and what sanctions either of us might face as a result if our actions were wrong. As mentioned above, those are matters for ArbCom, should anyone feel sufficiently strongly to raise a case there. My own view is that that would be a gross overreaction but the way is open should anyone wish to go down that route. Finally, Coffee mentions that these articles are under-patrolled from an admin perspective and that's something I'm sure we can all help out with. Unless I've missed anything in that summary, it seems there's nothing else to be said here. WaggersTALK 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to notice that User:StAnselm has asked the Arbitration Committee about the issue (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_American_politics_2), and I would welcome any comments on this matter from other editors. Stadscykel (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say, except that when you're wrong, Coffee, you need to put your hand up and say "sorry, I've made a mistake". I think the reason this has carried on a bit and is now at ArbCom clarification is because there was clear agreement here that the block was a poor one. Then, instead of accepting that and apologising, you first tried to wikilawyer your way out of it and then when people still disagreed with that you tried to pass the buck by saying that the area is understaffed by admins. That may be so and it may even be a reasonable answer for why you've made a mistake, but you are responsible for your decisions and to try and pass the buck without admitting fault is not on. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on these points. I dropped a statement at the Arbitration clarification request, but will reiterate part of it here. A page restriction should not replace an individualised DS notification. Even if it did, given their sporadic editing history which should have been taken into consideration, Stadscykel should have received a warning on their talk page to remind them that DS was in force. Stadscykel made one edit to Donald Trump and one more to Hillary Clinton. In neither case could any reasonable, or even strictest, interpretation of the page restriction could this be viewed as "ignoring page restrictions". Blackmane (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please help out at CFDS

Can some more admins please help out at WP:CFDS? WE have unhandled requests going back more than a week. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New Tool to Help Transfer Files to Commons: MTC!

Hi all, I have created a new tool, MTC!, to help transfer files to Commons. I'm looking for some victims beta-testers to help test and/or provide feedback about the tool. Any help would be appreciated! :) Thanks in advance, FASTILY 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

When I open it, it asks for username and password. Is it looking for my WP info, my Commons info, or something unique to the program? BMK (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's asking for your WP info. -FASTILY 22:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Danke. BMK (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a try. Much easier to transfer than before and pleasantly surprised that it also automatically tagged the image as CSD F8. I'm curious what is the purpose of creating a transfer log. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lui Morais

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

---

Could an admin please unprotect Talk:Lui Morais so a talk page can be created. --Racklever (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It is protected on meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Title_blacklist but I have created a page for you. Please check if the page is a spam. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Archived without admin ruling

This discussion was archived without ever being actioned by admins- the consensus seems to have been for a topic ban, but we need an admin to rule on it, or unarchive it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree this should be closed. I would unarchive it and close it myself but I was involved in the discussion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 01:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer : Drmicrocap

Drmicrocap (talk · contribs) was blocked back in February 2013 for sockpuppetry, a conflict of interest on Daniel C. Ferguson, and making legal threats. He is considering the standard offer, and I have agreed to start a thread here on the condition he takes an indefinite topic ban from Daniel C. Ferguson, which he has agreed to. He has also dropped the legal threats. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Drmicrocap is a sock of Drofmicrocaps (talk · contribs) who was blocked for making legal threats. Shouldn't the original account be unblocked rather than this one? More importantly, his serious and persistent BLP violations on Daniel C. Ferguson under both user names mean that he should be officially topic banned indefinitely if unblocked. He should not be unblocked on the basis of agreeing to a voluntary topic ban. He seems to think that it would simply be lifted at any time in the future upon his request. I am the one who dealt with his edits (and was the recipient of his legal threat). In my opinion he should never be allowed near that article or associated subjects again. I note also that he doesn't seem to have any other subjects in mind which he plans to edit. So why does he want to be unblocked? Before he was blocked, his edits under both those accounts were entirely to Daniel C. Ferguson and related subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Appears to be an SPA in dispute with a living person, created an attack page about that person, appears to not understand the BLP policy, issued legal threats... - think we can safely decline his contributions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much my impression and why he must be officially topic banned if he is unblocked. Admins should look at the contents of the original attack page he created to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reading just a bit, I found this: different topic, but the same problems as noted above, - how would we know the attitude changed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's the same topic, Gerda. He was making the bizarre claims about Daniel C. Ferguson to the admin who had deleted the original attack page. I am also less than thrilled with this SPA with a pseudo-legal username who re-added a spurious net worth figure to the infobox last year and never returned. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I just did some heavy culling on Daniel C. Ferguson - a good half of the article was about Newell Rubbermaid and completely irrelevant to the biography. Not being familiar with the notability criteria for business people, no comment on his notability. I also un-orphaned it and removed the 'short lead' template as it accurately reflects the body of the article now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This user's editing history is disturbing. The entire editing history revolves around creating and editing one BLP of a marginally notable person in an obviously unacceptable way. (The sock allegation is less significant as he says it just reflects a lost password for a similarly named account and I find that credible.) Obviously the editor will not be allowed to edit about Mr. Ferguson and says he has accepted that. Therefore, it would be important to know what he is planning to edit, but in the unblock request on his talkpage that information is not provided; he just says that he is willing to provide it at some unspecified future date. I therefore oppose any unblock at least until the editor outlines useful, policy-compliant edits he intends to make unrelated to Mr. Ferguson or any related subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, the original account Drofmicrocaps was registered on 4 October 2012 and blocked on 28 November 2012. The second account Drmicrocap began editing on 7 February 2013, i.e. 3 months after the block, and went to quite a lot of trouble and deceit to do so. This was not "lost password". This was block evasion. Otherwise I agree with you. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Total agreement with NYB. BMK (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Until info relating to point 3 is provided as well as a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. This can only be appealed to the community and will not be lifted upon request. Any support, from me at least, requires both points to be fulfilled. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Reblocks are cheap. I agree that banning him from Mr. Ferguson will be necessary; if it's true that he's the real power behind the throne for the LDS Church, and capable of choosing apostles at will, other editors can always add sources. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Reblocks are only cheap if admins are willing to apply them without making the community jump through hoops to justify them. The rule of thumb should be that even a hint of improper editing or behavior from an editor recently unblocked with the standard offer should be enough to send them back to the woodshed immediately. That's generally not the case, we usually have to have another one of these AN or ANI discussions to convince an admin to do what should have been done automatically right off the bat. Until that changes, reblocks are not "cheap", they're a drain on the community's time, energy and patience. BMK (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blackmane and my comments above. Any support for an unblock would require both a credible description of what he plans to contribute and a community sanctioned indefinite topic ban on articles relating to Daniel C. Ferguson. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocked per NLT - I don't see the threat rescinded, so we could stop here and say that they should remain blocked on this point alone. That is defacto is our policy. Socking, and honesty concerns per @Voceditenore:, and @Newyorkbrad: as well. And as per BMK, blocks aren't free. I see every reason to leave this user blocked / banned, and no net positive here. SQL^{Query me!} 06:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

SQL, in his amended unblock request, he states It was agreed that I would utilize Wikipedia.org forum and thus fore include this withdraw any further threat of legal action in order settle any differences. It's rather incoherent but I assume that's a withdrawal and that he won't be reporting me to the US Department of Justice after all. He was also fond of threatening to report editors to the press as he did to Calmer Waters here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That being said - I still don't see the potential for a net positive here. SQL^{Query me!} 07:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Me neither. Voceditenore (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The "incoherence" is bothersome. All it takes to withdraw a legal threat is saying "I withdraw the legal threat", whereas what this editor has written looks more like making potential loopholes for later use. BMK (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Squeak, said the wheel

I'd like to request some administrative attention to the backlog at WP:ANRFC. It's really dragging out in some cases. I realize some of the RfCs and RfC-ish discussions listed there are tedious, but most of them could use an administrative close or they'll simply get archived without resolution and be re-raised as new RfCs recycling the same thing a month or 3 or 6 later. It's already been established that one listed there that has been archived can either be pulled out of the archive for closure (after which the archive bots will re-archive it again later), or closed in the archive page (though the latter tends to mean some interested parties will not notice the closure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Have we started enforcing the provision that it's only for things that really need an admin's intervention to close? Have we banned Cunard from spamming it yet? If so, let me know and I'll be willing to help. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll ban Cunard for spamming the day we ban admins for being bone fucking idle. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion on managing entries to the list of pending RfCs is being held. It should be on track to be added to the list in just over a week :-). isaacl (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone can give me a good explanation why Talk:Potato chip#RFC: Should the caption include "crisps" as well as "chips"?, Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)#RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"?, Talk:John Carter (film)#RfC: Which figure should go in the budget field in the infobox? and the like are really intractable disputes which require admin intervention, I'll be glad to do so. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to go back to closing RFCs unless and until Cunard and George Ho are banned from using WP:ANRFC as their personal playpen. I'll point out that the last time I wasted a sizeable chunk of my life closing a contentious RFC (filed by a certain SMcCandlish, as it happens), as best I can tell not a single one of the participants took the slightest notice of the closure and everyone carried on as before. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Which one was that? I agree that alternative snack terms, when both are valid per ENGVAR, and which figure to use, when a basic source reliability examination answers the question for us, are kind of pointless to list at ANRFC. But some of these discussions are policy/guideline disputes that could affect large numbers of articles, and which no one will considered closed with a clear result unless it's an admin closure (i.e., editwarring will continue indefinitely). As an example, the move to try to effectively ban using disambiguation for anything but cases of direct article title collisions, despite the fact that even some of the naming convention guidelines prescribe use of disambiguation to resolve naturally unclear titles, as just one example. If I ever list what appears to be a frivolous request at ANRFC, please tell me. Anyway, just because something's on ANRFC doesn't mean a non-admin can't close it if the answer seems clear-cut. Maybe there should be something of a recruiting drive for NACs? Could even set up a section into which admins shunt ANRFC requests they're pretty certain do not need admin closure. This would even give admin hopefuls something to work on that's both productive and admin-training-like. Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I did link it—"Religion in biographical infoboxes", to which I gave a very clear "only if it's demonstrably relevant to the article subject" close, which is being resoundingly ignored. I do like your idea of a separate "this is unlikely to be too hard to close and is unlikely to trigger a swarm of abuse directed at the closer" holding pen—it would be very good training for admin wannabees, since it would give them hands-on experience in moderating conflict between people having vocal disagreements. (An even better proposal would be a throttle on listing RFCs; let's not beat around the bush, this backlog is almost entirely the product of a single editor who thinks it's funny to try to gum up Wikipedia's workings by dumping dozens of routine tasks which don't require any kind of admin intervention into the admin backlog.) ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That discussion has has wide-reaching ramifications, stretching all the way up to arbcom. Saying it's being ignored seems like a bit of a stretch even if it hasn't been implemented perfectly. I think User:Cunard's work is valuable, but that is not for me to decide - there is currently an ongoing discussion about that topic here. If you don't think that a discussion merits a formal close, then you are, of course free to simply delist it. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't work: remove stuff that doesn't need a closure, and Cunard simply reverts you by putting it back. I can't imagine a more blatant type of adminshopping. Until Cunard is banned from this board, I will not waste my time there. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

While I support getting more non-admins involved with ANRFC, I think creating a separate bin for NAC will just serve to restrict non-admins from closing difficult discussions - even if they have the ability to make a good close and the technical ability to implement it. I do not think this is a good thing or your intention, but it seems virtually bound to happen if your idea is implemented. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I just closed two out of those three. The potato chips/crisps one was a contested discussion which was somewhat difficult to close. It also required someone to step up, and say I'm closing this, and actually making the article reflect the discussion's consensus. The John Carter one was a straightforward close, but it still required me as the closer to implement the consensus. I was more than comfortable closing both of these, but they still both needed someone to come in, and implement the results of the discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course the discussions (like almost all of them) required someone to implement the consensus, but I'm not convinced that it required "a closer" to do so, nor am I convinced that the participants in that discussion couldn't have figured it out on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I encourage you all to look at the RFC mentioned above. Cunard says that "This proposal will effectively ban me from WP:ANRFC", which I take as an indication that the proposal would actually change how that board is (or isn't) functioning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, 1) it won't pass, and 2) I believe that if Cunard is to be banned from ANRFC it should be done through the front door, not sneaking in through the back door. I appreciated what Ricky81682 is trying to do there, and I believe it's entirely a good faith effort, but even I am skeptical about writing that proposal into "the rules" even if I believe it would generally be "best practices" to have direct RfC participants take RfCs to ANRFC... But if Admins want to reign in ANRFC, it needs to be taken head-on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what IJBall says. If a particular editor is problematic but the process is otherwise working, the appropriate course is a topic ban discussion regarding that editor, rather than reconfiguring the process in an effort to keep that editor out. (If you do want to go down the "RFC and policy change" route, a "nobody can add more than three items to WP:ANRFC in any given month" throttle would probably be the way to go, since it would still allow people to raise genuine cases while drastically cutting the frivolous nominations.) ‑ Iridescent 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

More eyes on List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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

---

Breitbart has an article about the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting being off of the List of Islamist terrorist attacks. It has resulted in editors coming to the page and (re)inserting it despite the ongoing RfC. The page could fall under the ISIL general sanctions I think. Could use some extra eyes on it and possibly some intervention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for the next couple of hours. I think it's best not to rely on the GS though, as it's relatively tangential. BethNaught (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thank you. I mention the GS because that one does use the "broadly construed" language. But the current editing on the article seems to not be heeding the 1RR, so I'm assuming that GS is not being applied to the article (for now). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that the RfC currently has 36 !votes for inserting it and 12 !votes for removing it, on what basis are we ignoring the consensus? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due, the fact that this Breitbart article is a thing probably makes the numeric argument a bit less convincing. Mine was more of a no WP:DEADLINE revert. I don't have a strong opinion either way. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

According to CNN, Obama refused to call it "Islamic Terrorism".[22] I should think Obama speaks for America -- and for Wikipedia. For your interest, a Google search turns up also these: Fox[23], Allen B West,[24] NY Post,[25]. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• US Attorney General has taken the same position.[26] I suggest that the prevalent view of law enforcement rules here -- not the consensus of a bunch of editors. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No. POTUS does not speak for Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you should think that, but you're wrong. TimothyJosephWood 23:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Good thing I am wearing a helmet, then. What about the US Attorney General? Does she overrule the anti-Islamic forces in the news mob? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You've...been around for a while. Does someone really need to explain WP:CONSENSUS? TimothyJosephWood 23:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is fine, but many of those accounts voting Yes are either new or haven't made an edit for a very long time, suggesting they were all brought here via the Breitbart article - the RfC is tainted because of canvassing. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I am just looking at the arguments, not the raw count, and there does appear to be a strong consensus for inclusion even after you discard all !votes by new editors who gave no reason for their !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason to expect or demand an immediate decision. I'm also not sure that this is the correct venue to be having this discussion. For what it's worth, since we're here on AN, there is a lot of reverting going on there, by established accounts, and a temp protection may not be out of order. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the RfC is unfortunately tainted. Apparently a number of Breitbart readers keep sleeper accounts here for such occasions. So much for the integrity of the process.- MrX 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly object to Guy Macon's declaration of consensus. He is not the closer and cannot be the closer because he is involved. Support full protection without the disputed content, per WP:ONUS, until the RfC is closed. Too many experienced editors are ignoring well establshed process here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I object as well. I !voted as ambivalent, but the campaigning and vote stacking does not sit well with me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Page has been protected by Zzuuzz. Someone can probably close this now as no further admin action seems necessary in the near future, and discussion should probably take place on the talk. TimothyJosephWood 23:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Unblock request

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

---

Hey y'all, I'm trying to prove to the world that ArbCom is not completely useless. Can one of you kindly help out with that and have a look at the unblock request at User talk:Iistal? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I've addressed it, and hope to get an unblock out of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Difficult to develop and cite article "Criticism of the Quran" when users desire to minimize critique

The two articles in question are Criticism of the Quran and Jabr (slave). At the latter, I simply added a citation since the page's heading asked for references. I had not edited that article previously (as history shows), yet this user accuses me of doing so along with other nonsense.... I've also received accusations to adding unsourced material at the larger article, being called a liar and such by this editor (see history at talk page). Regarding the larger and exhaustive article "Criticism of the Quran", the user has challenged a few paragraphs that have been unsourced prior to me paying attention to the effort to find and provide proper citations.

A previous user (User:CounterTime) who challenged the very same paragraphs and had the same argument went back and forth with me, to which I flagged them for edit warring. Now that user is gone, but the user User:Alexis Ivanov seems to have picked up where they left off. I find this interesting to say the least. Now an admin User:NeilN is involved and calling me out for edit warring again within a short period of time, and I find the entire ordeal quite tasking (having to revert vandalism and then having to go back and forth with folks who don't seem to read citations but only desire to add their view of what something means). I've enjoyed my time on Wikipedia for the most part, and some of the subjects that are highly contested should be page protected or at least those who disrupt article development should be monitored or swiftly dealt with.

User:Alexis Ivanov seems to use a veiled approach to contesting certain portions of an article they do not like. And being aware of the rules, they first begin a discussion contesting past edits of users (my personal recent experience). After going back and forth on two pages regarding citations and not the content initially, I found proper citations for contested content. This user then proceeded to discuss (which is proper), but then simply deleted and rewrote portions of the article while omitting what was previously in the article and noted in the reference (and which are part of the subject matter within the paragraph, which the history shows). -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I know you're feeling worn out, but it's almost certain no-one here is going to dig through the entire recent history of two pages to find what you're talking about. Help us out and post links to diffs showing what you think are the problems. GoldenRing (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Need somebody with better template-fu than I have to respond to a user request.

In User_talk:RoySmith#Userfying_template, a request was made of me to restore and userfy a template which had been deleted, per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_18. I'm really not up on the technical issues around templates, so I'm afraid I'll mess something up. Thus, I'm requesting that some other admin who knows more about templates do the restore and userfication for me, and then respond on my talk page when it's been done. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the template page, blanked it (to avoid causing a mess somewhere by accident), and am about to move it to the requesting user's userspace. Is there a way to get the names of deleted subpages of a deleted template? I found the doc page by checking the deletion logs for the admins who previously deleted this template, Opabinia regalis and Czar (OR didn't delete any related pages at the same time, but Czar deleted the doc at the same time), but if anyone else deleted any subpages, I haven't a clue how to find them. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, you can search using Special:Undelete, e.g. [27], which just shows the template and doc page. But then, the log for Template:Pro gamer achievements/doc shows I deleted it, not Czar, so it seems like there's still another puzzle piece missing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see. Czar deleted and then restored the parent template, and then I deleted it again later. So it looks like it was just the template and doc page, and there weren't any subpages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Since when is there a search feature on Special:Undelete? WMF ran a poll at Meta, asking community members for their opinion on which features would be most important, and I remember voting for a search feature for deleted page, but if this is what I was voting for, I had no idea that they'd completed it. Nyttend (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been around for a while, it's the browsearchive user right, which is part of the admin bundle. It's a pretty crippled "search", though; it only looks at the beginning of the title of the deleted article. So it's not even a proper search of the titles, never mind the deleted content. (I'm pretty sure I discovered it doing the same thing - looking for subpages of a deleted template.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Bot Approvals Group notification

As is required by the BAG membership procedure I am placing this notification at WP:AN, WP:VPM, WT:BOT, and WP:BON. I am requesting to join the Bot Approvals Group and my request can be found here: Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/HighInBC. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 20:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy

Just to let everyone know the RFC is live. Let's get this settled. Katie^talk 00:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

www.poolq.ee

Hi!

Unfortunately, our IT manager left among us, and we will not be able to log on to our website. We do not know the username or the password. We need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.249.58 (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. However, we at Wikipedia are not able to assist you with your website. You might be able to find contact details using the search tool at http://internet.ee. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

HISTMERGE help needed

At Choga, a new user seems to have replaced part of the old article with new. I think we need to split this article into two new ones and create a disambig, and the admin help is needed for proper history merge. This is the old article to restore. What followed was an apparently uncaught blanking vandalism that gutted the content for three months, and then a newbie replaced it with the current revision. I hope this mess can be sorted. I have made some minor c/e, so that this version is ready to be copied to a new article. I suggest ending up with Choga (disambiguation), Choga (garment) and Choga (architecture).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)