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

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 141 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 91 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 59 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 45 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 45 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 37 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 36 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 28 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 19 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	24	45	69
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

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

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

(Initiated 53 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 51 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 33 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 129 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 129 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

 Done Soni (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

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

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

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

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

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

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

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

(Initiated 91 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 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

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

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

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

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

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

Village pump (proposals) closures needed

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Closed the Account creation one also, changed timestamp to today. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DQ, for closing and summarizing this lengthy debate. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugzilla request to enact the consensus found in this closure

Would an admin or editor who is experienced with Bugzilla file a request to enact the consensus found in this closure? Please provide a link to the Bugzilla request at the Village Pump as a postscript to DQ's closure. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock discussion User:Kci357

User:Kci357 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well over a month ago, Kci357 contacted me asking about an unblock. Since then, I have been in discussion with him, and I did explain that I couldn't simply unblock him, but I did talk to him about what he could do to receive an unblock. In my talking to him, I do believe he is sincere about wanting to contribute constructively if he is unblocked. I have the following points to mention:

1. Kci357 has told me that there will not be any socking.
2. He has promised not to edit-war, and instead, he will discuss in future.
3. He knows that there will be plenty of people watching him if he does slip, and another chance after another block is very, very unlikely.
4. I e-mailed the original blocking admin, Fox, and he is okay with an unblock. However, since Kci357 has had unblock requests declined since then, I've contacted a couple of the admins declining those requests rather than overrule them.
5. There hasn't been any strong agreement with those admins to unblock or keep blocked, so now I'm starting a discussion here, with Kci357 being okay with me doing that.

Personally, I don't see the harm in giving Kci357 a second chance. If he immediately goes back to the behavior that got him blocked, he will just be reblocked, and I will be very disappointed after the all discussion I had with him. If he is unblocked, keeps his promises, and edits constructively, then a positive outcome will have been achieved. Acalamari 10:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Acalamari did contact me, as one of the admins who had declined an unblock. To me, the editor just didn't get it. It was so bad, that his talkpage access was removed. Apparently, it was restored to allow the editor to, in his own words, make his unblock request - which he has not done. Although I WP:AGF, if the editor cannot follow WP:GAB, cannot express his own request sincerely, cannot show that they recognize their behaviours that led to the block (and later talkpage locking), and relies on others to express these things on their behalf, I'm not sure that the editor has either the sincerety nor WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, I would say the odds of this working out are almost zero, and I wouldn't unblock myself. However, in cases where there is no consensus either way among the declining admins, I strongly feel that the default should be to unblock, not leave blocked. I don't see any irreparable harm in deferring to Acalamari's judgement and giving it a try.

  Assuming that the sock tag on his user page is correct (and behavioral evidence leads me to think it is), you should also make it a condition for unblocking that he not abuse the reference desks. Needs to be on his absolute best behavior every edit he makes, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with BWilkins on this. If the user is not sufficiently competent to explain for themselves why they should be unblocked and must resort to doing it by proxy I can't see any benefit to unblocking them. A look at the few edits they have made on their talk page since access was restored re-affirms that feeling. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam says above "I don't see any irreparable harm in deferring to Acalamari's judgement and giving it a try" and that's pretty much how I see it as well. Let's give him a shot, and if it doesn't work out, it's simple enough to reblock. 28bytes (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I do accept the concerns here, especially given Kci357's short editing history, talk page, and blocks (I'd have no problem with a condition in an unblock for him to keep away from the reference desks, too). I thought of all that myself, but then I thought again that in cases like this, the unblocked editor is always watched, and with one wrong move they're blocked again. It goes without saying that I'll be someone watching him.
  • As for Kci357 not requesting the unblock himself, he contacted me just before the time his talk page was unblocked, and I think the reason he has not requested anymore unblocks is because of him discussing his block with me (I also told him that I would do the contacting, as I have done). If anything, I consider it a good thing he hasn't posted more unblocks, but that's just me.
  • Assuming he is unblocked, it would be very embarrassing for me and an error to have helped if Kci357 did get himself reblocked, but again, I'm hoping he won't do that. Acalamari 17:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Acalamari: giving an editor a chance is a worthy goal, and should not result in your embarrassment no matter the outcome. There is just no way to get a realistic vibe from someone typing. It's hard enough to do it in person and humans are much better at that than constrained mediums like this.

I say unblock him, and reblock on the first significant violation. Lesser violations like etiquette and guideline confusion can be ignored or for any interested editor to educate. He has been warned adequately. It should be quickly apparent if he will be a benefit to Wikipedia or a time waster. —EncMstr (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unarchiving as this was archived without resolution. 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock on the basis of a rope.

• If he is found socking, then a week-long block should do; if a second sock is later found, indef block.
• If he engages in an edit war, he will be warned the first time, but blocked immediately for a short duration the second time.
• If unblocked, they must display competence and cooperate. If a similar situation arises again, instant-indef block.

HurricaneFan25 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't quite agree to that pattern of blocking. A new sock? Indef, done, finit. Edit-warring would typically continue a pattern of escalation, as required. It's admin's reading of the situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No comment on the unblock request but just as a note, this user's problems stretch back further then the Kj650 account. They are the same as Thekiller35789 and had a whole host of other identites which were never blocked, they tended to give up on accounts after they got enough complaints and another easily recognisable account would appear. They were annoying on the RD, but the far bigger problem was their tendency to remove source info or add stuff to articles without sources, apparently to better reflect theirPOV. However for a while, it was low level enough that those of us who recognised it couldn't really be bothered persuing it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• As an RD semi-regular (lurking if not posting), I agree with Nil Einne's points. I tried to interact and guide some of the user behind Kci357's other accounts, receiving one reply to a questioned, unjustified removal of article content. To the best of my knowledge, I can't remember any other successful interaction attempts, which has left me with a rather low opinion of the user in question. Some of the accounts were quite sharp in their interactions with people who undid the unexplained (and very messy - sentences left hanging, words chopped in half) deletions of article content. The user had a habit of posting an unusual mixture of questions about carpentry, building codes and internet gore videos on the ref desk, and never seemed satisfied with the response, continually asking for clarification when a clear and concise answer had already been given. It has been demonstrated time and time again that this user is not interested in engaging with others, taking care in their edits to the mainspace or being beneficial to this project in any way. He's been given enough rope in the past to rig a man-o'-war. I don't think any benefit will come from an unblock, but if the problematic behaviour returns then a swift – and final – indef has all the justification it needs. Brammers (talk/c) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Help urgently needed on unblock-en-l - barnstars available

Who wants to earn some barnstars?

The unblock request mailing list, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org , is around for blocked users to appeal blocks when they do not know how or are unable to do so on-wiki. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that there are over 100 people subscribed to this list and receiving email from it, I am handling the vast majority of the requests this list receives completely by myself. It's been this way for a few weeks, before which User:DeltaQuad was the only one actively reviewing appeals. In short, we really really really need some help!

If you are not subscribed to this list and would like to assist with reviewing block appeals, please go to https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l and sign up. Why should you do so? Many of the people emailing us are trying to edit Wikipedia for the first time, but are unable to due to a rangeblock or autoblock on their IP address. By reviewing these appeals in a timely manner, you're helping new editors get started on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there's an added incentive for you...

For the remainder of the month of November, I am offering an Admin's Barnstar to anyone who handles at least 15 appeals send to this list. It may sound like a lot, but this list often receives more than a dozen appeals each day, so you're sure to get there quickly if you check your email regularly. Furthermore, the three admins other than myself who respond to the most appeals for the remainder of November will receive Bronze, Silver, and Gold Wiki Awards for their exceptional service. Fine print follows my signature.

If you want to help but aren't sure how, don't worry - subscribe and stick around for a bit. You'll find a lot of the emails we send are boilerplate text that you can copy from previous responses and then edit as needed. So sign up and help today! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine print: In order to receive credit towards either award, any response you send must be cc'd to the unblock mailing list per standard procedure. Each admin may only get credit once per appealing user; i.e., if you respond to an appeal asking for more information, you don't get credit for two appeals by responding again when they user sends the information you need. Also, except where replies are sent within a few minutes of each other, only the first admin to respond to a given stage of an appeal gets credit; i.e., if Admin A responds to a user's request, then Admin B sends another response an hour later, only Admin A is going to get credit because it had already been dealt with. List-only emails do not receive credit. You receive credit just for sending a useful response; you need not unblock (or decline to unblock) a user. Currently subscribed users are also eligible provided they actually start helping like DQ and I have been asking them to do for weeks :-P.

EDIT I will also back this up with my Sectional Dedication Award for anyone who handles 20 in a month (from beginning to end of the month in question) on the same terms that Hersfold is using above. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually have to echo this request, because the situation hasn't gotten better since I started to go on wikibreak. (And I don't have the tools anymore, so my help is sometimes not enough) I see unblock requests on wiki dealt with in hours, where as just later yesterday (and no pressure on Hersfold here) I saw a backlog of about 15-20 emails that had not been responded to in 4 days. This is really shocking personally that there is such a backlog. As Newyorkbard echoed just a while ago on ANI, this list needs attention, and we have gotten new members, but very few have stepped up for the few emails that have been handled by others. I have a statistical document that I have upload that shows just how bad things are getting. This file is not 100% accurate, but add or subtract a bit of salt to these numbers and they should be fine. Also note the last page is not specifically unblock-en-l requests, but all emails (not that the numbers would be affected much without). Some of the ridiculous statistics include:

• In october, there were 34 requests that took over a week to respond to. (That's from when I started to take a break from the list)
• ~21% of requests are taking over 3 days to get responses.
• Since May 19th, 157 requests have been left not responded to.

Please any admins who can help at this time, we need you! Not sure how to start replying to emails? use the templates. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also note the cross-thread @ ANI. -- DQ (t) (e)

Doesn't this use respondent's own email addresses? I'd be a lot more willing if it was an OTRS queue, because my email address isn;t necessarily something I want to give out to blocked users. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason {{unblock}} can not be used on these requests? Jeepday (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Like he said, some people don't read the instructions, or don't understand them, or are caught in rangeblocks that they don't get ... and then there are those whose talkpages get locked due to abuse of the process (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Yes, it does, and were trying to get an interface going but the programming only started just recently, and people still have day to day lives. The problem is the the Foundation (well Legal more directly) has turned down an OTRS queue (and they've been asked a few times) because of the privacy policy and retention of data policies, because the list contains IP addresses.

@Jeepday: You would have to tell that to the users making the requests...but Bwilkins is right + again special security measures for a user that is caught in a hardblock, needing an IPBE, but doesn't want to post their IP, or most often of what we get, autoblocks or anon-vandal blocks (collateral damage) asking for accounts. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how I can help with the interface. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get you on the list and give you an update when Hersfold rolls in tonight. (Or sooner if I figure out a few things) :) -- DQ (t) (e) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be properly online until tomorrow, but the first requirement for helping with the interface is a toolserver account, and a basic knowledge of one or more of the following: PHP, HTML, CSS, SQL. If you aren't familiar with any of these languages, we can still use beta testers (later on), and you won't need an account for that. :-) Once you have a toolserver account, send me or DQ a note and we'll get you in. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Closure Required

A discussion about Chesdovi and Debresser just archived for a second time. Significant enough progress was made in the "moving forward" that I believe someone would be able to step in a close the discussion. I personally do not wish to de-archive myself, and was hoping some wise (or otherwise) soul would determine consensus, and enact the fair proposals. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on this close. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done, done and logged. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-creation of previously deleted page

Blackwater_(novel) was just recently created by someone, but it appeared on my watchlist, so it's been deleted before. Could an admin please check the history to see if the re-creation is legit and not/act accordingly? Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 09:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a different book. The previous one was apparently by C. D. Blizzard. Often in the case of G4 the most informative thing to do is to simply find the previous AfD from what links here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

...and either way, this one has an award, which likely improves notability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban

Shouldn't this be closed by an administrator? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, see two threads above this ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Expired PRODs

Noonvale, Bloodwrath, Conqueror's Quest, Sword of Martin, Tears of All Oceans and Silvamord have all gone 7 uncontested days at prod. Can someone delete these? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done for all except Conqueror's Quest, which you'll need to take to AfD. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot more. 55, to be exact. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

this sort of backlog at that process is rarely much of an emergency. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem with WP:V watchlist msg

Any Admin available to look at this please? [1] Leaky Caldron 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This should be fairly straightforward, has it just been overlooked? Leaky Caldron 11:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for page creation: Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Hishikushitja

I have no idea why this has been salted blacklisted, but please create this page for me. I created the article today without any problems: Michael Hishikushitja, and I would like to nominate it for T:TDYK. Thanks a lot, Pgallert (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete userbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joyson_Noel/my_userboxes/Fernandes_Prabhu_Moodubelle

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 19:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising

I don't know where else to ask this so I'll ask it here. The image of Jesse Dirkhising was deleted without an explanation. Nothing on the talk page of Murder of Jesse Dirkhising mentions it. I left a post on the talk page but recieved no response. I have no idea as to why it was deleted because I see no discussion in regards to it being up for deletion. Can someone tell me why it was removed or who nominated it to be taken down? Why was Jesse Dirkhising's picture deleted and not those of Matthew Shepard and Larry King? Why keep two but not three? I'd like to see the image of Jesse restored. Caden ^cool 20:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The image removal bot left an edit summary linking to the deleted image, which mentions Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 17#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg in the deletion log. --Onorem♠Dil 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you but I don't see consensus for it being deleted? I don't understand it. Caden ^cool 21:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This File:Matthew Shepard.jpg and this File:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg are not free images. Why keep these images and not Jesse's? Something is wrong here. Caden ^cool 21:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...because the nominator missed them? --Onorem♠Dil 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that. Something else is going on. Caden ^cool 21:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with Onorem and Caden) If you want to challenge the deletion, the correct forum is deletion review. Alternatively, if you want to start a community discussion about the use of non-free images of people who are deceased, you may want to consider starting a discussion at WP:VP/P. I do see the inconsistency here and, frankly, I believe that images of deceased people, in articles about them or about their deaths, has long been accepted fair use on Wikipedia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about WP:VP or deletion review. Caden ^cool 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tried unsuccessfully to engage in conversation with the nominator User:SchuminWeb (an admin no less) who deleted the image. I tried here [2] and here [3] and all I got was this [4]. That's unacceptable behavior from an admin to refuse to explain what appears to me as a double standard. He has no problem keeping non-free images of Shepard and King but found it necessary to delete Dirkhising? He and his actions make no sense. It's a double standard and it's plain wrong. Caden ^cool 00:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb did not delete the image. The image was was deleted by Fastily. If you disagree with the close of the discussion you should discuss it with the admin who deleted the file. If you are not satisfied with the outcome there, the next step is asking for it to be reviewed at WP:DRV. There are files and articles that are deleted while similar files/articles are kept. This is a byproduct of the way wikipedia is set up with discussions and different editors taking part in different discussions. It is not necessarily a double standard by any editor. GB fan 01:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter but clarification is always good, thus Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

@GB Fan. Okay so Fastily deleted it. Well although I disagree with his closure when there was no consensus to do that, I'm unable to do anything about it. We bumped heads about a year ago over his mass deletion of images and he told me to never contact him again. So the option to communicate is impossible. In regards to the main topic, I still see a double standard practice. I asked multiple times as to why Shepard and King's non-free images remain and I have yet to be given a realistic explanation. @Herostratus. I do agree that clarification is good and that was what I was asking for but in this case I don't feel that SchuminWeb was willing to do that. Instead he decided to ignore me on his talk page. Not good at all when he's the admin who nominated the image of Jesse Dirkhising for deletion in the first place. Had I read his talk page in the first place I wouldn't have bothered contacting him to begin with. Two editors questioned his abuse of power on his talk page. Had I seen that I would never have bothered to contact him. Caden ^cool 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So then the next step is WP:DRV. It isn't here and it isn't at WP:REFUND. GB fan 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of either and honestly I wouldn't know how to do that. Even if I did I would be accused of forum shopping. Funny how all the rules on wiki are quite literally set up as one road block after another. Caden ^cool 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You would certainly not be accused of forum-shopping if you took a disputed deletion to WP:DRV, because that's exactly the right place to take it. Black Kite (t) 23:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you don't recognize the shortcut WP:REFUND, but you have posted there asking for this file to be undeleted. But as that page states it is not for anything that is deleted do to a discussion. No one should say you are forum shopping by going to deletion review to have a deletion that you disagree with reviewed. GB fan 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I filed for undeletion thingy yesterday and as yall know I also came here to the noticeboard and I attempted to communicate with the nominee on his talk page, so even if I understood how to file a DRV, I'd be accused of forum shopping. Caden ^cool 23:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't. In fact, DRV suggests that you contact the closing admin first, so you've already done that. Filing a DRV isn't actually that difficult; I will post on your talkpage. Black Kite (t) 23:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks Kite. Caden ^cool 00:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

More stuff to delete

Category:Redwall characters. At CFD for 7 days with consensus to upmerge. I've already done this, so the category can be safely deleted. Also, Category:Redwall locations is now empty, so it can be flushed via G6. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Overdue RfC

There's an RfC overdue for closure to do with astrology, here.

Appreciate that an RfC being overdue is not necessarily something to panic about too much, but there is still some discussion and maybe a hint of edit-warring there which could potentially be stopped in its tracks.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 01:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User protecting own talkpage

Saravask has protected their own talkpage to stop users leaving messages. Is this allowed? I was trying to leave a message regarding an orphaned image but could not do so. Cloudbound (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Left a note on their talk page--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Admins, more then anyone else, should never be allowed to have a fully protected talk page. Monty₈₄₅ 01:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Saravask has posted on his userpage that he's currently on vacation and won't be online. Perhaps this is simply an attempt to avoid people leaving messages that he won't be able to respond to? (Not the best way to handle it, but more understandable than it would be otherwise.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Saravask has been editing since protecting the page, and judging from some of the edit summaries, engaging in disputes. Disputes are an important reason communication channels like a user talk page should remain open. Monty₈₄₅ 01:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Cloudbound (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Saravask's explanation; he did take about 36 hours off of editing; maybe he just forgot to remove the protection when he became active again. Still, it doesn't look good, and I don't see where his user talk page was a target of vandalism even before his "vacation." --Jayron32 02:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A bit of background can be found here, amongst many other troublesome interactions between User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser found throughout ANI and Wikipedia.

In the link above, there was pretty consistent belief that both a topic ban and a interaction ban would be needed between these two editors. Both edit in highly provocative areas that are subject to closely border AE enforcement. Due to an WP:AN/3RR report, I have blocked both for a 2 week period (matching blocks).

At this point, I think it is important to formalize the rather informally-closed (it faded off the page) discussion of topic ban/interaction ban.

Proposal User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are topic banned from all Israeli/Palestinian topics, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are also indefinitely banned from interaction with each other on Wikipedia. Violations will be met with escalating blocks as per the blocking policy

Note: Both parties have been advised of this thread, and how to make their comments to this thread even though they are blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this is related to "Israeli/Palestinian topics", at least what that phrase is commonly understood to mean. It is in motivation, at least I think so, but not in execution. Whether a 12th century rabbi in Safed should be called a "Palestinian" is not in the scope of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". nableezy - 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• My impression of the long running conflict between these two is that it is theological in nature within the realm of Judaism, and not directly related to the IP conflict. It may be best to have an interaction ban alone. Either can edit whatever they want, but neither should approach, follow, or engage the other. Any sort of provocation or gaming should be met with a block to enforce the prohibition that Wikipedia not be used as an ideological battlefield. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree it's not IP related; I am concerned with just an interaction ban alone, as that gives first-mover advantage in areas they both already participate in. I don't know what the best solution is off the top of my head, though. I think that pausing the specific proposal while some thought goes into how to pose it in a most constructive and effective manner is a good idea, personally. This is not a rejection of the basis for the proposal (I support doing something at this time), just fine-tuning what we try to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for some fine-tuning. We have two weeks while they're both blocked :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Copying across from talk page) I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Debresser was advised more than once to leave Chesdovi alone, and an interaction ban should have been implemented the last time this was at ANI. Debresser knew he would be blocked if further conflict between the 2 of them occurred. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• There are 343 articles (not including talkpages, categories, etc) that both have edited - someone is clearly following someone - indeed, probably both are following each other, which they were both told to stop (hence the blocks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (Copying across from Debresser's talk page)Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Debresser, if you're trying to paint yourself as the "defender" in your point 3 above, contrary to even a cursory look at your edits and your interaction with other editors, good luck getting anyone to swallow it. pablo 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Cool though the intersect tool is, since both editors are active in the same area, assuming that "following" is going in is a slight leap. Moreover we know that historically (WP timeframe, not South Levant) category deletions were involved in this dispute, so we should not be surprised to see this overlap per se. Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
    
• I've been involved here before as well. Whilst both editors are productive and a block is unfortunate, we do need to sort the issue out. The problem is that you can't have an interaction ban without a topic ban, as mentioned above that would just give the first person to edit an IP (or any other) article the immediate advantage; also it's too messy and vague - what would be the delay between both editors editing an article that would be acceptable? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Can't this be resolved by them agreeing to refer disagreements to WikiProject Judaism? Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC).
  
• (copied from usertalk) I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
  • I think Debresser has made a very good suggestion here. As far as I can tell, the entire dispute stems from a single issue. Chesdovi's previous attempt to solve the problem was an RfC at Talk:Palestine, which I believe was undertaken in good faith. I agree with Debresser that this issue needs a centralized discussion. (I offer no opinion about lifting the block.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the entire dispute runs for months (if not years) ... a simple search above for Debresser or Chesdovi on either AN or ANI provides a wide range of issues, accusations, concerns, problems, poor interactions all brought forward by both sides. I'm not saying that any of the editors is worse or better than the other, it has to be resolved so that future BS does not occur. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from user talk page) BWilkins, unbeknowst to yourself, I am currently topic banned from I/P for a year (on some spurious basis), and I have a self-imposed interaction ban with the "other" annoying, arrogant and despicable editor, as I indcated to you a while back. So your proposal in in fact truly ineffective. This will never be resolved until some willing Admin actually involves themsleves in the knitty-gritty issue at hand, instead of implementing useless blocks. I have tried everything possible, two RFCs, two DRNs, appeals at wikiprojects, etc. etc. So don't blame any of this on me. While consensus to keep Palestinain rabbis has been reached umpteen times, Debresser will not accept it. It is further just not possible to concrete that "consensus" while Debresser reverts each time! Debresser thinks he is right. I know I am right. Now you sort it out. Threatening us we blocks and sanctions will not get the project, or your reputation as an effective and fair Admin, anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• For well over 24 hours nobody has looked into my unblock request. Where I think I make a strong case that my block is based upon a misunderstanding, unjust and overkill. I am quite unpleasantly surprised that nobody, including the blocking admin has yet replied to the arguments I mention> Just saying that the situation is problematic, is not a reason to block me. In reaction to Pablo: if you'd care to do some research, you'd find that I am indeed the defender. I have, with very rare exceptions done nothing but protect this project from the aggression of Chesdovi, who has been trying to push his opinion with hundreds of edits throughout all namespaces. Just check all those 349 pages that Bwilkins mentions, and see for yourself, who made the first edit on them. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) copied by Jab7842 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your unblock request was declined two days ago by a wholly uninvolved admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see that, in general, (ie not just in relation to Chesdovi), you probably do see yourself as defending articles. The problem is, that you appear to be displaying ownership of these articles. pablo 12:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think unblocks with broad six month AI topic bans along with an interaction ban for both of them would be the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Interaction bans—by all means. But the problem isn't related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. It has to do with whether to refer to ancient and medieval rabbis as Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't ancient rabbis just be Israelites? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they'd have haggled over this for so long if not for the IP/AI conflict. Only as an aside, Jewish and Palestinian folks lived side by side and mostly peacefully in Palestine for more than two thousand years. I understand why someone might want to call the rabbis Palestinians and I understand why someone might want to call them Israelites, let the sources have sway and if there are sources which say either or, let the editorial content echo that too, it's not hard. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with letting the sources have sway is that the word "Palestinian" changed meaning considerably in 1948. Before that time, it was frequently used to refer to Jews who lived in Palestine. Today the word is used almost exclusively to refer to Palestinian Arabs.

The only topic ban that would make a dent here would be one that prohibits either editor from adding or removing the words "Palestine"/"Palestinian" or "Land of Israel", pending a centralized discussion. I think that's the only thing, short of banning one editor or the other, that's going to put an end to this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so let editorial content echo that too. A narrower ban on them making edits carrying any form of the words Palestinian or Israel, broadly construed, along with an indef interaction ban, may be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• (copied from user's talk by User:Bwilkins) Malik is correct in saying that the meaning of "Palestinian" has changed to refer soley to non-Jews nowadays. But when discussing history, we use historic terms. The words Palestine still is used to refer to pre-1948 Israel. That will never change. It is therefore valid to term people from that period "Palestinian". The more I read on this subject, the more I see the term is used to refer to such people. The latest book I read was published in 1978 and was a collection of scientific discourses. It was editied by two leading Orthodox Jewish personalities, Aryeh Carmel and Cyril Domb, and ancient rabbis are called "Palestinian". Now Debresser may want to burn this book due to that offending word, but it is crystal clear that the term "Palestinian" is used by contemporary mainstream neutral Jewish RS, just as "Palestine" is used to describe the historic region. Who can claim to the contrary? Even the chief rabbi used to term to refer to Levi ibn Habib. But Debresser will just not accept these facts. As he so idiotically stated: To use such a word to describe a Jewish person is, wait for it: "anti-semitic". Can you now begin to understand his mindset? He said he would "fight will all his might" to stop the word being used. Is that normal expression for a wiki-editor or does it indicate a strong POV related to the I/P conflcit? For Debresser, this indeed is associated with the conflict, but for me, coming purley from a historical viewpont, this has little to do with it. Debresser's opposition to this is a clear case of politically inspired POV which has no place here and I find it very hard why other editors do not recognise this. Debresser can state as much, and as hard as he wants, that there was never a place called "Palestine", but any person with a grain of intellect will just smirk at such a stupid assumption. The Encylopedia Judaica calls Daniel ben Azariah "Palestinian", but God forbid for us to use it here. I find Debresser a disruptive, arrogant and foul-mouthed menace. He has lost any credibility in my mind. Wikipedia should not be pandering to the views of such people. Every fickle argument Debresser has forwarded on this subject, I have refuted. As far as I am concerned, the majority of the communtiy concede usage is valid, but Debresser continues to reject it and enforce his own opinion. There have been enough centralised discussions on the matter. The conclusion, believe it or not, is that "Palestinian" can indeed refer to people of historic Palestine, be they rabbis or christian monks. Any one who wants to help out here should try and convince Debresser of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs)

  Well, as far as I can see, within certain temporal boundaries, there may be synonyms (Palestine and Land of Israel, Palestinian and Israelite) which would be invalid outside those temporal boundaries. That doesn't mean that the choice of terms is arbitrary. If one term is clearer than the other then that should be used. If one term is more accurate than the other then that should be use. If those two edicts are in significant conflict then accuracy should be followed with appropriate explanatory text. We are not writing WP primarily for the historical scholars who will have their own sources, but for a far more general readership. This is not so hard to resolve, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
  

  Reading through Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis it appears that terms both more accurate and more clear exist. I also think that discussion will inform anyone trying to take a view on this situation, although of course it is only part of the wider context which is very TLDR. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
  

• (Copied over from User talk:Debresser by User:Gwen Gale: Yes, adding the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" or "Land of Israel" - in general not adding any ethnic or geographic description - to articles (main article namespace only, I mean) about Jewish sages - and more generally Jews - should do it. There simply is no reason for a broader ban, because Chesdovi is already topic banned under WP:ARBPIA, and I don't edit such articles, as my contributions show. The ban should last until centralized (really central, not like before) discussion has reached a consensus. I think that discussion should be opened by somebody other than us. Perhaps Malik Shabazz would agree to open it. In order to avoid that discussion turning into a debate between the two of us, I think we should be restricted to 1 edit a day in that discussion. In addition I'd ask for my (or our) block(s) to be lifted, because from that moment on the block(s) would be only punitive. (That is in addition to the arguments I have mentioned before. In all earnest, I would really like to know how editors like Bwilkins and Pablo think I should have acted to defend the project from Chesdovi's edits in a way that would not have lead to my being blocked here repeatedly. You are invited to write me on my talkpage about this.) into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well you might consider editing only subjects and articles in which you have less of an investment, and on which you able to work collegially with other editors, tather than feeling that you have to defend "your" articles quite so much. pablo 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (copy/pasted from User talk:Debresser by User:Bwilkins Pablo, please be a little less hostile and accusing. The accusations of WP:OWN are strange in view of the fact that I hadn't edited almost any of those articles before Chesdovi came along and made his usual (read tendentious) edits on them. Did you do your homework? I recommended you to check all those articles and see who of the two of us made the first edit. Perhaps after that, you'll change your tune. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Er...so, you're just admitting that you're following a user around, even though you have been told in the past to not do that? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(copied by User:Bwilkins) No, Bwilkins. I ran into his edits in various places. Some of them he posted triumphantly on WT:JUDAISM, until people told him in no fine language that they had enough of that. Other articles I had on my watchlist. His talkpage was (and is) on my watchlist as well, since I posted there a few times. Sometimes I would notice an edit in one article, and check his contributions to see whether he made any more such edits. But I would not regularly check his edits, no. I have a distinct feeling there is a lack of assuming good faith from a few editors here... And in view of your lack of good faith and the unjustified block (you have not replied to any of my arguments), let me add. When will you understand I was (and am) only trying to protect the status quo on this project from the onslaught of one disruptive editor who has made many attempts to push his tendentious edits, but never gained consensus for them? Have you checked that such is indeed the case? Please do. Never in all the discussions he started (and I won't even go into his behavior in those discussions) has he gained consensus for his point of view. Always a majority of editors have preferred other expressions. So why did WP:ANI admins allow him to go unpunished when I posted here all those times before now. So in a way you yourself (including a few of the other admins who have partaken in this thread) are responsible for this escalation. So please be so kind, and do not turn me into your scapegoat. I have posted a fair proposition above. Let's go with it, and move things from their present unfortunate state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

If I was a prosecuting attorney, I'd blink and say "wow, you proved everyone's case better than I could have myself" :-) Thank you for proving the block was necessary, valid, and just. WP:NOTTHEM might just be a good thing for you to read while you're blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Copied over from User talk:Debresser by User:JohnCD: Have you checked what I asked you to check, or haven't you? Instead of asserting you did the right thing blocking me, perhaps you start looking into what happened. You have never defended your decision to block me, although I have been implored you to look into the facts, point you to the relevant places. After all, admins are supposed to give account of their actions as well, when asked to do so. Other admins are likewise invited to see the facts for themselves. Also I find it less than helpful that you do not reply to my proposal about how to get out of this mess. That is what I would expect an impartial and wise admin to have foremost among his priorities, rather than gloating about his blocks. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• (Copied over from User talk:Chesdovi by User:JohnCD: Why can we just not rely on RS to use the word "Palestinian" to describe medieval rabbis? Claiming that the term is confusing holds no credibility in the face of widespread contemporary usage in mainstream RS. Further, 3RR reports on Israel ben Meir di Curiel. He is described at Palestinian rabbis, as "a rabbi who lived in the region known as Palestine", yet the region he lived in is removed by Debresser because it is "controversial". What is that supposed to mean? Why is it "controversial." Is adding "Israel" not "controversial?", besides from being a absolute untruth. The AFD and rejection of two "potential renames" supports the fact that using such a classification for such rabbis has been accepted. It is now up to the community to impress upon Debresser that any removal of the word "Palestine/Palestinian" from any "Jewish" pages will be dealt with accordingly. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(de-archived (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Example of the English "Palestine" being used by a rabbinic school in "Eretz Yisrael". How can we say that the Torath Chaim Yeshiva was not in Palestine?!! (Image copied over from User talk:Chesdovi by User:JohnCD) :

• (Copied over from User talk:Chesdovi by User:Excirial) : How unfortunate Dweller suggests we are "unsuitable for editing in a collaborative system like Wikipedia." Instead of castigating editors who are locked in a dispute over term usage, he should try suggesting a resolution to the dispute in the true spirit of Wikipedia. The community is marvellous at suggesting bans and implementing blocks very swiftly. There’s never a dearth of Admin input in those situations. But when it comes to sorting out sticky points to help the project move forward, that’s a different matter. DRN’s are closed without comment. RFCs are left “unclosed”. CFDs are closed with the wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, I can provide a list here of a majority of editors who have commented about this and have supported using “Palestinian” for rabbis. So what more is there to discuss? To gain consensus, one has to make edits and see if they stick. How can I go about doing if every time I do, Debresser comes along and reverts immediately? I cannot come to an agreement with him because his arguments are in my view irrational and I know very well indeed this this is not about “confusion” at all, but rather about not mentioning the supposedly offensive “Palestine” on “Jewish” pages. What clearer evidence is there that this is a thinly veiled “pro-Israel” manipulation? It is not “anti-Semitic” to call a rabbi “Palestinian”. Neither is it inaccurate or offensive. It is 100% correct and proper. That is why its use is so widespread in reliable sources, many of them written by contemporary Jewish academics. Now, unless there is a rule on wiki that we not use terms which are deemed offensive to certain individuals, I see no reason why unless those editors provide a convincing argument not to use such accepted terms, they cannot be used. Ed suggests: "Both editors should be banned for six months from any naming issues concerning 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' in both articles and talk pages." Why is this necessary? I am quite capable of not using the word while the matter is "sorted out." On numerous articles, I purposefully blanked out the offending word, pending the outcome of the discussion on the matter: [7]. When the outcome was clear that using the term was okay, I added it. There is similarly no reason why I cannot edit in pages such as Palestinian synagogues, Palestinian Patriarchate, Palestinian minhag and Palestinian Gaonate. An uninvolved editor should try explaining why we cannot use "Palestinian Rabbi" on bio pages even though Palestinian rabbi exists as a self-contained article. That is a very intriguing question, don’t you think? Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to acknowledge a problem with Wikipedia: we do not have a large enough numer of editors who are well-informed and interested in these articles to produce stable consensuses. Whenever an article, or in this case a pretty specific issue (the proper name ro use), is of interested to n<3 editors, we invariably end up with an unstable situation.

In this case I think there are two problems: an interaction poblem etween Debresser and Chesdovi that calls for some cooling-off period (which a topic ban can also serve — the important thing is to give both editors a chance to cool down). But I also think there is a content issue.

I admit I have had conflict with Debresser in the past; also I generally like Chesdovi's reasoning. But not in this case. I think Chesdovi is wrong to favor systematically Palestine/Palestinian. I agree with Chesdovi that when refering to historial events we should use historically appropriate terms. The problem is, we should not do this in a way that will mislead our readers, and I think Chesdovi is applying this good principle inappropriately. First, it is not quite accurate to say that Palestine was the name for the place back then. As shown by the piece of evidence provided, even at the time Jews in their own language efered to it as the land of Israel. Calling it "Palestine" is correct, but incomplete; to do justice to the sources the articles must explain that the place was identified in different ways in different languages. There is a Hebrew word for "Palestine" and it is not "Eretz Israel;" this means that we are not looking at a translation issue, we are looking at two names contemporaneously. Second, even in cases where I would prefer to identify the lace as "Palestine," it is misleading to identify Jews as Palestinians. The contemporary meanings of these terms are so profoundly distinct that to do so will only cause unnecessary confusion for our readers. In short, Chesdovi is mistranslating terms. In the first instance, she is suggesting that Palestine is the English translation for Eretz Israel, when it is not, it is not a translation, it is a case of two different names in two different languages. In the second instance, she is refusing to translate when translation is called for: "Palestinian" back then mant something different, so it needs to be translated into its contemporary meaning in this case anything other than "Palestinian" - there are multiple choices, "Jerusalemite," or "resident of Palestine" for example. I have no questions about Chesdovi's good faith and intentions, but in this particular case the edits cause unnecessary confusion and are bound to be reverted. But what do we do when Debresser is the only person willing to make corrections?

AN/I is not the right place to resolve this, but whnever the number of well-informed editors is so low, content problems invariably become personal conflict problems, and WP does not have a good clear mechanism to handle this. I would support a cooling off period, but this will be pointless unless we can also suggest to Debresser some constructive suggestions for how to fix these mistakes without getting into a personal conflict, or suggest a mentor for Chesdovi, or mandate mediation between Chesdovi and Debresser after the cooling-off period. Unless we suggest some mechanism for handling these edit conflicts, the cooling-of period is pointless. Perhaps eventually it would go to ArbCom, in which case the sooner they find a mediator, the better. But there is a content issue that won't go away and I do not think either Debresser or Chesdovi should be banned from editing these articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

So, are we going to enact an interaction ban or a topic ban or are we going to pass the buck? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's fine-tune the topic ban:

• Both editors should be banned for six months from any naming issues concerning 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' in both articles and talk pages
• In general, they can make no edits that assume any particular answer to the following question:

  What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?

• These editors may add no categories to articles that assume that either 'Palestinian' or 'Israeli' is the correct answer. They are allowed to pose neutral questions to others as to the tagging of articles that *they create themselves*. Except for that, they must be silent on the subject.
• If this ban is adopted either by consensus here or by voluntary agreement, the blocks on these two editors might be lifted at that point. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to slightly disagree: this does need to be a combination of topic ban (or agreement as per above) plus an interaction ban. Debresser has admitted to following Chesdovi around. When that happens, stupidity (not people-wise, but action-wise) ensues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I'm tired of these WP:LAME edit warriors. But I do worry what they'll turn their attention to next, as both seem to me to be unsuitable for editing in a collaborative system like Wikipedia. I suggest that the threat of community ban be made explicit if they rescind or enter new fields of fray. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If others believe that a six-month interaction ban is also needed, I'd be OK with that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with this proposal; and also with Wilkins' suggestion that an interaction ban be proposed. Since the others are for six months; this one should be too Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support EdJohnston's topic ban proposal as well as the proposed WP:IBAN between these two editors. If these measures fail to be adopted by the community, the matter should probably be kicked upstairs to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support with interaction ban. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Offwiki canvassing alert: Chesdovi emailed me, alerting me to this thread and asking me to contribute to it. I've been generally supportive of Chesdovi's side of things at DRV in the past and he may see me as a sympathetic editor. No such luck, I'm afraid, Chesdovi: I'm a mean, nasty editor who doesn't approve of offwiki canvassing at all. But with that said, I don't think the answer will involve blocking either of these two otherwise-productive editors. I like Ed Johnston's idea.—S Marshall T/C 01:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• neutral I do not think that a topic ban is the long-term solution, even if it is necessary in the short term. And I definitely owuld support a cooling-of period. But as I explain below unless the block is followed some better mechanism (e.g. a combination of mentoring and mediation) I don't see a point to the cool-off period. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• (copied across from users talk by User:Steven Zhang)(moved down from the previous section by User:John of Reading per talk page request) This post is very unfortunately belated because I made a typo in the adminhelp template. This is more or less what I proposed as well. With one exception. I see no reason to exclude us from talkpages. To the contrary, I think a centralized discussion about this subject should be started by some editor other than us. And after that discussion has come to a conclusion, the topic ban can be lifted. The only restriction I would think fair is that we should not be allowed to post more than one post a day in such a discussion, to avoid it becoming a discussion of two people only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request and protest

A notification of unblocking and bans has been posted on my talkpage. Please see there that I ask to reconsider, that the ban should not include talkpages. Arguments there. See also my protest against an additional injunction against me in comparison with the injunctions against Chesdovi. Since the notification was posted on my talkpage, not here, I have replied on my talkpage, and kindly ask you to see there. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion back from the archives per Debresser (talk · contribs)'s contesting of the close. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To the extent this is an appeal of a discretionary sanction, it must be appealed to WP:AE and not here. T. Canens (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. In the mean time, all who care, please feel free to read the gist of my problem with this sanction on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that protesting against a sanction preventing you from calling others "anti-semitic" by claiming that the restriction itself is anti-semitic was not the brightest thing you've ever done; however, as T.Canens says above, this is the wrong venue. Black Kite (t) 11:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It did appeal to my sense of humor. See also Jewish humour. And of symmetry. In any case, if I think it is true, I have a right to say it on talkpages. Restricting this right because I might (stress that, since I admit to no such thing) have misused the term once, is unjust. And I find that especially strange (and that is a very large understatement) in view of the fact that none of the proposals above included such a clause. Anyway, your interest in this case is appreciated. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Debresser. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't want to play within the rules, indef him and be done with it. This is a rabbit hole that none need to go down - we've wasted enough time on an editor who fails to see/accept the repercussions of their own actions. How frustrating to see a reasonbly good editor implode. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

user:rozitaa

Some one hacked user:Rozitaa password in en.wiki and writes some spam in here page. she is active in fa.wiki and she doesn't access to here account to write in this page. is it possible to reset here page to here password that is in fa.wiki? if it is not please block here user page and her pageDiscussion until some one could solve this problem. Reza1615 (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

please block user:Rozitaa Some one hacked this name.Roozitaa (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Closedmouth as compromised. — Moe ε 10:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC closure needed

Could someone please take a look at the RfC regarding names a few color-related articles. The RfC is over 30 days old and needs to be closed one way or another. Or perhaps changed into a request for move. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC summary update

Resolved

by self revert. Dualus (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to reverse this deletion of updates and clarifications I made to an RfC header, but I have been accused of disruptive editing so I am asking that an administrator revert that instead, please. Dualus (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)