Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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)[reply]

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

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

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

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 92 days ago on 12 February 2024)

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

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

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

(Initiated 55 days ago on 21 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 23 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 24 April 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board?

With 63 threads of its own at the time of this writing, transcluding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure onto this board makes it unduly long and cumbersome. Wouldn't it make sense to dispense with the transclusion?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also gets them done, albeit slowly - which is hardly a surprise since they would not be on the list if they were easy. As an admin, I like having the transclusion. It reminds me to go and pick a few off every now and then. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the board backwards, from the bottom up, so when I hit the closure section I just stop reading and go to my next task. BMK (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them transcluded per the first bullet point at the top - "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." (my bolding). Otherwise the RfC backlog will be logged here as a normal incident that will then disappear off this page in a couple of days with no action. Maybe if a few admins actually did something about the backlog, it wouldn't have a massive transclusion... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problem is, was, and probably will continue to be that stuff gets listed there that does not need a formal close by an uninvolved admin. The difficulty is establishing some sort of uniform standard for what should and should not require a formal close. Not sure what to do about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice you've repeatedly asserted that funny belief at this noticeboard over time, but in all reality, it does not improve anything at all and often doesn't gel with reality. Even using your excuse, it takes a few short seconds (or minutes) to specify those items which don't actually need to be closed - I've certainly done that, but it hasn't changed the inordinate delay for the discussions required to be closed by an administrator to actually be closed by an admin. The actual problem which brought the listings here in the first place is that an inadequate number of duly elected administrators properly participate in this task (which is perhaps ironic given the number of promises made during RfAs promising to clear backlogs). It was hoped that more eyes would improve that situation by transcluding the discussion here, and I can say it certainly has improved since the listings were brought here, though not nearly as much as was probably hoped at the time. Of course the other reality is that many of these closures take a significant amount of time to do properly and are sometimes too complex or difficult for the administrators who are less experienced at this type of thing. That said, it is also very convenient to blame everyone else except the numerous users who voluntarily sought tools but at the same time will not do what it is they were elected to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some doesn't, some does, but like it or not, we have the mop and the community kind of expects us to do this shit. If you don't want to, then fine, but I think it's a basic courtesy that when people launch RfCs and such they should be able to expect that the time spend discussing the issues will result in some form of closure. Yes, in many cases it doesn't need an actual admin, but it seems to make people more inclined to draw a line under things if it is. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But sometimes the discussion reaches a natural conclusion, and a formal close is just that, a complete formality and totally unnecessary. Unfortunately, the difference doesn't seem to be recognized by Cunard, who is basically the editor compiling the list, and thus it grows like Topsy, with the discussions that really do need to be closed mixed in with the petty ones that have run out of steam, with everyone basically disinterested, or actually in rough agreement. BMK (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - And contributing is the fact that when admins like me remove items that don't need to be admin-closed, Cunard and others restore them, even undoing an edit that says "this won't be done by an admin, so stop wasting our time". When you're asking for admin action, and a passing uninvolved admin says "no action is necessary", don't go and revert him: you've gotten your admin response. Either it's a suitable response, in which case you need to drop it, or it really needs action, in which case you should make a bigger request (e.g. laying out reasons why a closure is necessary), not simply putting it back and making it look like nobody's touched it yet. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Despite the fact the second editor who reverted your edit is currently blocked for sockpuppetry, I agree with what you've said generally. However, I think the objection with your edit was not that it won't be done by an admin; instead, the objection was that it was deleting the request which should be archived. I'm sure we had some brief discussion (though I can't remember what came of it) in relation to whether requests should be archived or simply deleted. I'm not spectacularly fussed what happens with those types of requests but think if archiving is taking place, then bot-automated archiving should be done more promptly. It would mean the backlog wouldn't appear so lengthy and we'd be able to more easily ascertain what proportion of requests listed by any given editor were actually unnecessary without having to look through the page's history. While I know there will always be some dispute regarding whether archiving is necessary, perhaps it would be helpful if we could all agree to increase the frequency of archiving by the bot in the interim? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If your objection is simply that I didn't allow the bot to archive the requests, why would you just revert me? Wouldn't you instead spend a while adding a bunch of little "no" templates to all of the ones I removed? (Hmm, takes a while, especially since nobody will ever check the archive...Wonder why I remove resolved items?) Nyttend (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well in the meantime, I've just manually archived about 10 discussions which were closed 2 days ago; 24 hours of display is more than enough yet the bot didn't archive them. I still think an increased frequency for the bot to archive would help because now there are just about 26 requests (22 rfcs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually look at the ANRFC section when I visit this page, because I'm not that interested in closing other people's threads. But as a non-admin am I even allowed? If the answer is no, could this be made a bit more clear than it already is? There was a certain recent occurrence where one non-admin posting a large number of ANRFCs requesting "experienced editors" "close" them, without actually going through the discussions themselves and seeing if they needed to be closed, and another non-admin came along and "closed" the already finished and un-templated RFC as a result, providing a dubious interpretation of the "consensus" and leading to a minor fustercluck. The problem on that particular discussion is already resolved, but User:JzG above says "we [admins] have the mop and the community kind of expects us to do this shit". I have my doubts as to whether someone who actually held the mop in question would close an weeks-ago un-templated RFC with a dubious consensus claim, but is it safe to interpret JzG's comment and the fact that ANRFC is on the administrators' noticeboard to mean that admins are generally supposed to be the ones who perform these closes? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of non-admins who busy themselves with NAC on this board. Usually when an admin's accountability is under question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can close RfCs as long as they are uninvolved. Contentious ones may be best left to admins because drama. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As evident here Guy, truer words have seldom been spoken. AlbinoFerret 16:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they should remain here. While some may not need formal closure, it is very frustrating when no one seems to find those that do. AN is a good place for them to go as there is a high degree of visibility. Finally (and off-topic), I'd suggest pointing anyone looking for the mop to consider closing a number of these. It's a non-admin task that tells you a lot about how good of an admin they'll be. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily second everything Hobit just said directly above : ) - jc37 16:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to use {{fakeheader}}s

I propose that we continue using ANRFC as we currently do, but that all requests be placed under {{fakeheader}}s, which would significantly reduce clutter in the TOC while maintaining the same level of usability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a noticeboard. Notices on a noticeboard aren't "clutter", they're notices. Just because you may not care for them, doesn't make them any less valid than any other notice here requesting admin attention. - jc37 16:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to care for them. I'm not proposing that we remove anything! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an idea but would it not be easier to just use {{toclimit|3}} or similar? Most of the space is taken up by items in need of closing. tutterMouse (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be wary of doing this because sometimes active AN threads make use of "deeper" threading levels... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True but I think it's a compromise that works as well as your proposal, breaks in long conversations do matter after all. I have a question, does {{fake heading}} have an ability to be used as section anchors as a regular header would? It's also a bit disappointing as they're coded specifically to fit in with Vector which is great if you're using Vector, looks out of place otherwise. tutterMouse (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as an excellent compromise. Being able to use the links in the TOC without having to scroll way down to get to the first thread on this board would be a big help. Efficacy and ergonomics were my main concern and Salvidrim!'s proposal addresses that quite well.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible to make sure the TOC at the subpage still shows the full list (so that there's a place to see a summary of the requests for closure for my own workflow), I wouldn't have a problem with this. Sunrise (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what they are proposing. What they seem to be proposing is to remove the individual entries from the TOC, because apparently they can't be bothered to even look at the backlog, Much less allow it to show rather than be "hidden".

The idea guys is that this allows those who might not notice the backlog to jump in and close some of these individual discussions, since discussions are closed one at a time, individually.

And you can't say you're "confused" over whether the discussion listings are part of the transclusion, because I made sure they are under a subheader.

And I apologise for my annoyance over this, but really, you're all coming across to me like the snobs who don't want "those people" playing in "their" sandbox. Well, the point here is that Wikipedia is built on a consensus model. I'm sorry that posting notices to a noticeboard bothers you all so. But this is the administrator's noticeboard. There simply is no better place to post a request for closure. And having discussions closed is actually just a bit more important than your TOC proclivities. - jc37 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i wanted to list a discussion at ANI for admin closure for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doors22_-_a_longtime.2C_POV-pushing_editor but there is no spot for ANI in the section above, just deletion, RFC, and moves... what to do? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in future you'd goto WP:AN/RFC, it's where they're transcluded from. tutterMouse (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is not an RFC... but OK. I will just do that. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not but it is a different sort of RFC, one for closure requests ("requests for closure" over "requests for comment"). Just the sort of problem with having the same acronym for two different things. tutterMouse (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

indef gun control ban for User:Lightbreather

I happened upon this discussion on Talk:Nazi gun control theory, and saw this diff. I investigated further, and found that Lightbreather has a history of disruptively editing articles, as seen by [1], [2] and a multitude of other 3RR warnings. User:Ched has given Lightbreather a final warning [3] about her incivility, and I think it is time that action be taken. [4] Her uncivil "retirement" message where she talks about the uncivil discussions on gun control. I'd also like to reference her incivility towards Sue Rangell, which resulted in a messy conclusion, to say the least. She has also received a 6 month topic ban in the past.

User:Lightbreather needs to be topic banned permanently, as she has flagrantly disregarded civility, as well as 3rr, and has not learned from the last ArbCom case on gun control. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: These aren't diffs; you'll need to provide these instead of the page version. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JethroBT: How? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: For instance, with diff 104 instead of using a revision it's requested that you provide a diff. On the revision page, underneath the pink section you'll see: (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff). Clicking on the first diff link will provide you what you're looking for. Mike V • Talk 04:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, some of the links you provide appear to have nothing to do with the subject of your proposed topic ban - could you clarify why you consider them relevant, and/or why you are proposing Lightbreather be banned from that specific subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: They reflect that she has received numerous warnings that this behavior is not acceptable, and that she knows it is wrong. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why are you requesting a topic ban from a specific subject based on evidence that doesn't all relate to that subject? If there is a general behavioural issue that needs dealing with (I'll refrain from expressing an opinion on this for now), a narrow topic ban isn't going to solve it - and if there is a specific problem with 'gun control' topics, we need to look at evidence that relates to it directly. Topic bans are a means to deal with a specific issue, not a means of punishment for broader infractions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's see if I can dig the desired diffs out of those links: [5] [6] [7] [8] (the last one seems to be referring to the box of big text at the beginning). That should do it for diffs of warnings, but I agree that it doesn't show her disruptively editing articles; if it shows anything, it's a pattern of general behaviour that may or may not need to be addressed (I haven't enough information to know). Disclaimer: I found out about this from IRC; Chess gave no names so as not to canvass, but the research required to find this discussion was minimal. ekips39❦talk 05:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She got topic banned from gun control topics before, for 6 months. After her ban was over, the problems that led to the ban resurface on the same pages. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we still need diffs of those problems resurfacing. Also, what constitutes incivility is a lot like the size of a heap of sand, as evidenced by many discussions that centred on that issue and went nowhere fast. This means that warnings aren't enough to show that she's intractably uncivil and needs a formal restriction -- we need diffs of her being uncivil, which is also necessary to show that she's persisted after the warnings. The retirement message link is the closest you've given, and I don't consider that to be uncivil, which highlights the heap of sand issue. ekips39❦talk 05:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the 3RR warning that Chess linked was posted by a contributor who appears from the edit history of the article concerned to also have been involved. Making it somewhat questionable as evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: it was still a clear violation of 3RR on her part, reverting content that I'm not sure she actually read. "If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others." Her preferred answers to the four issues at stake are all still the live version of the page because of the 3RR violation. I'm not saying my preferred version should be the live one right now either, but there's not even a compromise version up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks awfully like a case of trying to recruit admins to a cause. I don't see anything actionable in those diffs. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not Lightbreather's greatest fan, and I too don't see anything there. This looks to me like trying to remove your "opponents" from a subject. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it looks like someone trying to do exactly the same sort of thing that LB tries to do. This type of comment is not usually helpful but it is not going to be addressed through a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we of LB's "Fan Club" are pretty much of one mind on this — there's nothing here beyond the inevitable belly-bumping of activists on two sides of a controversy. Nothing actionable that I can see. @Chess should stop trying to crush opponents but rather should figure out how to find common ground and a path forward. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So which comments have I made that insinuated that I am trying to "crush opponents"? Maybe you should actually learn about the dispute in question before throwing wild accusations at me. If you've read the dispute... Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Please link to my comments in the gun control dispute where I "crush opponents". I haven't made any comments. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the other User that was involved in LB's 6 month Topic Ban, its not so much a disruptive influence as it is WP:CIVILPOV pushing and the inflexibility when it comes to exact wording of content and titles as well as source selection and usage in various articles. I will admit my own culpability and involvement upfront. As was noted in the ArbCom, many things that LB added, I challenged and/or reverted, hence our Tban for Edit warring. That said, here are some examples...

Assault weapons legislation in the United States - When LB created this article[9], they wanted this article to be titled Assault Weapons Ban and to focus solely on that subject with an emphasis on "ban". When others, myself included, tried to expand the article, LB resisted. This included changing the article's title to the above. It started with an RfC[10] then before that closed a Move Request was initiated[11] followed by a request to the closing Admin to review the Move Request because it didn't work out in LB's favor[12]. All the while, there was a WP:MOVEWAR going on.
National Rifle Association - This is a frequent recipient of LB's efforts. The article has existed since August of 2002[13], LB joined WP in March, 2007. So far there are 1,372 distinct Editors to the article, but yet Lightbreather is responsible for over 10 percent of the total edits. I'm not saying that LB has not made worthwhile contributions, but the arguing over how exactly to say it and which sources LB considers acceptable are relentless to put it nicely. The article Talk page pretty clearly demonstrates this currently IMO, but it goes back quite a while.
Topic & Interaction Ban and short term Block of the Firearms Project Coordinator[14] - I'm not defending the statements that Mike Searson made, but I feel that the situation happened because he was pushed to his limits and just finally went off on LB[15]. So now we have a Project Coordinator that is banned from addressing part of what his project is about. Another Editor and I have come up with a proposed solution for this, but that's off this topic for now.
Recent ANI - This is one of a number of instances where LB makes a request and when its ignored, rebuffed, or not immediately and completely accepted, LB is upset over it. In this situation there was the mitigating circumstance of an injured arm, but its not the first time that LB has told other Editors to not edit an article because either 1) LB is actively in the middle of editing and does not want to be interrupted, or 2) cannot be around to monitor the editing of others. There are difs that further demonstrate this, but I don't wish to devote a significant chunk of my day to track them down.
Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 - This example is IMO actually one where LB demonstrated restraint in what the article contained and how it was sourced. But what sets this article apart is that LB has nominated it for Good article status[16]. But even the selection of the Main image was not without its fair share of debate[17]. Some of these discussions, then bled over into Gun Control Act of 1968 where admittedly I picked up a WP:STICK I had waived around about 10 months ago[18] regarding one very specific detail in the History section of the article.[19] This time, after discussion on the Talk page I asked for a Third opinion which went against me. Accepting that outcome, I rewrote the section in question using all of the original references and attributing them sentence by sentence. It started out as this[20] and after discussion and the Third opinion, I edited it to this[21]. This included discussion and explanation on the Talk page of how I arrived at the most recent version.

All in all, its been a little easier to work with LB since our TBan, their subsequent Sock block, and such, but not a lot when they seemingly decide how an article and/or section should be and then works to force the issue. I'm leaving to do some work, so I will not be back for several hours. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the preceding "comment" by Scalhotrod, is from an editor who was topic-banned (along with with me) for edit warring, and yet he removed a sentence containing the word "gun control" from an article[22] while he was topic banned from gun control!

Yep, I basically stated this at the outset of my comments. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are publicly acknowledging that you intentionally broke our topic ban? Because you haven't done so before now. Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I stated that I was part of the Topic ban with you and then you restated it above. As for the dif you cited, I didn't even realize that "gun control" was part of it. It was "same sex marriage" that caught my attention. The sentence seemed like a weird somewhat POV addition made at the end of the Lead. I still have the same view of it now. I wouldn't have even noticed the article had it not come up on the Special:PendingChanges list. That was the immediately previous edit[23] and Pending Changes edits constitute the majority of my edits to that article[24]. Wow LB, wikihound much? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for his remarks:

1. Assault weapons ban To properly respond to this, I'd need to write a dissertation on the state of affairs on Wikipedia that has kept the average Internet surfer in the dark re the subject of assault weapons ban. In a nutshell, the pro-gun editors on Wikipedia - who are in the majority - do not want seekers to find anything except the expired-in-2004 (United States) federal assault weapons ban. Go ahead and google "assault weapons ban." What pops up on top? Federal Assault Weapons Ban! As I said, it expired 11 years ago. There are U.S. states that actually have active AWBs, and there have been numerous bills proposed at the federal and state level to create news AWBs, but the pro-gun editors here - including Scalhotrod[25] - do not want to use the word "ban" (which is the common name for all these... bans and ban proposals) in the title of any article about AWBs - except for the old, expired bill.

On April 30 of last year, I added the new, comprehensive "Assault weapons ban" article to the "See also" section of Gun politics in the United States.[26] He removed the see-also link three times,[27][28] (scroll down) [29] (scroll down again) and when he couldn't get his way on that...
On May 5, he started moving/renaming "Assault weapons ban" (the correct article title per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) to "Assault weapons legislation."[30][31][32][33][34]
Concurrent with this behavior, he went on a crusade to remove the word "ban" from numerous articles.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] (just a few examples)

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only after you started a "crusade" to add it, sometimes multiple times in a sentence, in the same articles you cite above. They are appalling examples of bad writing, but thank you for pointing to numerous examples of where I corrected horrific sentence structure and vocabulary usage. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. National Rifle Association Some people make fewer, big edits, some people make more, small edits. I used to do the former, but somewhere along the line the pro-gun types I worked with asked for the latter. That's the simple explanation for my number of edits. Scalhotrod does not like criticism in the NRA article, even though at least 50 per cent of the mainstream coverage of it is critical or reporting, at least in part, on someone's criticism of it or its leaders. (There is maybe 10 per percent critical info in that article, and most of it buried.) From past comments Scal has made, I believe he may have a COI re the topic. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think criticism is perfectly fine, but I agree with Jimbo Wales that it should NOT be a stand alone section and should be intertwined throughout the article in its proper context. The article is about the organization. If you want so badly to highlight criticism of the NRA, then I suggest you write Criticism of the National Rifle Association instead of the redirect that points to the Criticism section. I'm just trying to keep the article on topic, neutral, and the content WP:DUE. As for a COI, I'm a member like you. If that's a COI, then we both have it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Mike Searson's topic ban and 1-way IBAN - I'll keep this short out of respect for Mike, whom I actually liked sometimes. I didn't initiate that enforcement request, and no-one twisted his arm all these years to talk to me and to others the way he did. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the most seasoned Editors and reasonable people can be pushed to their limits. This is in my opinion an example of that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. The recent ANI I would have loved the opportunity to discuss Scalhotrod's behavior, but that ANI was shut down before more than just a few pair of eyeballs got to see it. Scal seems to enjoy messing with editors (me anyway, since he's done it twice now) when he knows they're on vacation or otherwise indisposed - say with a broken arm. (Oddly(?), two other pro-gun editors took advantage of my recent personal-business trip to get busy on some articles that I am a regular contributor to.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if you didn't announce so much about your personal and/or private life, no one would know that you are on vacation or sick leave or any other bizarre or inane justification you come up make an accusation like this. Second, your accusation is baseless and unprovable. You know this, but you're just trying to play the sympathy card as classic misdirection. People have figured this out, I'm seemingly just one of a few stupid enough to actually comment about it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. Gun show loophole & Gun Control Act of 1968 I don't see the point of his comments on these except maybe to subtly canvass for help? If I'd written it, that's what I'd be accused of - but no further comment, unless an admin asks me about it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was trying to provide an example that shows you can actually cooperate with others when you want to. But I can understand how you missed that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't see anything actionable in the diffs provided. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she has since (today) bandied around more insinuations of sockpuppetry and shows no sign of stopping, even though asked to either take it to SPI or desist. If nothing else, it has a chilling effect and seems somewhat hypocritical given the frequency that she has linked to WP:ASPERSIONS in the past. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hajme 11:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For cripes' sake, I don't make a habit of it. We're talking about Nazi gun control. A subject that went to ArbCom and ended in FOUR editors who were pushing for inclusion of Nazi gun control material in gun-control articles so hard that it crossed into battleground conduct and resulted in their being topic banned. NOW, we've got a "new" editor (who is obviously not new) who made their "first" edit in December, showing up to push the same material again - and having never before contributed to a gun-control article? Nobody else smells a sock? So if you don't like me, fine, but the odds of a "new" editor making his "first" gun-control edits to the Nazi gun control article seems pretty suspicious. But everyone seems to be willing, maybe even eager, for that kind of disruption again? Not me, as I wrote on that talk page earlier today.[45] Lightbreather (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now has just done this, which removes a website apparently at least in part because it breaches WP:ELREG, which it doesn't seem to do as I've just been able to access the news stories on its front page without registering. I've no opinion regarding linkfarms and adverts as pretty much everything in that section would probably qualify on those grounds but, well, this is not looking good. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually got a thank-you from another editor for that edit. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is there is another contributor out there who doesn't understand ELREG or didn't check the website. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way to AGF, Sitush. Mudwater agreed with the edit,[46] and he is a pretty good editor. Please don't bait me, (Redacted). And please don't make my edits out to be things that they are not. You aren't a lone authority on Wikipedia, even though you usually present yourself as such. Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I JethroBT, Mike V: FYI, I have read all of the above. I have in the past tried to respond to every editor who comments about me in these piling-on kinds of discussions, but it wears me out. As two admin whom I respect, I will answer your questions, if you have any. Also, I hope you will read Scalhotrod's comments keeping in mind our past and that we were BOTH topic-banned from gun-control for six months. I don't want to respond in detail to his comments, but there is another side to every story, and, again, if you have questions, I will answer them.

FWIW: I am making a good faith effort to improve the article under dispute, or at least to keep it from going backward. If there is an added urgency to my edits the last couple of days, it is because A) I have a broken arm and have less patience than usual, and B) This is a Nazi-gun-control dispute, which, as you know, caused a helluva lot of problems just one year ago. As for the SPI/SPIs, I have sought advice from Mike, and I'm making up my mind about what to do. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG SUPPORT its absolutely amazing that after all her shenanigans lightbreather is still allowed to edit, I find it totally unbelievable. 'less patience than usual' that's an understatement of the year or meybe an overstatement of your usual level of patience - lightbreather you're as completely out of control as always and i cantr believe to still see you editing wow! 134.208.33.104 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently blocked and this was your first edit. Hajme 11:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't going to comment here because I thought LB was improving. I now feel that assessment was wrong. In order to win a minor RSN discussion related to gun issues she reached out to the publishers of a media company and involved them in the RSN discussion, an act that resulted in the change of the corporate disclaimer designed to make the source appear more reliable. That is way over the top. When editors start manipulating outside publishers to win minor arguments at Wikipedia something has gone wrong in my opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a heckuva accusation. No link to the RSN in question? Here it is: Walter Hickey / Business Insider. I don't see anyone there accusing me of that - not even you (until today)! Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you even catch the difference between the URL for the "disclaimer" that you shared and the legit disclaimer? Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Granted, LB and I are wikifriends, but rules are rules, and I have no qualms in agreeing on a correct course of action for people that do not respect the process on WP. That being said, the "plaintiff" here has not provided enough information or justification, in my opinion, for this measure of punishment. To be perfectly honest, I think it's no coincidence we have editors here with pitchforks in hand that have had disagreements with LB in the past. Not to mention the likelihood that they, themselves, have been guilty or accused of a 3r, or tendentious editing, at some point, possibly by LB. Darknipples (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I JethroBT or Mike V: Could you close this thing? I'd like to take it off my watch list. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, I believe that they can't - precisely because you have pinged them, they become involved by default. We don't get to pick and choose admins to close cases against us. I would oppose their actions if either of them came and closed this now; everyone has to wait their turn for an uninvolved admin to do it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Lightbreather is difficult to deal with and agenda driven with respect to firearms. WeldNeck (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This from the guy who made these edits: [47][48][49][50][51] Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (uninvolved non admin) I have read through this and see nothing that merits an indef topic ban. What I see is a content dispute, and some problematic actions. But nothing that rises to the level of the requested action. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose action here on grounds that disruptive editing of a topic subject to discretionary sanctions can be better dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Lightbreather is currently Blocked for a month. If its lifted, I'm sure LB will respond sooner, but unless the others involved want to continue, this discussion has likely stalled until the block expires (25 May). That is all... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio in timed text

I've tagged TimedText:2015-04-22-1700-1800-bbc-radio4-pm-wikipedia-experiment.ogg.en.srt for speedy deletion as a copyvio (its a verbatim transcript of a BBC radio programme), but because it's timed, text, and has no associated video, the tag is not showing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding of what was going there, but obviously it was a huge copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TimedText-space is basically just captions for audio/video files. If the file itself is in the public domain or under fair use, then any transcription of the same content should be considered to fall under the same copyright classification, no? In any case, Sladen is an experienced user and should've probably been asked about this upfront. I can't seem to find the associated file, though, so I won't restore the TimedText just yet. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it was quite clearly the entire text of a BBC program from the last few days. I can't imagine it being PD or fair use. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the source material. Note the copyright notices. Please don't restore it. I don't know why such an experienced editor wouldn't know better but it is quite clearly a copyvio. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Salvidrim! thanks for the heads up, I guess the mandatory {{AN-notice}} must have gotten lost. I would hope that those whom "won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding of what was going" on could restore this transcript in the mean-time, then pop-by WP:ANI#PM (BBC Radio 4) and ask any further questions thereafter. Beeblebrox: hopefully it's clear from the huge gaps in timestamps that the transcript covers ~5 minutes out of 60 minutes (ie. only what is needed for our purposes). Neither is it merely a direct transcription of audio: significant effort has been put into providing 50-millisecond resolution timings again to lessen any doubt. May I draw attention to the guidance at WP:G12 starting at the wording "For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria …".

All-in-all, seeing the handling of the above reminds me of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Media coverage#BBC Radio 4: Today Programme incident from a few years ago where we had enthusiastic admins diving in without context and threatening blocks/bans/deletes left-right-and-centre, all in the middle of other editors trying to get on and collectively deal with the resulting meta fallout and coordinate media appearances whilst other people were still wondering why they couldn't even edit (yes, IIRC I did the original reference transcripts for dealing with that incident too, and yes IIRC they got deleted randomly too, and yes they've been there just fine ever since). Please, take a deep breath, look around the relevant noticeboards, and if you "don't know why" ask other editors first. —Sladen (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted "randomly" it was deleted as a copyright violation. Which it is. Fair use of small bits of copyrighted material is usually ok, but five entire minutes of a copyrighted broadcast is excessive. The fact that it has to do with WP seems to be your underlying reason, but I am not aware of any exception to our copyright policies in cases of a user wanting to "deal with the resulting media fallout and coordinate media appearances." I am equally unaware of any requirement that I check every possible noticeboard before evaluating whether or not something is a copyvio. So I don't believe I will be restoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. Indeed, while nobody can force a requirement to read admin noticeboards before wielding the wheel bit (hence the polite "please"), it may assist communication with other editors to at least more carefully read what is being responded to—prior to replying—as this would in-turn allow accurate quoting which may be helpful all-round. …I'm still puzzling over the juxtaposition of the preceding "I can assure the entire functionaries team is well aware of the situation."[52] with the following "won't pretend to have the slightest undertanding"[53].

As a proponent of libre content it pains me to to highlight en.wiki's policies for its own management, but; "Exemptions from non-free content policy are made for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia" (WP:NFEXMP). In terms of fair use, in the UK this falls under "criticism, review and reporting current events" as defined by the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (plus enabling access by deaf and hard-of-hearing people, and the study by those with dyslexia or English as a second-language).

Now, at T+72 hours I think the immediacy of the people requesting a transcription has been served. It's now an ex-event. Thank you for having taken care of the deletion; I hope that should an occasion arise to restore it, the assistance will be equally helpful and …speedy. —Sladen (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point about the apparent cotradiction. When I said I didn't have the slightest understanding, that was because I had basically no experience with the "timed text" wikispace, but what it looked like to me was text that was supposed to be attached to an ogg audio file that was not in evidence, so no idea what was going on with that specifically, while being very aware of the broader situation as it had been under discussion on the functionaries mailing list (and apparently the checkuser mailing list before that) before moving on to an arbcom matter.

As to the matter of whether this was a permissible exception to our copyright policies, I don't think it was. I don't think it is at all a good idea for the volunteer community to even attempt to manage and respond to press attention. The WMF has staff who are paid to do that, and it is one area where the paid staff is undeniably better at the job than the volunteers. I can't see why simply linking to the original material would not be sufficient. Obviously we have differing opinions on that and I would have liked to see more participation here so that we could determine which of us was closer to the right answer, but you're right, this seems a non-issue now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not in disagreement about those best placed to respond on behalf of the project… any/all people formulating a response (admin/arbcom/bureaucrat/_(WMF)/…) are still going to have the same premise/questions in order to inform themselves: who/when/where/what.

The radio boardcast of the PM piece accompanying the corresponding edits went out at ~17:28‒17:30; plus ~17:41 & ~17:49 BST—going-home-time for corresponding UK office-based people. Archive audio became available after 18:00 BST (17:00 UTC). There are other PR/WMF staffers which available in the US, but BBC Radio 4 GeoIP-based streams are unlikely to be as universally available; …and for the reasons you've quite rightly outlined above, distributing an entire … BBC program[me] out-of-band as audio would be a non-starter (a "huge copyvio"). Hence creating a copyright-compatible, minimally-relevant of transcript in textual form covering a sum of 325.4 seconds out of 3600. Precise contextual details were credited within the filename. Both approaches were wishing to protect the encyclopedia: one focused on protecting a staunch approach to libre content, and one focused on protecting the project itself.

I happened to have been the initial person who did the rollbacks/warnings, so my intent was probably pretty similar to User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's actions: do the deed; document the details for others; and duck-out to allow distributed takeover. As it stands hopefully anyone who "needs" a copy can still fish it out of the logs. But yes, I completely agree, more input would certainly help to provide greater clarity as to whether one now needs to review the previous consensus/policies covering NFC non-article-space policies and I'm disappointed that others haven't chipped in. —Sladen (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of close at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Request for comment - Capitalise universe

This RfC was recently closed by User:AlbinoFerret. It is unfortunate that the request for closure requested an uninvolved editor when it should have, because of the contentious nature of the issue, requested an uninvolved administrator. The closer is not an administrator. The close, with respect to option 1 and option 3 is apparently contradictory and thereby contentious. The close is likely to be a source of future disruption rather than a resolution of a contentious issue. The closer was asked to review the decision to resolve the contradiction (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Request for review. Responses by the closer confirm their close but do not reconcile the contradiction. The closer asserts that the two options (1 and 3) are not synonymous but this was not explicit from the RfC discussion. Compounding the matter is the issue of whether the addition of a further five options (from the one originally proposed) has, intentionally or otherwise (this is not a notification of misconduct), disrupted the process. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just point out a few things in the section that my clarification was written in link. Two responders posted that they decided not to answer the third question. The responders on both sides of the third question recognised there was a difference in the questions and commented on those usages. I dont see any posts in the RFC itself questioning the addition of the 5 questions. The questions were all added on the same day and only one of the three responders to question 1 that answered before the addition did not answer the other five, and that the questions ran 30 days. AlbinoFerret 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did post an objection in the RfC itself by saying "Editors disrupted [a previous RfC] by heckling and adding irrelevant alternatives which then had to be discussed till the whole thing was TLDR; I see that's happening again ...". But I must add that I did not object to uninvolved editors being closers. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did object to the previous RFC, but nothing was specifically objected to in the one in question. AlbinoFerret 02:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, an objection was made at [54]. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An objection to question #4 which was closed no consensus. Which has the effect of not answering it at all, which you suggested should have been done when you opened this section. AlbinoFerret 02:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AlbinoFerret The link provided was to alternative 4 in the previous RfC, not to this RfC just closed. In the earlier RfC, options 4, 5 and 6 were added after the statement: "What the heck is this addition? If it remains I'm adding more alternatives." [55] These actions are refered to immediately above by Peter Gulutzan The edit at [56] was an objection to addition of options 2 to 5,[57] that had been added just prior to my objection to their addition (option 6 was added later). The edit adding options 2-5 was made at 07:43, 22 March 2015. Immediately before posting options 2-5, the editor made the following statement: "I find the new rehash exceedingly disruptive. If it isn't removed I'll start another slower step-by-step RfC. This one is just going to have the same things introduced as the last one... that's a lot of copying and pasting." [58] A dispute notification was made at 06:22, 22 March 2015 by that editor.[59] An response was made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Astronomical Capitalization Issues by Robert McClenon at 16:07, 22 March 2015.[60] Cinderella157 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk)[reply]

These endless arguments about MOS issues have cnvinced me that we should not even have our own MOS anymore and should simply use one written by actual experts. We shouldn't be making up our own grammatical rules, we should do as we do in all other things- follow the best reliable sources out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be such a relief. BMK (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a brilliant idea. Now all we need is a quick, non contentious RFC on which third party style guide to use (and whether, and how, to capitalise its title).

Philosophy

"Seven and a half million years!.." they cried in chorus.

"Yes," declaimed Deep Thought, "I said I'd have to think about it, didn't I? And it occurs to me that running a programme like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general. Everyone's going to have their own theories about what answer I'm eventually to come up with, and who better to capitalize on that media market than you yourself? So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?"

The two philosophers gaped at him.

"Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?"

"Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise."

Douglas Adams

Begoon ^talk 04:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using one other MoS would help a lot in these discussions. As long as we stick to that same single MoS for everything. Because some things like "astronomical objects" are different in every single MoS and style guide. But what happens if the style guide we choose doesn't cover something? Would we go to a backup secondary MoS that was pre-approved? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the QED. Inventing the wheel is easy. Deciding what colour a wheel should be, or how to spell color? Not so much.

The wheels still work, though...Begoon ^talk 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a year on arbcom followed by drafting two major policy RFCs (both of which basically failed to accomplish anything) I am trying to stay out of that arena and do little, day-to-day admin sruff right now, but if someone actually wants to put this together and see if we can make it happen I'd be all about it. We would probably have to maintain a bare-bones MOS here just for WP-only issues involving internal links and so forth, but there is simply no reason for us to have internal debates on capitalization, dashes-vs-hyphens, serial commas, etc. It is a sideshow that does little to improve the encyclopedia and much to harm it in the form of one drama blowout after another, often ending with one or more MOS warrior being blocked or banned.

I have an essay on the subject of these types of big RFCs at User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal that may be of some help. Anyone up for it? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting an external style guide will not end the arguments (MOS warriors will simply argue endlessly over which style guide to adopt). Unfortunately, the underlying problem isn't with the guidance itself (whether we create our own or adopt someone else's)... its with the attitude of the editors who participate. Too many insist on seeing the MOS as being inflexible "rules", and don't see the MOS as being as being "guidance" (ie relatively flexible best practice suggestions ... with lots of freely granted exceptions and choices offered). Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a solution that wold completely end the obsessive rule-mongering in this area, but it could help a bit if we stopped acting like WP is any sort of authority on grammar, punctuation, etc. You make a good point though, I have tried many times to point out to folks who are freaking out about MOS issues that it isn't worth getting all bent out of shape about, but it's an area that seems to attract obsessive types who don't like the idea that a rule is nt absolute and applies in all circumstances. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request a restructure of my current TBAN

Preamble

This is a request to change, not remove my restrictions. I understand that I cannot use this request as a means to re-argue the ban that was placed on me, further, I have notified the banning administrator User:Fluffernutter already and have provided a link to this discussion. Per the conditions of that ban I may appeal at The administrators noticeboard or The Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard . I am choosing to use the Administrators Noticeboard so as to get the maximum input of the community involved. I am also aware that once I post on the AN board, my conduct goes under a microscope and I may be subject to flat, airborne, returning objects flying in my direction. I appologize , in advance, for the length of this report. I felt it necessary to detail my behavior and those involved so as to give a fair report to both sides of the issue. I have sub-divded the argument so as to avoid the "Wall-O-Text" effect. I have further {hat} / {hab} 'ed the details to make reading this request easier.

Brief history of the ban

* I was topic banned for 6 months on October 1, 2013 by Fluffernutter.

* Six months elapsed and my ban was lifted.

* On April 14th , 2014 I was indef banned by Fluffernutter.

* The exact nature of my ban is : topic banned from "all pages and discussions related to transgender issues, broadly construed" .

* Record of the topic ban can be here .

More details are here .... condensed and hatted for easier reading

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

History of the disruption

* My disruption (the one that initially got me topic banned for six months, and blocked), consisted of my [leaving an edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter]. Even though I never did edit war, I understand and accept that my edit summary very much constituted disruptive behavior, and therefore my block and six months TBAN was fully earned ..

* This incident started with a vote on the page that was at that time named Talk Bradley Manning. It's since been renamed to Talk Chelsea Manning [| this is the original version of my vote ]. [| This is (named admin's) edited version ].

* My original vote consisted of an oppose statement and my rationale, rather than just a straight "Oppose", as it's been my observation that just stating "Oppose" or "Support" is treated as an "I Do Like / I Don't Like " statement. Rationale matters.

* Pretty quickly, my talk page filled up with requests to re-word my rationale, which I declined to do as I saw nothing wrong with my statement, the page asked for an opinion on a move, and I gave one and included reason in policy for the move. None of my post violated BLP, V, POLEMIC, nor could the post be considered Vandalism , nor could it be considered Copyright violation, nor even trolling. Therefore, I saw no valid reason to remove or refactor my post.

* Fluffernutter took it upon herself to alter my post . Note that talk page comments can be removed if they contain libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, violations of blp or banning policies , personal attacks, trolling or vandalism. My post contained none of these, therefore removal of my comments violated TPO which states: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. Fluffernuter did not do this, she simply removed my comments, changed the meaning of them and refused to accept that TPO was ,in fact, being violated. She instead used "Discretionary Sanctions " as a rationale, however, TPO doesn't allow editing or removal of comments for "discretionary sanctions", nor does discretionary sanctions give any admin the right to remove or alter talk page comments, except for the exemptions given in WP:TPO.

* At this point, I went to Fluffernuter's page to discuss and as you can see here I wasn't alone . I will state for the record, I didn't invite anyone into the discussion, those that were there came of their own free will. As you can also see, consensus was against this admin's change 3 to 1. The admin dismissed consensus and in fact, referred to it as a "consensus among cohorts", This is not the case, as I invited none of these people, they came of their own free will, and are certainly not cohorts. My history will show, they have not interacted with me regularly, nor I with them, especially not in any way that shows any kind of friendship between us, therefore her claim is invalid, the consensus was indeed neutral, and thus should have been accepted. Consensus is, after all, primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia. Further, this admin, in no way, backed up her claim that it was a "consensus of cohorts" with anything, thus making her claim a claim of bad faith.

* During the time I was discussing it with her, her actions were reverted [| by MzMcBride ], and the [|admin promptly reverted] him.

[| Also by Dolescum ] who was again, reverted by the same admin.

[| Here] , I didn't revert Fluffernutter however, by this time, it had become clear the this admin was not going to accept consensus, nor TPO, but was going to do what they wanted irregardless, and I was pissed off, so I changed her redaction message, and no , it wasn't at all helpful, yes, it was me being a dick, no if, ands or buts about it, and no excuses either, I was a dick and flat wrong to alter her comments. [| A different admin] reverted.

[| At this point ] I'd had it, to my eyes, policy was being ignored for admin preference and I did revert here (note I'm at 1RR, the original admin at 2 RR ). Yes, my edit summary was wrong, and yes, I promised to edit war with her, and yes, any such edit summary has to be treated as disruptive. Bear in mind that at that point, I'd done BRD, ANI, pretty much any dispute resolution that was available to me and even had other users supporting my position (both at ANI and on the admin's page) and the only response the admin would give anyone is that they can take it to arbcom. So as you can imagine, I was pretty incensed at that point. I don't say this as an excuse, merely as explanation for my actions. Either way, my actions counted as disruptive.

[| At this point] Fluffernutter reverted placing her at exactly 3RR.

At this point Fluffernutter then topic banned me for six months.

* An ANI request was opened up on the same day, starting before my ban , again, with consensus against Fluffernutter. Fluffernutter's response was to say , essentially, "Take it to Arbcom" thus ignoring (once again consensus ). To be sure, my responses were not civil, however, bear in mind, I believed then, as I believed now that my vote was legitimate and did not rise to the level of having to be edited or partially removed.This was not taken to Arbcom, as Arbcom is the court of last resort, and before Arbcom would accept a case, all other avenues would have to be exhausted, and they were not, therefore, had I or anyone else did what Fluffernutter asked, Arbcom would have rejected the case, and would have kicked it back to ANI.

An appeal was filed on my behalf at AE, which was declined , I believe this appeal was handled impartially and fairly.

My ban was over in April, and yes I did edit the page I had been topic banned from (since it was over, there was no more topic ban ), it was to respond to a discussion [| here]. I started a topic called [| consensus check] and when it was determined that consensus was against me, per my agreement with Floquenbeam [[[| I voluntarily] dropped the subject and stayed away from that page.

I'd also started a discussion on MOS:ID, and again, [| three people disagreed with me ] so I dropped it.

After I dropped it, Fluffernutter dropped [| this ] on my page advising that I had been topic banned indefinitely, thus creating a punative block, rather than a prevantive one, in the form of a TBAN.

Salient points

My disruptive conduct in Talk:Chelsea Manning (and yes, this really was disruptive, no question about it ) consisted of 1RR with an edit summary promising to edit war. I never did edit war with Fluffernutter, and yes, I was blocked after that edit summary, and I definitely deserved it. That I didn't continue the edit war was beside the point, any promise to edit war is , even if not done, disruptive, and therefore, my block was fully deserved fully earned . However, this only happened on one specific article, not a whole swath of like (or even dissimilar) articles, thus the only disruption so far (either then , or within my history from day 1 to this moment ) existed in that one article only, for that one subject only . Thus it can be shown that I have no history of disruption across the topic of (to be filled in when this goes live ).

Fluffernutter unequivocally violated WP:TPO in removing a chunk of my comments, and was further wrong to ignore the consensus on her talk page and on ANI, and even further, was wrong to advise the community to "take it to arbcom". She claims "Discretionary Sanctions" as her defense, and while there were Discretionary Sanctions on the page, in no part of the guidelines for Discretionary Sanctions does it state the admin can ignore consensus, nor does it say that the admin can violate TPO. Further the admin's actions were not neutral, the actions supported only one set of beliefs and nothing else

Lest there be any dispute as to whether the votes on that page were re-written to subscribe to one set of beliefs on the subject, note that there were (and still are ) comments on that same page that give an argument counter to what I gave,(and note, per my ban, I cannot state what my argument was, but if you'll look at the references I'll provide momentarily, you'll see the counter argument still on the page and from that you should be able to deduce my argument ) and Fluffernutter not only let them stay, but failed to take any action on those comments, showing her to be partial to one side. Combat Wombat made this point clear to (admin's name to be inserted later ), and note that on the page in question Comments remain to this day (Specifically, "Support" # 11,14,17 & 25, "Oppose" # 1,7,12,14,16,36,37), that show the counter argument I mentioned a moment ago, any that were made were with a counter-argument similar to my own were removed by (admin's name to be added later) and still remain as such on the page to this very day, proving partiality to one side only, rather than her suggested aim of .... my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. Her next sentance is even more telling denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, (emphasis is mine ) which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue. . (Combat Wombat's comments and Fluffernutters are on the same link, referenced above on the comment "...Combat Wombat made this point....)

The first topic ban was far-reaching and had little-to-no evidence of any conflict except in one section of one talk page, in one article, there the ban was deserved. However, rather than ban me from participating in that one article, I have been TBAN'ed - broadly construed from ( will be filled in just before I file ) thus the ban reached beyond the article in question and is punative, not preventative.

The second (indefinite topic ban) was placed after I'd agreed to drop my argument, thus this ban was also punitive and not preventative.

My proposed outcome

I am , again, not requesting that my topic ban be lifted, but rather, restructured. Specifically:

* I request that I continue to be topic banned, broadly construed to only the topic of Chelsea Manning , my edit summary promising to edit war with Fluffernutter cannot be construed any other way other than disruptive, even though I never carried out such a promise, as far as I'm concerned, it's proof that in that article, and solely in that article, I demonstrated disruptive conduct, as such a topic ban was clearly earned on my part.

* Fluffernutter has also topic banned me from MOS:ID under the same discretionary sanction. I ask for it to be lifted with the understanding that: I am to avoid MOS:ID for 6 months, broadly construed, after 6 months time, I may revert obvious vandalism only, six months after that, I can request a lifting of sanction from that page completly, and if consensus is that it be lifted, then good, otherwise, let consensus dictate what restrictions, if any should be given to me.specifically on MOS:ID.

* I would request that I be allowed to edit any other articles relating to transgender issues. There never was any history of disruption across that whole topic of transgender issues or people, only on one specific topic in one specific article, thus a topic ban for all such articles is punitive and not preventative.

KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as Proposer KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR If you want any support for this proposal, please shorten it (or provide a summary). You know as well as I do that a lot of people aren't going to slog through this wall-o'-text. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK... a bunch of stuff's been hatted up - creating a brief summary. Thanks for the suggestion. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How would any disruptive behavior on transgender related articles be handled if it occurs? Would you expect it to be treated like any other editor with incremental warnings (which for inexperienced editors amounts to a 5-strikes-you're-out policy), or would you expect to be under a higher level of scrutiny with fewer (or perhaps no) warnings? Just curious how you envision this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Answer EvergreenFir Per my agreement with Floquenbeam I would be on 0RR on Transgender articles (I'm by default on it anyway ), also per that agreement, any discussion that I get involved in , where at least 3 users in good standing disagree with me, I would need to drop what ever it is I'm discussing and leave it be, so this would take care of disruptive behavior. However, if I screw up , because I've been topic banned I'd fully expect a higher level of scrutiny. I'd say 1 warning only, if I fail for whatever reason to heed that warning, I get TBAN'ed again. I'm not a newbie, I know what 3RR and NPA is, so I would have no excuse. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like a reasonable restructuring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User has history of recommencing disruptive behaviour directly after bans/blocks. Behaviour on Manning was particularly egregious. Not encouraged by the appeal the second the moratorium on appeal expired either, unless the user can show us some edits they think need making so urgently. Begoon ^talk 21:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look down at the next topic, I think this is a retaliatory strike against me for my comment on unbanning Peter Damien. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC) _{Struck out as a good-faith move. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

No Kosh, it's a genuine analysis. I looked through your talkpage archives shortly after you posted this, long before Peter's appeal was ever mooted. Not everything's a battle, even if you want to treat it as such. AGF, y'know. Fix the sig, please, it's ugly. Begoon ^talk 21:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tell you what, just like I offered to below, if consensus says I'm wrong, I'll strike my comment. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. You accused me of a "retaliatory strike". It's bollocks, but strike it or leave it as you see fit. No skin off my nose either way. The sig is an eyesore, though, did I mention that? Begoon ^talk 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree that the signature is both a bit of an eyesore, and, well, at this point, kind of dated. Nimoy's been dead a month and a half at this point, and keeping it for this long does look, well, weird. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I love the Nimoy tribute, it's the "look at me, I'm the biggest, most noticeable, blurriest thing on the page" thing that makes my eyes sore. Anyway, that's a discussion for somewhere else, and Kosh has had it drawn to his attention many times before. That's the kind of stubbornness that makes me uneasy about this request, actually. Oh look, we're back on topic. Begoon ^talk 21:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 users have asked me to change my signature, so , consider it done. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lose. the. shadow. I'm a huge B5 fan, so yeah, shadows. But lose it. It's visually offensive. That's an opinion, and I do acknowledge your willingness to consider change. Just consider change to something that doesn't overwhelm people's eyeballs. That's a request, nothing more. Begoon ^talk 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the sig, fix it for real. You're not exactly showing a lot of cooperative and collegial spirit for someone who wants a topic ban adjustment. BMK (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the shadow. It's distracting and unclear. Try to listen to your colleagues when they raise a genuine concern. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heck yes, kill the shadow and make the whole thing less huge. IMHO, even your revised sig does two things, both of which are bad for you. It makes you look egotistical (ME!ME!ME!) and it distracts from what you're actually saying. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like artistic signatures, sorry about that :) I did change it again, no shadow this time. Hopefully this is a bit better. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Now, part of it is so faint it makes me think my eyesight is failing even as I read it. BMK (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing colors is pretty easy.KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks. BMK (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks cool and I was thinking of making a sig like that but I won't. Don't want to hurt others eyes. Popish Plot (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the signature's settled. Let's get a consensus on my proposed outcome :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, let's. I'm still opposed, for the reasons I gave above, but open to persuasion. You didn't answer the question about what edits you want to make that you're currently prevented from making. Maybe I didn't phrase it that well. I'll rephrase it: What edits do you want to make that you're currently prevented from making? Thanks for adjusting the sig. Begoon ^talk 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon Sorry, I missed your question the first time. At the moment, there are no edits that I need to make, however, I do vandal runs and my restrictions prevent me from removing vandalism on any transgender articles, also, my restrictions make it impossible for my to participate in any way on any issues that touch transgender issues. If allowed I to edit and particpate I would observe the agreement I have with Floquenbeam (0RR, no hatting anyone's stuff except mine, 3 users in good standing tell me to drop the stick, I drop it ). Thank you KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon Tagging on to the response of 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC), How frequently are you hitting TG articles during your vandal runs? What is the mean time to someone else noticing the vandalism (after you've spotted it) to being reverted? What specific topics would you have participated in had the restrictions on TG issues not been in place for you? I'm trying to establish a feeling for your influence/impact before I give my view. Hasteur (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur I don't hit a lot of articles on my vandal runs, I can sometimes go a few runs with no Transgender topics being hit. Keep in mind, it's not just articles I'm restricted from, any place on Wikipedia where a transgender topic is mentioned, AN, ANI, BLP, V, etc... I literally can not say a word about it. As to your second question, what topics would I have participated in? Well, Leelah Alcorn, specifically this section in the talk page comes to mind, also this talk page discussion on Leelah Alcorn as well as the very next message in the talk page, also here on a BLP board message called Women and Video Games. If you're asking , would I continue the same argument I had before, no, in fact, I'm still asking that I be banned from the topic of Chelsea Manning, broadly construed and I'm also asking that for now, I remain banned from MOS:ID, also broadly construed to prove that I'm not looking to re-hash the same argument. Does that answer the question ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why the restriction should be relaxed in the face of the few incidents in which your restriction is prohibiting you from participating. Given that there's a great amount of volunteers who can (and would handle the issues you raise as the justification for relaxing). Seeing that the case was decided a little under 2 years ago, and you were warned again less than a year ago about the ArbCom case I see relapses of poor judgement. Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kosh, I'd like to ask you a question. It's a long time ago that you made that agreement with Floq. Why, instead of moving past that, and growing to a point where that kind of thing would be unnecessary, are you still the kind of editor that needs such a restriction? It's been a long while. Sorry if you think that's presumptuous, but I often wonder why people don't basically change and grow. This should be a thing buried in your past by now. Yet it's not. Begoon ^talk 15:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon I kept the restriction because it worked well for me. I'm a believer in the phrase "If it works, dont' change it " :) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm going to stay in the "oppose" camp, for now, then, because "If it works, dont' change it " [sic]. I think the restriction has been working quite well, but I encourage you to appeal it again, after a reasonable time, if there are good edits which it is preventing which are not getting done. Begoon ^talk 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(So this is how things end up appearing in the archives twice... I've often wondered. Fixed.) Begoon ^talk 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The project will not be harmed if the existing restriction is maintained. There's reason to believe it might be harmed if the restriction is restructured. Townlake (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like complicating restrictions or unnecessarily relaxing them. I'd have been open to agreeing to providing an exception for obvious vandalism only, but well...that can wait. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for arriving much later than my notification; I've been on (and am still on, actually, but I've finally gotten a bit of internet access) holiday the past few weeks. So, to catch up: as Kosh says, I am the admin who imposed this set of restrictions, back in 2014. My initial inclination upon reading the opening of this thread was "Hm, well, Kosh has been doing pretty well lately, let's give this some thought", but after reading the collapsed portion of the thread and the discussion so far here, I'm going to oppose changing sanction (inasmuch as I can oppose changing my own sanction, anyway). My main concern with Kosh's editing pattern is that when things get heated, especially in an area where he has strong opinions, he reacts by becoming more heated, more disruptive, and sometimes more expansive (i.e. taking the Manning issue to the MOS when doing it on the article/article talk didn't go his way) rather than backing away. This has happened not once, and not in only one place, but multiple times, in multiple places, over years, and it has kept circling back to happen in the topic area of transgender issues - not just to Chelsea Manning, but to multiple pages extending out of article space under that topic's umbrella.
In a hot-button topic area under Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions, like transgender issues is, that's something we need to minimize where we reasonably can. It's not enough to even say "well, after X people complain, I might then back away"; Discretionary Sanction policy is especially formulated to allow us to quickly head off, and prevent, disruption before that point. Kosh's repeated episodes of disruptive editing in this topic area indicate to me that whatever drives his behavior there, it's a long-term issue rather than one that can be dealt with (as my initial efforts tried to do) with requests, warnings, or even short-term sanctions; therefore, the best solution is to keep him away from the topic entirely unless and until there's reason to think the behavior will change. That's not to say that I'd never be willing to remove or modify this restriction, but I would need to see some commitment to avoiding - recognition of "yes, I see how that led us here, I am going to consciously focus on not doing those things from now on" - those behaviors in the future before I'd be comfortable doing it. Instead, we're in a situation where a) the user does not actually wish to make any particular edits to the area of transgender issues, b) their summary of the situation shows continued, significant misinterpretations of the policies that govern areas under discretionary sanctions (many of the admin, DS, and talk policy misunderstandings that plagued both of our original discussions of the topic bans are repeated, nearly verbatim, in Kosh's comments above), and c) the user shows no particular recognition that their initial behavior was problematic in the first place. That's just not enough for me to take the leap of faith given the history here.
That all said, as Ncmvocalist has also suggested, I would be fairly agreeable if Kosh wanted to request some sort of exemption for reversions of obvious vandalism to related articles - I'd hardly be inclined to throw the book at anyone for reverting "So-and-so is a poophead", anyway - as long as a hefty dose of common sense is applied to the definition of "obvious". "Poophead," yes. Anything requiring significantly more editorial judgment than that, no.
Note: I'll be in transit for pretty much all of tomorrow/Monday and probably unable to respond to anything here unless the wifi gods are being particularly benevolent; I will check back in Tuesday in case anyone has responses or questions about my comment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User page profanity

Doesn't look like anything else needs to be done here. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

What is the policy on user pages like ==MOTHERFUCKER== Shit Bitch Ass Damn Fuck

?? Iceblock (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The julia ginsburg (talk · contribs). The user has not made any edits since their four contributions over a year ago. I'll blank the page after posting this. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, User:Johnuniq! Iceblock (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is to delete the page as it is just pure vandalism. I've made the nomination. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. Any admin who disagrees may reinstate it if they wish. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? It does meet G3, doesn't it? 103.6.156.167 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is always room for interpretation, based on the other edits from the account, it was likely vandalism, but if you took AGF to the limit, you could come up with some other interpretation. Ultimately, it could have just been left there, and done no harm, as it may be another 4 years before anyone else lands on that particular use page, and the person landing there may not be offended anyway. Blanking it mostly solved the problem to, what are the odds of someone looking in the history, and seeing the vandalism? Deleting the page under G3 is also clearly permissible under policy. Even with the invitation from the deleting admin to reinstate it if another admin merely wishes to, which is as low a standard as you can ask for, another admin would still need some reason to justify tool use to restore it, which I doubt there will be, so it will stay deleted. Monty ₈₄₅ 13:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had the account been something like User:Beetrootsalad, I probably wouldn't have bothered. With a personal name on it, I don't like to take a chance. Peridon (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

User violated personal attacks

Enough has been said here. Kuniwa has already been blocked for other reasons. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) and now Beeblebrox has indefinitely blocked Scaravich105nj so case is really closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user by the name of Kuniwa egregiously violated Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks on my talk page, with profanity no less. He just told me to "go fuck [myself]". I'm demanding he be blocked. Thanks. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this no doubt. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's side are you on, Harry. If you take a look at Kuniwa's edit right here, you'll see he's nothing but a vandal. He added that over 11,000 people had been killed in the earthquake, when everybody knows nowhere near that many were killed. And then he violated WP:NPA. He should still be blocked. Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not obviously vandalism. 11500 could be a typo for 1500. Your response is over-the-top and unwarranted. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks he's a vandal. Kuniwa just got blocked indefinitely for his disruptive editing. Do you still think my response was "unwarrented", DrKiernan? :) Scaravich105nj (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the side of civility. If you expect civility you have to be civil yourself, even in the face of vandalism. IME using profanity on someone else's talk page will often lead them to respond in kind. Neither is right of course. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You think it acceptable to call someone a prick and tell them to get a fucking life and then complain when they respond in kind. Look to your own behavior first. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an additional request of User:Scaravich105nj here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is hard to miss, complaining that someone said "go fuck yourself" and demanding they be blocked when you just got finished calling them a prick, goddamn vandal, and a douchebag in a single edit. You are lucky not to be blocked yourself right now, so I hope your agreement on your talk is something you take to heart and actually do. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to each his own, Beeblebrox, to each his own. You know the old saying, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Scaravich105nj (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't seriously trying to defend that edit, are you? This doesn't fill me with confidence that you understand why that was wrong and are sincere in your promise not to act like that in the future. You have drawn attention to yourself with this ill-advised thread, as I'm sure you must realize by now. Acting like that again would not be a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

TheGracefulSlick

Moved to AN/I. BMK (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Should we start directing users to Special:GlobalRenameRequest?

Comments invited as to whether we should begin directing users to the Special:GlobalRenameRequest interface for straightforward renames. –xeno^talk 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can a blocked user enable the email facility in their account

user:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (MMAR)is currently blocked including access to user talk:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger. As can be see on the history of the talk page MMAR has allegedly let it be known that (s)he has read some messages and wants them deleted. Is it possible for a blocked user to edit their user profile and enable email so that (s)he can contact other users via email sent from that user account (as proof that they control that user account)? -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, MMAR is blocked and his talk page access has been removed, so other editors should not be proxying for him by acting on his requests for changes to the talk page. I see you restored the deleted material, and I would have done the same. Second, I'm not sure if blocked editors can access and edit their Preferences or not, but are you sure MMAR didn't have e-mail enabled before the block? I do know that blocking doesn't automatically stop access to e-mail, that has be be specifically selected in some way. (Not an admin, so I don't know the specific procedure.) Third, if MMAR is using e-mail to recruit other editors, his e-mail access should be cut off. BMK (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked user can still change their preferences and set an email address. However email access can be blocked as well. Normally it is not blocked, but if a user is abusing it then email access can be blocked. user:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger is currently permitted to send email from their Wikipedia account. Also we should have notified the user in question that he is being discussed here, even if he cannot join in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that's the case, since the requirement for notification is based on the presumption that the subject should be able to respond to the report. But if the user is blocked from editing, and has talk page acccess revoked, how would he be expected to respond? IN that situation I would think that notification would not be mandatory. BMK (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The box at the top of this page says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"; it does not mention any preconditions or qualifications. Anyway it is a courtesy so that the subject of the discussion can read what people have to say about them. They can always response by on or off wiki email or via IRC if they want to. I have notified the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. BMK (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP backlog

We are (unexpectedly) badly backlogged at WP:RFPP. Some help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think only more appalling than the backlog is the kinds of articles being abused... "Vandalism orgy in Olympiacos B.C." --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A currently open CfD which would interfere with a not-yet ready mass CFD

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 29#Category:Churches in Ukraine, a discussion which is still open, discusses renaming a few categories from "churches" to "church buildings". I voted against, since the whole tree of Category:Church buildings needs to be handled; and then started to work on a nomination for the whole tree. Assuming that the current discussion isn't closed when I'm ready to start my planned discussion, would it be reasonable toclose this discussion as "Procedural close in favor of a wider discussion" along with a link to the new discussion, provided that I explicitly notify all users from this discussion? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a very good solution, particularly as you have expressed an oppose, and you would be closing the discussion with a de-facto result that is the same as your position. I think there are 3 options: try to find someone willing to close it with some result, get the supporters to all agree to withdraw it in favor of the wider discussion, or to just wait for it to end naturally. Best would be to hope someone reading this decides they are comfortable closing it. You could also post a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure asking someone to close it promptly so that it doesn't interfere with the broader one. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Miraclexix won't leave me alone

Would an admin please put a stop to this post-haste? Both editors involved seem to have dirty hands and the discussion is getting pretty heated. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards