Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 143 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Courtesy ping to Ratnahastin. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 140 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 124 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Courtesy ping to TarnishedPath. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 90 days ago on 12 February 2024)

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 58 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 53 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni Thanks for closing, but my revert of the original close wasn't out of process and it was discussed in a couple of different places including the editor's TALK. WP:CR says non-admin can close as long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. The editor never responded or justified their close. Given the contentious nature of the discussion the RFC required a better close. Nemov (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I did read that talk page just afterwards. On second thought, I agree with you. I had mistakenly thought you were involved with the discussion, which coloured my opinion on this. I would have still preferred striking and clearly showing the removed close (given at least one editor disagreed with the revert), but I guess going through Close Challenge just for the sake of it would be pointless bureaucracy.

I still hold to my overall close; that RFC was getting punted to the second discussion no matter which way it closes. Soni (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with the close. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 44 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 36 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	20	15	35
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	3	5
RfD	0	0	37	40	77
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 32 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 19 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 50 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 128 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 128 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 122 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 119 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I added a script to help me close RMs, but it failed to mark this as a technical move request(?). Is there a manual way to ask for help on "I closed this RM but the UI did not allow me to"? Right now I used CSD G6 to allow for the move, but I suspect there's a more suitable way. Soni (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Are you aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests? I usually use that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I now am. I vaguely saw that page earlier, but I think I decided to keep looking because it wasn't clear to me based on other sections if "I closed an RM" counted as a "uncontroversial" technical request. I'll use that page or the user script from now, thank you. Soni (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It does. In fact, I'm certain I read somewhere that technical requests by RM closers should be honored even when the page mover disagrees with the close/expects that it will be challenged, although now I can't find where. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, paragraph #4. Although my memory of what that section said did not serve me well. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Soni (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 110 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 104 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 104 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 97 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 90 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor BilledMammal. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 64 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cumnock (original) railway station#Requested move 14 April 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 14 April 2024) No new comments for over three weeks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

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

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

Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list

(Initiated 17 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 15 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 days ago on 1 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)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

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

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 10 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)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (37 out of 7747 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015 2024-05-12 04:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Later-no-harm criterion 2024-05-12 03:07 2024-06-12 03:07 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston Draft:Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:41 2024-08-11 20:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:35 indefinite create Persistent sockpuppetry JJMC89 2024 Kharkiv offensive 2024-05-11 12:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR --requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Drake (musician) 2024-05-11 09:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Slovenia 2024-05-11 09:29 2024-05-18 09:29 edit edit wars on the page Tone Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) 2024-05-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Czech Republic 2024-05-11 02:43 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:ARBEE Daniel Case Ben Shapiro 2024-05-11 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAP2 Daniel Case Eden Golan 2024-05-11 02:03 2025-05-11 02:03 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Nguyễn Văn Hùng (martial artist) 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyen Van Hung 2024-05-10 20:21 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Phan Bội Châu 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Nguyễn Kim Hồng 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian Vietnamese people in Taiwan 2024-05-10 20:21 2027-05-10 20:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: User:Nipponese Dog Calvero Favonian McGill University pro-Palestinian encampment 2024-05-10 19:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case England 2024-05-10 13:52 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Nemo (rapper) 2024-05-10 01:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case The Eras Tour 2024-05-10 01:48 2025-01-29 23:36 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: raise protection to ECP for duration to cut back on fan edits Daniel Case Kim Jae-joong 2024-05-09 23:16 2024-08-09 23:16 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree Draft:Blue Dream Group 2 2024-05-09 18:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: see Draft:Blue Dream Group Ymblanter Template:CGNDB URL 2024-05-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3512 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Daily Mail RfC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC

When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Careful there. Outrage causes cancer. I know that this is true because I reads it in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The trash tabloids sold at US supermarkets called. They demand an apology for being compared to The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if you need a third (fourth? fifth?) opinion/voice on the close. As much as I hate to say it this might actually involve some 'crat-style discussion about which steps to take. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, if folks don't mind and want it I can bring my own assessment in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [1] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

As in RFAs where oppose votes gets heavily discussed, here in this RFC, the oppose voters are subjected to replies, objection and comments. The support votes are not getting too much questioned, why they support ban of Daily Mail. The oppose votes, where editors oppose ban of Daily Mail are getting badgered. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. First, many of those in support of a ban are among the most vocal of editors/admins on WP and seem unable to behave in a way that does not lead to the treatment you describe above. Second, very, very few opposers have been able to indicate that the DM is a reliable source, however, opposers believe for their own various reasons that a "ban" is objectionable. This means the "supporters" have nowhere to go in terms of discussion, other than attacking the opposers. There may also be an element of frustration here. If the closure is in favour of a ban, how will this happen? There is currently no blacklist of newspapers and I think forming one would require a change in WP-policy. I'm wondering if the supporters have seen this eventuality and have decided to attack the opposers hoping they will not return to any future debate. For the record, I have not voted either way on this matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative explanation: the supporters, being mainly very experienced Wikipedians, have come to the good-faith conclusion that The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything and that Wikipedia would be greatly improved if a software filter prevented any new attempts to use it as a source. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The oppose includes SlimVirgin, Anne Delong, Boing! said Zebedee, The Four Deuces, Richard Keatinge, Thincat, Softlavender, Lugnuts, Andy Dingley, Jheald, Finnusertop, Ianmacm, Davey2010. All of them are also very experienced Wikipedians. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The results so far.

We are now 7 days away from the normal 30-day RfC closing.

So far it looks like we have 46 support !votes and 24 oppose !votes. (My rough count; a more careful count should be made checking for dupes)

There were 7 !votes in the last 5 days (all suppport) and zero !votes in the last 2 days.

(Crossposted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The results so far). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Closer should also keep in mind that many of the views offered here were more nuanced than reflected by straight-up oppose or support. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have contacted those who volunteered, above, by email, as I think some discussion of this is necessary. However, doing so on-wiki runs the risk of such discussion getting derailed by well-meaning passers-by; I'm therefore proposing to hold a quick email discussion with Primefac, Sunrise, Tazerdadog and Jo-Jo Eumerus and will close the RFC as soon as we come to an agreement. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Email works, so as long as there is not too much traffic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

<gasp> Private discussions on WP? It's the secret cabal that runs- wait. I'm part of the cabal. Carry on, then. I'll just monitor the email conversation through my NSA contacts and we can bring it up at the next meeting of the other secret cabal the WP cabal secretly works for. In secret, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just tweet the result, why dontcha? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's funny because I have such pleasant memories of the Cabal. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion, and that it should, like the RfC mentioned in a thread below, be closed by a team of three neutral admins. This is a middle-market newspaper, not a tabloid, and notwithstanding its negative politically incorrect frontpage headlines and at times scandal-mongering, it also contains good, standard, valuable journalism, reportage, interviews, and reviews that are exclusives and completely unavailable elsewhere. It is a mixed bag, and should not be painted with a broad brush, even though it is hated in the UK for its misleading front pages. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Even if a blacklisting was likely (which I don't think is the case) why would an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard not be sufficient to gauge the consensus of the community? Any consensus at centralized discussion is only likely to gather users who aren't as familiar with the policies on notability as those that visit the reliable sources noticeboard, which is only likely to result in a less useful discourse. What would be the point of searching for more users that are not as familiar or as interested in the issue of the reliability of sources?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Because WP:RSN is watched by very few editors, whereas the editors of affected articles which cite the Daily Mail for legitimate reasons (reviews, exclusives, interviews, and reliable reportage [non-political, non-science, non-libel] unavailable elsewhere) are unlikely to be watching that board. By and large the board has a core cadre of participants and commentators, and even editors who might at some point happen to query the board only watch it for the time that their discussion is open (as with many dispute-resolution noticeboards). In short, the vast majority of the experienced editors likely to be affected by a blacklist of this publication are more than likely not watching that board. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually just claim that a RfC with 93 responses didn't have sufficient participation? If you wish to challenge the result, the first step would be to go to the talk pages of the closing admins and try to convince them that they got it wrong for the reasons you list above. I have done this IIRC twice in the ten years I have been editing Wikipedia; one time the admin reconsidered and asked for another admin to close it, the other time the admin quickly convinced me that I was the one who got it wrong. If that doesn't work, I don't think that there is any rule that prevents you from posting a good-faith RfC at Centralized Discussion asking whether to overturn the results of the Daily Mail RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I claim that 93 responses is not enough for a decision of this magnitude. It is more than enough to make many decisions, but this is as extremely broad decision. If the Guardian is to be believed (which it is not) Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source, but even the more nuanced actual position is quite strong. I daresay I am not alone in learning about it after it was finalized.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I second comments by Sphilbrick, I found out about the RSN discussion because my wife read the outcome of the RSN RfC in her Greek news site! I have contempt for the Mail's journalistic norms, but there have been occasions when articles by guest or regular column journalists have been invaluable (as I recall, pieces on US use of 'enhanced interrogation'). A blanket ban is not going to last two minutes. I would always prefer to use a better source and we should enforce that practice, also there are times when the Mail's treatment of a story is itself notable. There are many reasons for treating the Mail with huge scepticism, none for banning it, especially when any claim is attributed to it. Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Can we please all sign a petition somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed

It's done. Let the tarring and feathering of myself and the other admins involved in the close begin... Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oy. Seems like the email discussion happened while I was off-email - stupid email service. The closure statement matches almost exactly what I would have proposed, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for you to certify the result in the closing statement? We already have at least one person who is talking about challenging the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on the signing. Alas I have mislaid my pitchfork today. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yunshui and Primefac, I'm not sure I agree with the strong wording of your close, particularly the words in bold (bold added): "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

The RfC question allowed for exceptions, as did several of the support responses.

I've summarized the responses at User:SlimVirgin/draft. There is more support for a combination of the qualified-support (11) and oppose positions (27), than there is for unqualified support (47). Some of the supports read like opposes to me. For example, I opposed, but I agree with the qualified supports. So I would say that consensus is more nuanced than your close reflects. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Not to speak for the others, of course, but based on our discussion I would suggest interpreting that statement as a general principle which may have reasonable exceptions to it, i.e. the focus should be more on the first sentence than the second. For myself, I don't think we had enough justification to say that specific exceptions definitively exist other than IAR, but I think it's fairly likely that they do and I don't see the close as cutting off those possibilities. Sunrise (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding, SV, but your math seems off? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, yes, thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) We used the terms "generally prohibited" and "nor should it be used" specifically because it gave a small amount of wiggle room for IAR/historically reliable usage of the DM to be used. It's not a 100% ban (which we did discuss as a possibility), because that would go against the overall consensus.

As a minor note, I really shouldn't be surprised when five uninvolved editors come together, actually agree on something, and still get roasted for the result. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunrise, the problem is that it will be interpreted as written. Another problem is that the close didn't distinguish between the Mail as a primary and secondary source, although a few comments alluded to that distinction, even if not using those terms. Also, I see that the RfC wasn't added to WP:CENT, so I wonder whether enough people saw it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SV: I think the other responses below address these issues well. Of course, please feel free to cite my comments here in discussions if it would help. With regards to the primary/secondary distinction, I would say the same idea applies as in my previous comment - that the amount it was addressed in the RfC was low enough that I think the community should certify any proposed exceptions in a separate discussion (and with no prejudice towards starting such a discussion immediately). Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, "generally prohibited" reflects consensus, but it's contradicted by "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." That last part says: "Do not use this as a source", and that will be interpreted strictly by editors who will remove it no matter how justified the use. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV My take away from the close is 'prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be'. When editors attempt to remove it no matter how justified, those wishing inclusion will have to argue from it being a necessity as a source, and to ignore this RfC result. In my opinion, and from what I've seen in the comments from the closers, this is a feature, not a bug.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be" is a very good summation of the intent of the close. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "generally" usually means "always", so from a strict semantics viewpoint the close appears to reflect that the consensus did not call for a no-exceptions ban. I don't see much discussion on primary vs. secondary source in the RfC. I'd also like to register a complaint that procedural issues such as which noticeboard to put the discussion on and whether to list it in CENT should be assessed and processed before and during an RfC not after. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The question of weather to bring it up at CENT wasn't asked until the RfC was closed pending a ruling. See previous section for my opinion on the matter.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's standard practice to add RfCs to CENT if they have the potential to affect every article. I'm not reading the close as acknowledging exceptions. It says don't use it as a source, and "Volunteers are encouraged to ... remove/replace them as appropriate." Not "remove/replace/leave it in place as appropriate". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

Note that this RfC has received media attention so we are all likely under the microscope of journalists at the moment. Careful what ya say eh? ;D  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Three cheers for HBH, or as he's better know these days... Paul Dacre's private dealer. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why the Wikimedia Foundation quickly prepared and sent out a statement to The Guardian. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't like the idea of WMF using our discussions for political advocacy, which is what it feels like they've done here... WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement from the WMF was more or less factual, how was it 'political advocacy'?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing better to do, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jbarbara (WMF), WMF communications director. Juliet, can you let us know what happened here? We held an RfC on whether to stop using the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, as a source. The RfC was closed today, and we were discussing whether the close reflected consensus. Within hours of the close, we find that the Wikimedia Foundation has issued a statement about it to The Guardian, so now this feels political. Can you tell us who issued that statement and why? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion on Iridescent's talk page that may shed light on it. An editor may have contacted the newspaper before the close. Also pinging Hillbillyholiday. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The story is a direct result of (and abstracts some of) my correspondence with Mr Jackson of the Guardian which took place immediately after the close. The story was news to Mr Jackson, so I suspect the WMF release was in response and not pre-prepared. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hillbillyholiday. So you contacted The Guardian before they knew anything about it? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that, I can only say that Mr Jacskon didn't express any prior knowledge of the situation. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone - The reporter reached out to us on our press queue earlier today (press@wikimedia.org). As we always do with reporter inquiries, we responded in a timely manner to meet his deadline and emphasized the community’s role in setting editorial policy. We responded factually about the community processes of RfCs and assessing reliable sources. This was not a proactive effort on our part, but rather part of our normal commitment to responding to reporters factually and quickly.

We also shared a link to the RfC, which he quoted in the article, so we felt that he was aware of the discussion taking place among volunteers. We expect to see a few more requests and will respond with the same language and will continue to point any requests to the RfC and this discussion. If there were things in our statement that seemed problematic, please let us know. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet, thank you so much for the quick response, and for clarifying that the WMF didn't initiate the press contact. Discussions are ongoing about whether the RfC close reflected consensus, so the story was a little premature. Also, the Daily Mail is by no means the only problematic tabloid source. We should have dealt with them all in the same RfC to avoid this looking so political, but I suppose that ship has sailed. Thanks again for letting us know what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV You're very welcome - thanks for looping me in! Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Juliet Is there a link to the full statement? I see what is in the Guardian, but do not know if that is the full statement. We are receiving inquiries at OTRS, and it would be nice to be able to share the official position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick We have not published our statement anywhere. We are only sharing with reporters when we receive inquiries. Here is the current text we're using: Thanks for reaching out. We’d be happy to share a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on the recent outcome of a discussion among volunteer editors around the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. One point of clarity -- A number of outlets have called this move a “ban.” This is not a blanket ban, but a general statement from volunteer editors on the reliability of the source for use on English Wikipedia. Also, I should mention that as the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not set editorial policy on Wikipedia. That is up to volunteer editors around the world who contribute to the site. Editors have discussed the reliability of the Daily Mail since at least early 2015. In January 2017, an RfC (Request for Comment) discussion was proposed to evaluate the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This is one of many community discussions that take place every day about a broad range of issues, including reliable sources. In this case, volunteer editors seem to have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is “generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.” This means that there is a general recommendation according to this discussion that the Daily Mail not be referenced as a "reliable source" on English Wikipedia or used to demonstrate an article subject’s notability. That said, we encourage everyone to read the comments in the RfC itself. You will find considerable discussion on the topic, including views both for and against the proposal. Wikipedia is a living, breathing ecosystem where volunteers regularly discuss and evolve the norms that guide the encyclopedia. Among Wikipedia’s many policies and guidelines, there is even a policy to ignore all rules. It captures the open spirit of the community: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” As a general guide to reliable sources, articles on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Editors assess the reliability of a source at these levels: The piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). They also use a variety of criteria to evaluate reliability within each of these levels. For example, one signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Jbarbara (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

• Comment: The Daily Mail is one of the five major venues for theatre reviews in London (the others being the Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, and The Independent). Their theatre reviewers are excellent (as are their film and television reviewers). We can't just remove all of the reviews from these excellent critics simply because they are in the Daily Mail and we don't like the Daily Mail's politics, any more than we can completely ban Fox News because we don't like their politics. I understand the UK campaign of "Don't Fund Hate" (don't buy products advertised in the Daily Mail or The Sun), but top-notch theatre critics can't generally help which of the five publications they work for, as there are only a few spots to go around. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to be a bit more careful. I, for one, know nothing about DMs politics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm vaguely aware that the Telegraph is somewhere on the right and the Guardian somewhere on the left but know nothing about the political leanings of other British newspapers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Iridescent, one thing that puzzles me is that you used the Daily Mail as a source in Hope (painting), one of your FAs (and I objected), yet in the RfC you supported and I opposed, even though I think we both agree. I used it as a primary source in Death of Ian Tomlinson, also an FA, because it was one of the first to publish images of Tomlinson with the police before his death. The situation is nowhere near as simple as the RfC close implies. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• OTH - Is that a five editor close? This falls into the trivia question box, but have five editors ever been used before? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the Daily Mail was put as the sole target on the sights in the first place - their reporting style isn't specifically populist or right-wing. It's a British tabloid thing. There are plenty of Labour-supporting tabloids with the same, occasionally sensationalist, brute style and less regard for fact-checking such as Daily Record or the Daily Mirror. The current political climate is said to be as divisive as ever with Trump and Brexit. I think this vote with it's the Guardian piece and reactions is a sign of that and I don't welcome it in Wikipedia. I don't know why the Daily Mail should be treated differently than other tabloids. --Pudeo (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• You could always bring those to discussion and see what happens. Though I suppose the answer is that both of those sources are cited approximately never. There are only two links to the Daily Record on Wikipedia, and only a few dozen to the Daily Mirror. Nothing compared to the ~12,000 links to the Daily Mail. Perhaps this means they are already de facto banned by never being used, or removed whenever they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• As someone pointed out in the RfC, Press Complaints Commission records over a ten-year period: Successful complaints against Fleet Street publications: average = 43, Daily Mail = 153.That's why it was a target, and it has absolutely nothing to do with its politics. Yes, there are other very poor sources that are used (Record and Mirror among them), but I sincerely hope RfCs are opened to discuss the possibility of each of these too. If it leads to a raising of the bar on the sources used on WP that can only be a positive step. - The Bounder (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah I am probably going to have to take the hit for this one. In the context of the recent Trump-o-geddon story-after-story of depressingness, I sent a message about a week ago to a close (blood) relative who freelances for the Guardian along the lines of 'look on the bright side, wikipedia is probably about to declare the Daily Mail unreliable'.... I got a message this morning saying he had passed it on, so I guess thats why they were ready to move quickly as soon as it closed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• Point of clarification: the closure has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable", but doesn't specifically mention its sister paper The Mail on Sunday which commonly appears on the same website, and is frequently mistaken for the Daily Mail. For example, "Daily Mail names “whistleblower” who told US gov’t that NOAA manipulated climate data | Ars Technica UK refers to a www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article and in the body text correctly notes this is from the UK tabloid Mail on Sunday. An attempt to get this into a BLP has been reverted. In my view, The Mail on Sunday is equally unreliable and its online republication at dailymail.co.uk is covered by this decision. . . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Question: Can one of the admins explain what's the point of having DM "generally prohibited"? WP:QUESTIONABLE is already a thing. What's the point of this voting if there's no policy to enforce it, nor it's even mentioned on any of the WP: pages. I found out about this whole ban via the Guardian article, but I doubt editors will remember about this vote in half year time. Idea: There needs to be some framework/policy to list "generally prohibited" (or however you want to call them) websites that wikipedians can refer to & link to during any possible disputes. SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Mail on Sunday, I don't see any differentiation or discussion of that newspaper in the RfC. I am not certain what the issue with banning the use of a source is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday was mentioned twice in the RfC by editors saying the proposal was unclear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• A few comments Please in future could we have wider notification of this kind of discussion? The Mail is, for right or wrong, one of the biggest media organisations in the UK and probably quite high up the list for the English language. What's more, the whole idea of a blanket ban on a certain source is a significant innovation in how we handle sources. Those are both individually big deals - to my mind, an RFC on the relatively out-of-the-way sources noticeboard isn't a big enough forum for this kind of decision. Also it would have been handy for someone to let the WMF and Wikimedia UK know this was coming - so that there could have been discussion about how to handle press inquiries in advance. The Land (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I mentioned that above this section. The good-faith editors most affected by this decision -- e.g. those writing and editing on theatre articles and theatre actors and directors, were not even aware of it. I requested that the discussion at least be posted at Centralized Discussion, but instead it was immediately closed. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender wrote above at 03:59, 8 February: "If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion ..". The RfC was closed nine hours later, so most editors who will be affected by this will learn about it via the Guardian, even though whether the close reflects consensus is still being debated. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Following a discussion with Thincat and Yunshui here, I'm wondering whether we should seek consensus to overturn this. The question is what to ask for. Re-open the RfC for seven days and advertise it widely? Start from scratch with a new question? SarahSV ^(talk) 15:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'd support re-opening it, as a) plenty of editors will have found out about this whole thing from reading the Guardian and b) I don't think the debate had either high enough participation or a strong enough majority to warrant the strongly-worded result. I would also suggest perhaps workshopping some alternative formulations of the result. The Land (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the history of {{Centralized discussion}} and this significant RfC doesn't appear to have been mentioned on that template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Question as to scope?

Is "generally unreliable" applicable to citing the Daily Mail as a primary source for the content of the DM itself... or for attributed statements of opinions appearing in the DM itself? For example, suppose a noted expert on some subject wrote an opinion piece in the DM relating to some aspect of his/her field of expertise... previous to this RFC, we could cite the opinion piece to support the fact that the opinion had been stated... something along the lines of: "In an op-ed appearing in the Daily Mail on 23 June, 2016, Ima Expert stated his opinion that 'X was Y' <ref DM op-ed where he states x was y>". I assume this would still be allowed, but I would like confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I support the above; it's disappointing that the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football weren't notified of this disucssion. I recently sourced several new articles on Charity Shield finals to Daily Mail articles (1936, 1935, 1924 and 1923) for example - it has a good history of relatively extensive football reporting that I couldn't find in some of the other archives that I had access to. While I acknowledge that the closure does use the word 'generally', I think the strength of the assertion is disappointing. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Super Nintendo Chalmers note that the close specifically indicates that historically the DM may have been more reliable, therefore there is totally a case for ignoring this decision when it comes to very old topics such as that.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  15:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but only 'ish': there's a lot of sceptical "mays" and "coulds". I hope that editors stand by the wording of these statements, but my concern is that babies are being lost with bathwaters here, as much as I fully support a general rejecting of the contemporary Daily Mail.--Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, it can be used as a primary source when it has become part of the story. Or when someone has a byline in it and you use it as a source about that person. But the expert writing in her field of expertise: I would say no, in general, but it would depend on context. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah... "it would depend on context" is exactly what I was trying to say. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be completely unreliable in one context, and completely reliable in another. I think we need to ask the RFC closers to amend their closing statement... to better outline the (limited) circumstances in which the DM (and similar "tabloid" news sources) should be considered reliable. As it stands, editors will be confused as to when it is reliable and when it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree completely. I asked the closing admin to amend his close, but he declined. See the end of the section directly above this one. It seems we may need to ask that it be overturned, but the question now is what to ask for exactly. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that the scope needs to be interpreted with a healthy dose of common sense. I see the words "generally prohibited" as giving editors some wriggle room for those rare cases where there is truly no source other than the Daily Mail, and it is in a topic area where the Daily Mail does not have a reputation for poor quality (such as politics and current events). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

RfC advertisement: Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#RfC:_use_of_edit_filter_against_unreliable_sources

I opened an RfC about the technical details of the implementation of similar bans for the future. I expect it to pass without much trouble, considering the results of the DM RfC, but you never know. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS applies. "I expect it to pass without much trouble" does not accord with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Problems with close

The close, in part, includes the following clauses:

• The Daily Mail... is generally unreliable
• its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited
• should not be used... as a source in articles
• The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects
• The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically
• it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion
• Volunteers are encouraged to review [existing citations to the Daily Mail], and remove/replace them as appropriate

I trust that the contradictions and ambiguities they contain, and their potential for causing dispute further down the line, are clear. Regardless on one's view of the DM and its suitability as a source, this is a very badly-worded close.

That said, we should probably move this discussion somewhere else, as it's no longer an issue requiring admin intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that we looked at the wording very carefully in our close. One of the purposes of the wording was to try to give a sense of how easy it should be to use IAR when our close might not make sense in a specific case. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel like most of the contradiction talked about by editors is originating from editors not used to using the WP:IAR guideline. When working on the bleeding edge of contentious policy issues (such as the Daily Mail's reliability, fringe topics, etc) editorial judgement in the form of IAR is commonly used. Editors not used to contentious topics likely don't have to use IAR much, as they generally work in places where WP policy works as written pretty much all of the time. As written, and with my understanding of WP:IAR the close makes perfect sense to me and many others, but might not make much sense to someone without the context of having had to use editorial judgement to IAR from time to time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with IAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We are already getting a lot of editors who are interpreting the close as a complete "ban" on citing the DM. I do understand that this was not the intent of the closers... but that is how it is being interpreted nevertheless. I think we may need to hold a second (follow up) RFC to discuss the contexts and circumstances when the DM (and similar sources) should be considered reliable, and when citing it is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost without exception, reliable sources are calling it a ban so who are we to argue? Huffington Post quotes the Dail Mail itself as describing it as a "so-called ban".[2] So all we can be sure of is that it is not a "so-called ban". Thincat (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to, shall we say, be sensationalist. "A ban" is always partial, or total, here it would be partial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel that calling this a "ban" is an oversimplification, but it's a really common way to oversimplify decisions and such misleading coverage happens all the time. I'd like to disagree with Pigsonthewing, RfC !voters have no obligation to end up with a black-and-white aggregate opinion and neither have closers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And where did I say that they have? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

See, my impression from the comment you wrote here is that the close was "very badly worded". I don't agree as the opinions given were inherently ambiguous and not all on the same page. Hence the seeming contradictions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone has seen this Reddit post that was on their front page regarding the decision. The actions on ANI can somehow spread like wildfire, depending on the situation (although most appeared to have applauded the decision). Buffaboy ^talk 20:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

there are sufficient problems with this close that a new discussion is needed. I'm not sure how we should go about it. The most conventional method at WP is to add a page of interpretations, which adjusts the over-broad policy to make it correspond with what people generally at WP really want to do. (for example, to say straight out thattheatre and sports are exceptions). That's the way most WP policies have developed over time.

A more direct though equally complicated way is to bring an RfC to review the RfC. In principle, an RfC can do anything.

a third, already mentioned, is to just use IAR.

As for getting the media to understand us, it can't be done. Every significant word in WP guidelines and policy is a term of art, which has no necessary correspondence with the way anyone would use the term in any other context. My personal suggestion is to try rewording things so they will at least be closer, or else coin words like "WPreliablesources" A precedent for this is NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No one could possibly confuse it with English. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there were problems with the close, described above. There is also another issue now. Since reliable sources have written about the ban and cited the closer's comment describing the Daily Mail's "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication," that lets editors directly insert that comment into the article! I have removed such a comment from the lead of the article. This is a really big problem, in that wikipedia editors are creating the news that they then enter into articles! I suggest the closers retract their closing statement at once, and open a new RFC to a much wider audience. Not even 100 editors weighed in, and many votes as described above contained barely any justification. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you feel that the other closers and I misread the consensus of those who participated in the RFC? If so, a closure review per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is encouraged. I do not suspect there is an appetite for an immediate RFC relitigating the same question as the original. However, a RFC which tries to carve out explicit exceptions to the ban (e.g. historical usage, citing the DM as a primary source, or using the DM for theatre reviews), and/or discussing implementation details may be a good idea. Additionally there may be cause to re-evaluate the decision in a few months, once we have more details on how the ban is working. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the closure was as ill-considered and short sighted as the proposal. No limited consensus gained on a single board should be used to initiate or justify untenable proposals or make major changes to Wikipedia policy, nor does a consensus deciding two plus two must henceforth make five actually make two plus two equal five in the real world. The contradictory and ambiguous wording needed to cover up a basically unworkable proposal was predictable; the subsequent media attention on the banning decision was predictable; the ongoing mission-creep to include more and more media outlets on the banned list was especially predictable (and is perhaps the most dangerous result). The "it's not an actual ban" backtracking is not convincing: the leading proposers wanted a complete ban, and they wanted it to be a hard-wired one, code that would physically prevent ALL Daily Mail citations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue would be that the RfC was not listed on "Centralized discussions". That newsmedia are (sometimes inaccurately) reporting on it is not an issue with the close, and people adding these newsmedia reportings in articles is a different problem altogether. A supplementary RfC to settle the theatre and sports question would be fine, in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of an improper RfC closure

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [3], [4], [5]).

In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).

First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).

Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Note: This shouldn't be closed until at least the last point is addressed: if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept? In this case, because of the wording of the question, the closing summary (by involved editors) changed the existing policy. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. When everything's simple and straightforward, then, yes, you're right: When there is no consensus, then the proposed change is usually not made (although see WP:NOCONSENSUS for some examples of when the default differs). But this does not appear to be a simple and straightforward situation. The closer may have found, for example, that there was no consensus for the old version and no consensus for the proposed change. "No consensus" means "no consensus against the proposal" just as much as it means "no consensus for the proposal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The problem is 1) the closers were both involved editors and didn't really summarize the arguments made and 2) at the start of the RfC, the consensus was to accept such images on a case-by-case basis, but the question posed in the RfC was phrased in the positive ("Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? "). The closing summary, in part, was "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. " For the various reasons explained above, a lack of consensus should mean that the status quo be kept. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I answered the general question that you asked: "if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept?" The answer to that question is "it depends". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting three uninvolved admins to close RfC

The RfC on secondary school notability is nearing the 30-day mark. Last week I suggested that we request a team of three uninvolved editors/admins to work together on the close, as is done from time to time on highly contentious matters. The three users responding to that suggestion were supportive of it. The subject of the RfC is something that's come up so many times, and so often, and with so much history that it may be useful. There are furthermore nuances, qualifications, interpretations, etc. that make for a potentially complicated close. So how about it? Are there three uninvolved admins willing? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in the close, but I'll happily defer to almost any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Poking people - This really does need a multiple-editor closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't look too awful. I could participate. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. We're looking for one more admin or experienced editor then. Thank you for volunteering Someguy.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Cough Cough... we are still in need of a 3rd uninvolved admin or experienced editor to help close this RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I did peripherally comment, so I am probably not a candidate for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I pushed back pretty hard on secondary school notability in the bad old days; I probably shouldn't be involved. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm game. I didn't even know the discussion was going on, so I think that qualifies as "uninvolved" ;) Primefac (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing if needed. Fairly experienced in contentious RFCs. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Rhododendrites It looks like you have three (+1) experienced editors on board. I suggest that the RfC be closed with a results pending notice and that the closers move their discussion to a subpage somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog, Someguy1221, and The Wordsmith:: subpage or e-mail? I suggest the latter only because it was helpful for the DM close. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Email is probably the best option (or IRC), and is the most common when doing committee closings. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac, Someguy1221, and The Wordsmith: I have emailed Someguy1221 and The Wordsmith to set up an email discussion about the closure (I have Primefac's email from the DM closure above). I have also placed a holding message at the RFC. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 and The Wordsmith: I haven't seen input from you guys on the email thread in a while, I just wanted to poke you on it. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have put up the closing statement at the RFC. The tarring and feathering process can commence now. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well done! But as far as I can tell, two of you don't exist. Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I count three signatures out of four ;)

I'm more concerned with the fact that there's a request for a TLDR, because nothing says RFC like misinterpreting a summary... Primefac (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the RfC, guys. That must have been a challenging job, but I think you did a good one. Can I just point out, though, that whereas you write "Either way the proposed change will not be adopted", my RfC question was supposed to be exactly that - a question, not a proposal. I think the way that the discussion went down the path of "support"/"oppose" made it sound like a proposal, but I intended it as a neutral question. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The RFC question was very well set-up and that made our job as closers much easier. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks (though much of the credit for that wording goes to TonyBallioni and others who commented at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Need for an RfC on schools' notability). I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't backing the "support" side. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

L'honorable

Editor L'honorable has for quite a while an unblock request standing: User talk:L'honorable#Unblock request. Somebody should take care of that. The Banner talk 09:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved, but if I wasn't, I'd have to say that continuing the behavoir that got them blocked isn't an encouraging sign. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Involved as well - seems to revolve mostly around a commons admin with a grudge posting to AN/I. Still don't understand why the user copied their talkpage here, however. SQL^{Query me!} 04:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone daring to take action? The Banner talk 09:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll unblock if there are no objections. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've unblocked on a wp:rope basis. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cease and desist plus fees for re-users of freely licensed images as a rip-off?

There is currently a survey going on at the German Wikipedia that evolves around the practice of a few photographers to licence their works with CC-by-sa or the like and then wait for re-users to violate the terms of the licence only to charge a fee in the range of some thousand EUR including a cease and desist letter. Apparently this has led to repeated complaints to the German Wikipedia where people found images and just used them for their own purposes without obeying the CC licence (which can sometimes be complicated). The survey at de.wikipedia is now proposing to remove such images from the local article namespace by default. Re-users are of course responsible for their actions and sloppy reading of the terms and conditions but the initiators of the survey think that the general "business" model of such photographers should not be rewarded by spreading their images all around Wikipedia.

So while I have not yet voted over there, the question has arisen whether the English WP has experienced someting similar in the past. I can't recall having witnessed any such cases but maybe anyone else? De728631 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard of such a case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a terrible idea, our image default is CC by SA and a majority of our images are licensed that way... Of course they should belong on Commons but thats another issue...

These kinds of actions as described do not seem to be in the spirit of the type of community we aspire to be. I would personally not even have a problem with a global ban, if there are sufficient hints that these contributors consider our platform a businessmodel instead of their photos a contribution to free knowledge. People have a right to defend their copyright, but that doesn't equal to us having to host their material, just because it is CC-by-sa. I would consider such a practice similar to undisclosed COI article editing for the promotion of commercial purposes and maybe even touching upon Wikipedia:No legal threats. I'm not aware of precedents however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NLT is concerned with the disruptive action of attempting to use (or threatening to use) the courts to influence the contents of Wikipedia pages. Making legal threats against people not involved in the project, as is the case here, is a completely unrelated issue. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree that doesn't reflect one to one to this case. But again, in spirit... Besides, I wouldn't call reusers of our hosted content 'people not involved in the project'. Sharing in the sum and all that stuff.. The point is, no we don't have rules for this, but if you look at our mission, our origins and even our rules towards areas where we DO have jurisdiction/precedence, then behavior like that does not compatible and so avoiding that type of content is not a very strange idea. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as "not in the spirit of the project", I tend to agree, and your suggestion of treating it like commercial COI sounds like a good idea to me; I just oppose blocking someone for taking legal action for what really is the infringement of our licensing terms. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any block being proposed. But if we identify contributors using this "business model" then maybe we tag their images with a notification of the potential problem, so that people who add their images to articles, or use them for other purposes, will have a chance to be aware. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not needed. All our CC license templates contain a link to the license, which already has such a warning. All reusers are already obligated to obey the license conditions, and some users' failure to enforce terms on infringers isn't a reason to provide special notice that other users will enforce those terms. Unless we're going to sanction someone for using Wikipedia improperly for commercial purposes, as TheDJ's suggesting and I'm lending toward supporting, there's no reason to do anything regarding this situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• It is very easy to see a situation in which a committed free content advocate might contribute many images and be very angry when their lovingly created work is stolen by others (in the sense of being reused without complying with the really very straightforward license conditions). It might be that this is abuse, but it could equally just be righteous wrath. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some users at Commons have big reminder templates for this purpose, including some who permit alternate, simpler licenses for noncommercial purposes (see Commons:User:Kadellar/credit or Commons:User:Fir0002/credits), so I agree. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  It's common. I know a few photographers like this. But they are not doing it for the money. All they want is the terms of the CC-by-SA licence adhered to. Mostly, they just want to be credited for the image. Which they are entitled to under the licence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Like others, my first instinctive reaction here is a 'NLT'-type thing; if people do this, we should block them until they withdraw the threat. But of course that amounts to banning use of the CC-BY-SA license on en-wiki. Technically we're saying, "You can use CC-BY-SA but you can't enforce the conditions on the license," but it amounts to the same thing. Photographers should be free to enforce the terms of what is already a very generous license. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• You, OP, might want to reexamine how you put that: "then wait for re-users to violate the terms of the licence". There is no violation of the licence until someone violates it, so it's not about 'waiting', it is about actually enforcing the licence, the licence we allow and encourage. The reason we allow and encourage it is it makes for a more informative encyclopedia. It's also a benefit to the world that others can also use it, if they follow the quite undemanding licence terms. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If someone contributes an image to Wikipedia for the purpose of using it here (possibly in an article (s)he intends to write eventually), and gets angry when it's used against his/her license, then there is nothing wrong here. If a user uploads an image as a trap to get money, it's abuse of the license. As long as wre're in doubt, we should assume good faith. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify this: generally, licence enforcement is alright, but the concern voiced in the survey at de.wikipedia is that a number of external authors – not necessarily Wikipedia editors – who licensed and published their works under free CC licences, apparently did this only to catch unsuspecting and uninformed re-users and make money out of enforcing the licenses. I. e. the very first action they use to take against any offender is a cease and desist letter plus a hefty fee instead of just warning them in the first place. This fell back on the German WP when such images were used in articles and were then picked up by random readers. So, the motion at the survey is to effectively ban these images from authors who are known to pursue this type of business from being placed into any WP articles. De728631 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• If we know someone is intentionally abusing our policies in order to intimidate and grab money from readers, we can block per WP:NOTHERE and delete their images. If, on the other hand, there are people just enforcing their legal rights, then there's nothing we can or should do. Would it be possible for us to place some kind of highly visible notice of the situation on the File: pages of CC images? Something on par with the old Orange Bar of Death talkpage notice. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • First of all you'd have to identify such a scheme beyond doubt, and since even forwarded OTRS mails are not indicative I'm wondering how this "misuse" should be proven. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Moreover, as a "money making scheme", this would be an incredibly stupid waste of time: 1) you are only going to maybe even begin to collect money from someone who is actually taking your work and making money from it, and that's if you are willing to really pursue and pursue them, beyond a letter; 2) Generally, chasing down people is expensive will be of little value, except it will get the ethical takers to actually fix what they did wrong and give credit where credit is due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A related type of money making scheme became quite infamous in Germany when certain law firms specialised in tracking down copyvios of photos in Ebay auctions and similar venues so I can see where the caution at de.wikipedia is coming from. Apparently though it's not a problem here at the English WP. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Not surprising; see the text immediately after citation #8 in the Impressum article. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
      • You may be surprised, Alan, at how well this sort of scheme can work. Many people are either so unfamiliar with their legal rights, or so scared of a lawsuit, or so unwilling to consult a lawyer, they will simply pay up. Some lawyers have made millions doing this sort of thing on a massive scale. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Not surprised, just unimpressed. So, it's claimed that someone paid 1000s of Euros based on a letter (which is going to be be relatively few people). The immediate possibilities are: 1) they owed it, or 2) such payments are part of the payor's cost of doing business, or 3) they have money to throw away, or 4) they just cannot be protected from themselves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Or 5) are victims of a legal conspiracy that has proven very effective in many different settings. Check out the saga of Prenda Law some time for one group of attorneys that operated an even more outrageous racketeering scheme. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Template protections

I've just been asked by George Ho to change Template:Infobox to template protection - it seems I full-protected it in December 2006(!). I can't seem to find the discussions but I believe there was a small flurry of them done around this time and seen as a reasonable special case to deal with the risk of very visible vandalism; template protection, of course, didn't exist back then.

Dropping it down to template protection seems in line with WP:PP, but thought I'd flag it here in case a) it should have remained on full (in which case, please feel free to revert) or b) anyone is keen to dig out old full-protected templates and drop them down to template-protected. I have a draft query to identify these here, currently waiting to run. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Here is one from 2015. George Ho (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as (a), I agree with the reduction; this is why we have template protection. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It still looks protected to me (as a template editor), downgrading local protection didn't have any effect because it was cascade protected. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It was on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, so I've removed it from that page. Going to edit the template, I was told that it was still under full cascading protection, but now I'm told that it's only under TE protection, so this situation should be resolved. Come back here if it's not. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Mr. Stradivarius about Module:Infobox, fully protected but not cascaded. The protection of the module should be lowered to "template protection" also. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? Is there any evidence that reducing protection would help the encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not the place for people to exercise their human rights to edit any damn thing right here and right now. In principle, the template editor right should be sufficient to get a good result, but there have been lots of cases where TE editors have made multiple minor changes to a template or module without any testing in a sandbox and with no effort to get all required changes implemented in a single edit. Fiddling with infoboxes affects millions of pages and is not the place to try bold editing on the assumption that someone else will clean up if a problem is found. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

...If you want, Johnuniq, you can re-cascade the template and reinstate the "full protection". If that happens, feel free to strike my request on the module. George Ho (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've downgraded Module:Infobox to template protection. The template editor user right is only supposed to be given out to users who we can trust to edit templates and modules sensibly - if there are editors out there that are abusing the right, then we should remove their template editor rights, rather than upgrade pages to full protection again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You are too nice Mr. S! I predict doom and gloom. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this change for these specific templates, in use on over 2million pages. There is almost no backlog for FPROT edit requests and these frameworks are not subject to frequent updates. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux, are you disagreeing on "this goes against the policy" grounds or disagreeing on "I don't think this is a good idea" grounds? Either way, I disagree with your disagreement (this could get really repetitive if you disagree with my disagreement with your disagreement, and then I disagree with that, etc.), but I'd like to understand your position better before I respond to it. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I don't really have any good policy arguments on this, but breaking changes to such a template would have have a significant impact on readers and full protection helps remind even admins that maybe they should really really really discuss such changes before implementing. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a decent question. Is it worth making it slightly easier for a 150 people to change templates that often go entire years without any edits, at the risk that one mistake breaks half of Wikipedia until the job queue clears out? I mean, that's not too bad, and we'll probably go back to full protection on a lot of templates the first time it happens... Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[ec with Someguy] So it sounds to me like you're saying "I don't think this is a good idea". As far as reminders go, what's the difference between full and template protection? Both get a box saying

WARNING: This page has been protected so that only users with [details about rights] can make edits.

Either way, the box then transcludes the rights log, and there's a red background for the page's coding. Full protection being a good deal more common, you're much more likely to assume that a template-protected page is fully protected than vice versa (and if we're talking reminders, first impressions are the important thing, even if they're somewhat wrong, as in my example), and if you're ignoring the first impression and thinking about the situation, you'll remember that both full and template protection require a lot of care. Reading your words, the only possibility I see for an alternate problem situation is the risk of a breaking change via vandalism by a template editor, and (1) if you're trying to hack an advanced-permissions account to vandalise with it, you're foolish to go for a template editor's account, since they're a good deal rarer, have far fewer rights, and can lose that right via action by a single admin (as opposed to requiring an Arbcom case for an admin), but the password hack shouldn't be any easier on technical grounds; and (2) since the policy [which you're not addressing] permits this kind of move, I don't think we should disagree with the RFC's decision that there's not a significant and dangerous risk of having a breaking change caused by vandalism from a TE. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as account security goes, currently WP:2FA is not available by default for template editors (though they can request it on meta:). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, George Ho and Andrew Gray is there any special reason for this change, George Ho is not a template editor, has any template editor been blocked from improving the encyclopedia? I'm normally in favor of removing old protections, etc to reduce hurdles for improvement but I'm not seeing that here. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

At least one former template editor has had multiple blocks for personal attacks and block evasion but not for abusing the template editor right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry NeilN I used "blocked" above as in "prevented" not as in a user block. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No particular reason on my part - George asked and it seemed reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't consider about the "Template:" and "Module:" namespaces. Now I'm convinced one faulty edit would affect the infoboxes. However, I think the template editors would work more efficiently on the "Module:Infobox" than they would on "Template:Infobox". Also, the template editors may either reject or turn down accept or reject such edits on the module page. As said, you can reinstate the full protection on the "Template:" one. However, I'm sure template editors would do fine with the "Module:" one. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 22:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

When a template invokes a module, intentionally having different protection levels for the two pages seems a bad idea — editing either one will cause significant changes. If the template needs full protection, the module does as well. I believe that template-protection is appropriate here because it's a good example of why the template editor right was created in the first place: aside from templates used in permanently protected pages (specifically, the Main Page and various Mediawikispace pages), trusted non-admins should be able to edit high-risk templates without having permissions-related difficulties. Pre-emptive protection generally goes against our ideal of open editing, and while of course it's appropriate with widely transcluded templates, it's better if we can achieve the same anti-vandal goal without full protection. To quote WP:PREEMPTIVE, "The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes." We need protection to be indefinite on these templates and modules, but template editor, not full, is the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption that would likely occur on these pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I feel better. Nothing wrong with TEs editing both namespaces of "Infobox", IMO. As you said, we can trust the ability of TEs to edit the "Infobox" of both namespaces. However, the issue can be raised at a very appropriate later time when things go wrong often (or frequently) with the plain "Infobox" of both namespaces. Meanwhile, I guess I must be careful making huge risky requests for now. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, template editors have been specifically selected for technical competence in editing templates. Admins haven't, and in fact most of them have no clue and are happy to avoid it. Switching to TE protection increases the proportion of knowledgeable users in the access group, and while more access may mean more opportunities for screwups, it also makes those knowledgeable users available to fix any errors. It's unlikely this change is a net loss. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't do major edits to non-simple templates (just because I don't understand the coding) unless the code is supplied to me in a sandbox, and even then I've at least once broken something significant without noticing until someone reverted my change, because I made some sort of error in the copy-paste process. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Alternatively, if full protected (again), TEs can work on sandboxes and testcases to improve both namespaces of "Infobox". --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail, again

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

---

How many times is the Daily Mail question going to be hashed over? We had an RfC, we had an editor who misinterpreted the RfC as permission to remove all citations to the newspaper, and now User:The Four Deuces seems to want to re-litigate the issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, [6] by asking what is basically an unanswerable rhetorical question about how the Daily Mail has affected the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. The question about the reliability of The Daily Mail has been settled, and I think this forum-shopping needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

TFD notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur. We've definitely moved past the dead horse stage and getting into the realm of tenditious editing. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, please strike out your accusation of forum shopping. I have not raised this issue on any other noticeboard or discussion thread. If you do not want to reply to my discussion thread no one is forcing you to. The ban on using the Daily Mail is a major step and no doubt other editors will have questions about its implications. I am however happy to close the thread if that is the consensus. I just did not think that the request of one editor qualified.[7] TFD (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The issue was decided in a general RfC held here in which many, many editors took part, and, despite the conclusion, you chose to go to another place to, essentially, re-open the case by attempting to undermine it with a rhetorical question that no one can answer. (Comments on your talk page point to your dissatisfaction with the result of the RfC, as does the Independent article linked there which quotes you.) So, you went to another forum when you were unhappy with the result in this forum. That's forum-shopping, so I will not strike it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see forum shopping: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".)" I have not raised this issue or anything about the Daily Mail on any other notice board or talk page or request to any administrator and ask again that you strike out your accusation. TFD (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The RFC wasn't widely published with an absolutely ridiculous outcome. The blowback is part of the ridiculousness. The faster the RfC is ignored, the better. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for how to deal with an rfc close 'you don't like', otherwise any such challenge is outside of process and thus easily becomes tendentious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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

The white-space experimentalist, from Brazil

Howdy. About 2 or 3 times a month, an unregistered editor from Brazil continues to show up & add/revert white-space to mostly the same articles, with some variations each visit. Though it's not a big problem, as (again) he immediately undoes his 'experiment edits?' Is there any way to put an end to his re-appearances? His latest IP (just blocked) was 177.139.45.123. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's favoraite articles can be semi-protected; this ,ay be of little value if (s)he goes on to other srticles. Additionally, we could give this user a range block if the list of IPs is appropriate - you only gave me one, so I can't be sure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Other past IP accounts are 177.139.47.52 & 191.19.79.80 for examples. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How about other IPs in the 177.139.44.0 to 177.139.47.255 range? This is a blockable range. And anything similar to 191.19.79.80? If the first 2 numbers are different, then the 2 IPs can't possibly be blocked as a single range. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into this before. Vivo's ranges are just stupidly large. You'll probably have to block all of Sao Paolo. Now, it should be possible to make an edit filter that stops white space edits from those ranges. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the 177.139.45.123 IP has returned. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist ten minutes after you said this. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct place to report interaction ban violation

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

---

I am under a 2-way interaction ban imposed by ARBCOM. I believe the other editor has violated this interaction ban. Where do I report this? This might seem like an overly simple question to bring here, but last time I tried to use an ARBCOM page I inadvertently violated my topic ban and got blocked for my trouble. I obviously want to avoid this happening again, so I am seeking admin advice. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If the ban was a result of an arbitration case, WP:AE. If it's a community imposed restriction, ANI or here. I would point out to breach an interaction ban requires reverting or interacting directly, merely editing the same article is not a breach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this advice. The problem I have is that I took a complaint to AE in which I mentioned my ARBCOM-imposed and I was judged to have violated my topic ban by doing this - and I got blocked. I have absolutely no desire to re-hash that decision, but it seems logical to me that if I can get blocked for mentioning my ARBCOM-imposed topic ban at AE, I could be blocked for mentioning the editor with which I have an ARBCOM-imposed 2-way interaction ban. I hope I am making sense here. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

BANEX doesn't allow one to report someone for a topic ban violation if doing so also violates your own topic ban. It does allow one to report a violation of an interaction ban they are a part of though. I would suggest you best have an iron clad diff of said violation though otherwise it's going to come off as tendentious and petty and likely boomerang. Capeo (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears we have an icomlete record, while I found several Arbcom topic bans at WP:RESTRICT, I did not see any record of an interaction ban. Was this related to a particular case? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes - but I am not allowed to mention it. Oh, the beauty of this circularity! DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe you may have already violate your interaction ban, since you are not allowed to "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". WP:IBAN Clearly you have indirectly referred to your IBan partner in this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. IBAN violations can be discussed here without invoking circular argument stupidity. Well that was what we all hoped. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Capeo, so where do you believe I should post my complaint? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually it is listed at WP:RESTRICT, under the other user's name. For the benefit of everybody else [8]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DrChrissy, from BANEX "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)." I would expect here would be fine BUT, as I said, it best be an iron clad diff or it's just going to look like you can't drop the stick. Please ask yourself if it's worth the drama. Capeo (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you would like to comment on the posting by Beyond My Ken that in asking this question I have already violated my interaction ban? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking BMK is correct. If I were you I'd either put up a diff of a clear violation or, better, just retract this whole thing. Capeo (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I think we're allowed to day that it's Jytdog that DrChrissy is indirectly referring to. DrChrissy, why did you start this thread instead of following the clear instructions on WP:BANEX to "[ask] an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)"? By opening this thread you have opened yourself up to possible sanctions, whereas if you had followed the instructions on BANEX you could point to them as allowing your inquiry. Did you not learn from your AE fiasco? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I can answer that quite simply - I was told to do this publicly by ARBCOM after I emailed them and gave them details. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You are saying that you contacted ARBCOM, and they told you to start an AN thread in which you asked where to report the violation?? Would you care to say who at ARBCOM told you that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous - I'm not going to release the author of a private email. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And for the record, the reason for the block at AE the last time you reported there was because your request was entirely without merit. So, like Capeo said, make sure you are certain it really is a violation, as in t other editor directly interacted with you or mentioned you by name, and you can proceed at AE. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Deleted file check please

Could an admin please check Kellyf07 (talk · contribs)'s deleted file uploads and compare them against the user's visible file uploads? In at least one case, the user is uploading as free content files that are also tagged as non-free, and based on the existence of F7 talk page notices for files that have since been deleted, I suspect there are more (i.e. File:Erindi Carnivore Lion.jpg and File:Lion at Erindi.jpg could be the same thing) In addition, many of the non-free files that remain do seem to be replaceable. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The example you gave, it's a different image. Different lion even. I'll also note a reverse image search didn't turn up the new image anywhere else on the internet, as far as I can tell. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked at a few others, also different. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OK then. What is to be done about the case I linked where the same file is uploaded under free and non-free? — Train2104 (t • c) 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So I ran more of Kelly's uploads through a reverse image search, and at least some of the ones she claimed as her own work were pulled from the internet. Since this is at least the second batch of copyright violations, and she seems to dislike communication, she has been blocked indefinitely. I suppose there is a possibility she is, in fact, the professional photographer who took all those photos, or works for Erindi and has permission to upload them, but in that case her identity would have to be confirmed to OTRS. And that's of course, leaving aside the matter of having a massive gallery of advertising material in the Erindi article, which could always been handled as an editorial issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've marked the replaceable fair use ones for F7 and tagged the one suspect file that had since been moved to Commons. Looks like this can be marked  Done. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPI

After Mike V's inactivity we need at least two more new check users. --Marvellous Spider-Man 11:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

While I'm sure you're right, it's not anything this noticeboard can do anything about. You need to poke ArbCom. Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've handled some of the CU requests. What's needed as well as CUs are admins to work through the 'open' requests and the 'checked' requests to determine what action needs to be taken (for example, whether there has been socking based on behavioural evidence and then whether or not a block is needed and for how long). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm active on IRC, and I get pinged whenever anyone puts "admin" in the edit summary in an SPI page. Whenever a clerk is "requesting admin action", I generally stop what I'm doing and respond to the request. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I said this on the functionaries list, but I want to publicly apologize for my lack of recent activity. I feel terrible (pun intended) because I just can't concentrate well enough to write or use CU. I really, really hope that events next week will bring an improvement and that I'll be back soon to terrorize sockmasters everywhere. :-) In the meantime, what Callanecc said – we need clerks to review the CU requests and we need admins to pitch in with the open cases. Katie^talk 23:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

improper name

I just started my username but now I have second thoughts.

Is my user name permissible? Yes or no. Fritz Farrell (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing any problem... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Permissible, with the current userpage, likely. However, going by your first edit and area of interest, I would suggest that your second thoughts were correct. You are welcome to request a rename at WP:CHUN. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a law firm named "Farrell Fritz" on Long Island [9], so I would say "no", and a visit to WP:CHU would be advisable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add that Fritz Farrell's first edit involved "Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky, & Armentano". So yes, I also think we need to see a name change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium for Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia

Recently, there has been consensus for a moratorium at Talk:Trump for 6 months. While I agree with that, I think another page needs one more badly: Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia.

At Talk:Trump, there has been 3 RMs (and one botched one) in about 9 months. At Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia, however, there has been six, including the one that's currently open right now in the past three months. This does not include one that was opened by a sockpuppet, or one that was speedy closed as way too soon.

So here I am, proposing a moratorium at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia for at least 6 months, if not longer, because clearly the page needs one. Thoughts? SkyWarrior 21:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Addendum: I am fine with the current RM running its course, and if consensus falls in favor of a moratorium, then it should take place immediately after the current RM has closed. SkyWarrior 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The current one is uncontroversial and should be allowed to take effect. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Specifico. Miniapolis 22:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant; I've mentioned a moratorium in the Talk:Trump discussion above, and went unnoticed. The current RM can still run, but my proposal still stands. SkyWarrior 23:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• After the current uncontroversial RM, then the six month moratorium should take effect immediately. Thanks. Btw, what does the Trump RM moratorium have to do with this page? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  Absolutely no relation, except for comparison (and the fact that I originally mentioned this in the moratorium discussion for [{Talk:Trump]], but to no response). SkyWarrior 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I oppose any moratorium as stifling legitimate discourse on Wikipedia. Editors are self-disciplined. Even though I believe we still have a WP:POVTITLE, I recently !voted to support the change to a grammatically better version. The underlying dispute will go on but I don't think anybody will dare to propose a title change unless new information comes to light. — JFG ^talk 13:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

"Editors are self-disciplined." You really think so? Then why do we need AN, AN/I, EWN, AE, COIN, and so on and so forth, not to mention Arbcom? The problem is that even the very best of editors are, at times, not self-disciplined, and the articles dealing with American politics tend to attract editors with a strong personal POV who find it difficult to edit in a neutral fashion, lacking the self-discipline to do so. A moratorium would be the community's way of imposing discipline on that topic area, in much the same way that ArbCom has found it necessary to do with Discretionary Sanctions. I support the suggested moratorium after the current RM has completed, and think that 6 months, as imposed on Trump, would be advisable. Perhaps things will have calmed down by then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Per User:SPECIFICO. Current move is un-controversial and seems to have consensus. IMHO, it should have been allowed to go forward when it was closed a month ago. There are a significant amount of users that are concerned with POVTITLE. I agree we shouldn't discuss the use of the world "alleged" again, but another title might work to meet their needs. They should not be shut off from finding a title that meets their concerns and other editors agree with.Casprings (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article check

Could an admin please check 66°NORTH and tell me in what state the article was in and the PROD reason ? I am asking since I know that even that subjects like 66°NORTH, which is an known outdoor apparrel company, can be created with content that has nothing to do with the subject.--Snaevar (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"concern = Advert for unnotable entity". It was eventually a bit of an advert and COI-fest, with no sign of independent sources. 2,867 bytes, 341 significant words which could probably be entirely replaced, if the subject is notable. But you can request its restoration if you want to write a proper referenced article. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can translate from German, the deleted article shares a lot in common with de:66°North, most of which was trans-wiki'd,[10]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snaevar:@Zzuuzz: If you want me to I can translate some of the article from German into English. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

No, I'd not like to ask for restoration of the article. I have dealt with COI articles previously and in those cases I have removed at least 90% of the text. At that rate, it is better to start from scratch. I do not know German, but sure, it would be nice to get an translation from that, plus there is always the Icelandic article that I can translate myself. I am not going to assume however that the sources from the Icelandic wikipedia and the Deutsch (German) one are enough to keep the article.--Snaevar (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN/CXT

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Could an admin please help me solve this issue? A user continues to add unreliable sources to the Puthandu page. I initially asked them to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources but they removed my message. I told them again but they aren't listening to what I'm saying. The source in question is unreliable because the author of the article has written an entire piece that is supposedly based on fact but there are no secondary sources to back any of the information up. There are reliable sources to confirm the information already listed on Puthandu § Related holidays in other cultures, so I'm not sure why this user is so intent on listing this unreliable news article as a source. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

• This is the source that is unreliable. → [11]

Dear Administrator

I have been a Wikipedia editor for at least 10 years. I am a bit surprised about an anonymous editor with divergent IP numbers i.e. 58.164.106.182; 121.214.128.24; 121 214.96.118; 121.214.175.49; 121.214.120.94 to give just a few examples had arbitrarily and rudely deleted items in the Puthandu or Tamil New Year Page. I suspect that this is an act of mischief - not sure why. It is an instance of edit warring, uncivility and perhaps even sockpuppetry.

Here is the background. There were three footnotes introduced by another editor. I am not sure who introduced the footnotes. This anonymous editor then proceeded to delete all three footnotes blaming me for introducing them (which is not correct). I instinctively reverted the deletions as I was not clear as to the reasons for the deletions.

After a to and fro of deletions and reversions, I looked at the three footnotes under question. I agreed with this anonymous editor that two citations (introduced by another editor) were in fact of poor quality. I therefore deferred to him/her and deleted the two footnotes. The third citation appeared rigorous and I retained it. This anonymous editor proceeded once again to delete it. Its a newspaper citation.

Please note that the main text is not under debate. Its a mere footnote that is being debated here. Should it be there or not? I seek your advice.

Meanwhile, please investigate this anonymous editor for destructive editing. Its not helpful. I also am not sure what the motive is. Does it border on vandalism?

I am genuinely puzzled by all this and seek your advice. I will be traveling and there will be a delay in response on my part.

Warm regards

Dipendra2007 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not an act of mischief @Dipendra2007:, my IP address constantly changes and there are two well established Wikipedia users on here who know about my constantly changing IP address as I have been editing Wikipedia for some years now. I can "ping" them to show that I'm telling the truth. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I only asked you to read the Wikipedia guidelines article, you didn't do that. I'm not sure why you're trying to portray me as the villain here, I'm not. I kindly asked you to read it but you were pretty cold in your response. I needn't have come here if you were coopoerative so please be cooperative, at least here, without trying to paint me in a bad light. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: I have to correct you, I am not edit warring. You are the one that is edit warring. I reverted your edit and left a message on your talk page. The right thing to do would have been to reply to my message without deleting it and reverting my edit. We should have reached a consensus. I reverted your edit based on a Wikipedia guideline, that is not edit warring. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: It may be a news article but have you read, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? There's a big flaw in that article and it's not supported by those guidelines. Please read it as you will understand why that source is not at all appropriate for such a topic. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: It appears you are actually not aware of the rules on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Under "News organizations" it says, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. Hence the reason why I removed that source. Please read the guidelines before reverting my edits and claiming I'm disrupting Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Dear Administrator

I would also think that IP # 137.147.17.104 may be the same individual. Anyway, he/she has reverted edits thrice in a 24 hour period. This may call for his account to be temporarily blocked. Please look into this. He or she appears very belligerent. He is disruptive. Thank you. Dipendra2007 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Why are you doing this @Dipendra2007:? You're the one that actually started this whole thing without reading the document. Did you read any of my messages above your one? (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: Please stop lying. No, 137.147.17.104 (talk · contribs) did not revert three times within 24 hours, why are you making things up? Did you even look at the contribution mad under that IP address? This is not the right way to behave on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: You're touching on Wikipedia:Witchhunt and that is against Wikipedia policies. You're not suppose to treat users like this here on Wikipedia. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

• The more you argue among yourselves here the less likely anyone uninvolved will chime in to help... Just sayin' Jbh ^Talk 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok I give up. I am about to travel. An editor of 10 years standing is overruled by an anonymous disruptive editor. Wikipedia - go ahead. This is not fair. But I will not be checking my wiki page. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3)To the IP editor: users are allowed to remove messages from their own talk pages, it is seen as a sign that they have acknowledged them (even if they later claim to have received no messages or to have not understood them after being blocked). While "fails WP:RS" can be acceptable for the first revert, further reverts should have been followed with a note on the article's talk page explaining in detail why the sources were not reliable. I see that you've brought some reasons up here, but this is not the article's talk page.

To @Dipendra2007:: Some internet service providers give users dynamic IP addresses, which change through no fault of the user's own (which also makes blocking the IP nearly pointless, since that address will be given to someone else soon after). The IP editor here openly admits that those IP addresses are his, and furthermore has made no pretense of being distinct individuals. As such, your accusations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack against that user, something that an editor who has been here 10 years should know not to do! Furthermore, the only belligerence I can find in your interactions is your accusations toward the IP editor. You need to [[WP:Assume good faith (something someone who has been here for 10 years should know to do!) and quit making groundless accusations of belligerence and sockpuppetry. IP editors are not some bottom-tier caste, they are editors just as much as you or I are.

Both of you are edit warring as far as I'm concerned, which is why I locked the page. Don't bother arguing with me about whether or not someone did or didn't cross 3RR, I'm only going to regard that as wikilawyering the the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. I've locked the page. Do not continue this discussion here, take it to the talk page. I've started a section at Talk:Puthandu - Is this or is this not a reliable source? Why or why not?. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I did say that I give up! I do not intend to argue with you. The fact remains he/she reverted thrice in a 24 hour period or less. Its no point when an editor with a name who contributed a lot in terms of footnotes and citations to multiple articles is overruled in favor of an anonymous editor. Its your call. I am not interested in continuing this debate. As I said, I give up. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: Drop that "editor with a name" and "anonymous editor" bullshit right now. The IP editor ("anonymous editor") is just as much an editor as you are -- see WP:Assume good faith. If you do not understand that, then your ten years on this site were a waste of our time. There is no caste system between editors with names and IP editors, quit acting like there is. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You should have good faith yourself. I repeat - I give up. And stop that patronizing nonsense about caste. You are abusive yourself. The fact remains that that editor had broken the rules - reverted thrice in just a few hours. And you backed him! There is no justice here. Period. (Personal attack removed) - to use the language that you use! I do not intend to continue this conversation. Good bye. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: You've treated me in a disparaging manner and honestly, I didn't think it would end like this. I think it's fair to say that the source is unreliable. I pointed it out in reference to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, thereby it was removed and you should have respected my words when I first pointed out why it's unreliable. I reverted it three times because it was against the Wikipedia policy. Look at Wikipedia:Edit warring, you will understand why my "three reverts" was not edit warring. I hope you don't treat other IP users the same way you did to me. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

(edit conflict)@Dipendra2007: If you are going to quote rules, know what they say: WP:3RR forbids making more than three reverts. Thrice is not more than three. WP:3RR does not forbid thrice reverting. There has been no 3RR violation. Now, if you want to argue that the broader rule of WP:Edit warring was violated, then that rule says "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable" -- which would include you as well. Shall I block everyone who was edit warring? Shall I block both you and the IP editor?

As for me assuming good faith: I assume that you're here to help as best as you understand how -- I just have an objection to how you understand to help, as it plainly contradicts the rules you seem to be so certain of.

As for your attempted ad hominem regarding my religious identification: it's laughable if you think that Christianity prefers justice over mercy. Would you prefer I side with justice instead and block all edit warriors involved? :) Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I sincerely did not understand what you were saying. Perhaps I was an idiot. Those footnotes were not introduced by me. I told you that. I was reverting what I thought was an unjustifiable reversion of another editor's input - that's all. But you won. Well done. I give up. You were quite disparaging yourself. So do not give me that victim story. I did try to explain things to you - but my - you became belligerent. I have deleted the correspondence in my talk page now since this is behind us. Dipendra2007 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: So you continue on with this behaviour, why couldn't you be civil? I never tried to talk down on you. When did you try to explain anything to me? All I feel is that I was explaining everything to you as to why those sources were unreliable. How am I speaking in a disparaging manner? You were not civil right from the start. This is not a game of who wins and who loses, this is Wikipedia. Your behaviour shows me you have other intentions. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

@Dipendra2007: Can we all accept that there were faults on both sides, including the fact that you did not read the article I was telling you to read? Yes this is behind us and we should continue editing Wikipedia in constructive manners and treating everybody equally. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

Clear instance of bias and collusion. Patronizing indeed! Disparaging of one side. Shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pararaja (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To get back to the original issue: this is a newspaper source writing about the origins of a cultural practice. For what kind of level are you writing? Newspapers aren't one bit reliable for this kind of thing: we need scholarly sources, because journalists aren't trained to produce reliable historical research, and unless they write something for publication in a different setting (e.g. a newspaperman also publishes a book via a scholarly publisher), their work doesn't get reviewed by anyone with good qualifications. We're writing an encyclopedia here, not a middle-school report for the teacher. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't revert this move

Could any one revert the move of this page? As I have explained on the TP, the moves had to be negotiated. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've done it. I'm not sure why you couldn't, it might be something to do with the fact the page is under pending changes. Hut 8.5 18:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hut 8.5: Thank you. I don't know either. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting dilemma

Moved to WT:FRANCE. 103.6.159.79 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog (talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

Request for deleted pages

The following pages were recently deleted, would it be possible to get them moved to my user space so I can copy the info into the national team page instead?

• Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup
• Israel at the 1954 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the 1986 FIBA World Championship
• Israel at the UEFA European Championship
• Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship
• Israel at the EuroBasket
• Israel at the EuroBasket Women
• Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup
• Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup
• Israel at the European Championship of American football
• Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships
• Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup
• Israel at the IIHF World Championship

Thanks - Galatz^Talk 17:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Galatz, it's done. Let me know when you're done with the pages so I can move them back/re-delete them. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!! - Galatz^Talk 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Elections for New Page Patrol/Review coordinators

The election is now open for voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Closer needed

This AN/I sub-thread involving a topic ban proposal has been open for 15 days, and there appears to be a consensus. Perhaps someone would volunteer to close it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've revoked the active arbitration remedies at 2016 United States election interference by Russia

I applied active arbitration remedies to 2016 United States election interference by Russia on 13 December 2016. (This means I added the {{2016 US Election AE}} template to the talkpage.) I meant well, but in an ill-considered way, and I have come to regard those remedies as more trouble than they're worth, and as difficult to interpret. I've removed them, with an abject note on the article talkpage. But I felt I'd better put a note here, too, because I don't think it's usual to remove them, once they've been added. Of course another admin is free to reinstate the remedies. But what I'm really hoping for is a constructive discussion that leads to the template being improved, and less mysterious for the future. It's quite widely used on problem pages. It was originally created by Coffee in May 2016; changed like this by him in July 2016; and finally the word "firm", as in "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page", was removed in September 2016, after this discussion at AE. That discussion is recommended reading. I'll ping @Sandstein:, too. With ashes in my hair, and with thanks to User:My very best wishes, who posted on my page[12] and pushed me into realizing that I had to at least remove the restrictions I had myself imposed. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

Does this mean that all users currently blocked per this remedy will now be unblocked? Will they receive an apology for being on the receiving end of an poorly executed arbitration remedy? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, before I saw your question here, I posted at AE, inquiring whether you seriously think I removed the restriction retroactively. Of course it doesn't mean they will be unblocked. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

Um, I'm sorry, but of course the user should be unblocked if the reason for his block is no longer existent. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone to implement a 1RR restriction on the article? I think this would help keep things cool, and is justified given the past conflict on the page. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Aren't restrictions in place in any article related to the ARBCOM decision? In other words, even if the {{2016 US Election AE}} template wasn't placed there, since it can be reasonably construed to be in the same topic, then the DS would apply? It is really confusing how ARBCOM rulings and DS are applied and I think there needs to be a clear set of guidelines on how it works. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I once assumed that and added the template, doing my bit to help out. I was then corrected, the template was removed, then re-added by an admin. It makes sense that the decision should be made by admins, since some articles are in a gray area and "reasonably construed" requires a reasonable construer. The remedies do not apply unless and until an admin has added the template. Perhaps this needs clarification somewhere, but I haven't found it to be a significant problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Add: This is kinda-sorta-clarified in the template message: "An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article." ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Activist!!
Maybe the remedies and template could be improved, I don't know. But I credit them, in combination with a consensus list, for keeping things relatively smooth at Donald Trump, so I would hate to dispense with either. I don't know, maybe the mix of regulars is an essential element too. I haven't spent any time at the Russia article so I'm lacking that insight. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've commented at AE that I find the part of Template:2016 US Election AE that concerns "reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" too difficult to understand and apply. Yes, as a lawyer I suppose I can make sense of it with some thought and try to apply it consistently, but it's unreasonable to expect editors of varied backgrounds working on highly contentious topics to be able to do so and agree with one another about it. Which leads to blocks, a lot of wikilawyering and perhaps more importantly the perception of unfair treatment at AE. I don't have an opinion about whether any particular restrictions are needed on any particular US politics articles, but I do have the opinion that if any are imposed they should be very simple.  Sandstein  21:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss and Sandstein: what would you think of placing a 1RR on the page? I think that's reasonable so that back-and-forth doesn't get out of hand. -Darouet (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said, no opinion on the specific page or restriction.  Sandstein  21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto that. As I said, I have no exposure to that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DS and 1RR have been applied there by NeilN. {{2016 US Election AE}} remains out. This may be a resolution at that article, but I think the larger issue that caused Bishonen to bring this to this page remains, and I find it more interesting. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Once User:Coffee explained how the "consensus required" aspect works, it became very clear. This is a useful idea, because there are those who don't acknowledge the applicability of content policies, and then restore content with (imho) insufficient rationale. Pertaining to the Thucydides411 appeal, productive editors were against restoration of the material due to content policy rationales, and consensus developed on that basis for keeping the material out. Perhaps it could be said content policies was the glue. So, maybe, just maybe, this idea does turn out to be useful in this context. Perhaps, that was the reason it was initially added. But this is because it made sense to me, after it was explained.

Anyway, what ended up happening - editors were claiming it was OK to restore the material based on "long standing" or something else, while the material did not seem to comply with content policies. From my perspective, this is where most of the argument against this "consensus required" on the article DS stemmed from. So, without going into validity of those claims, I think some statement is needed that says material needs to comply with content policies - mostly to stop the ability to undermine them. One of the aims of Wikipedia is that we strive for accuracy, not obscure marginal views. Just thinking out loud. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It's true that the special DS restriction on "not reverting a challenged edit without consensus" has proven difficult to interpret and has spawned a number of AE cases against good-faith editors. However, when interpreted correctly, they can effectively calm down the noise, as happened successfully on the Donald Trump article. We have had a challenging situation on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ever since this article was created, basically editors are split on whether Russian intervention can be taken as fact or can be doubted (and both sides discredit each other's sources or reading thereof). I'm afraid the lifting of this restriction may encourage collective WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, where a bunch of editors with POV A each use their 1RR to outnumber a bunch of editors with POV B. We have seen this many times on various contentious politics pages, and it looks to me like the special DS restriction was introduced to prevent this. I would suggest adding NeilN's clarification to Template:2016 US Election AE and re-activating the restriction. — JFG ^talk 05:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(Redacted) Sorry to disagree with JFG on this. Although I understand the reasoning, I think instituting NeilN's clarifications would be too much just after the appeal and then the removal of "consensus required". Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Reflecting on JFG's statement, if we were to try to implement "consensus required" again for the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" page, it would probably have to be very clear what is meant by that statement before bringing it back. Or, perhaps it would have to be very clear as to what do editors want it to mean. Regarding NeilN's clarification(s), I will look at these again in a day or two. JFG might have a good suggestion here about implementing them. Personally, I found them helpful during the Thucydides411 appeal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Move a Move Protected Page

This seems to be at overwhelming consensus, with a current vote of 12-0.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Requested_move_17_February_2017

Could an admin move the page? Casprings (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  21:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Religion in Infoboxes!

Now, please don't run away screaming. Emir_of_Wikipedia pointed out to me this RFC, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes where supposedly all infoboxes with religion should be removed. However, it seems that it's really not been implemented all across the board. If the religion parameter is to be removed as per the RFC, shouldn't it make sense to remove the parameter from the template, and then if needed have a bot go through the pages and remove the redlinked parameter? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how this is an AN issue, but to answer your question: yes, your suggestions make sense. I would bring it up at WP:BOTREQ. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the template need to be modified first? I brought it up here so there can be a procedure in place, if religion is to be removed, so that it's removed from the template by an admin, and then a bot can remove it from the articles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's some active issue with an article invoking a nonexistent parameter, why would this be an issue requiring a bot? With the parameter removed from the template, the article won't display a religion parameter in the infobox, regardless of whether the code includes content related to it. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that now. I was under the impression that the RFC was for all infoboxes, but it's clear that it was only for infobox person, not other ones. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It has been implemented in the Template:Infobox person with this edit but I am not sure if the consensus extends towards other infobox templates unilaterally or on a case by case basis. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm, so in this case I think there is no issue. I was looking at a different infobox, one which the RFC did not cover. Does an RFC on infobox person, also cover infoxbox officeholder, where especially in the US, religion is by default prominent for officeholders? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• The question was restricted to the basic infobox and didn't ask about other infoboxes, so you'd need a second discussion for any others. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC) The RFC was specifically to remove religion from Infobox person, not any other infobox. Should you want to remove the parameter from another template you would need to gain consensus to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:CID (committed identity) - SHA-1 no longer secure to use

Hi everyone. I wanted to make a PSA that anyone who is relying upon SHA-1 for their committed identity should switch to SHA-2 or SHA-3 sooner rather than later (if you are using MD5 you also should switch as MD5 has been known to be vulnerable for years). For those who do not follow cryptography, SHA-1 has been theorized to be vulnerable to collision attacks for a while now (a collision attack is where two different inputs give the same cryptographic output) for some time now, however the first actual proof of a collision has been submitted. Therefore it is conceivable that an attacker could find a collision for a committed idenity using SHA-1 and attempt to use it to recover an account. While it is still relatively hard and expensive to find a collision (computing it on something like Amazon EC2 would cost around $110,000) it is only going to become easier to find collisions as time passes and compute power increases. I am not sure if we want to notify all users who are using SHA-1 (or MD5) about this development but I figured at the very least a public notification would be useful. I'm also going to modify WP:CID to discuss SHA-2/SHA-3 so users creating new hashes do not continue to use SHA-1. Best, Mifter Public (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It is also a bit harder to do with a small source space - the sample is 400k files, lots of room to manipulate bits that don't display. If someone is using a file for the committed identify this would hit harder then if it was just a phrase. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request by Mishae

Mishae, as many may remember, got himself into some hot water back in 2015 in this ANI discussion. Consensus in that discussion resulted in a 1 month block which was subsequently increased to indefinite. For reference, block log is here. Since July 2016, Mishae has been trying to get unblocked but at the time he admitted to evading his block with anonymous editing and was told that their only recourse was to appeal again in 6 months per the standard offer. As a number of admins had rejected his unblock requests in the past, I had noted that his last recourse was either ArbCom or a community appeal and indicated that should he wish it I would copy it to WP:AN for him. Appeal is copied below (including formatting). Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I was not myself when I started to be disruptive after unblock (I was in process of breaking up with my girlfriend, and I got stressed). I should have took another month off but it came so sudden (adding to it college and all). Due to this suddenness I was so angry that I started to racially insult other editors without thinking about the rules (which is not very common with me). As for my sockpuppet accusations, I admit my wrong here too and it was not nice of me to do it because it too was in violation of our policies.

   All of the actions that I did above were wrong because they all were in gross violation of our rules and guidelines, such as WP:Disruptive editing, WP:NPA, suckpuppetry and block evasion.

   As for what I will do differently, I already moved couple of steps. Back when I was first blocked in April, I promised @Writ Keeper: not to use WP:IAR and I kept my word. After this block will expire, I will only do constructive edits because after a 2 year block I understood that such behavior was wrong, and if it will happen again, the ArbCom will be the next step. As for racial remarks, it wont happen again. So, if admins will be generous to give me another chance, I will greatly improve myself and the community.--Mishae (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the following mass ping. A number of admins and users have discussed things with him or made comments on his TP and may provided additional input. @Yamla, JamesBWatson, Boing! said Zebedee, Writ Keeper, Kudpung, JzG, Iridescent, Vanjagenije, Softlavender, and Koavf:. Blackmane (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)