Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎LouisPhilippeCharlesNew: Support community ban
Line 339: Line 339:
**<small> This community ban '''is''' a site ban.--[[User:Müdigkeit|Müdigkeit]] ([[User talk:Müdigkeit|talk]]) 15:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
**<small> This community ban '''is''' a site ban.--[[User:Müdigkeit|Müdigkeit]] ([[User talk:Müdigkeit|talk]]) 15:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
***<small>{{u|Müdigkeit}} - Sorry I meant a ban from all of the Projects, A community ban is only a ban from the English WP. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:#C4061C;">'''2010'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">Merry Xmas</span> / <span style="color:#C4061C;">Happy New Year</span>]]</sup> 15:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
***<small>{{u|Müdigkeit}} - Sorry I meant a ban from all of the Projects, A community ban is only a ban from the English WP. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:#C4061C;">'''2010'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:#147A44;">Merry Xmas</span> / <span style="color:#C4061C;">Happy New Year</span>]]</sup> 15:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
****<small>{{ping|Davey2010}} The term you're looking for is 'Global ban', then. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)</small>
*'''Support''': without even weighing in the comment from the SPA IP / nominator that pinged me here, I support the site ban. I was the one who filed the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CosmicEmperor/Archive#08_December_2015|recent SPI on him]] with a multitude of evidence & pointers which not only clearly indicated (even from his replies in the SPI itself) the [[WP:BATTLE]] & [[WP:WIN]] mentality but also the fact that CE waited for 3 months so that CU data was stale ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACosmicEmperor&diff=668574360&oldid=668557034 this was clearly intentional]) and then came back to sock again. I can not believe that he will make good use standard offer if left to it with a single reviewing admin or CU likely to miss alot of facts in the [[WP:SOUP]] his troll socks created all over the project. We should not have to deal with this drama and disruption again and it should be put back up with the community whether to allow someone with [[WP:NOTHERE]] issues to edit again in future as well. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 19:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''': without even weighing in the comment from the SPA IP / nominator that pinged me here, I support the site ban. I was the one who filed the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CosmicEmperor/Archive#08_December_2015|recent SPI on him]] with a multitude of evidence & pointers which not only clearly indicated (even from his replies in the SPI itself) the [[WP:BATTLE]] & [[WP:WIN]] mentality but also the fact that CE waited for 3 months so that CU data was stale ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACosmicEmperor&diff=668574360&oldid=668557034 this was clearly intentional]) and then came back to sock again. I can not believe that he will make good use standard offer if left to it with a single reviewing admin or CU likely to miss alot of facts in the [[WP:SOUP]] his troll socks created all over the project. We should not have to deal with this drama and disruption again and it should be put back up with the community whether to allow someone with [[WP:NOTHERE]] issues to edit again in future as well. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 19:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


Revision as of 22:47, 29 December 2015

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "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.

      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to

      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

      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.

      move discussion
      processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{

      Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved
      }}.

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

      WP:CLOSECHALLENGE
      .


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 81 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      new closer needed
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am
      WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC
      on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
      If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per
      WP:IDHT
      issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
      Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid
      WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      In general, any concern that
      WP:IDHT
      behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
      However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
      In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
      I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
      I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
      The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 9 43 0 52
      TfD 0 0 9 0 9
      MfD 0 0 2 0 2
      FfD 0 0 3 0 3
      RfD 0 2 25 0 27
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Colonia Ulpia Traiana

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 30 March 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 77 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 5 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Slow motion Edit war and deleting the Citation needed request .

      User Zirguezi , in answer of my demand for sources , insists on getting back sources that are neither Reliable , nor related to the matter 1 2. Talk page discussion failure and personal attacks [Flag of Iraqi Kurdistan is not the flag of all Kurdish groups] ( on section Flag of Iraqi Kurdistan is not the flag of all Kurdish groups) . Can an admin please help ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I too would like an opinion of this situation. User:Alborz Fallah requested a source, which I provided. In my opinion they are reliable, relevant and related to the matter. They prove exactly the point I was making. Alborz Fallah makes a claim that goes against what the sources I have provided say. I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong but just as he has a right to ask for sources so do I ask him for sources that dispute the claim. If it turns out there is enough discussion about this in literature we should probably add both sides to the article. N.B.: the personal attack is indeed disruptive and did not come from me. ~ Zirguezi 19:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      BTW shouldn't this request be filed at
      WP:SEEKHELP? ~ Zirguezi 19:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      @Zirguezi : Edit Waring and deleting the request for citation ( more than one times) seems to be an administrative task rather than a problem that can be solved by discussion : do am i intended to prove the Wikipedian laws are right and useful to anyone that may be not familiar with them ? Reinventing wheel and fire will consume all of our time and power ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Seems nobody is interested !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      It's because you've filed this on the wrong venue. Please see
      WP:RSN. Softlavender (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Range block needed

      See the recent history of my talk page, and Floquenbeam's.

      talk) 02:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      The page protection should work. The ranges are too disparate for blocking.
       —       Berean Hunter (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The IP has engaged in the same vandalism on a number of other user talk pages, including mine and many others. Minor4th 02:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I've done a small rangeblock to cover most of the addresses used. Between that and liberal short-term protections, that should make it tiresome and un-fun . An edit filter would be a fine idea, and should be easy to implement. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The edits seemed to be automated, considering they were all made in a timespan of a few seconds. In other words, this probably needs to be brought to
      WMF asap. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      I'd suspect copy-and-paste with multiple tabs/windows open rather than actual automation. ansh666 03:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      And another

      Rangeblockers, please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bias_from_rape_supporters, for the 166 IP who keeps harassing Ricky81682. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Ban time?

      (The time may not be ripe, but it's probably as good as it is going to get) I've been having a look through active threads as well as archives of ANI and AN concerning the 166.x.x.x addresses. As far as I have been able to determine, there are 3 banned users who have been known to use these IPs, User:Ararat arev (a persistent Egyptian POV pusher), User:David Beals (the ceiling fan vandal) and User:Kochtruth (a Koch "truther"), as well as someone who frequented, and was subsequently topic banned from, the World's oldest people articles and associated AFDs. The latter has also developed a particular vendetta against Ricky81682, as Drmies notes, mainly because of his activity in raising AFD's on WOP articles. Given the persistent disruption from this IP range, I formally propose that the user(s) behind these IP edits be indefinitely site banned from Wikipedia. I feel that this is appropriate as 3 of the users known to use this range are site banned already and the IP only editor only posts to harass Ricky81682 or troll other threads. There is already a precedent for community banning an IP editor, see the "Best known for" IP editor. Blackmane (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Unnecessary. Ban discussions are only prudent for situations where a user's ban may be contentious. For known trolls whose behavior has made it clear that they aren't here to contribute, and are only trolling use for the lulz, they effectively ban themselves, and we don't need "permission" to continue blocking them and cleaning up their messes. The language at
      WP:BAN has remained roughly unchanged for a decade: " In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." --Jayron32 13:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      This is certainly true for edits that are obviously from Ararat arev, David Beals or Kochtruth. However, the 4th editor only edits via IP's that happens to be on the same range. As far as I know, there are no ties between this IP editor to any of the other three. Furthermore, the IP editor is only subject to a topic ban from World's oldest people articles. They took that topic ban badly and went over the deep end into trolling and harassment. As it stands now, the IP editor is no de facto banned. This is the point that is being addressed. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      My observation has been that this winds up in a
      Catch 22. If somebody proposes a de jure ban, we get the "they're already de facto banned, don't waste our time" sort of arguments. But if it's assumed that they're de facto banned, and act accordingly, there are inevitably protests where "show us where we/they are banned" is raised. It may be a bit of bureaucracy but it crosses the t's and dots the i's to where even Ultra Magnus is satisfied. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      I'd been putting a more formal proposal together, but it's rather lengthy so I'll just link it here. There is a fairly long list of IP's that I've dug out of the archives plus some comments. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      RfA Policy RfC Closed

      This RfC has been closed and the following changes will go into effect, effective immediately:

      1. RfAs will now be advertised on watch list notices.
        • There will be a waiting period of 12-24 hours. Admin discretion may be exercised, before the 24 hour waiting period.
        • The usernames or the details of the RfA are not to be revealed. A short and simple one liner such as, "There are RfAs open for discussion."
      2. RfAs will now be advertised on
        Template:CENT
        .
        • Some desire to use {{:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} on the template has been expressed, though it is not a requirement. Cyberpower678 is willing to make changes to the template as needed, if desired.
        • The advertisement on CENT does not carry the same restrictions that watch list notices have.
      3. There is now a limit on the number of questions a specific user can ask a candidate.
        • The limit is 2 questions.
        • Appropriate relevant follow-up questions are allowed.
        • Obvious gaming should be dealt with accordingly.
      4. The discretionary range is now 65-75%.

      If there is a problem with my close, please let me know.—

      Merry Christmas:Unknown 08:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      FYI, RFC is reopened for about another 2 weeks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to ask how or why or who was chosen to officially close the RfA, and under what circumstances and under whose aegis? Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Okay we've now reached the 30 day point. Any takers? - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      See #Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC above. Thankyou. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Promotional Edits by new SPA

      Could an Admin please have a look at the contributions of this user which appears to be a single purpose account engaged in undue promotion of a self-published work. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The core of this one seems to be Quantum money (Monetary system), which might qualify for speedy since it's not even a monetary system, just a proposal with no obvious notability. The editor has gone about adding this as a see also to several barely related articles. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I've tagged the article for lack of references and for notability. Feel free to CSD away, if someone concurs that there's no notability here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The author added references. I removed the reference tag but will be AFD'ing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Frustrating lack of policy support

      I reported a case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Motoe123 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ) which involved an inexperienced editor repeatedly replacing the data at Century break#Players with 100 century breaks with data from a fan blog, specifically the one at [1].

      As I understand it, per

      WP:SPS personal blogs/fansites are not considered reliable sources. Despite offering an explanation in the edit summaries, on the article talk page and an editing note also included in the main article the editor in question has repeatedly restored this fan sourced content. Furthermore, the site being used for this data sources the data from another Fansite [2] which has been categorically ruled not reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#Snooker.info. I requested admin support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Motoe123 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )
      , but the report has been simply ignored. Even the reports filed after mine have been dealt with.

      Now, this is not a complicated case. It is my understanding that fansites are not acceptable for sourcing anything from Wikipedia, so am I being unreasonable to expert some admin support in enforcing this policy? I am finding the lack of response a frustrating experience. I could just restore the data yet again but that would put me on a collision course with 3RR, which seems to be the only policy that is effectively enforced these days. If the thinking on Wikipedia now is that RS is a policy that is not really aimed at articles containing sport statistics then I would appreciate it if somebody just closed my case on those grounds so I know here I stand. If that is the case however, I don't really see what distinguishes Wikipedia from other personal fansites that informally maintain stats.

      It would be helpful if somebody could advise on what course of action I should follow in such situations. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Sure, slow down, let the
      consensus that the source is a bad one, you have the weight of consensus on your side. --Jayron32 16:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Yes, this was more or less what I was going to say as well. It doesn't seem to be that high-profile of a page for the moment, and there seems to be a backlog of unanswered EW claims to be answered as well. As a side note though, I don't think things generally go over very well when you report someone for edit warring and you were the one who reverted them every single time, and neither party broke 3RR. That may not be helping your response time either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Sourcing is a recurring problem on the snooker articles that has been raised several times before, even by admins such as by SilkTork (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Snooker sites – WWW Snooker / snooker.org and Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive). The problem that the snooker editors face is that it simply doesn't have the manpower to respond to policy violations: due to the low levels of participation then it is unlikely anybody else will "weigh in" on this issue for weeks, if not months, until someone else eventually comes along and cares enough to correct it and then runs into exactly the same problem that I have done. Despite being a red-link I am a fairly experienced editor and mainly edit snooker and film articles, and the film articles I participate on generally move in a positive direction because there is a big enough support network in the Film project to deal with any problems. It is a rewarding experience overall, and the main reason I give up my free time to contribute to Wikipedia. This is not the case on snooker articles, where I feel the articles generally stagnate or progressively get worse over time and I am finding it a dispiriting experience contributing to this set of articles. Having experience of a highly mobilised project with highly trafficked articles, and a low-participation one with low hits it is pretty obvious to me that solutions which work very well for one type of article don't work great for the other. I doubt the snooker project is the only low-participation project to face these issues. Maybe if each project was allocated a "resident" admin that could help alleviate the "wild west" mentality that has manifested in some areas of Wikipedia? I think ultimately a different approach is going to have to be adopted down the line to combat this. Anyway, thanks for your time. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Eyes on Talk:Glyphosate

      With Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms just closed, Glyphosate is one of the pages where discretionary sanctions and 1RR have been imposed. It's been getting rather heated there, and it would be good to have eyes on it from some uninvolved administrators. One additional aspect is that there are discussions on the talk page, including some RfCs, where there has been extensive commenting by some editors who have now been topic banned, so perhaps some curation of that is needed. No emergencies, no need for blocks, but just some need for some uninvolved folks to keep order. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I wonder which topic will be left without discretionary sanctions / 1RR at this pace. LjL (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Wanna start an office pool? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah let's calculate the Poisson de Trypto distribution of probability a topic will be DS'd. LjL (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @EEng: I think you've made me into a meme! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The possibilities are endless. Next you can be a poison poisson. EEng (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      We will know the apocalypse is upon us when Wikipedia goes under DS. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Poisson de Trypto distribution - that is fabulous! Guy (Help!) 08:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Becoming more serious

      Seriously now, I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would take a look at Talk:Glyphosate#Editors flagged as topic banned: Why?. Please evaluate this edit that I made: [3]. If you think that this edit was a mistake, then please revert it (no need to ask me first). --Tryptofish (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      This POINTy edit is worth considering too, IMO. EdChem (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      With thanks to EdChem, that behavior by Semitransgenic (whom I am about to formally notify) is continuing with this: [4], and in the context of DS, this is starting to rise to being something where administrator intervention may be needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      posthumous execution?!--TMCk (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ?? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I decided to self-revert the edit that I asked about above, but I would still advise that uninvolved administrators should be looking in and evaluating whether editor conduct there is consistent with DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      A question on RevDel

      Over at

      WP:REVDEL page, this suggests that I should report this to the Oversight committee to have the edits completely washed out, but at the same time the language of REVDEL make it sound like this should be done where the outing is malicious, etc. while here I'm not sure if this is meant to be the case. Should I still submit this to Oversight to review? --MASEM (t) 19:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Yeah, just submit it to the OS mailing list, and they can make the call if it's a borderline case. That's why they get the big money. If there's specific language in
      WT:REVDEL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Sent, and I'll see if a discussion at WT:REVDEL might be needed. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Criteria 4 already covers this. If it is oversightable, it acceptable to revision delete it pending oversight. The only real question is whether revision deletion will draw attention to the very thing we are trying to hide before oversight gets to it, and thus be counter productive when the goal is to protect someone's privacy. But that is purely a judgement call, and imo, its usually better to revision delete promptly. Monty845 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Sporting Clube de Portugal review requested

      As of yesterday, I have semi-protected

      WP:NPOV policy, as the article in its current state is overly promotional. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012

      Articles

      6 were proposed for merge in December 2014. It is now December 2015, and the article have still not been merged. I do not have the skill set to trim the coding. May I remove the disposition tags, if no action has taken place up until now? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      I do not have time right this moment, but I will try to work on this in the next few days. An example of the table code trimming that is expected can be seen in this diff. I will do the trimming on each table, then they can be moved to the main article and redirected (Assuming no one beats me to it.) -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I found some time. :) All six tables have been trimmed of unnecessary formatting. I also did the table at the main article. This could be shrunk further by replacing the background style statements (For PaleGreen and Pink) with the Yes2 and No2 templates, which are a similar color. I decided not to do that because someone may view those templates are attributing a positive or negative view on the party/candidate being represented. But if no one has an objection, I can go ahead with it. Nevermind. It would shrink the article Wiki-side but those templates being sent to the client are a huge increase. Whoops. -- ferret (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Password strength policy for users with advanced permisssions

      Following the

      talk) 01:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Bad image list addition

      Please add this image (warning: graphic nudity) and this image to the bad image list. The two photos were recently used to vandalize Talk:Donald Trump. Thank you. CatcherStorm talk 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      @CatcherStorm: Um an edit like this: [6] should be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation. It may be harmless trolling but you never can tell. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Page has been protected, users blocked, and I emailed the emergency account. --
      talk) 06:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Okay thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Should be handled via range block. Unfortunately I can't get the range contribs tool to load, so I can't check the use, but it's not that big. No need to change the bad image list IMO. Prodego talk 06:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @
      talk) 06:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      I did the /20 to catch the 178 address. Prodego talk 06:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Clerking RfC

      Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC concerning clerking at RfA:

      Biblioworm 22:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      FWIW, I'm interested in being a closer on this one. If anyone else wants to close, please say something on the RfC's talk page before January 20, the 30-day point. I think it's a given that this one will be messy. I'm guessing it will be hard to assess consensus on one or more points, and if so, I intend to ask the voters for clarification (on just the hard-to-assess points). I've added a notice to that effect. Comments welcome, here or there. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Stop the War Coalition article is a mess

      The article on the

      Stop The War Coalition has degenerated into one user's pet project, and the bias is reflected throughout: For example, in clear violation of BLP, Agnes Mariam de la Croix
      is listed variously as an "Assad regime apologist" and other such epithets, in what clearly would constitute libel in the UK. Also, the entire article is being re-written to have a strong slant against the STW Coalition (not that I'm much a fan of them myself).

      I've tried to undo some of the more troublesome edits, but please feel free to look at the article and see what I'm talking about. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I am that "one user" and have worked on both the Mother Agnes and Stop the War articles. Solntsa90, while like you, I live in the UK, this website is bound by the law of libel in the United States. In many, many, articles in reliable sources published in Britain and the US, Mother Agnes has been accused of being an apologist for the Assad regime. Articles defending Stop the War in the mainstream UK media are scarce, and the article will inevitably reflect that slant. In any case, because online articles about Stop the War are rare in mainstream sources before about 2003, I am having to use the Socialist Worker website for factual information. It is the paper of the British Socialist Workers Party, a neo-Trotskyist organisation which was involved in setting up Stop the War. Any other positive pieces about Stop the War are likely to be contained in other
      WP:FRINGE and marginal, or at least alternative, sources. Philip Cross (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Phillip Cross has responded with a message on the talk page that casts doubt over his ability to edit Agnes Mariam de la croix, Stop the War Coalition, and other articles related to prominent British leftists without bias.

      User:Solntsa90 is now clutching at straws to protect the dubious reputation of the wretched Mother Agnes. The Raya Jalabi article in The Guardian is clear on establishing a link between Jones and Scahill's threat and Mother Agnes withdrawal. In the quote I added to the citation it is clearly implied. That Raya Jalabi in her article does not use the word "because" is true, but it is ridiculous nit picking to remove this sentence for that reason. By the way, Wikipedia obeys the libel laws of the United States which don't allow such a dodgy individual as Mother Agnes as much protection as she would be allowed in the UK (my own country). Philip Cross (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

      Clearly and frankly, there is no interest in making unbiased edits on the part of the editor here. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      What users can type on a talk page is entirely different to what we can add to an article. Solntsa90, it is clear you cannot claim to be neutral in your talk page comments either. Contrary to multiple reliable sources, why are you so keen that Mother Agnes should be presented in a good light? Philip Cross (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is only a single sentence mention of Agnes at Stop_the_War_Coalition#Syrian_civil_war. Agnes Mariam de la Croix is another matter entirely. The article is sprinkled with clear unsourced personal commentary in the middle of factual statements though. It seems to have other editors involved at the momenet. Solntsa90, are you asking for a block? For a topic ban? For more eyes? Are the sources provided inaccurate? Is this something for BLP/N not here? There are lines between sources claiming that she is favored by the regime and personal commentary stating that she is an apologist for the regime. It may require a bit more nuance in the writing about her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No-one should be editing on a matter they have strong views on; BLP definitely applies on talk pages. Tentatively endorse a topic ban on the basis of the talk page comment, this edit, and more especially on Philip Cross's apparent inability to see that comments and edits like this will be seen as problematic. --John (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      In that edit is a citation to an article in The Daily Telegraph, a reliable source, and the article's author, Andrew Gilligan, is a reputable journalist. That it is Conservative newspaper, and Gilligan writes negatively about the far left quite often, does not mean the StWC article has a citation to an unsuitable source for a left-wing organisation. Stop the War has numerous people near its apex whose party and organisational affiliations are far from mainstream politics. In other words, in the UK context the mainstream parties* are the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Ukip (alas) and the Green Party (even if the BBC disagrees). The mostly fringe politics of StWC personnel has been an issue for a long time, and of the five mainstream parties, only the Corbyn faction of the Labour Party (a small minority of Labour MPs) and the Greens have had much time for it. Philip Cross (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      [* Inadvertently excluded the Scottish National Party from this list, the third largest party in the current parliament.] Philip Cross (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Incidentally, the article has contained a long list of people involved in Stop the War for years. The political affiliations to the British Socialist Workers Party of John Rees and Lindsey German, and Kate Hudson (formerly) and Andrew Murray to the Communist Party of Britain have been there all along. The CPB and the SWP are small parties of the British far left. I simply raised the profile of these connections. So what, in addition, does the Gilligan article contain which is so objectionable? Philip Cross (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      So you maintain there is nothing even potentially problematic about your edits? The talk page comment and the edit I highlighted? And you intend to continue editing as you have been? --John (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah yes you mention here, one talk page comment you don't like about a controversial figure, and one edit you dislike. You are, of course, at liberty to do so. I might as well mention our disagreement earlier today over the
      Lord Janner article as well. Philip Cross (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      As I am taking that as a "yes", with an ad hominem thrown in, count me as a support topic ban. --John (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support topic ban as well. Although I did add it, the fact that Philip Cross removed a citation needed tag from an alleged direct quote from a British politician (I was being nice rather than following BLP directly) without bothering to provide an actual citation is problematic enough. Tagging the organization based on its members and then tagging all the members together requires good sources and those statements have no sources at all, quite problematic when the claim is that they support the Assad regime. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Also if I may,

      Stop The War Coalition. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      For more eyes? Are the sources provided inaccurate? Is this something for BLP/N not here? Yes, the sources are rather inaccurate in how they are used (and you can review them in the history yourself), and often sometimes don't even contain any mention or reference to the content at all. Connections are drawn from insinuations, personal blogs and opinion columns that betray a nescience for accurate and non-hysterical writing. one in particular from a blogger James Bloodworth, where he compares Mother Agnes to Ernst Rohm, is particularily troubling.

      In light of

      WP:BLP and the fact that Mother Agnes has never actually claimed to speak for the Assad government, I think such polemical sources are never appropriate. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      You guys still there? The article on George Galloway is being bulldozed as we speak. Solntsa90 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Agnes Mariam de la Croix is in horrible shape --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • I support a topic ban after this revert Philip Cross seems to be focused on coatracking as much negative information about Sr Mariam as possible into the article.
        WP:RS in nay way shape or form. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]

      Kevin Gorman Arbitration case suspended

      The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

      This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Kevin Gorman Arbitration case suspended

      Policy proposal re redirects

      I've proposed clarifying policy on unnecessary redirects. See

      WP:NOT. The general idea is that if Wikipedia's search engine (which now handles spelling errors better) can find the article from the name of a redirect, the redirect is unnecessary. Please comment at the proposal. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Webhost range block

      Could someone please follow up on this for me? I'm on vacation, on my phone, and not familiar enough with webhost blocking policy. Here's the block being appealed: [7] ~Awilley (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • ✉ 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      I'm not particularly sure if there's a reason to treat public webhost's (be they paid or free) any different from the way we treat general open proxies. As the template says, they are basically proxies. And while our Wikipedia:Open proxies, doesn't quite mention paid proxies (unlike the Meta:No open proxies, if they are basically open to anyone willing to pay, I would suggest they are basically open proxies. In other words while editors are free to use them provided they aren't using them to evade a block, ban or sockpuppet (e.g. avoid scrutiny), we will block proxies if necessary. Any editors who need to use a proxy can and should request an IP block exemption. Amongst other things, it will ensure they can choose whatever proxy works for them rather than having to rely on looking for ones we aren't blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 15:12, December 25, 2015‎ (UTC)
      There's both the case that a public webhost is logically equivalent to an open proxy, and the fact that Powerhouse supports piracy. I took both into account when I made the original block. There's no reason to permit access through this service. Can anyone suggest a reason that someone might need to use this where that someone would not qualify for IPBE in general?—Kww(talk) 23:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration motion regarding
      Nadirali

      By motion of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:

      arbitration enforcement
      action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Persistent IP activity - not adhering to wp guidelines

      IP activity from user that has likely used at least 10 different addresses. Doesn't act in good faith and often belittles other users, even when acting in good faith. This user has been encouraged on multiple occasions to register and obtain an appropriate login. The user has indicated that is the case because of a dynamic IP address, which constantly changes and the user indicates it can’t be helped. In edit summaries and when engaging on my

      multiple accounts
      to try and help the user understand that guideline. The user has been unnecessarily caustic and not respectful to both other users and the WP process. The first time I’d been aware of editing from this user was here. One can see in the edit summaries from 17 October 2015 the condescending and rude approach taken when a more established editor simply tried to keep an article in what was felt to be appropriate context and word usage. On 22 December 2015, it can be seen that rather than simply making good faith edits, the summaries include references to “moronic errors” – as shown here. Each of these articles, along with a select few others engaged in, such as One Magnificent Morning, the user engages in edit warring and is unduly insistent that whatever that user has done must be retained and that somehow it’s an offense to have any changes made. Given the ever changing IP addresses, uncertain how to address the issue in a constructive manner. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      A quick Geolocate search shows them as being in Salt Lake City Utah, and they're grumbling about Mormon related topics, they could , possibly have a conflict of interest. Just sayin' KoshVorlon 16:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Carnism

      Can I get a few more eyes on this. Essentially, a one-source concept, with a lot of

      WP:SYNTH used to give the impression of other sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      The article is a pretty dreadful state of affairs, what with all the OR, SYNTH, "Explanatory Notes", and sourcing that makes zero reference to the term. If the merge proposal doesn't pass, I'd say it needs another AfD so that uninvolved editors can closely examine all of the sourcing to see whether the term itself has received adequate significant coverage (other than in reviews of, or references to, the book) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There also seems to be a lot of agenda-pushing and (unpaid but connected) COI and vested interests in the promoters of the article. Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC); edited 06:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

      The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

      1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the

      arbitration enforcement
      and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

      3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

      6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

      Talk:Martin mcguiness

      Could someone's please have a look at the Talk:Martin McGuiness page, I have provided evdiance that the 'monarch' field is not appropriate however users are simply ignoring my argumentsOuime23 (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Ouime23 (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Transferred from the talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I assume you mean Talk:Martin McGuinness? - The Bushranger One ping only 17:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like the biggest load of
      WP:IDHT I've ever seen. Whatever all the other editors are saying seems to be flying over Ouime23's head. @Ouime23:, you've been repeatedly told that the monarch field has nothing to do with the appointer of any given position in the government. It's the fact that the monarch of the UK is the head of state. This has been said over and over and over again. Each time the other editors tell you this, you're the one not listening. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Rich Farmbrough case amended

      The committee has resolved by motion that:

      Remedy 2 of the Rich Farmbrough case shall not apply in
      bot policy
      Rich Farmbrough may use automation in these exempted areas.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Range block urgently required

      IP on a spree with multiple vandalism to admin talk pages. Please make a range block for about 31 hours to cover these IPs:

      and if a CU is available, block any accounts registered to them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The ranges are way too big to rangeblock and are all public internet in the UK and a CheckUser would likely be ineffective and just give heaps of unrelated accounts. Given the size of the ranges it's just going to be
      whack-a-mole with individual IPs, however I've blocked 81.154.132.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 6 months as it's been used (almost exclusively) for this type of disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      FWIW, it's not jut admins being hit. And the reference is possibly to User:TheGracefulSlick, who, AFAIK, is a solid editor who is causing no problems of any kind... so no clue why their little poem references that person. I'm presuming we have a sock here. Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      We can now add 78.145.96.44 (talk · contribs) to that list. The initial target was to edit war on any article I had patrolled in one pre Christmas period. Given the editing style and focus I suspect it is a sock of a banned editor from disputes on either Irish or British Right Wing party articles. The edit on the Rhodes statue (which appears OK) makes the former more likely and probably indicates this is a student home for the holiday period using any computer he can get his/her hands on for petty vandalism ----Snowded TALK 05:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for notifying me about this accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.96.44 (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Now blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Rangeblock is probably still a good idea. As (as far as I know!) I haven't edited in Snowded's areas I'm flummoxed as to why this fellow decided to poke his nose up in my badness, but that's a question I probably don't really want an answer to. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The above set all geo-locate to the same area of Scotland, but the possible link to similar vandalism from a range based in Gloucestershire is too strong to ignore. I've assumed this attack range was a follow up. Two locations one home, one university I suspect and someone with a grudge over many articles. The British-Irish stuff often overlaps into Military History which is where you may have been swept up. Either way hopefully it will go away but if not as Callanecc says it will be whack-a-mole time ----Snowded TALK 09:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Having looked over the history of the case, I believe we are dealing with a severely autistic user who is addicted to dynamic IP addresses. 2.100.9.156 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      We've got another 2.100.9.156 (talk · contribs) if someone could whack the latest mole it would be appreciated ----Snowded TALK 16:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi, I think I can provide some insight into the poem referring to me Montanabw (sorry for being a little bit of an editing stalker, but I like to check on users I associated with). A few months ago, an IP began harassing me and kept switching IPs to continue their actions. It was mostly inappropriate reworkings of my user name or actual name. In the end, an admin had blocked any IP from editing my talk page (at least I think that's how it works) and I still believe it is in effect. From what I see, this may be the same individual. Hope this helps a little.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Another one has just popped up. 2.100.12.156 (talk · contribs) Same geographical area and IP range as 2.100.12.156 This time a range block? ----Snowded TALK 19:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      And 81.170.10.11 (talk · contribs) for good measure, socks coming out with dusk :-) ----Snowded TALK 20:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      And 92.28.195.140 (talk · contribs) I'm going for dinner, will check in later ----Snowded TALK 20:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      78.145.108.214 (talk · contribs) in another IP range. They just keep on coming ----Snowded TALK 21:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      All blocked (for now)... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks that should take us past the holiday period! ----Snowded TALK 05:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      New discussion regarding admin rights

      Hey, I started a discussion on tweaking admin rights to reduce newbie-biting:

      WP:VPR#Allow admins to rename users?. Please have your say. Max Semenik (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Current options for resolving CONDUCT disputes

      Question, are there now any informal DR options for conduct disputes, outside of ANI/AE? I was going to propose a mutual self-submission to

      NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Not really. WQA (Wikiquette) was closed down, which meant anything that would have gone there (low level conduct/incivility disputes etc) now goes to AN/ANI. RFC/U was then also closed - so any longer/ongoing conduct issues also went to AN/ANI. Basically if you have a conduct problem with an editor its firstly their talkpage then AN/ANI (depending on urgency), then Arbcom. Given the decision to shut down WQA and RFC/U was in large part swung by adminstrators, their AN/ANI bed is of their own making. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for background. For the time being, the other ed has chosen to self impose a Tban, so it's resolved, though not in an ideal manner.
      NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Usernames for administrator attention

      Usernames for administrator attention hasn't been looked at since 22 December 2015. Could somebody please review them. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Requesting community ban of User:CosmicEmperor

      @

      Beeblebrox: CosmicEmperor was indefinitely blocked for socking, stalking and creating attack pages against GorillaWarfare. He has created sock accounts Rear2189, The Avengers, Galaxy Kid and Conan The Barbarian. It's about time he gets banned. He admitted on Mar4d's talk page that he is Maheshkumaryadav
      .

      *Close. Already banned by the community. Support Multiple abusive sock accounts. --Müdigkeit (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support And to anyone who says 'it is unlikely any admin will unblock him' I am going to say 'Kumioko'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Per above. Might as well make it official to avoid future silliness. JbhTalk 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Quite honestly deserves a Site Ban but I guess Community Ban's better than nothing!. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support: without even weighing in the comment from the SPA IP / nominator that pinged me here, I support the site ban. I was the one who filed the
        WP:NOTHERE issues to edit again in future as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]

      Request lifting of an image upload ban

      Original ban discussion, Nov. 4, 2014. The notice a few months ago about my violating the existing ban was explained as being a mistake, and was certainly not intentional.

      I expect that all issues related to past image problems will not reoccur, and at the Commons, I now make every reasonable effort to find and upload only acceptable images. I have been complying with all of the prior issues for uploads: showing lack of notice, giving any publication details and dates, scanning both sides, doing copyright searches, etc. I realize that the ban is not supposed to be punitive, yet my direct request for exactly what other steps need to be done to upload acceptable images have met with near silence.

      I don't upload porn, violent, or otherwise controversial images, but simply try to improve biographies of mostly deceased actors or other notables. Consideration to this request would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I can't say that I'm convinced the previous issues won't reoccur since as recently as October, when you were briefly blocked for violating your upload ban as you mention, you were still not following proper procedure. It also concerns me that you didn't seem to understand the difference between being technically able to upload images and being allowed to upload images by the community, even if you simply didn't know that you can't be technically restricted from doing so I would have thought you would have - at the very least - sought clarification on the matter. Sam Walton (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed with Walton.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Concur with Light show and Blofeld. Asking for restoration of privileges so recently after you were sanctioned for it does not inspire competence. Also noting that you have been blocked at Commons before for the same issue I'd much rather prefer more time having elapsed between the October infraction of this year and the appeal of this ban. Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      LS might not upload porn or violent images, he's just content to confine himself to copyvios. That might be acceptable to him. but he's way too liberally minded towards images for my liking to be trusted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Essam Bakhashwein

      Essam Bakhashwein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      This user has been extensively using his user page and user talk page for

      WP:NOTWEBHOST purposes. He has 13 live mainspace edits, out of which which 10 were reverted as vandalism/tests. Even the remaining are just addition of links to instagram and twitter. I'd suggest a WP:NOTHERE-block. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Essam Bakhashwein. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      LouisPhilippeCharlesNew

      I have just blocked

      User:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew, who was unblocked by User:Salvidrim! a few hours ago. LouisPhilippeCharles is a persistent sockpuppeter, who has been indefinitely blocked for years. Since returning, he's carried on the same behaviour as his sockpuppets, including edit warring. As such, I've reinstated the indefinite block, and am bringing the whole case here for review. WormTT(talk) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=697348208"