[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MaxSem (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 4 January 2016 (→‎LouisPhilippeCharlesNew: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 seven 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 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.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:1948 Palestine war#RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?

      (Initiated 124 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPathtalk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 93 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 90 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:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Chrhns (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 28 May 2024)

      Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Still looks closed to me. In any case, we'd need the close appeal to close before a new closure is requested, so I'm marking as  Already done. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) And now reclosed pending review at the Administrators' noticeboard. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po

      (Initiated 1449 days ago on 22 July 2020) Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on 22 July 2020, with the last vote occurring on 12 August 2020. It was bot-archived without closure. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Apr May Jun Jul Total
      CfD 0 0 12 3 15
      TfD 0 0 6 3 9
      MfD 0 0 0 0 0
      FfD 0 0 1 1 2
      RfD 0 0 4 0 4
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Danny (2015) into 2015 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 166 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 1986 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Newton (1986) into 1986 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 162 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2004 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Lester (2004) into 2004 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: 2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season

      (Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Closed by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brighton_hotel_bombing#Requested_move_11_June_2024

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       DoneDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rallying#Requested move 12 June 2024

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 12 June 2024) Requested move is failing to attract new participants to the discussion despite the proposer's relistings.Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024)#Requested move 21 June 2024

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      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]

      That page has quieted down. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (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: [1]. 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: [2], 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]

      Glyphosate has been nice and quiet for some time now, fortunately (and perhaps because editors knew of this posting here). Currently, the tensions have moved to Séralini affair and its talk page. Again, not anything urgent, but some uninvolved eyes would likely be beneficial. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (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, George Galloway's article. This edit was made to a random part of his biography, and while sourced, is completely out of context, and some of the sources don't even say anything about Galloway saying such a thing(Not to mention, a completely random part of his biography this edit was attached to, the only relation being it's connection to 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 feel that there is a consensus here if someone would like to close this, if not WP:ANI would be a good place to generate more feedback. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      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]


      81.170.29.21 (talk · contribs) Just came on the scene, single edit so for but another in the 81.170.xx.xx series to go withe the others ----Snowded TALK 05:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) added to the list - can't we just range block this? Back to rollback until someone can pick up and block the latest two ----Snowded TALK 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


      May or may not be related but we now have (from their comments) three pretty obvious sock puppets of EnglishPassport (talk · contribs) who was indefed for off wiki legal threats. Edit warring over a few articles and leaving abusive talk page commentaries. All of them can be found in recent edits to Paul Golding where they tag teamed. They are CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs), TonyDunkersANTIFA (talk · contribs) and PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk · contribs). Does this really need a SPI report? ----Snowded TALK 16:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      JonathanJoshy (talk · contribs) just added themselves to the list - previously active on Hope not Hate which the various IPs all attacked, now supporting CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs). All recently created accounts ----Snowded TALK 16:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive may be relevant. We've got at least one of these at Talk:Atlantis repeating statements from JesusWater and SolontheAthenian earlier this year, both Anglo Pyramidologist/Goblinface socks. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I just stumbled on some of this. Yes, we need to get all the SPAs into a SPI report. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for helping out. There is an SPI report for all the IPs and one of this set (JonathanJoshy) active here ----Snowded TALK 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Just blocked a couple that I found at the top of the article histories. Probably merits some further CU, if that previous SPI is anything to go by. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) clearly a sock of blocked 81.170.10.11 (talk · contribs) along with 81.170.29.21 (talk · contribs) and some of the others above has now moved on to reverting articles edited by The Vintage Feminist (talk · contribs) ----Snowded TALK 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Yeah, 81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) is just reverting stuff that is in my name without any edit summaries. I cleaned up some refs with tag names defined multiple times with different content, that was even reverted by he/she. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ...81.170.37.104 (talk · contribs) and now everything I put back has been reverted again. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      92.26.215.24 (talk · contribs) another one in the 92. range arrived overnight, usual habits of reverts ----Snowded TALK 05:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


      Summary

      Given the overall mess and also the fact that some are indeed, some temporary (and returned to vandalism) I thought I would put them all together in one place - hope this helps. Each group has a different focus but ether hit the same articles, or individual editors.

      81.15 sequence located in UK, only one specific to a town no current activity

      Anglo Pyramidologist socks some linkage to above looks to be silenced yesterday

      JonathanJoshy (talk · contribs) CritiasAtlantis (talk · contribs) TonyDunkersANTIFA (talk · contribs) PlayingTOMBRAIDER (talk · contribs)

      The Severn Valley Set STILL ACTIVE

      Geo-locate in the main to Gloucester set plus a few in Worcester and Upton-on-Severn

      Now blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      New entrants no action yet

      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]

      • Oppose - I do not support the lifting of this ban because, like Dr. Blofeld and Samwalton9, I do not find myself convinced that the OP has actually reformed. BMK (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      LouisPhilippeCharlesNew

      LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs)/LouisPhilippeCharlesNew (talk · contribs) is hereby banned by our community. Max Semenik (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

      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]

      • Support community ban - As I've explained on his talk page and mine, LPC came around last summer asking about the standard offer, and I gave him the standard info: no interaction with Wikipedia whatsoever, and no earlier than December. I never expected him to stick it out this long, but he actually did, which gave me some hope of rehabilitation -- I've always been a strong proponent of rehabilitation. We discussed at length about what lead to the block and how to avoid it, and he made a committment to avoid the kind of discussionless big changes he had been fighting for since 2009, and also a voluntary but enforcable pagemove ban and one-account restriction. However, as soon as he was unblocked, he made a beeline for the kind of shit he had been up to earlier, and then ranted my ear off with an expletive-filled diatribe against WTT for reblocking him. I'm sad that my efforts were wasted, but I don't regret trying, and would try again -- nothing is unrevertable, and AGF'ing some ROPE either works or only cements the sanctions against them more strongly and indefinitely. Failed attempts at rehabilitation are unhappy outcomes, but still better IMO than no attempt at all. This one failed, and I now endorse a full legit community ban, per WP:CBAN. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You know how there was a bunch of argy-bargy awhile back about WP:ROPE being kind of overly violent as a metaphor? some ROPE...only tightens the noose even more strongly is a good example ;) Of course, the violent part only comes up about editors who are difficult to defend otherwise, so it tends to go without comment... Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking back on it, I can certainly understand that sentiment. I've reworded my statement to avoid literal references to death by hanging. Thanks for calling me out on this! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Salvidrim. When you've been demonstrating this much bad behavior for several years, the only way you should be unblocked is if you give a solid commitment to improve, and you still should expect to be sanctioned for recidivism. If you do get unblocked, and then you immediately betray that trust and demonstrate that your commitment to improve was a lie, we have no reason to trust you, no reason to expect that you'll again become a solid member of the community. This I would say anyway, but the fact that the unblocking admin supports the ban makes the case even stronger. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support community ban. I've had several run-ins with LPC and his countless socks, and his behavior after being unblocked confirms my belief that he is incapable of editing constructively. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban This is well past the "enough is enough" stage. Kudos to Salvidrim! for giving LPC some ROPE. Blackmane (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support ban as I did back in June 2012. -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as explained below. Peter James (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support The editor's behavior coming off a block, the blocks on other Wikis, and the global lock all say the same thing - and I'm completely unconvinced by the arguments in opposition. BMK (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. LouisPhilippeCharles has sent many requests for unblock to the arbitration committee and is regularly quite abusive when he's turned down. At the moment, he shouldn't be unblocked, he's made it perfectly clear that he cannot work in a collaborative environment. And he's a serial sockmaster, always carrying on the same behaviour. I don't believe this user should be unblocked by a single administrator, if he can drop the attitude and stay away for a more significant period (I'm talking years), I'll consider it again. WormTT(talk) 14:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion

      See:

      See this edit "moved Louise Henriette de Bourbon-Conti to Louise Henriette de Bourbon" by user:Tbharding 19 May 2009. Tbharding being a previous user name of LouisPhilippeCharles. One of the first edits LouisPhilippeCharlesNew made was this edit @ 20:24, 29 December 2015 where he changed the name to match that of the move back in 2009. It is interesting that the first edits he made even before editing article space was two templates, which of course affects far more articles than edits to any one article. -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      See also edit history of Louise Élisabeth de Bourbon -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      @User:Salvidrim! I am not sure of the procedure of a global unblock, however back in 2010 LouisPhilippeCharles was globallly blocked by User:M7 and AFAICT has not been unblocked (see here). I am not sure that en.wikipedia ought to be creating a new account for the user of a global blocked account as this new account (user:LouisPhilippeCharlesNew) would also be able to edit other language wikis. I thought that if one was blocked globally one had to apply via meta:Steward requests/Global. While LouisPhilippeCharles may have forgotten his/her password it is also a convenient way to bypass the global block, and given this editor's history ought we to assume good faith and take this users word over this convenient forgetfulness? -- PBS (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The "edit warring" primarily consists of addition and removal of a category, Category:Princesses of the Blood by marriage. LouisPhilippeCharlesNew added it to several articles, then two editors removed it, either claiming it was not an improvement (despite not nominating the category for deletion) or was unsourced (despite the information already existing and being retained in the lead section after the categorisation was reverted). The category was then deleted, apparently out of process, by PBS. Was there a category creation ban? If there was not, who was being disruptive here? Peter James (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a globally blocked user who ought to have applied to have the global block lifted before applying for the block on this wiki being lifted. That this editor started to edit under a sanctioned sock puppet might have been tolerated if LouisPhilippeCharles had come clean about the global block to the unblocking admin or if they had edited without problems before this was pointed out. Given that the parent account (LouisPhilippeCharles) is globally blocked any reverts I made to the now blocked child account LouisPhilippeCharlesNew come under WP:BLOCKEVASION so the delete of categories was not out of process. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The account is not globally blocked - only IP addresses can be globally blocked. If this had been fixed, the account here could have been unblocked locally (as LouisPhilippeCharles is not globally banned), but because of this bug, accounts are locked instead and a new account would have been necessary even if the password had been remembered. Peter James (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Correction made (added with a strike through). The account is globally locked and the lock was applied with the message "cross-wiki abuse: Already blocked on three major wikies, huge moving pages abuse", so it is no bug that the account LouisPhilippeCharles is locked. -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The account should be globally blocked (with the possibility of local exemption), but as that has not been implemented (it has been requested at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T17294) it is locked instead, so a new account has to be used if the decision is made to unblock locally. Peter James (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      "The account should be globally blocked ... so a new account has to be used if the decision is made to unblock locally". That is your opinion Peter James, it is not policy. Your suggestion opens up the possibility of LouisPhilippeCharles disrupting other language wikis with the argument that the new account had been sanctioned on the English Wiki. To your knowledge is there a policy that would have prohibited him/her from making such edits? If not, was not the correct step for LouisPhilippeCharles to make, to ask for a global un[b]lock first and then apply to have this account unblocked once the global [b]lock was lifted? --PBS (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @User:Salvidrim! did LouisPhilippeCharles mention to you that the account was globally [b]locked? -- PBS (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I knew it was. Local projects can always choose to have users unblocked regardless of their global status. If LPC still had access to his first account (or ability to recover it), I would've had to get the global lock modified. In this case it wasn't necessary since the creation of a new account was required. Local projects' policies self-regulate -- if a user is globally locked but a specific project wants to continue allowing the editor to edit, its well within their remit. If LPC(new) went to edit other projects where he was blocked without first appealing successfully, it would've constitued block evasion regardless of his enwiki status, because projects are generally independent. We've had vanned enwiki users remaining active on Commons, SimpleEnWiki, and/or vice-versa, etc. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      While I agree that a user can work on another foundation wiki when blocked or banned on another (I know of one works on Wikisource -- without problems), how many users who have a global lock are welcome to edit on en.Wikiepdia? I would have thought that the first thing to do would have been to request that the account was globally unlocked, before any access was given to this wiki. This has little to whether or not the editor had forgotten the password for the account, as that is not relevant when asking for an unlock. You say that you know that LPC could not access the account because (s)he told you so. Did LPC also inform you that the account was globally locked, or is that a detail (s)he forgot to mention? -- PBS (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      He didn't need to inform me of anything because I actually investigate while responding to unblock requests. I'm not even sure if LPC himself is aware of a "global lock", although he knows he's blocked on multiple projects. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      LouisPhilippeCharlesNew has commented on the block and his conduct on his talk page, particularly here. Huon (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Which amounts to "I am not a bad person" and "People are out to get me." BMK (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User:Discawe

      This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tile join again. Please can someone block this account and protect my user page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

       Done and  Done. If I'm not around or don't remember you may need to ask for the semi on your talk page restored whent the full protection expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:UTRS needs more admins

      UTRS seems to have almost no active admins lately. I'm doing some of it but I'm at work right now and can't really dig into the more complicated appeals because I could be acalled away at any time.

      Pretty much any admin in good standing can get a UTRS account and chip in. It's usually even simpler than reviewing on-wiki unblock requests because the process is semi-automated. If you already have a UTRS account now would be a great time to use it. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      As (probably) the most active tooladmin, I'll try to wander over there later tonight to approve any account requests admins make today. Generally, the community at large favors on-wiki appeals for transparency, so most of the time for non-simple appeals, referring to on-wiki is recommended (reactivating TPA as appropriate). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I've cleared out most of the requests. Please let's add some more admins though! Nakon 07:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Review of Revision Deletion

      At the request of Prodego, I'd like to seek some additional viewpoints from other administrators about a recent revision deletion. (The action can be found here.) I don't believe that the revision meets the criteria of purely disruptive material. (Allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, malicious websites, etc.) Personally, I don't think one ping is enough to be considered harassment that requires revision deletion and a simple revert and block would have been appropriate. I propose to reverse the action and would appreciate some input before doing so. Mike V • Talk 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Hihacking the top here to give my reply. As I mentioned on my reply on my user talk page (linked by Mike above), in this case I felt a revision deletion was appropriate. This appears to be purely disruptive content (WP:RD3) - specifically an attempt by a user banned for harassing other editors to harass another editor. Harassment is specifically called out as an example where RD3 applies. I came to the conclusion that these edits were harassment and a threat to continue to harass based on the content of the edits, and the use of {{ping}}. I did not rev delete the other edits by this account, which didn't appear to be harassing. I understand the concern though, as I'm usually pretty stingy with revision deletions myself. I'm happy to have some third party review. Prodego talk 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      While I'm not sure I would have gone out of my way to delete these edits, I think it's fair to say they fall under the description of edits which are "of little or no relevance or merit to the project" and I can see the merit in deleting the edits of a banned user trying to get attention. Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the edits have little relevance or merit to the project but that condition is dependent whether or not they're considered to be purely disruptive material. While I don't encourage banned users to get any additional attention, I don't believe that revision deleting the edits is supported by policy. I find it hard to equate highly disruptive edits (linking to malware, threatening others with harm, shock pages, etc.) with the edits linked above. Mike V • Talk 23:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The criterion for RevDel are sufficiently vague that almost any disruptive edit can be shoehorned into them, so as a matter of policy I can't say these don't qualify for it, espescially when coming from a banned user. That being said, I doubt I would have bothered doing it in this case. Blanking the content and revoking talk page access is sufficient. At the end of the day (or the end of the year) it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've probably done more of these deletions than anyone, and yes, any contribution by a banned editor falls under revision deletion if it can be performed without deleting any contributions by another editor. Since they could be speedily deleted under G5, the contribution can be excised under RD5. It would serve the project well if someone edited the policy to make it clear that RD3 (being "purely disruptive") isn't some kind of gating factor or overriding criterion. It's not: it's just one condition among six.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is probably symptomatic of a larger issue. There is a massive disparity between what many admins think is "disruptive" enough to require a revdel. And as Beeblebrox notes, the policy is so vague that almost any vaguely vandalistic edit can be interpreted to meet the threshold. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for moderation of acrimonious RfC

      G'day, the RfC at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan)? has become rather heated and there is some incivility creeping in, which is threatening to derail the RfC and scare off any other contributors. It would be greatly appreciated if an admin could look in on it and straighten contributors out if that is considered appropriate. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The Devil's Advocate banned

      In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after this motion passes, and every six months thereafter.

      Support: DGG, Courcelles, Guerillero, Keilana, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Kirill Lokshin

      Recuse: GorillaWarfare, Gamaliel

      For the Arbitration Committee,

      Keilana (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

      Procedural cross-post. For the Arbitration Committee: Kharkiv07 (T) 02:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned

      What to do with articles that actively WP:HOAX, but do so incompletely?

      Carnism is a neologism created in Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. The book is somewhat notable, and, as such, the name of the book is quoted, in full, in several sources, often summarising Joy's work, but the term is basically unknown outside of these explicit summaries. The article acts as a WP:HOAX by adding in large numbers of concepts where the sources do not mention carnism, outside of, perhaps, a reference to Joy's book in another part of the work or list of sources. These are then used to claim the concept has expanded beyond Joy's work. There are also at least one person who personally knows the author floating around, which helps muddy the waters

      I have analysed the references at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination). As you can see, they're... appalling. 30 of the 59 sources provably don't mention carnism (outside, perhaps, Joy's book title), 10 are Melanie Joy herself, 5 are summaries of Joy's work, 12 are partially or completely inaccessible, one is in French, and one uses the term independent of Joy, but is completely unnotable. However, because the book is notable, it's always possible to find another place summarising the book, or which includes Joy's book in a reference list, and they can always Gish Gallop with a google search.

      It's an appalling situation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      After two deletes and a no-consensus-tending-delete, the fans of the term still have not got the hint? This is a classic case of WP:NEO. I have !voted delete and redirect, which is what we should have done last time, but unless the editors are WP:SPAs there's bugger all we can do about it here, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      @Adam Cuerden: While I am certain that you really do believe that this is a hoax, I am concerned that your creation of a merge discussion, a biased advertizement for said discussion on WP:FTN, a deletion discussion that actually argues for the same merge, another biased advertizement for that on WP:FTN, and now this message, has the appearance of campaigning. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I really do wish you wouldn't keep making things up. I linked the discussion of deleting a fringe neologism on FTN, and asked about the problems raised here. I don't quite see where on earth you're getting a claim the deletion is a merge. Adam Cuerden (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is this an issue for admins? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      If you are paying attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination), please also note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat. Bit I agree it is not an issue for this noticeboard. (yet) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to bring that up: there's a procedural paradox. Adam Cuerden created a discussion at Talk:Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows#Carnism merge, and people weighed in; then a different editor, seemingly unaware of the un-bannered [3] merge discussion, created Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat after the latter page was accused of being a WP:POVFORK of Carnism, and !voters there are expressing opinions about the fate of the Carnism article; and then Adam Cuerden created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (4th nomination), a nomination which has been accused of forum-shopping and canvassing [4]. How is a closer supposed to decide which discussion has "jurisdiction" here? FourViolas (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a mess alright, but in the end since there's only one subject the only real question is where does the final article go. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Merge request closure from 2014 needed

      Admin action needed. There were merge request templates placed on the pages Separable verb that it be merged into Tmesis in October 2014 with no discussion. It seems the merge request is incomplete with the Separable verb article a first class contender for an AFD discussion and maybe a speedy delete. I would say that merging might be a good idea except Tmeses is only a slightly less equal candidate. At any rate the issue is long past needed attention. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand: can't you just perform the merge yourself? It looks like you'd just need to do a properly formatted copy/paste of any relevant information, followed by redirecting it to the other article. Reading your message, I get the impression that this is some sort of emergency, but looking at the page, I don't see how it's significantly different from other pages in Category:Articles to be merged from October 2014; would you explain what the difference is? Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:UAA backlog

      There's a backlog of almost 5 days at WP:UAA, please could admin(s) take a look? Joseph2302 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The CW Plus.png

      I just uploaded a file in commons under the name of File:The CW plus.png. Borre.la request that is the image with the same name is in this wikipedia, as long as one is in the logo Commons, as here, have almost the same content. I request that the logo with the same name that have this wikipedia should be deleted, because logo that appears in Commons, and the logo that appears in en.wikipedia, are almost the same. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 04:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      The logos are different, so you should not have done that upload with the same name. But if the one at en.Wikipedia is not the valid one we should not use it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have moved the local file to File:The CW Plus logo.png so it no longer shadows the Commons file. The local image is no longer the current logo, and so I have nominated it for F5 speedy deletion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      Attacks at ARE

      Can someone retract this personal attack from WP:ARE? There's nothing wrong with HughD doing a GAR and pointing out the idiocy of a climate change denial book. We need more editors who will be harsh and will fail those kinds of nonsense articles and aren't biased here. The discussion should be closed: no one found anything wrong with HughD's edits and the sniping afterwards by William Connolly and Ricky are inappropriate. 166.171.121.49 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm failing to see the personal attack from Ricky who, just as an FYI, is an administrator. Also, as you have failed to inform him since this involves him, I will be notifying him now. Amaury (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Ricky had second thoughts mere minutes after you posted this. Maybe if you weren't constantly stalking him, this wouldn't have even been an issue. Also, I trust that HughD won't fail a GA nominated article simply because it's about a fringe theory. clpo13(talk) 23:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      no that's Ricky claim. That personal attack needs to be retracted. HughD has shown to be complete fair and neutral here, it's everyone else who's been biased against him. He'll make sure that the article fairly doesn't include any nonsense from deniers

      Everyone is just mad that HughD is the only person willing to remove nonsense and keep the Talk:ExxonMobil RFC running smoothly. At least someone has the guts to get rid of Springee's BS.


      Range block needed

      See the recent history of my talk page, and Floquenbeam's. Beeblebrox (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]
      • Support since we don't have an indefinitely blocked account to fall back on for G5 and reverting edits a siteban would make it easier to block (rather for block evasion while hoping that there is a currently blocked IP) and revert. That is, ban evasion rather than block evasion (while hoping that there actually is a currently blocked IP). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 16 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]
      • Unarchived: The archive bot sent this to the archive; I've returned it to the main page as it was not closed. Can an uninvolved admin do so? Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support In the rare case that an IP-using editor needs to be banned, we need to make it formal. The changing nature of IP addresses makes it impossible for the person to keep using the same address indefinitely, making it less likely that people familiar with the case (whether admins blocking addresses, or non-admins requesting blocks) will be aware of who's using what. As a result, it's a lot more likely that an admin would grant an unblock, not knowing that an IP was being used by a person who never would have been unblocked had he been using a series of accounts. With a formal ban, all blocks can be levied because the address is being used by someone who's been community banned, rather than merely because it's being used by someone who's a persistent troll. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Is the question to block the entire 166.x.x.x block of 214 million addresses? AlbinoFerret 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=698226595"