Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 45 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 106 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 103 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 103 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 74 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 47 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 44 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 42 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 38 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	16	16
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	17	19	36
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 261 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 83 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 80 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)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 78 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 68 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Srebrenica massacre

(Initiated 21 days ago on 26 July 2024) Move review for Srebrenica massacre. Last comment was two weeks ago. This can be closed. TarnishedPath^talk 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. SilverLocust 💬 04:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (52 out of 8256 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023-2024 2024-08-16 17:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Newsletter draft 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Message 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Coordinators instructions 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Invite 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/invite 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024 2024-08-16 15:54 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh Harriet Sandburg 2024-08-16 12:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Fluff My Life 2024-08-16 02:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Template:Image Comics 2024-08-16 02:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Sadly Never After 2024-08-16 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate Jessica (Rick and Morty) 2024-08-16 02:36 2024-11-16 02:36 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident 2024-08-15 20:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIPA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Ukrainian occupation of Kursk Oblast 2024-08-15 20:33 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Wikipedia:Moto E22i 2024-08-15 20:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Steps (pop group) 2024-08-15 19:41 2024-11-15 19:41 edit,move Persistent block evasion The Wordsmith Steps discography 2024-08-15 19:40 2024-11-15 19:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry The Wordsmith Gal Gadot 2024-08-15 14:22 2025-02-15 14:22 edit Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Sudzhansky District 2024-08-15 06:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Sudzha 2024-08-15 06:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq Draft:Suman Kumar Mallick 2024-08-15 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Mz7 Real Malabar F.C. 2024-08-14 23:54 indefinite create Pppery Janata Dal (United) 2024-08-14 23:17 2026-08-14 23:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Luxury For You 2024-08-14 20:25 2025-08-14 20:25 create Repeatedly recreated Tedder Bursuuk 2024-08-14 19:35 2026-08-14 19:35 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Altalena Affair 2024-08-14 14:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Talk:Majidul Haque 2024-08-14 13:03 2025-08-14 13:03 create Repeatedly recreated Explicit List of Stanley Cup Eastern Conference Finals broadcasters 2024-08-14 11:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters 2024-08-14 11:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel) 2024-08-14 01:28 2024-10-14 01:28 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush Thejo Kumari Amudala 2024-08-13 21:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:Landmark Structures 2024-08-13 16:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Avilés 2024-08-13 01:54 2024-08-20 01:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Star Mississippi Gabiley 2024-08-12 20:09 2026-08-12 20:09 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生

Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC)

I would like to request a review of the closure of this RfC regarding the page Paul Singer (businessman). It was discussed with the closer here.

The previous RfC for this same issue (12/10/15) can be found here where consensus was established six months prior to the RfC in question. Between the two RfCs, the closer had created a number of discussions (possibly in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. These discussions failed to garner much attention and mostly reinforced the 12/10/15 consensus.

It must be noted that the RfC in question is rather old (29/04/16) and editors protested the closure since it was closed by the same editor who opened both the RfC itself and all other discussions, and was not necessarily reflective of consensus which does appear to reinforce that set out in the 12/10/15 RfC.

The improper close of the RfC would normally not be an issue, however, yet another RfC has opened, claiming that the last discussion was "inconclusive" and we must therefore have another discussion.

I would argue that this has all been incredibly disruptive considering the huge number of editors involved (36) in the prior 8 discussions from a 16/07/14 RfC to the 29/04/16 RfC is plenty of discussion for something which editors have considered relatively uncontroversial - 23 have been in favour of the current consensus and 6 against, with 7 somewhere in between. Furthermore, consensus has often not been respected in the rare points of calm between discussion, with some of the "6 against" editors making against-consensus edits and reversions.

This is a messy situation, but to conclude, I would like to request the evaluation of the close here and the closure of the current RfC, considering the arguements made by other editors at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC is Nonsense. Thanks. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is bifurcated in the prior RfCs. There was a limited consensus that a company could be called a "vulture fund" but no consensus that a person should be described as a "vulture capitalist" in the lead of a BLP. My own position has always been that specific pejorative terms should only be used as opinions ascribed to the persons holding the opinions, and that use of pejoratives about individuals should very rarely be allowed at all. To that end, I suggest that reversing prior closes is inapt, and the claims made that the prior RfCs support calling a living person a "vulture" are incorrect. The company can have cites of opinions that it is a "vulture fund" cited and used as opinions, but the use of that pejorative as a statement of fact about a living person falls under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The current RfC has 6 editors specifically noting that the use of the pejorative in the lead about a person is wrong, 1 says the person is absolutely a "vulture capitalist", 1 asserts that every RfC supports calling the person a "vulture" and one says we should not have any more RfCs - that the issue is settled and we should call the living person a "vulture capitalist" in the lead on that basis. I rather that the current 6 to 3 opposition to use of the term in the lead indicates a substantial disagreement with the assertions made here, and the request that a close be overturned out of process. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There has been no RfC to discuss whether someone should be called a vulture. I myself have said in past discussions that doing so, especially in WP's voice, would be contrary to what this encyclopaedia is about. Please do not mis-represent my views - it's things like that which have made these constant ongoing RfCs so toxic. My view is that Singer is most notable (WP:DUE) for running a vulture fund - and there are indeed countless sources (WP:RS) which confirm this and thus this fact should be made clear in the lede. Claiming that mentioning his company in an article equates to WP calling someone a vulture is nonsense and not a new arguement - this is the same line those same editors took over and over again in these discussions to no avail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that I specify the issue at hand is with regard to using the pejorative with regard to the single living person in the lead. A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist" as distinct from his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.. The two catenated uses of the pejorative are different here - ne is with regard to how some have categorized the fund, the other as a personal pejorative in the lead about the person. Do you see that distinction? Especially when the single sentence uses the term "vulture" twice? Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You also failed to mention 2 more editors who had been in favour of using the term vulture fund in the lede but refused to partake in this particular discussion since they have made it clear that there have already been to many. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Again - the word "vulture" is used twice now in a single sentence in the lead - once with regard to opinions held about the fund (for which the prior RfC found the use of the opinion as opinion about the fund was allowable), and the second, the problematic one, with regard to the use of a pejorative about a living person in the lead of the BLP. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the most recent RfC. Frankly SegataSanshiro1 forced this RfC to happen in the first place by refusing to engage in talk page discussion on the vulture point. I would like to request that anyone participating in this discussion carefully read Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and then refer directly to each of SegataSanshiro1's actions leading up to this RfC, and his actions in this one as well. Whatever SegataSanshiro may personally believe, a slur in a lead is Always A Very Big Deal, and not something to be brushed under the rug. As WP:Biographies of living people says, "we must get it right." It seems clear to me that several parties want to freeze an ongoing discussion at a point they find satisfying. Yvarta (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been involved in these ongoing discussions for quite some time now. As I've stated before, using a pejorative to describe an individual on a BLP is unacceptable, especially in the lead. That being said, the previous RfC was closed once discussion went stale. There were ample opportunities and there was more than enough time to provide arguments. Once users agreed upon a version, which limited use of the term "vulture", the user who closed the RfC made the edits in question but was reverted and the term was included an additional three times.

SegataSanshiro1's antics on Singer's page has gotten out of control and his motive on the page is clear. Now that consensus on the newest RfC is shifting highly in favor of removing the slur from the lead, SegataSanshiro1 is grasping at straws to get the previous RfC reviewed. If SegataSanshiro1 had an issue with how the previous RfC was closed, why didn't he follow through with an secondary discussion after this one went stagnant? After realizing consensus is shifting, not in his favor, he wants to call this new productive RfC "disruptive". Also, after the last RfC was closed, an admin came in and suggested a new RfC so do not throw out WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, consensus is not shifting as you cannot establish consensus in a discussion which half of the editors can't even take seriously. You have been at the heart of this whole drama. Every time there was an RfC or discussion and consensus was established to use the term, you actively went about making against-consensus edits and other highly disruptive behaviour (which myself and other editors have called you out on time and time again) such as misrepresenting the results of other discussions, claiming sources weren't reliable when they were and even making up terminology like "distressed securities funds" to avoid using actual terminology. You are the only editor who has been involved in every single one of these discussions - very possessive behaviour all in all and along with the other things, you should have been sanctioned and barred from editing on that page.

Still, you continue to misrepresent what happened. There were five editors (myself included) who have said that this RfC is daft. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have opened this discussion on the noticeboard. I'm not going to let you make me lose it again, so please stop referring to me - I want absolutely nothing to do with you, and I know I shouldn't be addressing editors directly, but I really want to make that absolutely clear. Something hypothetical you might want to think about though:

After you've rolled the dice so many times trying to prevent WP:RS from an article and failed miserably, let's say that now after 8 or so attempts at getting your way you finally do. How seriously do you think other editors would take that consensus? Would they simply carry on doing as they wished to the page regardless as you have? Would they simply call another RfC in three months time and pretend the others never happened as you have? I very much doubt I'll stick around after this because I'm sick of this page, but I have a feeling you will, and if you do and you carry on acting as you have, you will be doing this for years. Please don't answer me. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have weighed in on this on multiple occasions and will do my best to promptly summarize my opinion on the topic. The original dispute over the use of the term vulture has been over the derogatory nature of the term on vulture fund’s page. Subsequent discussions have taken place regarding the general use of the term, however the scope of the debate later concentrated on the term’s use in a BLP, specifically Paul Singer’s page. Some editors, whom I will not name, act as if they wp:own the article and have done everything in their power to keep vulture fund and vulture capitalist in the article. Some users have actually made the argument that "vulture" is not derogatory whatsoever (one even argued that it should be taken as a compliment. No reasonable and neutral arbitrator could disagree with the fact that “vulture fund” is a slur, invented by people who are deeply opposed to their entirely legal investments. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): You're hardly the person to close this RfC... is a splendid example of grotesque snark. I did not "close the RfC" and that snark is ill-suited for rational discussion. In addition, I left in the "vulture" opinion about EMC, and note that the lead is supposed to be in summary style. I am concerned that this sort of snark is poisonous to any discussion, and ask that any editor who feels such personal attacks should be used should get the aitch away from here. Collect (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect, it's quite understandable that a number of editors are very much on edge considering this has been discussed to death and the conduct of a couple of editors in particular. I think what Nomoskedasticity meant by that remark is that you were making edits about something which was being discussed... Were you not one of those supporting an RfC after all?

From my own personal perspective, I think mentioning his main business area is running a culture fund, then including other references to him specifically in some sort of criticism section would be ideal. That and removing references to philanthropy from the lede as per WP:UNDUE. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: first of all I wish to state my astonishment at not being pinged when I was directly involved with one of the RfCs called into question. SegataSanshiro1's guerilla antics are indeed widespread and grave. I do not care about user behaviour at this stage, however, merely the state of Singer's biography. Said RfC was indeed improperly closed by myself, after which I requested admin intervention to reopen it (or closed by an uninvolved user - note I did so per WP:BOLD and because a determination was indeed agreed upon). This request was speedily rejected by KrakatoaKatie together with its corresponding ANI post, so I think it's safe to assume there is no interest in rekindling old fires. Attempts at mediation about this issue also failed. Regarding consensus, I counted at least 7 new voices in the current discussion, all offering interesting new insights (DGG, Collect, Elinruby, FuriouslySerene, Snow_Rise, Chris Hallquist, and Yvarta); there is strong indication at least some parties are willing to compromise. Some are under the impression consensus is a simple vote tally. I call into question this vehement ownership of the Paul Singer article. Every time any editor makes a serious attempt at a copy edit (no matter how minor), a concerted effort by the same bunch of editors reverses all possible changes. Just look at the edit history. Serious and pragmatic comments aimed at stemming this dreadlock are conveniently brushed aside, such as DGG's - "It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral". If civil discussion cannot come about and admin action is required, so be it, but it does set a sad precedent. We had originally copy edited the lede back in October, trimming the use of "vulture" down to a single mention. This was of course then reverted maniacally even though discussion had concluded in that precise path. I don't see why a reasonable review of each instance of the word's use cannot take place. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Focus, this wasn't intended to be "guerilla antics" - we had actually discussed a re-close prior to this and you were involved, together with a number of other editors who I did not ping since I figured they would not want to be dragged into this again - I take it you're a page watcher anyway and I mentioned this discussion on the talk page. I also never had a problem with you being WP:BOLD and closing the discussion (in fact if I recall correctly, me and other editors were all for it), what myself and other editors had a problem with was the closing remarks, in particular "the RfC question was not unequivocally answered" when in reality it had, for the nth time that it is appropriate to use this particular word in this particular article - that's beyond discussion at this point. To this day, I agree with the path of compromise we embarked on, what I did not agree with was the sheer amount of forums this was taken to and the manner in which the discussion was closed. To be honest, that close made me question your good faith and took away any desire on my part to be collaborative.

The issue with these discussions is that they're never clear, we're never discussing on a point by point basis since one or two editors (should be fairly obvious who) take these discussions as an attempt to remove all mention of the terminology, digging in their heels until we're back in 2014 again discussing whether we should censor it entirely (again, always the same editors). All the while, creating serious NPOV issues by removing statements backed up by RS and adding in things which are UNDUE in an attempt to whitewash. If that stops, then I'm sure normal discussion could ensue and general anger levels could be drastically reduced along with the tedium. I have already said that I'm of the opinion that "vulture capitalist" should be discussed, but that's hardly going to happen if we still have editors claiming a vulture fund is not a thing, and the very presence of the term (what Singer is most notable for, if I may add) equates to Wikipedia calling a living person a vulture. That's not new, that's not productive and you're as aware of that as I am. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• It was a middle of the road close. . There is a distinction between someone being personally a vulture, which implies that he acts in that manner in all his activities or is of that personality type, and running a fund that shares some similar characteristics and goes by the common name of vulture fund. We cannot avoid using the full term, because even those sources that endorse the profession use it as a matter of course. But we can try to avodi personalizing things that don't need personalizing, especially things that some people are likely to consider highly negative. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And to the point - any BLP which stresses the use of "vulture" seventeen times is likely to be perceivable as making a point in itself. I just do not understand the concept that name-calling is something Wikipedia should actively pursue, and that editors who even remove a single use from the lead are somehow evil here. Argh. Collect (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear 17 times. I only see 6 mentions in the article itself and one of them was actually about an antisemitic cartoon - the rest are mentions in references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's INCREDIBLY misleading. Most of those are references, hence more reason to include it. Of the 6 ACTUAL uses, none of them are in WP's voice. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: You keep claiming that "Singer is most notable for" his "vulture fund". This is your own opinion. Do a google news search and tell us how many pages you have to dig through before coming across a page that uses the slur? This is a false assumption, which you have consistently done throughout this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur, it's the name of a type of fund that buys debt at discount prices and attempts to sue for 100% payment. As much as you pretend it isn't, you should remember this since you were involved in multiple discussions where you pretended that there was consensus that it was a slur when there wasn't - you were called out on it multiple times: [5] [6]. You also made a no-consensus page move from vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" despite there being no sources to validate such naming and in clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME - you should also remember this since there were two discussions, both on the talk page and at WP:W2W which undid that rather stealthy move and established rather firmly that vulture funds are indeed a thing and that is indeed what they are called, while Singer's EMC is one of the most prolific. Why have you consistently misrepresented information and lied to other editors? There's plenty more examples where you have been called out on doing this, want me to give more? Meatsgains, you are the only editor (along with Comatmebro, actually) who has been involved in every discussion to do with Singer, vulture funds and Elliott Management Corporation and consistently used some very dodgy tactics to get your way, ranging from ignoring consensus and making edits regardless to protecting all these pages like a hawk (or vulture, more appropriately?) and claiming sources aren't reliable based on your own opinions. I'm still shocked you're still around and you haven't been sanctioned. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"This isn't my own opinion and vulture fund is not a slur" - Yes it is and yes it is. Also, do not dilute this discussion with attacking me. Meatsgains (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG; that's a fair representation of my basic thoughts as well. As I just posted on the Singer talk page, we're trying to discuss the use of "vulture" as a descriptor of a human being. "Vulture" is as such a charged word in the sense that we're liable to annex this valued meaning to a word that is used in the context of a business endeavour. Handling a vulture fund is not the same as BEING a vulture. I am utterly amazed people fail to see that. The previous close was precisely that, a "middle of the road close". The "vulture fund" practices are thoroughly discussed throughout the article in the context of what quality sources have to say about the matter. Using the term through a personal angle by making a de facto generalisation in an article's lede is another story, and I believe we were making some progress back in October in this regard. I would very much like to see us return to that stage and come up with a neutral and balanced solution. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree that handling a vulture fund does not equate to being a vulture - that's the main flawed premise that has been holding this back. I still disagree that the close was "middle of the road", since using vulture terminology does not violate NPOV (the question raised in the RfC) since it is WP:DUE - only a tiny, tiny number of people have said that all reference to vultures should be gone from the article. The Samsung affair and other criticism (such as "vulture capitalist") needs to go in a criticism section rather than the lede - Singer has received enough criticism from multiple sources to warrant one. Vulture fund, on the other hand, should remain firmly in the lede - that's what he's known for and what a large chunk of the article is about. I know you have argued that he has other investments, but that's akin to leaving out the Iraq war in Tony Blair's page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet again you are wildly, amazingly off topic. There is already an RfC discussing this issue, in case you forgot, and a talk page to discuss general improvements. This discussion, SegataSanshiro, you started to determine if the RfC creations are inappropriate. As you seem to have forgotten, I would like to remind you that you reverted my lead change on the grounds that I needed to first discuss, and now you are trying to shut that very discussion down - that, or apparently force it to stagnate by repeating the same arguments while ignoring the arguments of others. As far as I am concerned, you specifically continue to stonewall and disrupt a natural consensus building process. You are either nearing either an epiphany (i.e. that this is not a battle you are trying to win), or nearing a topic ban. Yvarta (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not me specifically. There have been five editors (including me) who have questioned the validity of this RfC. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven’t given the impression I think those other four are guilty of actively stonewalling. If so, I apologize for being thoughtless and rude. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I am not opposed to having an administrator re-close a previous RFC if the stated consensus was incorrect (I was the one who suggested coming to AN on the Singer talk page as SegatSanshiro continues to question it), just for the sake of clarity and any subsequent discussions. I do not support closing the current RFC though. I don't see it as disruptive as opinion is clearly divided and the issue is contentious, the previous RfC was over 4 months ago and the closing and consensus is disputed, so getting new editors involved to seek consensus should be a good thing (I only joined this discussion thanks to this most recent RfC). As for my opinion about the underlying issue, I've already posted to the RfC and it may not be relevant here, but I believe that mainstream reliable sources do not refer to Singer as a "vulture." He is called a hedge fund manager by these sources. Therefore the term vulture should only be used when it is ascribed to a specific person or entity (i.e., his critics). My reading of the current RfC and previous ones is that most editors agree with that position. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have never edited this article and am in this because the RfC bot asked me to give my opinion. The person who started the RfC however has repeatedly told me I am off-topic when I try to explain the BLP policy. As best I can tell however the person's argument is that the appellation is inappropriate because Singer is a living person, and they appear to be ready to repeat this argument indefinitely. I would also like to mention that while I personally believe that "vulture capitalist" is a specialized bit of vocabulary that is not particularly pejorative, the current wording does not use it in wikipedia's voice either, which many of the comments on this seem to assume. It says he has been called a vulture capitalist and provides no less than nine sources for the statement. I believe we should remove the weasel wording and explicitly quote one or more people. I would agree with the idea expressed at one point of balancing out concerns about due weight, assuming that is what they are, by adding other details of his business dealings. However as far as I can tell there are no such details; Singer seems to be a specialist in this type of transaction, and to have been for decades. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Explaining BLP policy is not off topic - however, long accusations of COI (without basis) and facts focused on Singer's details are very off topic to this particular RfC, as I've pointed out that many businessmen have similar, nigh identical press coverage concerning the "vulture" phrase. If you would like to start another RfC on a different nuance or topic, you are welcomed to. Yvarta (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. The heart of my point is that Singer is a public figure and therefore under WP:PUBLICFIGURE it matters very much whether the statement is true. As for my COI concerns, well, normally we don't comment on editors but your actions do suggest one in my opinion, yes. You are very concerned, astonishingly concerned, with the PR of this billionaire, shrug. I didn't actually start with that assumption, mind; I just told you it was ok to be a paid editor if you declared yourself as such. But you say you are not, so. AGF. You *still* never ever answer any other editors questions, and dismiss them as irrelevant unless they support your desired outcome. Elinruby (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Anyone look at the nominator's (i.e. Yvarta's) edit history? Yvarta, this looks like it was not your first account. Who were you editing as prior to this account? NickCT (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to ask any questions about my experience on my talk page/email. My editing history relates to personal details of my life, and so I haven't shared that here/in the RfC. Yvarta (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This RfC makes for a dramatic read. My perception of things, after also skimming the older RfCs linked about halfway through, is that the prior RfCs were imperfectly framed, and as a result conversations were bogged down by arguments over whether Singer himself was a vulture, not whether vulture should be a descriptor in any lead at all. The RfC certainly has broader implications than one biography, as the overall precedent on Wikipedia most definitely favors avoiding such descriptors in bio leads. Has anyone else been able to find a biography or corporation with an animal slur used in the intro? I tried with several creative search phrases, and have so far utterly failed. This RfC is far from perfect as well, but I do applaud its attempt to focus the issue away from Singer. Most constructive so far, in my opinion, is that the argument that excluding vulture from the lead equals censorship has been debunked several times. Leads are certainly not required to include every detail of a criticism section, and per prior arguments, any concept that could be carried across by "vulture" could also be carried across with an alternate explanation.

Note to whoever closes this RfC: However long this discussion needs to continue, I would like to note that there is obviously not a clear consensus in favor of keeping vulture in the lead, even though the reverts apparently leading to this discussion were founded entirely on the argument that prior RfCs had reached consensus. As such, I would like to note that all three of those reverts have been proven to have been without basis, even if they were done in good faith. A number of contributors, several of obvious neutrality and experience, have agreed that a slur of denigration is inappropriate in a lead when applied to a person or company, especially since both the criticism and the neologism can be fully explained with neutral and more conservative words. As such, the argument that there is a violation of the neutral tone mandated by WP:BLPSTYLE is at the very least plausible, however this consensus concludes itself. Until that time, however, the assessment that biography leads must be treated with extra delicacy is absolutely correct, and I agree with Yvarta's bold action to remove "vulture" when he/she did, just like I would have agreed with a decision to remove "rat" or "loan shark" or "pig." Basically, until something is settled, there is currently no consensus', and I believe "vulture" should be again removed until consensus is reached and the barn is built.Bbmusicman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are examples of why I answered as I did, if anyone is interested:

• Raymond "Shrimp Boy" Chow
• Mobutu_Sese_Seko
• Manuel Noriega
• List of people named in the Panama Papers
• MS-13

My point is that when derogatory information *is true* then we are not required to pretend it's not there.

• NPR story

- btw, for a dispassionate take on what a vulture capitalist actually is. I think people should read vulture fund and vulture capitalist -- nothing there about animals. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I highly encourage you to take some good examples to the RfC, where contributors can see them (this discussion isn't linked on that talk page anymore, after archiving). I'm a bit confused by your examples, though? Shrimp isn't very deragatory, except perhaps to a very short and insecure person, and "dictator" is actually a relatively neutral, especially compared to synonyms such as "tyrant" or "monster" or "fiend." Other phrases, like "mass-murderer," also have negative connotation, but they are clinical and exact, without cartoonish connotation making the phrases more loaded than necessary. Perhaps other examples? Yvarta (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Observations: (1) SegataSanshiro1, who opened this AN thread and who has written more than double the amount of text of the article than any other editor [7], is Argentinian (as noted on his userpage) and has a very strong POV and agenda about the article, since Singer's most controversial debt-funds are Argentinian. (2) In my opinion FoCuSandLeArN should not have closed the previous WP:RfC (nor should he have made the edit[s] presumed to be "consensus" -- at the very least, another editor should have made any edits springing from the RfC), since he started the RfC and has also been involved in the contentious debate(s). One can withdraw an RfC one has started, but one cannot close it. Only an uninvolved editor can formally close an RfC. See WP:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. (3) That said, SegataSanshiro1 has opened this AN thread in a very non-neutral, POV manner, and as Meatsgains commented above, SegataSanshiro1 had no problem with FoCuSandLeArN's 5-month-old close until now. (4) What seems to need to happen is for an uninvolved administrator to look at and close the current RfC that is now on the talk page awaiting closure. (5) I believe Collect, a neutral and highly experienced editor, has encapsulated the issue well in his three comments above. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User pages and soapboxing

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

---

Hi. Recently Dennis Brown blanked MarkBernstein's user page as an adminstrator action, citing WP:SOAPBOX. This policy states "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages and within the Wikipedia: namespace, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project." I do not believe the content blanked here was disruptive, nor is all of it removable under WP:SOAPBOX (some of it is, for example, contact information for the editor.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, in any case. The question must be, how did that page help build the encyclopaedia? That's right; it didn't. Re. 'all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.' _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue that providing contact information can be helpful to the cause of building an encyclopedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: but I don't really think it was the contact details that Dennis Brown considered polemical... _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it was soapboxing and should be removed. MB has done everything possible to defeat his aims. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Looked like soap-boxing with a side of self-promotion to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Editors are normally allowed some latitude on their own userpage, and it's not at all obvious to me why the most urgent administrative task at that moment was policing that particular piece of userspace. If there's a good explanation then I'm curious to know what it is; but if the matter rests there without further explanation from the sysop, then I'd tend to suggest the correct outcome might be to overturn that particular decision.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Simply accusing the project of promoting racism and anti-Semitism is certainly not a non-disruptive statement of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And we can certainly infer his motives from his actions on Twitter, harassing a WikiProject WP:WOMRED with accusations. With "clear evidence to the contrary," there's no justification to continue to assume good faith on this editor's actions, so invective that is disruptive on its face ought to be removed. Probably should have been removed long ago, but better late than never. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to think the page leaned a bit too much toward self-promotion, but I don't see anything in the deleted text "accusing the project of promoting racism and anti-Semitism." I'd honestly appreciate it if someone could point out what I am missing. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to "A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive. A project which promotes and fosters racism and anti-Semitism is a menace to society." which Dennis removed from Bernstein's talk page and was restored twice, first by the ubiquitous PetertheFourth, then by Bernstein himself. The self-promotion isn't my complaint, but the constant demonization of people on Wikipedia who Bernstein disagrees with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs, I'm sorry, I feel like I'm losing it a bit, but it's too early in the week for that. I don't see the second sentence you quote in either of the most recent two blankings by Mr. Brown. Are we talking about different edits? Could it be that sentence was hidden? Dumuzid (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:MarkBernstein. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So I guess self-promotion was the bigger problem? The remaining talk page seems to me more egregious than the similar statements which were blanked. Ah well. Just my own curiosity. Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the confusing part is that there were two nearly identical mini edit wars, on *both* Bernstein's talk page *and* user page. Dennis cleared both of them, PeterTheFourth reverted both of them, Dennis repeated the action, and Bernstein restored one (and PeterTheFourth filed at WP:AN). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This was a helpful action by Dennis, offering progress towards Mark's potential return to editing within the bounds of the restriction placed upon him. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I felt the talk page also needed to be blanked, but I'm less likely to revert the user who "owns" the page than a passerby, out of respect. I will leave that to someone else now. To answer S Marshall, I stumbled across the page by accident, it isn't uncommon for admin to do that. He and I do not edit in the same places, so I might have been following an article history and noticed he was still blocked, went to look, etc. Normal admin duty stuff. I don't follow him, if that is your concern. Our overlap is probably zero articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Do you still feel your blanking of his user page was an admin action, and that I do not have sufficient privileges to restore the editors user page? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point, if you restore, it isn't about my opinion or any privileges, it is about community consensus, and there is clearly no consensus against my actions. The smart thing is to leave it open and see how the community feels about it after a few more days. It is not like this has moved up the page. In either case, you would leave it to the closer to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@PtF: We onlookers who never have to deal with gamergate are indebted to you for your work, thank you. However, please read all the comments above, take the hint, and leave MB and his pages alone. My recommendation would be that Dennis blank both user pages and block anyone who restores them per this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I hope I am not giving off the impression of asking for special consideration here. I don't mind being wrong on this occasion. In any case- I will take your advice and stop worrying about this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you had any ill will in reverting me, I didn't take it personal. This is why I said to bring it here and let the community decide. While I was confident in my decisions, ultimately, I answer to the greater community and my actions are supposed to be based on what they would do if we did "vote" on each issue. That is also why I stayed out until the end, as I wasn't trying to pursued, just observe. And I don't have any vendetta against Mark. I've been at a couple of AE cases with him, but if memory serves me, I wasn't the one suggesting swinging the ban hammer. It was a matter of soapboxing, polemic and a little bit of promotional as well. I didn't RevDel or delete the page, just blanked it. Had the community decided it was no big deal, I would let it go and learned something. Another reason it is good to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I confess I still feel a twinge about this; the user page definitely strayed into the self-promotional by my lights, and I think the talk page comment was a bit too inflammatory. And, of course, there is a long history and much context here. That being said, I hope we would all agree that criticism of Wikipedia, even when sharp-elbowed, is a legitimate way of trying to make the encyclopedia better. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I wouldn't have blanked the pages (tho I don't feel strongly enough about it to do more than comment here). It wasn't targeted at any specific editor, I'm not convinced it actually violated policy as written (tho parsing the specific wording of policies written by passers-by over the years is usually not productive), and even if it did cross over the line slightly, we should err on the side of not deleting general criticism of Wikipedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. I saw what was reverted and I've seen far worse soapboxing. And I agree and echo 100% the last point, we should be extra careful with deleting criticism of Wikipedia. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• The point is that it's not criticism in the sense of pointing out a perceived problem with a brief explanation of what should be different and why. People watching WP:AE have seen the downward spiral over an extended period, and the text is a two-fingered whine that he is right and the rest of us promote and foster racism and anti-Semitism. That's more of a soapbox rant than criticism. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• In general I think the page was fine and shouldn't have been blanked. People seem to be looking at two issues: self promotion and disruption/soapboxing. The parts that describe him seem actually useful to other editors (understanding his abilities, areas of expertise and the like) and are a net positive to the encyclopedia IMO. The soapboxing is also perfectly reasonable as it touches on how Wikipedia works and that's an important discussion to have. If he'd blamed certain people or otherwise attacked editors that would be quite different. But he didn't. I've not looked deeply, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with his issues, but I think it important that he be able to clearly state them. Certainly other editors have similar statement about BLPs on their page. So overturn action if the claim is that this is an admin action of some sort. I can see why one might take that action, but I don't think it's justified. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support the administrative action. The quote that is still on the talk page isn't really criticism. It's largely irrelevant and mainly just odd. That type of criticism is better suited on a blog, which coincidentally the user in question is quite familiar with. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Were I an admin (which I am not), I probably would not have taken the action Dennis did, but I don't see that it was outside of the normal range of acceptable admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see the "admin" action. Dennis Brown appears to have used only normal editor's privilege.

The message blanked is a bit of a rant, and a bit beyond normal leeway in pointing so prominently to messages on external sites. The external links are not footnotes, but are central to the message. This sort of thing is usually tolerated for a departing disgruntled Wikipedian, which may be the case here. If MarkBernstein is not departed, I would urge him to write something more coherent. He appears upset, and for a reader not familiar with the history, is doesn't make much sense.

I see an underlying problem as a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In general blanking someone's user page isn't something that is generally done. Further, if it's _not_ an admin action (which is really unclear) he should be welcome to restore it. I don't get the sense that's the case. We tend to give a lot of leeway in userspace. While I agree it wasn't well-written, I found it clear enough. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored

I've gone ahead and restored the page. While my feelings haven't changed and I'm not persuaded by the discussion (although I appreciate that everyone participated in a civil fashion), I do feel that my blanking was a quasi-administrative task and as such, it is only authorized with the (real or assumed) consensus of the community. In this case, were I to close this discussion as an outsider, I would close as "no consensus", which begs the question "then do we leave it blank or revert?", which we would then argue about. By simply taking the action myself, we can just move on. I do think there are valid points of view on both side of the argument, but at the end of the day, someone has to make a decision, so I did. If the community wants to blank the page, they can do so in a separate discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. Good call.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What he said. Thank you. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

New page reviewers (patroller)

Hi Admins, just FYI - following community RfC's a change for (patrol) access is pending deployment. The ability to use the page curation hoverbar and the "mark this page patrolled" functions are being removed from the (auto)confirmed group and will be issued to editors as appropriate via a new access group. For information please see WP:NPR and the new permissions request page at WP:PERM/NPR. This will have no impact on the ability to edit any page, or use Twinkle. For discussion on the rollout, please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#New_Page_Reviewer_.28patroller.29_is_coming. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Update - the new usergroup has been added to the config and processing backlog at WP:PERM has been completed. There are several open requests at PERM still to be reviewed. There is NO IMPACT yet as the (patrol) permission being removed from the legacy groups is to follow in second patch. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)`

Appealing my topic ban

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

---

CurtisNaito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to appeal the indefinite topic ban that was imposed on me from Japan-related topics in this thread on July 19, 2016.[8]

The topic ban proposal itself did not include specific diffs, so I was uncertain at first the reason for the ban, but the administrator who imposed the ban, KrakatoaKatie, informed me recently by e-mail that the ban was imposed due to pro-Korean POV pushing.

Therefore, I would like to appeal this topic ban with assurance that I will no longer edit from a pro-Korean/anti-Japanese perspective. I will make sure to only use high-quality, neutral sources and will not put any pro-Korean spin on any edits to article content.

In the past, I contributed many "good articles" that had nothing to do with Korea, and if my ban is removed, I would like to make further constructive edits to some of these articles.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, you should probably have pinged @KrakatoaKatie: as you are discussing them. I have pinged them for you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to support this request. Interested in the views of others who have been involved. MPS1992 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Question: is TH1980 still under a topic-ban with regard to Japan? A lot of the concern voiced in July was that TH1980 and CurtisNaito tag-teamed to push their shared viewpoint. If TH1980 is out of the picture, then CurtisNaito would be operating solo. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose For the record, I had no involvement or even knowledge of these issues before this thread was opened. After only a brief review, I'm afraid I must oppose this proposal at this time. The opening of this thread is the appellant's first and only edit since the tban was imposed. There is therefore no intervening record showing an ability to contribute positively and not exhibit the behavior that necessitated topic banning. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for the ping, DrChrissy. I did indeed correspond a couple of times with CurtisNaito about the topic ban. He asked me about appealing, and while I was happy to discuss it with him, I stand by my closure of that ANI section. I have no interest in or involvement with Korean or Japanese articles, and I closed the discussion purely in an administrative capacity. @Binksternet: To my knowledge, TH1980 is still under the topic ban, and they have not contacted me about it. Katie^talk 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is that the issues are very difficult for ordinary editors to grasp because the really reliable sources are thick history books, while there is a large supply of boosterism sources that make claims about how Korean culture has influenced Japan. The OP shows no understanding of why a topic ban occurred, and that is a very poor basis for lifting it. The editors who seem most familiar with the topic (Curly Turkey + Hijiri88 + Nishidani) should be invited to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  Note: Hijiri won't be able to comment. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  OK. If I missed anyone (pro or con) who was significantly involved in previous discussions, they might be notified. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. The problems with CurtisNaito and TH1980 were not one-time things. They were persistent behavioural issues across a large number of articles that went on for at least three years (that I'm aware of). RE: tagteaming—while tagteaming certainly happened, both CurtisNaito and TH1980 were enormously disruptive even when they weren't tagteaming. They were not TBANned for tagteaming, but for their overall disruptive behaviour, of which the tagteaming was only a small part, even when it played a rôle at all. RE: "I contributed many 'good articles'"—these "Good Articles" are at the heart of the disputes, and the History of Japan article (which CurtisNaito still lists as one of his "good articles") was de-listed as being one of the most fantastically inadequate GAs that has ever passed. All of CurtisNaito's GAs are suspect, and if properly reviewed would probably all be de-listed. "Properly" is the keyword, as CurtisNaito's edits tend to be extremely selective WRT sources, and his edits distort what the sources say in extreme-yet-subtle ways. Good faith cannot be assumed with these editors. RE: "I will no longer edit from a pro-Korean/anti-Japanese perspective"—CurtisNaito's actually accused of the opposite bias, which makes this appeal all the more obviously bad faith. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. CurtisNaito has proved himself unreliable, disruptive, manipulative, and in a state of near-perpetual gamesmanship on these articles. His topic ban was long overdue and should definitely not be repealed. Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The first edit by CurtisNaito (see contribs) since the topic ban on 19 July 2016 was to post the above appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the fact that this editor hasn't made any edits since the topic ban was imposed should disqualify this. Just asserting that someone won't continue the problematic behaviour isn't sufficient, we do typically require some evidence of this, such as constructive editing in other topic areas or on another project. Rehabilitating editors who have proven to be disruptive in the past is in general a rather unproductive use of time. Disclaimer: it looks like properly appreciating the issues here requires a solid grasp of east Asian history, which I don't have. Hut 8.5 09:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox and Hut 8.5. A bit procedural, but lifting t-bans on editors who haven't changed but have merely stayed away from Wikipedia hasn't worked in the past. There is no indication that the editor has changed their methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Question @CurtisNaito:, you say that In the past, I contributed many "good articles" that had nothing to do with Korea, and if my ban is removed, I would like to make further constructive edits to some of these articles. Since you're not topic banned from such articles, why would you need to have your topic ban lifted as it does not hinder your ability to edit on non-Korea related articles? Blackmane (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox person

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

---

Template:Infobox person: Can someone with rights to edit locked pages change the language at Template:Infobox person. Remove the requirement that parents be "independently notable" (blue-linked) or "particularly relevant" written at the "parents=" field per consensus at Template talk:Infobox person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This request is ridiculous, out-of-process, and a form of forum-shopping. There is policy-based consensus in the current RfC on that talk-page to retain that restriction, for obvious policy-based reasons. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Notice: Proposal that may increase the workload an ANI

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Time to close DRN? that has the potential to increase the workload at WP:ANI. Feel free to comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here, User:Guy Macon. Guy and I have both opposed the proposal of closing DRN. I won't argue at length here in favor of keeping it, but, as he and I agree, if it were (for reasons that, in my view, are good-faith but misguided) shut down, some disputes would come here more quickly, both those that really are content disputes and should not come here, and those that are conduct disputes but could benefit from cooling down. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I've made a posting to the RFC. I can't oppose the proposal hard enough. Unlike other boards that have closed over the years, DRN is critical in ensuring a separation between content disputes and behavioural problems. ANI (and to a lesser extent AN) already has its hands full dealing with things that really should belong on other boards (edit warriors, vandals, long term abuse, BLP violations, copyright violations, etc etc) Blackmane (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing Template Creation

Hello admins, could someone take a look at this request - Talk:United_States_military_seniority#Permanent_notice. Its been several years since I've worked on creating one of this permanent article notices, I think it must be done by an administrator. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 16:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

If I undersstand correctly, you mean an edit notice. There are instructions at WP:Editnotices#How to request an editnotice if you are not an administrator or template editor for instructions on the right way to make these requests.(Of course, any admin or template editor whom sees thids specific request may handle it without an official request there.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Template created and posted. Thank you very much for the above information as well. -O.R.^Comms 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Files for discussion

WP:FFD has a backlog that stretches until July 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Range block for Blank testing IPs

List of related IPs: Adding and removing break rows:

• 201.92.113.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 152.250.203.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 177.94.19.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Adding break rows:

• 179.228.12.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 201.68.85.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Please add more related IPs if you find them

In these last several weeks, an editor has been adding white space & then removing that white space from articles. He's been getting his IPs blocked for these useless tests along the way. Perhaps, it's time for a range block. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Mind providing a list of IPs or even just articles so we know what/who we are dealing with here? -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 22:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The latest IP is 201.92.113.60 GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

And the older ones? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Each of the previous IPs, were blocked for the exact same behaviour. I don't have a list of them. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Could you give a few examples of the IPs? A range block only works if he's on the same subnet, and depends on the risk of collateral damage vs. risk of damage from allowing him to continue. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

177.94.19.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another one, but the range is entirely different. Seems difficult to block. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible that there's more then one individual & they're working together? GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's possible, though I find that unlikely. It seems a very pointless thing to do, and I think it'd be hard to convince someone else to do it.

Possibly related 179.228.12.117 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), only adding break rows. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

IPs seem to be primarily Brazilian. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure is an annoying fellow, whoever it is. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Sockpuppetry?

First i have to confess seem i violated 3RR rule, but seem Autovision007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is the same guy Creative2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Creative2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Alfaweiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka Mikenew1953 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Formal Sockpuppet investigated may required for banning him for sockpuppet, but his action on keep on moving AEL FC (official English name of the Greek club) to self-made controversial composite name (the Greek club common name is disputed, but "Larissa F.C." is used by UEFA.com, google trend doesn't help on concluding the common name in English nor in Greek, and at least it is safe to call it in full name), or fail to response in talk page for edits in Fininvest (mix up profit, total assets with EBIT and total financial assets, remove contents) at least have some point to bring it to admin notice board. Matthew_hk tc 01:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ban proposal

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

---

SUPERJOO (talk · contribs) obviously should be banned. Seemingly a "parody" of "SuperJew", another user. Single edit was racist/obviously inappropriate. Macosal (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC).

User is now blocked indef. It's an obvious enough case, I don't think it needs further discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Someguy1221. SBANs are not necessary in cases like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Can I have a few more eyes

Can I request a few more eyes on the SPA fiesta currently underway at Tracey Curtis-Taylor and its related AFD? I've put the article under PC protection for the duration of the AFD but because it's now been ongoing for over four days the SPAs are becoming autopatrolled in their own right, and per my comments here I'm very reluctant to protect an article in the middle of an AFD since that will prevent genuine good-faith attempts to rescue it. IMO it's reached the point of needing someone who hasn't previously either protected the article or commented in the AFD (and thus can't be accused of bias) to start dishing out warnings, and at the very least could do with being on some more watchlists. ‑ Iridescent 10:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Also note: The AfD is a hotbed of SPAs and apparently canvassed IPs. I have spent an hour of my precious time tagging them all, pro and con. Also, at least three of the IPs geolocate to the exact same place, the same small Eastern European town as one of the SPA registered accounts (who accidentally edited logged out once and then changed the siggy to the registered account), which is evidence that they may all be the same person. Two of the IPs differ only in the final digit, which differs by one. I'm not going to name the registered account unless asked, because connecting the IP and account might be construed as outing. But it worries me that one person might be therefore !voting or commenting for Deletion four or more times. Should this be noted on the AfD, and if so, how? Should I alert a CU? Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have submitted my evidence via email to ArbCom to prevent outing. If any other CUs want the evidence, let me know and I'll email you as well. I've left a note to the closing admin not to close the AfD before the results come back. Softlavender (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

New adminbot proposal - blocking spambot IPs

Administrators are currently manually blocking IPs that hit certain URLs on the spam blacklist. It has been requested that a bot perform these blocks to allow for faster response time. Please comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 3. Anomie⚔ 22:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

G13 eligible AfC submissions backlog - needing attention

Could we get some people to go through the backlog at Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions backlog? It currently has 6,000+ submissions in it. Thanks. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 04:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Desi - Reverting of edits

Hello, I'm having trouble telling this user, DesiKindInMahMind, to stop disrupting the entire Desi article. They have failed to read the sources based on their edits and continue to remove sources and information despite having been reverted by two users multiple times, including myself. I have warned them but they don't listen. I asked for semi-protection of the article because of what was happening a few weeks ago and that was granted but it didn't stop them from coming back and making changes. They also opened up a discussion about the matter but have never replied to any of the messages I left on the talk page. I was also told by another user after reporting them that their account appears to be a "single-purpose account" and in some cases can be against the rules on Wikipedia. Could I please have some help in solving this? Thanks. (110.148.130.249 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

The reason they weren't stopped by semi-protection is because, based on how long they've had an account and how many edits they've made, they have been autoconfirmed for at least two years. Most of their edits are to the Desi article, so they may be a single-purpose account. — Gestrid (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I left them a notice on their talk page so hopefully they come here to solve the issue. (121.214.177.17 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

I have issued an edit warring notice since this user has repeatedly reverted any edits contrary to theirs. I also reverted edits on another article they did that did not accurately represent what was in the source. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Gestrid:, they removed the notification I left about this discussion on their talk page and have continued to remove the information. They have also made it personal and started calling me "pathetic". (121.219.56.150 (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

I'm no admin, but, in my opinion, that's a valid reason for a No Personal Attacks block. — Gestrid (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've requested full protection of the article (since the editor is autoconfirmed) and put a link to this discussion in the request. See Special:PermaLink/747540038. — Gestrid (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so much for doing that and for the information you gave me too. (121.219.56.150 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC))

I saw the request for full protection at WP:RFPP but have declined it. Instead, I have warned the user they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting talk page consensus. We wouldn't normally protect a page if just one user is the source of the problem. We would deal with that user directly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid:, @Dane2007: and @EdJohnston: A new user has begun making very similar edits as the current editor has done albeit not as extreme (they haven't removed any sources). They seem to have failed to read the sources provided though. The account was also created today. (121.219.56.150 (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC))

@121.219.56.150: I have opened a sockpuppet investigation here as the edits are virtually identical to some of the earlier contested edits by DesiKindInMahMind. -- Dane2007 ^talk 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Confirmed that this was sockpuppetry and blocked indefinitely per CheckUser/Admin. -- Dane2007 ^talk 13:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Rfc regarding A1

Just a quick request for comment on the application of the A1 tag on a generic example. Any views would be welcome at the particular Rfc. Lourdes 14:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oliver Mitchell

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

---

Hey all, I don't have time to take care of this at present b/c of some IRL stuff, but Oliver Mitchell appears to be a hoax article. The guy in the photo is Milo Ventimiglia from Heroes (TV_series) and there's some nonsensical stuff written in there (see this. If anyone can look at it, I'd be appreciative, otherwise, I'll deal with it when I can. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I put a {{db-hoax}} tag on the page. He's PewDiePie AND was in Fight Club AND has an extensive recording career from the age of 9? I'm impressed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Revdel this edit summary?

I'm not a (very good) Puritan, but this edit summary may well be worth of revdeletion--if only because an edit summary in the history of a highly-viewed article is quite prominent. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears to breach WP:ESDOS, I don't think a WP:RD2 for the summary only would be a problem, along with notice to the editor. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not a fan of censorship but that is an edit summary that is certain to offend some people. It needs to go away and if not already done, someone should drop a polite caution on their talk page about that kind of thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks y'all, thanks Beebs. Yes, I also think it's likely to offend a fair number of readers--"JFC" is pretty powerful. Note that I'm not here to ask for sanctions against the editor--it was a few days ago already, and I had already left a note for the editor. My question was really about the general point, the applicability of RD(2); this isn't always an easy thing to judge so Beebs, I appreciate the judgment call. Perhaps we'll hear more admins' opinions before this gets archived.

  For the non-admins: we get requests fairly regularly to revdelete this or that, and I think I can speak for all admins when I say that we take such requests seriously but cannot always do what you may like us to do. In this case, a quick consensus is yes, this can be removed, but even after having the tool for a couple of years I'm not always sure. RickinBaltimore, you might find that you're asking these questions too in a couple of days. Good luck with it! Anyway, that's why we like our admins to have proven that they have judgment, and that's why I like having the AN sounding board; it takes a village. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

UAA backlog

WP:UAA is backlogged two days if not more. —teb728 t c 10:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• It's really at five days now for user-reported. That's actually not too bad, if recent backlogs are any measure. Back in July, it got to a point where it was backlogged two weeks [9]. Sad, really. Wikipedia's golden era is gone, and now such accounts get to run rampant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Well, if I may, HEY ADMINS WHEN YOU DELETE SOME SPAM ARTICLE OR REMOVE SOME VANDAL EDIT DON'T JUST LEAVE AN OBVIOUS USERNAME VIOLATION FOR THE NEXT SCHMUCK especially if that schmuck is me. I just went through a few dozen names and at least two three could easily have been blocked by a previous admin who deleted a spam article or a spam user page or a bunch of vandal edits. Help us out, the poor bums who check in on UAA every now and then. Hammersoft, anytime you want to propose--wait, what could you propose? These accounts aren't running rampant--there's just a lot of them registering. Most of them make zero or few edits, since if they do and they vandalize, the "regular" AIV process takes care of them. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hrm, I'm not sure I'm understanding how you feel. Could you please explain? ;) Kidding aside, I'm intimately aware of the problems generated by corporate/organization accounts and the wreckage they leave on the project. You're quite correct; most make just a few edits. Others can be quite prolific. It's frustrating when some of them do so and UAA is badly backlogged. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  I wonder how many people consider spammy usernames - as opposed to spammy edits - a problem that merits a block on its own. There is a sense of urgency at AIV that probably does not exist at UAA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• When I see a spammy username, I usually warn them via {{uw-coi-username}}. I then wait to see if they edit in a promotional way. If they do, I then report it to WP:UAA. I don't think we should block such usernames on sight; we need to give them an opportunity to comply our policies. It's when they prove they are not willing to comply that actions need to be taken. Unfortunately, that's had to happen more than 150k times (ref). --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, Jo-Jo Eumerus, there are certain "spammy" names that are really immediately blockable--obviously at UAA we don't just deal with the spammy ones, many of which fall under "name gives the impression that this is not an individual" or words to that effect. Those don't necessarily need to be blocked immediately, and at any rate we have a "soft" username block for that. That's not really my main concern. There's at least two problems here: in general, UAA is kind of overwhelming when it's backlogged. Having the template and block combined via Twinkle has helped, but the various filters deliver a lot of false positives, and I frequently skip those when I don't feel like it, since you have to open the edit window and remove them from a long list and run into edit conflicts etc--so frequently I just go for the obviously blockable ones. Judging from those lists I'm not the only to do so. Second, though, it would be a GREAT help if the admins who do the "other" work, esp. deleting spammy user pages, would check the account name; the ones I saw this morning were obvious candidates for a hard spam block. Every little bit helps, and this won't take care of the hard username violations (the troll and nazi names, etc.), but every little bit helps, since patrolling UAA is repetitive and boring, and sometimes depressing since you only see the worst of Wikipedia. For instance, I frequently check contributions, and in every session there's a set of contributions which leads to some high school hoax article that leads to more vandal accounts; it's not something that encourages happiness, but again, our colleagues can pitch in even without patrolling UAA. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I regularly worked UAA for several years and can't count the number of ties I've seen this type of thing, which is puzzling because it is so easy to just soft block spammers and move on. I eventually stopped working UAA directly and for a while was pretty much the sole curator of the holding pen, but I eventually quit doing that too, but I have no hesitation when it comes to blocking spam usernames. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Policies are just pieces of text. I don't think that softblocking accounts and wading through a number of username policy false positives is the kind of job that creates a sense of urgency, unlike AIV. That's my theory as to why the backlog happens, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate the call, though, to check for bad usernames when reviewing speedy nominations. (You're checking the article history before you speedy something anyway, right?) I go through the G11 queue with some frequency, and quite often, I find myself deleting a spamvertisement for "Acme Corporation" for the second or third time, written by user "AcmeCorp" or "ExamplePR" or whatever have you. If someone had done a {{spamublock}} the first time around, we could've saved some trouble, and it's my experience that at that point, a lot of these types realize "Oh, I'm really not supposed to do this stuff" and actually do quit rather than trying to sock around it. A few (though a very few) actually even request an unblock, agree to quit doing the spamming, and do some decent work in other areas. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive vandalism

This page is under continuous and repetitive vandalism. Plz be aware.Wikijavad (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Wikijavad, I'm perfectly willing to take measures, but the most recent edits were not vandalism; I had to go back a couple of days to find this one, which I presume is what you're talking about. Also, to request protection, please see WP:RFPP. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for User:Filipz123

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

---

• Filipz123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Filipz123 is a user who was blocked indefinitely back in March of this year for disruptively adding false nationality invention categories (especially asserting that Nikola Tesla's inventions belonged in Category:Serbian inventions) against consensus and frequently with unreliable sources or no sources at all. Since being blocked, Filipz123 has been the subject of 67 reports at SPI, editing with throwaway accounts and IPs in a series of known ranges to continue trying to force these disruptive categorizations and sometimes outright hoaxes through. This list of pages vandalized with these improper edits contained 720 articles and categories as of when I created it about a month ago; there would be more now if I took the time. Recently his socks have also started inserting blatantly copyright-violating material into articles (for example, this discussion from today). Not too long ago he started inquiring about how to contribute properly, myself and Andy Dingley have both tried in different ways to suggest ways to improve, but it's clear from his continued socking and now escalation to copyvios that his requests are not genuine at all, he's just trolling. Although the obvious result is that his indefinite block is never going to be lifted, I propose that we make it official that Filipz123 is banned from the site. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, obviously. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support I thought we'd got this far already. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I think he'll be pleased to be banned. More attention he doesn't deserve.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC) My apologies, there was a part 2 to this comment, but I'm making marmalade and got to the "stir constantly or suffer the sugary consequences" part. Yes, Filipz123 is likely to enjoy being banned. We have this conversation often, whether or not there's any point in adding a community ban to a user who is de facto banned anyway because of their behaviour and block log. I keep coming down in support: a user with no intention of reforming, with a siteban notice on their page, is much less likely to distract attention from the "any editor can reform" good-faith helper types like Andy and myself, as well as the "we can keep good edits from blocked users" reverting types (especially because of the recent escalation to copyvios), and will be less of a time waste overall. I do agree also that the action is pretty much entirely symbolic, but I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I might support the ban if you'd send me some of the home-made marmalade.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I want marmalade. Especially if it's Canadian, because it'll be extra nice. Katie^talk 17:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's got habanero peppers in it, and also some chunks of burnt stuff. Stir your marmalade, folks. [10] Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: This behavior is actully enough for a ban from the project. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support, no good reason not to, the user has caused so much disruption that I'm honestly a little surprised a long-term abuse case still has yet to be created. I also have reason to believe Filipz was or is going to try the standard offer. Please never unblock. Sro23 (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support per many of the above. A community ban will make it clear to people not familiar with the situation that he should be reverted/blocked on sight. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Does aligning oneself with other editors result in sanctions

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

---

On another user's Talk page, @JzG:/@Guy:, an admin, wrote "Sage, it would be extremely unwise to take up this offer. Robert is promoting a fake disease, and if you go down that route you will be aligning yourself with the pseudoscientists and woo-mongers, and that will get you a full site ban much more quickly than what you're doing now."[11]. It concerns me that an admin might take into account who one aligns oneself with in dealing out a full site ban (or indeed sanctions of any kind). I would have thought sanctions were about disruption to the project brought about by yourself, not who your friends are. Please note, I am not asking for any action here whatsoever, simply to gauge admin's opinions on whether it is a widespread view among admins that aligning oneself with certain people can lead to a site ban? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is absolutely silly. A new editor aligning themselves with problematic editors: acting as their lackey, or performing edits that they can't do themselves (following earlier sanctions) is very much likely to be sanctioned. If aligning oneself causes one to act in ways that are counter to the project—sanctions are appropriate, and this course is very clear in the linked discussion. The warning seems apt and I suggest an admin WP:SNOW-close this before we lose ourselves in debate over false interpretations. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my question. I did not mention acting as a lackey or meatpuppet which of course is sanctionable. I am asking whether simply aligning oneself with certain editor/s may attract sanctions. While you are, of course, free to edit here, I have specifically asked for the opinions of admins. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"That will get you siteban" not as a direct threat, but meaning "that is likely to lead you on the path to a siteban", which is a perfectly valid opinion and warning. Of course, you're free to disregard it and head down this path if you think there's nothing wrong with it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the comment was not aimed at me but at another user. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to the closer @Euryalus:. I did not immediately bring this to the noticeboard. I asked for clarification from JzG here.[12] He replied in that thread "I refer the hon. gentleman to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram." here[13] and on my Talk page with "See Arkell v. Pressdram. That is all." I am not entirely sure of the relevance of this link, but it appears JzG is telling me to "Fuck off". Could you please edit your closure to reflect that I attempted to clarify the statement before bringing it to this noticeboard.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Rather than amending the close, am happy to note here that you raised this directly before coming here. Will leave it in the close as a general piece of advice only and not relevant to you specifically. Btw for some reason the ping still didn't work, but thanks for trying it. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Motion regarding Doncram

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Doncram