Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 36 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 101 days ago on 14 August 2024)

Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 55 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	13	13
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	57	57
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 23 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted by ThadeusOfNazereth. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 311 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 23 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh good, I was also going to make this request. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC close review Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Iran, Hezbollah Reaction to American-led intervention in Iraq

I've discussed this with the closer on their talk page[1]. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The only expressed problem with the close that I see is "You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution." I don't believe the closure is required to specify a specific solution to make the article better. The closure expressed the consensus that the section should be included, and then suggested that it might be improved in the future. You can just ignore that second part or try to improve it, but it doesn't invalidate the closure. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The comment, "Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject." Seems to reference the conversation that took place between Myself and the final editor to comment. Yes you are right the closer does not have to provide a solution. When the closer suggested the same thing that was acknowledged. The closer is an uninvolved party their solely to determine the consensus based off the discussion of the involved party. A Good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not a head count. The issue discussed is not that the closer failed to provide a solution. The editor they seem to have referenced failed to provide said solution. More specifically the editor they referenced failed to make the case that Iran and Hezbollah's reaction to the 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is related to the 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Without the closer providing transparency I have no way of knowing how they determined the consensus. The only readily apparent reason is that the vote count is the reason.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

After reading that brief discussion, it seems to me that you didn't really ask for a rationale. Your first comment does indeed seem to say that your reason for requesting a review is that the closer didn't provide a solution. Only in the final comment do you mention vote counting, which is perhaps an indirect request for a rationale, but since Samsara hasn't edited since that time, I think they don't know about it rather than that they are refusing to provide transparency.

Also, you might want to know that I found it pretty hard to interpret your comments, and I'd suggest that's why this request hasn't been getting much attention. :-) Sunrise (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

When I first contacted Samsara I had asked them to review their close. Their close seemed to be based somewhat on comments by PointsofNoReturn. PointsofNoReturn suggested that a section could be written that on how Iran and Hezbollah feel about the 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq relates to the 2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Iran.2C_Hezbollah_Reaction_to_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The material was removed on the basis that it was not related to the Iranian-led intervention. The nominal subject is the Iranian-led intervention. There is a tangential relationship between it and the American-led intervention. They were asked to demonstrate or explain how they could link the two in the article as they suggested they could. They didn't respond.

I do not know that this is the rationale for Samsara close. After they suggested I take it for a close review I did respond once more. I did wait 4 days before bringing it here. It has now been more than 15 days.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266. Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I reckon the case here is not that complex it seems. To me, how the consensus is reached is questionable, when a user is reasoning why there should not be such a section and no response is made. I think this is why he asked Samsara to review the close. Although the closer is not responsible to explain what the solution is, he has to recognize if there is any consensus over the issue being discussed. Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open [2], it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.

Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 2¢ 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't guessed by now, the best solution is to do a real RFC instead. Because the last wasn't transcluded to a larger audience, I think it would be in good faith to do so. If your interest is finding a solution, to get input, to get a true answer from the community, that is your best option. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis were you going to actually address the arguments made about this closure being against policy or just continue ignoring them?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the timestamp, I had thought this was already archived.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the closer didn't understand the scope of the RFC and admitted to ignoring policies and policy based arguments in the RFC, there is also an issue of Forumshopping that was done on this topic by the creator of this local RFC. This issue has been brought up and discussed on multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages numerous times, with the creator trying to find some avenue or spin to insert Breitbart.com as a reliable source even though multiple editors in almost every discussion explained why it couldn't be used or explained specifically where it could be used. The RFC certainly didn't disclose these other noticeboard discussions.

RS Noticeboard

NPOV Noticeboard

RS Noticeboard again

RS Noticeboard again

Verifiability Talk Page

Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to a topic, but just do a search for "breitbart" or "Victor" and you'll see that's quite a bit of forumshopping.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267. Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to respond to the accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Scoobydunk as it relates to this RfC, here is how I see that it is not forum shopping:

RS Noticeboard: About the Blaze, not Breitbart

NPOV Noticeboard: An accusation by another user (not the RfC starter) that Breitbart.com is WP:Fringe and a very long quote is WP:Undue. (RfC was on if it is a WP:RS so it is a different topic)

RS Noticeboard again: Started by someone other then the RfC, closed almost immediately do to ongoing discussion on the talk page.

RS Noticeboard again: This was the RfC creator, but there was only one response and he was told: "Be bold! Include it and attribute it clearly" Not Forumshopping he was not creating the RfC to overrule this consensus (of 1 person), but because others had objections.

Verifiability Talk Page: Doesn't seem to be about the topic at all.

--Obsidi (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze discussion included discussion about Breitbart.com because the two were likened to each other. It was clear that the reliability of Breitbart.com was also discussed on this noticeboard post.

NPOV Noticeboard: This noticeboard also discussed the reliability of Breitbart.com and when/where specific quotes could be used. The subject was addressed and Forumshopping includes "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards". The issue was raised here and addressed here and the opener of the Rfc didn't like it, so tried to seek answers elsewhere. This is where I was an uninvolved editor and became involved.

RS Noticeboard again: This is still another example of trying to ignore what was said in previous noticeboards by "Raising essentially the same issue".

RS Noticeboard again Still another example of bouncing between noticeboard conversation to get a desired answer.

Verifiability Talk Page This is about the same topic and this is another attempt at finding a niche excuse to try and justify the inclusion of the desired source.

On another note, I did/am not currently accusing the opener of forumshopping, but am saying that this **issue** was being forum shopped. So who opened the other noticeboards is irrelevant to the fact that Breitbart.com was discussed on multiple noticeboards and generally rejected as a reliable source. The Rfc opener participated in all of those discussions and continued trying to manipulate the subject line to include the desired sources. Once the opener found the single answer they were looking for, they used it as a platform to include multiple different articles from the source in question that weren't covered under the scope of the Rfc. That's exactly the type of behavior that wp:forumshopping speaks against and is the type of behavior that would overturn a discussion close.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation from a disinterested Wikipedian. This conversation has been relisted again & again since mid-November without anyone except for the original poster (& Obsidi just a few hours ago) commenting on it. I'd say if no one has bothered to add their two cents to this, it's fair to conclude that a lot of Wikipedians tacitly agree that the discussion was closed properly. And I did look at the referenced discussion, & I'll go out on a limb to say that it had pretty much run its course: everything that could be said on the matter was said. All that saying that there was no consensus reached on this issue would achieve is to force everyone involved to repeat what has been said once again, & maybe get a little more emotional over the positions they have staked out. And I think it's fair to say that everyone involved in the discussion has better things to do than to hash out this discussion one more time.

But does this mean the discussion about citing this movie review from Breitebart.com is over? Is this fact stuck in this article for every & ever? Speaking again as a disinterested Wikipedian, I can see at least two further arguments that could be made to remove it, or replace it with one from another source. (I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.) Instead of Wikilawyering over whether this one discussion was properly closed -- or whether this properly fits some definition of "a reliable source" -- why not move forward & try to discover one of these arguments. Discussing them may not end up removing this one citation, but IMHO doing so would lead to improving this article. (And if I am right about this matter -- the discussion was properly closed -- maybe someone else would kindly close this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not this discussion would carry on is irrelevant to whether it was closed properly. None of the people who've commented on the closing of this article actually addressed the concerns/arguments as to why the close was invalid except for Obsidi who addressed only the forumshopping aspect. The point of a closure review isn't to get more opinions on the discussion, but to discuss if the closer was justified in their closing. When serious questions are raised as to whether the closer understood the scope of the discussion and understood how consensus is defined, then those points need to be addressed. The closer already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion and also used a "majority" excuse in justifying the close which is against WP policies regarding consensus. Consensus is not determined by majority vote, but by an analysis of the arguments presented and the policies in play. The closer admitted to ignoring arguments that are clearly supported by WP policy, which is not how a consensus is reached. Furthermore, there was no suggested consensus that people agreed upon, the closer merely treated it as a vote, which, again, against the rules regarding consensus. Also, this is not wikilawyering which is an attempt to use loopholes in WP policy to try and bypass other WP policies. Requesting a closure review is the next step in a process of a discussion available to all editors. A closure review is not some arbitrary WP policy that acts as a loophole. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to liken my participation in a valid step of dispute resolution as wikilawyering. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yu managed to find an opinion which was cited as opinion to come from a "QS" - where the general finding is that a major source is RS for opinions in any case - RS means they "did not make the opinion up" and that is what counts. The quote was majorly trimmed to meet objections of "undue" before this last series of objections, and the RfC close clearly allows it in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Llywrch: No, the RfC merely determined that Breitbart.com is a reliable source for a review from Breitbart.com. The question of whether a mention of the review should be included in the article is mostly separate, but the reasoning that Bb is not a reliable source for Bb was found not valid. HTH, Samsara 12:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza

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

---

We've been here before (here, for instance): Hoops gza's contributions to WP:UAA are greatly appreciated but also greatly overdone. Recent conversation is found at User_talk:Edgar181#Usernames. Recent examples include a username "Da Cow", which they wanted blocked for being the pronunciation for "Dachau"; "Ratbastardassn", which I think may mean an association of rat bastards and thus in reference to the user themselves; and "Bangminah" which I think they think is a way of saying "bang a minor". Other users/admins recently involved are Yngvadottir, Edgar181, Connormah.

The problem here is twofold: a. a lack of good faith on the part of Hoops in terms of what users intend their name to be or to mean, and related to that an overemphasis on the US English pronunciation of certain things ("Da Cow" being the best example); b. UAA is already backlogged on a regular basis and plowing through report after report is tedious, so if that work is made more difficult it is to the detriment of the project. I suggest, and I do this reluctantly, a topic ban for Hoops gza. Mind you, last time this came up I was not in favor of it, but after plugging away there for a few days, yeah. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the username policy is that it does not matter what the user's intentions are, but rather how the Wikipedia community interprets the username. For User talk:Da Cow 2.7 (you didn't spell the username correctly, ergo leaving admins unable to find it), an admin even requested that the user change the username (see the user's talk page for proof of this). For "Bangminah", I don't know what you're talking about - you are completely fabricating information about why I made that report. I never made a connection to "bang a minor", in fact I noted that Bang Minah is a famous person, and therefore this, too, in my estimation, is a username violation. I reported "Ratbastardassn" because it has the word BASTARD in it. That is an offensive word in the English language. If you look through the Users list (search "Bastard", for instance), you will see that usernames containing bastard and its variations are blocked on a regular basis as username violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lately, I've definitely noticed from Hoops gza both a high volume of UAA reports and a high error rate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

My main problems with the reports (for the umpteenth time it seems) is that many of them are borderline "violations" that are more subjective (not blatant and serious violations of policy) and that a great deal of the accounts have either never been used or have not edited in months to years - both points of which are in the guidelines at the top of UAA. I find myself pretty much in accordance with Drmies' two points. Connormah (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For Bangminah you said "offensive and disruptive", so don't give me that "famous name" jive: you said it was offensive. Bastard, as I responded at UAA, meh. Really. "Bastard" here is something the editor applies to themselves, so they're not trying to insult you. That I didn't spell out Da Cow's name completely is that there's no point to it, and that another admin said something too is immaterial. Your point about the user name list is immaterial. You've been asked before to stop interpreting these user names so narrowly and you couldn't. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I did not. I said offensive, disruptive, misleading and promotional, because it was all of those things. I pointed out and linked Bang Minah in my report, pointing out that it was a famous person. Now, as for "bastard", as I have said, take a look at the User list and search "Bastard" to see that we do indeed block bastard. After all, the dictionary defines it as a generalized term of abuse. We also block other expletives. Because they are offensive. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Judgment is required to work out when names need to be reported in order to avoid overwhelming the system. Hoops gza's enthusiasm is good, but the reports are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, I think a temporary restriction for Hoops gza on making reports to UAA is necessary. Numerous attempts to get Hoops gza to work within the guidelines for reporting usernames have not worked. Dealing with the bad reports takes too much effort away from handling usernames that are actually problematic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this has been raised several time before, but Hoops does not seem to be learning from experience. If he wants to work in this area, I suggest a three months' break during which he watches the page regularly to see which reports are accepted and which declined and why. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - and as JohnCD suggests, then look at the reports on the noticeboard (including how other reporting editors explain why they are reporting a name) and how they get handled. Also, I'd urge the editor to review the guidelines posted there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Hoops gza has been given ample opportunity to step back and better vet their reports at UAA, to no avail. It's time for a topic ban. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I can't fault this user's enthusiasm and good faith, but after a quick review of their edits to UAA I see a concerning pattern of newbie biting, failure to assume good faith of new users, and a regrettable attitude when asked nicely to take a little more care with their reports. Hopefully someone can step up to the plate and mentor this user, so their enthusiasm will not go to waste. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose If you want to ban him for being innacurate, you may as well as ban the bot that's filling up the bot side of that page, it's wildly inaccurate. Further, per "Da Cow", it's entirely possible that a user would try to escape notice by changing the spelling of a name so that it sounded like something else (i.e: "Dachau", "Da Cow"). So his posting wasn't out of line. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't mind the bot being sharpened up but that's a different thing. We have humans doing this work because they are supposed to have judgment, not just algorithms. Presuming "Da Cow" as a variation of [ˈdaxaʊ] is just silly. Yes, it's possible that et cetera. Sure--and then you have to make that argument for all the other cases. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Very weak support - personally I do find the "Da Cow" and "Ratbastardassn" usernames somewhat offensive, and had it been some other user filing the reports I would think that we all need to just chill out and give the good-faith reports due process. I don't think Hoops submitted these in bad faith, but having been previously asked to put more consideration into whether a report is necessary, and having apparently not done so, points to a misunderstanding of the policy and has caused much disruption on a frequently backlogged noticeboard. So only because the backlog is an issue do I support a temporary ban from UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Note Based on recent editing, the Rat Bastard user name is an artistic reference: Rat Bastard Protective Association. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Ponyo. NE Ent 22:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Yngvadottir: And a username containing "Nazi" might edit about Neo-Nazi organizations. What is your point? Would you not block the username containing "Nazi"? Ergo, are you saying that the word "bastard" is not offensive? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for Yngvadottir, of course, but no one brought up Nazis here. The word "bastard" in this context is not offensive enough to be blocked. You've been told this three or four times now; if you disagree, maybe you should try your luck at RfA and patrol that board 24/7. If you are successful I will argue to have this topic ban vacated, should it be issued. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes this use of the word "bastard" any less offensive? How does the inclusion of the word in the name of an organization make the word any less offensive? Could someone who is a native English speaker please answer? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Frankly, I think that Drmies has a vendetta against me. It was not a few weeks ago that I posted a slew of vandalism-only accounts to AIV. She took the time to block IP addresses that were reported after my reports, but she didn't take the time to check my reports. And now this, which may have been made in good faith. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• No vendetta. That I didn't look at some AIV reports while pursuing others means nothing--most likely I checked into a heavily vandalized article and when I got done with that took the dog for a walk. Or the chickens. Do feel free to post an AIV suggestion on my talk page and I will not fail to follow up if I can.

  "Native English"--thanks very much, I think I know English well enough. The problem isn't that I think you're reporting in bad faith: I don't think you are; I just think you fail to apply good faith and, frequently, common sense, to the users whose names you're reporting and from the looks of it I'm not alone. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Hoops gza: I am a native speaker of English (of a sort), for what it's worth. I share Drmies' feeling that "bastard" is just not terribly shocking, particularly when applied to the user him/herself. Also, I'd like to point out that being reported at UAA has the potential for big-time biting of new users who may unthinkingly be using nicknames or internet handles - or have names that sound unfortunate in English - or pronounce things quite differently from you - or have simply not thought it through that this moniker is going to follow them wherever they go in a vast database of edits (newbies tend not to know about contributions pages or article histories). And we don't have anything at sign-up that says "Wait! Don't use the name of your company because we have a rule against that!" And an awful lot of the names are already taken (the first four I tried were.) So this is a fairly sensitive area, which is why the rules highlighted at the top of the noticeboard: there's a risk of turning off or blocking well-meaning new editors, and we do like people to register user names. Does looking at that aspect of it help you understand? It's not just that you're making work for admins - I have to fulfil my quota somewhere or they may take my badge away '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support After going through Hoops gza's UAA reports from August and October, it's evident the the user is reporting usernames that at a quick glance seem to be known violations ie. "shit" which is a very common part of middle eastern sur/given names, also seems the user reports usernames that seem to be famous people, ie "ROBINWILlAMS"[sic] which is a famous person but, it's also too generic to be considered a UPOL. It's very evident the user needs to slow down and take a long review the username policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hoops gza, I think the moment an admin with five minutes to spare walks by here this topic ban will be implemented. Until now you've done nothing to alleviate our concerns; all you've done is argue we're wrong. The problem is that there is an overwhelming majority of users who believe that we are not wrong. If you want to keep on doing what you're doing, I think the best thing for you to do is to listen to what these editors/admins have to say. (Remember, it's admins that have to act on your reports--do you have any idea how much time it takes to clear a day's worth of reports?)

  If you can tell us that we may have a point and that you will take our concerns into consideration (something you haven't said yet) then perhaps this topic ban can be halted for now. That is my offer to you, based on your good intentions and our workload and concerns. But it will have to come with some detail, and you'll have to acknowledge the concerns we've had with various reports, like (the last time) the "nazi" names, for instance, and, recently, names like UWOTM9ILLHITU ("Deliberately confusing"). I would need to see a commitment to more care and more judgment--in general, not just with one or two particular examples. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closing as ban implemented. Consensus is clear that Hoops is trying to help, but it's also clear that Hoops is unintentionally causing more problems that are being resolved. Ponyo's comment is crucial, When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ilvon and copy and paste moves

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

Heading says it all really. They were advised here and warned here, haven't responded and are still at it. This is breaking many things (the first notice was because of a copy vio warning triggered by it) and just creating work for everyone, and has to stop.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, and am prepared to block if the violations persist, as they have shown no understanding of what they have done wrong. I should have time to fix up all the remaining stubs (by redirecting to the corresponding minor planet list per our guideline WP:NASTRO, since they are all non-notable anyways) tomorrow. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And they've done another copy-paste move. I've now blocked them indefinitely until they acknowledge that it is a problem If they do acknowledge it and promise not to do it, any admin has my permission to immediately reverse the block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Advice requested regarding mergers and moves of Bach articles (restored from archive)

I'm at my wits' end dealing with a situation with which I was asked to help, so I've decided to punt and bring it here for wider attention.

Gerda Arendt created articles on variant forms of Bach's Magnificat (or different Bach Magnificats) which Francis Schonken regards as undesirable forks. He added material from them to a previously existing article and then proposed them for merger. He then started a merger discussion, closed it in his own favor despite objections (one of which took the form of removal of a merger template) and implemented the mergers. Gerda brought the situation to me for review at User talk:Yngvadottir#Magnificat, where I eventually determined that a new merger discussion needed to take place, to be closed by a neutral party, and that Francis had not raised any compelling reason why the articles should not be reverted to their state prior to his implementing the merger, to facilitate that discussion. I announced that to that end I would be reverting his actions, and did so. (See my contributions for November 21, reverting edits by him earlier the same day.) He meanwhile left several messages on my talk, which I stopped to answer, and then began reverting me. I re-reverted him once and then left the situation after notifying all who I had seen participating in the former discussion, plus one who had appeared on my talk, and suggesting that one or more WikiProjects be notified. The new discussion is here. I have asked a couple of times subsequently whether the articles are now in a condition that facilitates the new discussion; the answer has not been clear, complicated by statements that Gerda had agreed to some part of what Francis did (and this is the point where my unfamiliarity with the topic and inability to keep strings of letters and/or numbers straight, which I believe makes me suited to acting neutrally in the dispute, becomes a disadvantage). However, I was concerned by this edit, in which Francis accuses me of involving myself in the dispute and demands I revert and censure others, and I now see edits such as this at the new merger discussion and this section on Gerda's talk (with an objection by another editor), in which Francis is in my judgement overstepping the bounds of civility. There was an earlier instance of his accusing Gerda of battleground tactics and reminding her, in my view inappropriately, of the ArbCom case concerning infoboxes: that concerned his moving an article on a mass, also by J. S. Bach, and is here in my talk page archives. I remain neutral on the issue(s): Francis obviously has relevant expertise and it might be that he is correct and can achieve consensus for his view. However, in my judgement he is making a fair discussion of the issue next to impossible, and Gerda's not chopped liver as an expert (or an article writer) either. I've considered re-reverting and massive application of protection, but I'm not sure I could get it all right even if that heavy-handed approach is appropriate. So I'm bringing this here for the consideration of more and wiser heads; I will now inform both editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I asked Yngvadottir because I wanted to avoid going to a noticeboard ... - Clarification: there is only one Magnificat by Bach, however he wrote two distinctly different versions, first (1723) in E-flat major (BWV 243a), then (1733) transposed to D-major (BWV 243). There are other differences outlined in the merge discussion. Even for works with fewer differences, it has become common practise, initiated by Nikkimaria in the summer of 2013, to have individual articles for all versions. I started such an article on the first version. The problem I see is that Francis first copied massively from the new article to the old one, only then demanded a merge to the old, when de facto he had merged already. I believe that we should have two articles, but need to decide how to avoid redundancy. I don't think we need admin action but a fair discussion of the proposed merge, keeping in mind that it happened already and would need to be reverted if consensus is against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

ps: reading it again, I think that Yngvadottir thought of several Magnificats because several redirects point to the two versions of the one. When I wrote the new article, Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, I moved the old one from Magnificat (Bach) to Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, to disambiguate by the different key, but think now that it was not necessary, because the later version is the one commonly performed today. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

pps: handle advice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, or the other half of the conversation at the other person's talk page. Pinging Francis Schonken to come here and explain himself. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, I got tired of beating my head against the wall with Francis Schonken, who seems to think that consensus is "whatevere I want." The failrue to collaborate and the tendency to edit against consensus - and to do rather poor quality editing when he does - is worrisome. The individual articles are not POV-forking, they are not stubs, and they all are fine as stand-alone pieces. Francis Schonken is creating a problem in search of an issue. Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd probably have agreed with a merge, but that's neither here nor there, because unless I'm misreading, it looks like Francis self-closed as favorable a merge proposal where two out of two other people had opposed the merge. Question - did anyone take this to a wikiproject? It's irrelevant to the behavior issue, but could help, or have helped, with content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Gerda stated that it was put to the WikiProject but there was little interest. As to your reading of the first discussion, Roscelese, that's what I see too. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Merge?, I took it there, it was changed and restored. To find the actual discussion, on the redirect which Francis would like to make the article title, you have to follow his closing comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• The merge discussions are way too long, for my taste. The question he raised was if BWV 243a should be merged into BWV 243, - a version before he started copying into it from the other. To first create "his" version and then request that what he copied from should be redirected makes no sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Works by Bach have been mentioned. His major works have a general article and a specific one for the structure, for example Mass in B minor vs. Mass in B minor structure. The splits started when featured article Messiah (Handel) had no room for details on the music, and I created four supporting articles, such as Messiah Part II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have restored this section from the archives since Francis Schonken has now asked me to perform a merger while the discussion at Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion continues. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please see my close of the merge discussion at Talk:Magnificat_(Bach)#Merge_discussion, and let me reiterate that the behavior of Francis Schonken is well below the level one would expect. Any future edit warring will be met with a block, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Chamath237 uploading copyrighted images

User:Chamath237 has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images on Wikipedia despite numerous warnings (see talk page). His latest upload was taken from this newspaper website. He has been banned indefinitely from Commons for the same issue.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Few of those deletions were relevant; most of them were unrelated to copyright or were for items already marked as nonfree, e.g. File:Nadra.jpg. All I see is Maithripala and File:SLTB luxury bus.jpg, and we shouldn't block for just two. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Need advice: How to handle a banned sock who is also a BLP

I am bringing this question here in the hopes of getting some sound advice from administrators experienced in sock puppet and BLP matters. A semi-notable scientist has gotten himself banned for using various IP addresses, etc., to edit the Wikipedia article about him. There are, however, serious BLP concerns about the article that deserve to be addressed. He has posted those concerns at BLP/N using an IP address and self-identified himself as the article subject. Another editor struck the comment by the banned IP user. Please note, I am not alleging any wrongdoing by the editor who struck the IP user's comments. If the banned IP user had posted anywhere else other than BLP/N under these circumstances, I would probably have struck the comments myself, as is the common practice. However, given the circumstances, I wonder if this was appropriate. Should we not be encouraging a concerned BLP subject to bring their concerns to BLP/N, rather than punishing them by striking their concerns (even if they are a banned sock)? I can only imagine the frustration of the banned IP user at this point, who no doubt feels that he is caught in some sort of Kafkaesque web he does not understand. I would appreciate some feedback. For those seeking more background, please see the BLP/N discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question about content and source in a BLP article on Ariel Fernandez. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerned subjects should not get themselves banned, so that they can avail themselves of the article talk page, BLP/N, etc. Failing that, there's always info-en-q@wikimedia.org... Bobby Tables (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As Bobby Tables, they can also view the whole section on advice at WP:Contact_us_-_Subjects. Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That e-mail is handled by WP:ORTS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bobby, theoretically I agree with you: don't get banned/blocked. The common reality of the situation -- which I have now witnessed multiple times -- is an article subject attempts to make changes, or even simple factual corrections, to the article about them, and then they get banned/blocked because they chose a user name that identified them as the article subject. (Some then compound that error by socking.) Most article subjects have little or no understanding of internal Wikipedia policies and procedures -- why would they? I have witnessed merciless blocking/banning with little or no talk page explanation under these circumstances, and I have also witnessed the community controversies that are sometimes generated when a BLP article subject learns the WP rules and strikes back. It seems we should have better procedures for handling what is a relatively common problem. I have encountered a number of BLP subjects over the last five years, and once I have explained the applicable WP guidelines and policies, I have often found them to be a helpful resource in improving the articles about them -- they are often aware of bona fide reliable sources about themselves. Most BLP subjects just want to get the basic facts of their bios correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find it hard - as a very experienced editor - to navigate Wikipedia's help pages, so I'd suggest providing the person with a fair bit of leeway here. It would be best to direct them to an off-Wiki means of communication though, if only for the sake of protecting their privacy. Bobby, I can think of a few instances where notable people ended up blocked while trying - in good faith - to amend their article to remove BLP issues, so your comment is a bit harsh. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The first thing that came to my mind was User talk:Jimbo Wales, where banned users are welcome to present their case directly to him. This seems like the exact drama that Wales' talk page is generally known for addressing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

fwiw i was involved in the last eruption of Ariel Fernandez back in October, which led to the semi-protecting of the article about him and a couple of days of drama. Ariel knows very well how to work all the boards and how to email WMF. I have been in email touch with him all day, until this afternoon when I told him i was done with him. he knows how to email editors. I think leaving one post from him at BLPN, struck (like this) is reasonable for people who are kind of new to the issues with him, but all other posts should be deleted. i would even say revdelled but i wouldn't want to waste anybody's time with that. Key point is 'he lost his privileges - after tons and tons of warnings. As a WP user he is not "poor little" anything - he has made many many SOCKs and in SPI discussions has outrageously lied (those of you who have seen SPI discussions know how that can go) and his editing has been relentlessly self-promotional. 100% WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's really not a good idea to keep this discussion going in such a public forum. If they wish to use the talk page or BLPN and don't cause disruption, we should allow them, but their best bet is OTRS—info-en-q@wikimedia.org. OTRS agents have a lot of experience dealing with article subjects and working with them to address what issues there are while patiently explaining that we don't write puff pieces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone wonder if maybe the subject's BLP concerns were addressed that maybe he wouldn't keep socking? Just a thought. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Constituencies of Pakistan

So I thought I'd try to get back into article content this morning. Clicking the 'Random page' link took me to Constituency MR-1, one of over 120 stubs for constituencies of Pakistan, all apparently non-notable. What's the best way of dealing with this sort of thing? I've gone through and added over 30 of them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency MR-1, but, TBH, life's too short, and there's a beach just over there that I think would be much improved by me being on it. Is there some better way through this? GoldenRing (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do would be to make a list of all of them; asdd that list to the said AFD; and tag them all with AWB (if you can't do it yourself, leave a note at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks linking to a full list). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for Blastikus

With the upcoming unification of these two SPIs[3][4] along with recent sock activity, I propose a site ban for Blastikus (talk · contribs) (the master sock).

Blastikus' voluminous screeds, sometimes spanning pages, have a recognizable style. He had been using WP as a soapbox for anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories,[5] eventually receiving an indef block for "trolling, disruption or harassment".[6] Socking followed.[7]

Pottinger's cats (talk · contribs), though it never officially connected to Blastikus until now, was another sock that edited fringe topics (Vitamin C megadosing, orthomolecular medicine, and others), including an 84K (!) sprawling rant about the New World Order.[8]

As 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) he was blocked twice for warring and disruptive editing at orthomolecular medicine, and later topic banned from fringe science.[9] His ban appeal exhibited the same kind of fringe science screeds that got him banned.[10] Through other IPs he violated his topic ban, proclaiming "I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban" and saying that admins "do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems".[11] He was blocked for violation of the ban. As another IP he continued pushing fringe science, resulting in another block.[12]

Most recently he was making a large number of fringe POV-pushing edits to Gustav Geley, along with his characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page.[13]

The new SPI connects to a global account which is currently going hog wild at wikiversity. Maybe we don't care about wikiversity, but if some of us do, then an additional reason for an enwiki site ban is that it will permit the wikiversity community to cite precedent, if/when they need to deal with him. Manul 09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban as proposer. Manul 12:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I support the ban from Wikipedia, but due to his fringe interests I suggested for him to get involved with a paranormal encyclopedia, he may have taken my advice. Goblin Face (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• The user is blocked indef and will continue to be blocked if his behaviour continues, so I'd consider him banned already. Yes bans mean we can revert whatever he does, but haven't his edits been reverted on the spot already? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a procedural thing. Support ban 218.106.157.150 (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse siteban. He's already de facto banned in that no sysop with a lick of sense will unblock him. Might as well make it easier to revert his edits on sight. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Against ban. I can't see why writing at length in support of an edit should a problem, in circumstances where making the case properly demands consideration of considerable detail. No-one is forced to read it all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The reasons for the ban are not appropriately summarized as "writing at length". Manul 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the phrase 'characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page', which seems to be regarded as bad (or at any rate written with the intention of influencing people against him). In any case, a lot of the case against Blastikus seems to be based on the assumption that anyone writing in a somewhat similar style to him is him, an assumption that in law would be characterised as 'unsafe'. The more one looks into this, the weaker the case for a ban seems to become. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the evidence for block evasion is unequivocal, as can be seen in the SPIs. Writing style is just one facet of the body of evidence. After reviewing the SPIs, you could confirm the findings by googling the real name in the latest SPI. He isn't shy about admitting the socks, both on-wiki and off-wiki. Manul 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Close required for Media Viewer discussion

Moved from ANI NE Ent 11:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We need a closer at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2, both sections should probably be closed together. These were previously closed as no-consensus, but after discussion, the close was reverted. Now it needs to be re-closed, please. (This just might be why no one wants to be an administrator) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and if I were inclined to close it then I would be inclined to close Question 1 as Pass (remove Media Viewer as the default) and Question 2 as No Consensus or Pass (minus point 6). Given the number of people who actually voted in either question, I might be inclined to close both as No Consensus though: a decision of this magnitude deserves as much representation from the community as possible. Were I an admin, I would take the time to properly read all the comments and make a formal decision, but I am not and so I will just voice my opinion and defer it to an actual administrator. demize (t · c) 16:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No one in their right mind would touch that. It's not an RFC, it's a WP:POLEMIC. We all know that "Consensus is not voting" is an oversimplification (it's voting, it's just weighted voting), but many of the supports didn't ever bother to make up a reason or toss in a perfunctory per nom. Many of the comments don't even address the question at all, but rather simply disparage WMF. Sure, Media Viewer annoys me, too, and back in August User:Erik Moeller (WMF), was a PR disaster, but an RFC supported by 75 of 122,731 active users with many of the voters not addressing the actual issue is not going to carry much weight with WMF. If you have concerns about MV, go to mw:Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About and discuss them there with the WMF with maturity and respect. NE Ent 11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It would be better if this was advertised better to the entire community. I don't recall any advertising of it, but then again it may have been advertised before I came back to the project. Either way, I likely wouldn't have voted: there was no neutral option, and that's what I would have voted, if at all. My guess is most of the 122,731 have the same opinion as I do. The thing to do might be close this as no consensus, which amounts to giving in to the Media Viewer (which it appears isn't really much of an issue for most of the editors here). If someone really wants to start another RFC, then it should run longer and invite the participation of more editors. But first it should be established that the WMF is going to listen to the results. demize (t · c) 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, the WMF has made it very clear that they are not interested in discussing this with us. On meta:Talk:Community Engagement (Product)/Media Viewer consultation, started to address the many concerns people had with the MV, the opt-in discussion was (politely) deemed off-topic by User:Keegan (WMF), then (impolitely) removed from the Community Engagement Consultation[14] (those three words and the WMF really aren't a happy marriage), and then again by User:Whatamidoing (WMF)[15]. This move then started an edit war between Whatamidoing and an IP user, with eventually other similar sections bein re-removed with blatantly incorrect "rvv" edit summary[16], or with totally false edit summaries[17]. This from the "community liaison"... Not suprisingly, the page where the WMF peple wanted to shove that discussion, [18], got a lot less discussion about this topic. Burying this again was nearly achieved by that move, if it hadn't been for people willing to editwar with WMF employees on the wikimedia site... So, basically, NE Ent, discussing this there is totally useless, and the creators of this RfC were quite correct to discuss it here. We should close it based on what enwiki has expressed, not based on what WMF will think of it or do with it. Fram (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it has no basis in policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash your arguments for or arguments the Rfc. CONEXCEPT doesn't mean that we can't have an RfC to decide our position anyway; CONEXCEPT means that in some cases, the WMF may ignore it. Arguing that an RfC is invalid because it may be toothless is not correct. But you have stated this in the oppose section already, whichever admin or admins close this will see it there. Fram (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No. You have not provided a policy basis, and policy is to the contrary. WP:VPT says that software "feature requests" are submitted for determination elsewhere not to an RfC. CONEXCEPT says that the WMF position takes "precedence" and "preempts" any such claim of consensus. NOVOTE says things are not determined by vote. IDONTLIKEIT says RfC claims that you don't like it don't matter. CONLIMITED says RfC results don't override policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because the WMF may ignore it does not mean a consensus cannot be determined. 165.91.13.252 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not say "ignore", the policy on consensus says "precedence" and "preempt". To have a valid wp:consensus, that which takes precedence or that which preempts is first taken into consideration - it is "pre" not "post". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A valid consensus can end with a consensus of "no action", or just with the Wikipedia community agreeing on something. Just because the action that a consensus agrees upon is prohibited by the WMF, or the consensus is ignored, does not mean that it is invalid. Invalid implies an error in determining the consensus, such as a loaded question. I find that there should be a consensus in this issue, and that there should be no problem determining one, even if it is one that will not be able to be carried out. In that case, the consensus is such that, "if it were possible... blah blah". 165.91.12.181 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No. For a wp:consensus to be valid it must accord with wp:consensus policy. It makes no sense for you to say, 'if we had some other consensus policy (one that does not have precedence and premeption clauses), the consensus according to that imaginary policy would be . . .' Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Solely because regularly scheduled programing was preempted, or was preceded in urgency by a Presidential Address, is it no longer regularly scheduled? No. As in this case - consensus can be formed, but the implementation of it may be stopped because the WMF as their "judgement" precedes the consensus. Nothing in the relevant statement: "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus." says that there can be no consensus. In fact, the wording of this shows that it applies when there is consensus. Please point me to the sentence that says "If the WMF makes a decision, there can be no community consensus on the right course of action." 128.194.3.181 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The program does not take place as scheduled and your analogy is irrelevant - taking "precedence" in consensus is taking the lead to be followed, "preepmt" consensus means that that any claim of consensus to the contrary is prevented in its happening from the start. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I closed this origionally, and would happily reclose it again if people can agree, with a bit more explanation, my original close as "no consensus" would be fine in this instance. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be smart if you reclosed it, no matter if your conclusion would be right or wrong. Fram (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Media Viewer RfC Question 2. Someone else want to tackle #1? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. I requested the closer either do a full close or withdraw the fragmented close. Note that part 1 issues an immediate call to implement, a "no consensus" on part 2 eliminates the 7 day bar against implementation. Clear consensus on part 2 can be reached by dropping the final bullet point from part 2. Alsee (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to Ban GTKRWN14882014, and I suggest semiprotecting the draft for GamerGate

Blatent vandelism to the draft by user:GTKRWN14882014. Only other edit is vandelism to the Gamer article. Sorry If I put this in the wrong place. I'm still quite new. HalfHat 15:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

diffs

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=636458926 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Gamer&oldid=636458258

Blocked for vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Request to review conduct of a Page Banned editor

Hey all, LogFTW, who is to my understanding subject to a 6 month ban from editing at Module Syrian Civil War detailed map, has recently reverted an edit of mine on said page. I have opened a discussion of his and another user's conduct on the talk page here. Thanks for your time. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

GG sanctions / Brad Wardell

Per advice I was given in the Teahouse, I am posting here to discuss.

I propose to add the Gamergate sanctions tag to the article for Brad Wardell, on the basis that he has recently been involved in a much-talked-about Twitter exchange with Zoe Quinn, and the page subsequently appears to have been vandalized recently (looks like it was revdelled) after a period of inactivity. I worry that more such attacks may be on the horizon.

Are there any objections?

76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As one who penned the GS/GG, I'm not seeing a reasonable case based on the text and the comments to justify enrolling the page. If the juvenile vandalism continues, request page protection is one of the least ways to protect the contents from drive by vandalism. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll keep it in mind and be on the lookout for more vandalism. Agreed that the sanctions only make sense if there's more significant contention over article content. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (Xenophrenic)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 7.1 ("Xenophrenic topic-banned") and Remedy 7.2 ("Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect") of the Tea Party movement decision are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the relevant enforcement provision, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.

Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Appealing my topic ban

Hi. I was banned for removing the words "and aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control, beginning with Iraq and the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." from the lead section of the ISIS article. This does not appear in any sources (most significantly, the first part, "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control"). Each time I removed it I opened a discussion, pointing out that it is not in any sources. Others agreed (not surprisingly), most recently here on my talk page. I have appealed here to the imposing administrator, who sent me here. As I mentioned to him, it seems to me that whoever complains to the edit warring noticeboard is assumed to be right. If I was guilty of edit warring by removing the fictional statement 3 times, over the course of several weeks, then surely the editor who immediateley replaced the fiction each time (and reported me for edit warring each time) is at least equally guilty? I opened a discussion each time, so my editing is not "disruptive" by any stretch of imagination, whereas replacing a fictional statement surely is disruptive! zzz (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This dispute is about the lead of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an article which is under the WP:GS/SCW sanctions. The case was twice at the 3RR noticeboard:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive262#User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked) November (48 hour block)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Topic ban) December

The best summary of the sequence of events is the list of points 1-10 at the beginning of the December report. As you can see, Signedzzz won't accept the view of the other editors that their statement about ISIL in the lead is adequately sourced. In my opinion, this is a matter for editor consensus and Signedzzz won't defer to the consensus. He seems to be defending his right to keep reverting indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually EdJohnston - he's been at 3RR notice board 3 times, you missed the one between the two you listed. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I endorsed the ban before it was imposed. The edit warring report was not just about the latest edits zzz made to the article. I blocked zzz on November 17 for 48 hours for violating WP:1RR on the same article. zzz's latest edits were the continuation of a pattern of misbehavior. In addition, putting aside the disruptive nature of the edits themselves, you can see both here (above) and at AN3 an argumentative denial attitude, "I've done nothing wrong", "It's not disruptive", "It's not sourced", etc. zzz even claimed that another editor agreed with him when in fact the other editor felt that zzz was being disruptive. The 3-month ban is a mild sanction for the conduct. This subject area is controversial and this article in particular even more so. The sanctions were put in place to control this kind of behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it a "consensus" when other editors agree with me that the statement is unsourced? By the way: there is still no source produced by anyone that backs the statement. Here an editor says "zzz Its a good point that we either need a citation for this or to make a correction." And here a different editor says "I am as concerned about citations for that whole section of the Lead as you are."

The editor who reported me is, in fact, the one who is "defending his right to keep reverting indefinitely." - here where he says "Your choice Signedzzz - you want to continue to delete the same content over and over or you going to stop?". zzz (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing about my planned behavior - I was very correctly questioning zzz's planned behavior. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If it is "disruptive" to remove an unsourced statement, with an appropriate edit summary, while opening a discussion on the talk page each time, (eg. here where several proposed improvements are casually dismissed, with a complete disregard for sources, by the same editor who reported me this time) then what is the non-disruptive way to remove an unsourced statement? zzz (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

zzz's diffs, just as at AN3, are misleading. Gregkaye later made a much more complex statement about the language and the sourcing here; plus there was additional discussion disgreeing with zzz, from Greg and from others. At AN3, Greg said about zzz: "Edit warring with later appeals to talk page apparent." (classic edit warring, btw) Greg endorsed a ban at AN3 here (the suggested ban was overly broad). As for zzz's question, removal of allegedly unsourced material is not a defense to edit warring. How do you do it in a non-disruptive way? You obtain a consensus from other editors that the material should be removed. (This assumes the removal is controversial, as it is here; many removals of unsourced material are straightforward.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So, if at least one editor says "no, I want to keep the unsourced statement", then the unsourced material has to remain? And it is "edit warring" to suggest otherwise? zzz (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We have the {{uw-unsor1}} through {{uw-unsor4}} series for a reason; if someone's persistently adding unsourced claims, and they won't listen when you talk about it, request a block. Nyttend (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. I had forgotten that I had written that content.

Signedzzz, I hit edit conflict re your previous report and the following did not get to be considered:

In that case I'd suggest a block for any particular length of time might accompany a topic ban. This is in relation to edits on the Boko Haram article, a group whose name means "British colonial (western style) education is a sin":

• Revision as of 10:35, 3 December 2014 Gregkaye - I added Category:Islamic extremist groups restricting education
• Revision as of 14:27, 3 December 2014 Signedzzz - (Undid revision 636443095 by Gregkaye (talk)unsourced/inaccurate)
• Revision as of 18:34, 3 December 2014 Gregkaye - (Undid revision 636462103 by Signedzzz (talk) undid disruption, please read text: Western education has always been dismissed as ilimin boko; a school that teaches Western education is makaranta..)
• Latest revision as of 21:04, 3 December 2014 Signedzzz - (Undid revision 636491546 by Gregkaye (talk)they don't "restrict education")

I find this last reply amazing. There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram. A simple search on "boko haram" education curriculum gave About 227,000 results with notable pages to start being of news reports of the group attacking and closing down schools with reports clearly stating a connection to the groups anti Western education philosophy.

At this point I would suggest that the ban be extended to all Islam related organisations designated as terrorist as per Wikipedia's List of designated terrorist organizations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye Please could you provide a source stating that Boko Haram have restricted education? zzz (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@zzz please could you adopt the way of working to also check things yourself and debate issues ... before they get raised with you. My text above starting "I find this last reply amazing..." gives a clear indication of how the content could have been verified. Please search deep. Are you familiar with the meaning of "Boko Haram"? It is fairly common knowledge. How did it come about that you decided to revert? Was there ever an option that you might have checked and added the less than needed citation yourself? I know that you are well aware of the nature of this encyclopaedia and appeal to you to fully take on its goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye You say that "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram". Since I started editing that article at the start of July, there has been no mention of "restricting education" whatsoever. Please could you specify which part of the talk page you have read that discusses this? zzz (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I am of course familiar with the name. They are opposed to Western education. That does not necessarily mean that they actively restrict access to education. Can find a reliable source that says that they do? I can only find this which goes on to say

"Boko Haram said that the social media campaign was also a strong motivating factor in formulating the truce. “Some of the tweets were very touching … [they] brought tears to our eyes,” the spokesperson said."

The truce in question never in fact occurred: this article is clearly not a reliable source. zzz (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Affirm If what you are saying “This does not appear in any sources” was true, I would support you. I don’t believe it to be true. The article references two reliable sources that I find to specifically say what you claim doesn’t exist:

Bakr al-Baghdadi “used his prison contacts to take over an al Qaeda–aligned militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq… al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims”[19]

"Q: What is [ISIS]’s goal? A: Islamic State and its Iraqi leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, primarily aims to establish a radical Sunni Islamist state in the Levant region of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus and Southern Turkey." [20]--Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The second source is fine for the Levant region. The first source was brought to my attention yesterday. al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims: this is not the same thing as saying "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control". zzz (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I brought this citation to your attention yesterday as that is what I thought, and said so on the ISIS Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that is almost exactly the same thing. That he is the person who should have political, military, and religious control over all muslims. When you declare yourself their leader that means you should have control. --Obsidi (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See this source: an ISIS spokesman saying “We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will ≠raise the flag of Allah in the White House”. So, you could say that they want to take over America. In fact, you would have better evidence of this, since since they have specifically stated it. This may seem pedantic, but this is an encyclopaedia, so it should be when it comes to stating things as facts. zzz (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think "raise the flag of Allah in the White House" means? If it literally means what they are saying then yes that is saying that eventually their long term goal is to control the united states. That doesn't mean they are going to try to accomplish that right now. The question is, does the reliable source say that it, and in this case it does. If you wish to phrase it slightly differently gain consensus, if you editwar in without consensus you eventually get topic banned. --Obsidi (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The reliable source says he claims to be the political and military leader - already. Not that he aims to control. These are two different things. The article states the latter. The source does not support this. zzz (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• That is absolutely accurate. Editors sometimes do not read citations properly or carefully enough, in my experience. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is original research to say "aims to bring Muslim areas under its control", and it directly implies that ISIS would not be interested in controlling non-Muslim areas of the world. zzz (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

zzz Re: "You say that "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram"." Please consider, are you really, honestly serious about this? Please think of a word connected with education that you might use to search through the talk page and article content and see what you come up with. Think on your feet. Don't expect to be spoon fed by others while wanting to take no responsibility for the article than to passively delete. Do some checking yourself. The word used in Wikipedia for the removal of valid content is vandalism. I think that you went way over the line here. My question earlier (one of my questions earlier) was, are you familiar with the meaning of "Boko Haram"? Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, there hasn't been any discussion about this on the talk page. Maybe you should have a look - before claiming that there has been. zzz (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, you apparently didn't read my reply above. Here it is again:

I am of course familiar with the name. They are opposed to Western education. That does not necessarily mean that they actively restrict access to education. Can you find a reliable source that says that they do? zzz (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor suggested a few rounds ago that zzz not be allowed to edit the article until he read the article and all the sources. The content he keeps attacking is in the lead - a thinking person would look at content in the article and sub articles spun off Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Territorial claims, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Declaration_of_.22Islamic_State.22_.28June_2014.29, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Ideology_and_beliefs, ISIL_territorial_claims and even Levant (where you will find the exact same list of countries·in a different order, including Israel which yesterday zzz says is incorrectly in the list and is not a traditionally Muslim area! Is the Arab-Jewish conflict the result of a factual geographic misunderstanding?) zzz attacks a core concept necessary for understanding ISIL - world domination. They want to rule all muslims, as Baghdai said - "Obey me" - and they want to kill everyone else.

As for Boka Haram restricting access to education...how about "Cameroon officials have shut down over 130 schools near the Nigerian border over Boko Haram concerns... The Muslim extremists have increasingly targeted boarding schools, college campuses, secondary schools, and other educational facilities across Nigeria." or "For years, Boko Haram fighters have been attacking schools, churches and other targets, killing scores, including male students." or from Yobe State school shooting "Since 2010, Boko Haram has targeted schools, killing hundreds of students. A spokesperson said such attacks would continue as long as government soldiers continued to interfere with traditional Koran-based education. More than 10,000 children are no longer able to attend school due to attacks by the Boko Haram." Yup, Boka Haram is a regular Ministry of Education.

A complete unwillingness to follow sources, nonsense edits, long useless discussions (including this one) and a steadfast desire to edit war makes zzz a liability to Wikipedia. A 48 hour block did not help. a topic ban leads to more of the same nonsense here on another related topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"unwillingness to follow sources, nonsense edits... ": diffs, please. zzz (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Look up on this page ^^^ Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is original research to say "aims to bring Muslim areas under its control" - and it directly implies that ISIS would not be interested in controlling non-Muslim areas of the world. (See above, on this page) zzz (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support extending the topic ban to all Islamic terrorist organisations per Gregkaye above. GoldenRing (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Well anyway, Nyttend's comment makes sense to me, I think I see where I went wrong now. Thanks, all. zzz (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@zzz The problem is not contesting edits but the hacking of clearly relevant sections of content. As you know a procedure, regarding non category related content, when wanting clarification is to add a citation needed tag. This is a common Wikipedia way of working. Question: what would you do with the perhaps aptly named article Handle (grip). There are no citations. There are over 10,000 Wikipedia articles similarly marked as without citation. Listed articles nos 9,501 - 10,000 are shown here. What would you have us do with these? I have gone to the effort of finding the references and am asking you this question because I really want you to get some perspective on these issues. I also agree with Nyttend, "We have the {{uw-unsor1}} through {{uw-unsor4}} series for a reason". They are for tagging content and raising debate. Whichever areas of Wikipedia that you are in future permitted to edit I hope that you will be able to keep these approaches in mind. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

References

References

SEO spam attack

For information - [21]. Please keep your eyes out for this kind of link addition; Could we get a edit filter or something to stop this sort of thing? --Mdann52talk to me! 16:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how we could. Without checking the URL, there's no way to distinguish between a legitimate deadlink fix and a Matthew Woodward edit. The best course of action, as I see it, is to deal harshly with someone doing this: block immediately and without prior warning, and blacklist the URL. If I caught someone doing this, I'd be likely to leave a block message of "you've been blocked for following Matthew Woodward's advice, and your site has been blacklisted. You will not be unblocked." No need for {{spamblock}} or instructions on getting unblocked; you can't perform this kind of edit in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I found out through this through OTRS originally; I sent them a strongly worded email back advising them not to try and do this again. I am aware of one editor actually doing this; Look on the page mentioned in the article. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The only way I could see a filter working for this is if one logged anytime {{Dead link}} (or templates that redirect to that template) are removed from a page. The filter couldn't be used to block or prevent the removal, as it requires someone to actually review the content of the new link to determine if its an appropriate new link. But a log would at least provide visibility to where this is happening.

If a filter log shows enough incidents of this method of abuse, the filter log could also be used as justification to support creating a new report in the special pages - one that reports when a requested template, or category, or wiki-link has been removed from a namespace. But at this point, there may be insufficient evidence of abuse to justify a developer working on such a special page addition (although it could be brought up at WP:VP to get consideration). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me as particularly hard to monitor/enforce this any differently than we would monitor for other forms of spam. If someone is good at SEO, it's feasible a user unrelated to the spam site making a good faith attempt to fix the dead link would find the SEO-ed site through a search engine or any of the other places the marketers are "updating" links. Trying out a filter for removing a deadlink tag sounds like a good idea -- even if it's less indicative of abuse than most other filters I've seen this sort of tactic several times just in the last year. What about -- and I realize I'm veering more into village pump territory -- a bot/tool that looks for similar urls or unwhitelisted domains across a user's edits? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

[ec] So you're thinking of a tag that's comparable to HHVM or mobile edit, just making a mark and being logged without alerting the user in question? Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was originally thinking along the lines of a filter that quietly logs at Special:AbuseLog - although those are harder to monitor. Now that you mention it, a new tag added to Special:Tags may be the better solution as it would give visibility on the watchlist. There are already tags for removal of other types of templates; so this would seem a good fit for that area. ---- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A big difference is the nature of the link changes; Woodward was replacing official governmental URLs with URLs for vacation resorts. This isn't the kind of thing that's done by good-faith editors. Yes, perhaps we'll have some grey areas, but that's where we have to exercise discretion, and that's why we have to do it with humans instead of bots. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That's true but little tags in the edit summaries alongt the lines of "speedy deletion template removed" will be helpful with that task.

Would it be possible though to add a sort of hardcoded temporary __NOINDEX__ that is triggered whenever a "dead link" template is removed (or even better: if the next url preceding a "dead link" tag is changed)? Woodward's method would appear inattractive if the pages in question are actually not indexed for a period of, let's say 3 weeks. And it wouldn't hurt a lot to have these articles "fly under the radar" SE-wise because people looking for Wikipedia content can still use our built-in search function. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I expect that this would require a bot or a major software change; it's not something that the current software can do automatically. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically, all external links from Wikipedia articles are already tagged with "no follow" - it's hardcoded into this site. So this would be redundant. In the end, it's up to users to catch this type of abuse; and any potential tags would help flag changes for review so they are at least a bit harder to sneak them through when no one is looking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 January 15#Trying_to_understand_nofollow; nofollow seems to be a bit weak. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We can probably add a tag to each removal of the dead link template by new/unregistered users. Experienced users are far less likely to use it. I also suggest noindexing the new webpages whenever such an edit is performed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(Edit: Oh, that won't work. The source says "To help us fly under the radar you should edit a couple of other articles first over the next few days." So, we need a filter to catch newly autoconfirmed users as well, or just no nothing to the tags and just revert the spam links as they come out.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a read of some of the comments after the article and a relevant point was made. I'll quote "You could mention that for other languages the query differs (which makes sense) so for German – for example – it would be something like: site:de.wiki.x.io "keyword" "nicht mehr abrufbar"" It would be worthwhile if there are admins and editors who use the other language wikis to raise this on the appropriate noticeboards perhaps even as a general notice up to the foundation about this sort of thing. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice left at the German admins' noticeboard, in English, since they'd have to speak English to understand Woodward's page. I didn't know where else to advertise it, so I didn't. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys beat me to it. I've left a summary in German over there explaining Woodward's tactics. De728631 (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Google claims that "nofollow" prevents a link giving any value to the link destination.[22]. However, comments from the SEO community indicate that might not be true.[23]. Clearly, the people behind this link spam think it is a useful SEO tactic. John Nagle (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Even without a direct value as a backlink, the link has a value for the spammers - it can give a bit of direct traffic, and it is easier to convince other websites to link to their site.

The Eyepiece edits happened after the article was published - I guess it has been tested on other pages as well, this is just the most obvious one. --mfb (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

At the beginning of this discussion, I reverted the other edits made by Woodward (Special:Contributions/Tomofm2) but haven't known where else to look. I definitely like the tagging idea. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We look for links that seem to lead to companies. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but where? I have no idea which articles to check; that's why I supported the tagging idea. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The tags and edit filters are closely related (Many of the tags listed at Special:Tags feed off data from the edit filters) ... so a first step would be to request a new filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested (unless someone here has the ability to create and maintain those filters). Is it agreed that in the first iteration (pending future refinement), the filter should identify when {{Dead link}} (or any of the redirected templates that do the same function) has been removed from an article?

I'm guessing that creating a tag based on the filter is also requested at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, but I'm not certain on that, Wikipedia:Tags doesn't clarify that process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw Special:Contributions/Localreview doing that the other day. I've not seen any others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Additional eyes on, and feedback of, the section RfC: Should WP:PERM take advantage of User:ClueBot III or User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver? is requested. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Hi, SPI is backlogged again. Need checkusers, clerks, admins, please. Some fresh reports are 2 weeks old. <3 Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is only one checkuser requested report, and no endorsed ones, at SPI. There are however 42 open reports for administrators to review and five cu-declined reports that also need review from admins. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ponyo, I think I've mentioned before that we should clone you--and others, like User:Callanecc and User:Callanecc. I check the occasional report there to see if I can close anything, and every time I decide against closing one I am more grateful to the admin regulars there. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Close, please?

Can I get an admin to look at and close "Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza", on this very page, please? It seems Hoops is not interested in my suggestion, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've marked it as "ban implemented", and I'll "close" it once I can figure out the coding. I can never remember how to do it, really, so I have to copy/paste from somewhere else. Feel free to do it if you can get in ahead of me; since I already made the decision, you'd not be doing anything more than the bot that closes FFD discussions. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Nyttend--I'm not in a rush and after patrolling UAA for a little while I'm done with templates, so I appreciate your help. Also, I'm sure don't know any of it better than you do, haha. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate, full protection, ArbCom and a little light begging

Informed-and-uninvolved administrator needed. As some here will remember, I gave gamergate full protection some days ago. I've since gotten a request from an involved administrator to unprotect the article, but I declined because I wasn't informed enough to make a sensible decision. If you're uninvolved yet familiar with the article and related events, I would appreciate it if you'd review the situation and leave your comments here — either your rationale for unprotecting it or reducing protection (no need to ask me if you think this is the better route) or your rationale for leaving it as is. Below I copy the request and my response.

Hello Nyttend. I am here to ask if you will consider lifting the full protection from the Gamergate controversy article. Here's my argument:

With the behavioural issues now under ArbCom scrutiny, I think there is an opportunity for some of the most contentious issues still outstanding at the page to be resolved with much less rancour that at any other time. It would be foolish for anyone to edit-war or otherwise misbehave at the current time, rather it is in editors' own best interests to demonstrate their willingness to work collegially. ArbCom's steely gaze is always transitory and when the case is concluded the opportunity will have been lost which is why I am asking for this now. Of course, if I'm wrong and it all goes belly-up, the page can always be re-protected in a moment.

So, any chance I can talk you into this? CIreland (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not willing to lift it, but this is not a "no"; let me explain. All I did (if I remember rightly) was restoring protection that had been cut short as an experiment, and it looked to me as if the experiment demonstrated that continued protection was necessary. I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with the subject and with whatever contentious issues you're talking about (if I were dictator, the whole article would be deleted; as it's an ongoing controversy, secondary sources can't even exist yet, but people insist on pretending that primary sources are secondary), so I cannot have a reasonable opinion on whether unprotection is a good idea. I think the best course of action is for you to ask someone who's uninvolved yet more familiar with the situation than I am, and when you do, please be sure to say something like "the protecting admin is fine with you unprotecting it, if you think that's the wisest action". Judging by the way you asked me, I assume you're involved, but if you're not, feel free to unprotect it yourself. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

CIreland responded by saying "yes, I am involved, so I won't take action" — thus this notice here. Thanks for your help. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about why an article on a reproductively viable female worker ant that is able to reproduce with mature males when the colony is lacking a queen is generating so much controversy. Anyone want to clue me in? EEng (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protect - Not an admin, but revert to semi-protection because ArbCom has the case and the named parties will be on their best behavior and we have an active and now being used sanction page. Protection for a long time damages our ideals, prevents actual improvements and just serves to let those out to damage Wikipedia's credibility and value succeed. It is one of the most watched pages and I am sure that after a brief "flurry of activety" it should be more civil than prior to its protection. Those will bad motives will likely get themselves punished quickly and those less active in the intervening weeks probably won't return. A firm, but fair hand is needed for this article and full protection is a monument to chaos bringing Wikipedia to its knees. We are better than this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just a quick note — while of course you can chime in, my request was intended to get another admin's eyes on the situation, and I'm not attempting to have some sort of discussion that would result in consensus. The admin who responds should decide on the merits of the situation (which can of course include your comments, if he agrees with them), without feeling a need to establish any consensus from a discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 is back with the same stuff that got him blocked for a month.

Amazing. His suspension is just over and 64.183.48.206 has begun editing pages with the same unverified edits about which he was warned and eventually blocked. He just wants to be abusive and will not listen to the Wikipedia community on this. He needs to be blocked again, for a longer period, if possible. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)