Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

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. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through and Template:tlx 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

Requests for comment

Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#RfC: Lead & reception prose established at DRN

(Initiated 137 days ago on 24 January 2025) Last comment made in February 2025 & it was moved to the archive by a bot on 14 March 2025. Article has been subject to a lot of edit warring & is back under a full lock. I think it would be helpful to have this formally closed (& temporarily restored to the talk page) as there is a discussion about if a RfC is needed for other aspects of the article including the lead. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RfC: Removal of links to "animated" on animated film articles

(Initiated 85 days ago on 16 March 2025) Since the RFC tag has expired and there's no discussion within the past two months, can an experienced uninvolved editor close this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

(Initiated 82 days ago on 19 March 2025) RFC on a ARBPIA related organisation -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Note for closer: Several accounts in this discussion were affected by recent ArbCom actions (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Off-wiki_misconduct_in_Palestine–Israel_topic_area_II) and not all comments by blocked editors have been marked as such. I strongly recommend installing a script to mark blocked users before diving into this. Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with @Toadspike Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This was now archived and de-archived, and is still in need of closure. There might be a reasonable argument for waiting for the outcome of the current motion as well, but I’m not sure what the best course of action is. FortunateSons (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to note the motion was closed without being adopted, and has been archived -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Which motion? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The one linked directly above your comment (archived), closed with no action. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

What does this mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a ton of engagement with this RfC, surely it has enough for a formal closure with recommendations. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested is just pointing out that a motion which would've (topic-)banned some editors who contributed to the RfC was closed without banning the aforementioned editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Archived again, please restore to the noticeboard if you close the discussion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Really needs a formal close soon and an update for the RfC list. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen a close take this long in a while. Anything we can do? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RfC on date ranges in meteorological event titles

(Initiated 79 days ago on 22 March 2025) RFC expired, please close. 2600:387:15:5313:0:0:0:A (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 48#Request for Comment on use of the term "one of the greatest" in player articles

(Initiated 66 days ago on 4 April 2025) Last top-level comment was over a week ago. RFC tag has expired. Needs uninvolved editor to close this. Ladtrack (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

It has now been over two months since the RfC was initiated and a month since the last top-level comment. The RfC has been archived. When closed, it will need to be restored to the talkpage. Ladtrack (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels#RfC on book review aggregators

(Initiated 65 days ago on 5 April 2025) - Requesting review and closure of an RfC. Open since 5 April. Located at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels#RfC on book review aggregators. The discussion is lengthy, so the assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin who is experienced in evaluating consensus based on the strength of the arguments in alignment with policy would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Talk:Copts#RfC on statement asserting "direct" descent

(Initiated 65 days ago on 5 April 2025) No comments for more than 10 days, so I think this discussion has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews

(Initiated 65 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Iqrit#RfC

(Initiated 61 days ago on 9 April 2025) RfC that followed a WP:ELN-discussion that followed a talk page discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Forspoken#RfC on Square Enix's comments on sales in the article's lead

(Initiated 53 days ago on 17 April 2025) – Last comment on 5 May 2025 (12 days ago) & RfC tag expired; also a related & broader non-RfC discussion was just started (15 May) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Should we mention publisher's statements in the lead paragraph?. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Superscript and subscript typography guideline

(Initiated 51 days ago on 20 April 2025) – Last comment from 27 April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon_Casas#Request_for_Comment:_Subject_lead_label_Catalan_or_Spanish?

(Initiated 45 days ago on 25 April 2025) - RfC was opened about a month ago and has stabilized. While the consensus of the RfC seems obvious, a closure with a definitive statement by a neutral editor would be useful. The labeling question pertains to a large number of articles with Catalan subjects. This and other similar RfCs and discussions will be used as a precedent for such articles. Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Template_talk:Current#RfC:_Condense_Template:Current

(Initiated 45 days ago on 25 April 2025) Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps. 05:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479#Screen Rant

(Initiated 45 days ago on 25 April 2025) No new comments in the last two weeks -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Now archived. If you close please restore to the noticeboard when you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List of programs broadcast by CBS#Request for comment on including "in development" dates in list form

(Initiated 44 days ago on 26 April 2025) Expired RfC with no comments in over a month and fairly light involvement to start with. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Debrief

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 May 2025) - There was a robust discussion but the last !vote was four days ago, and only two !votes in the last ten days. Seems like a fairly straightforward/easy close. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	58	14	72
TfD	0	1	21	7	29
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	1	3	4
AfD	0	0	0	22	22

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Rugby union squad navigation templates

(Initiated 57 days ago on 13 April 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_25#Template:CompUnits

(Initiated 55 days ago on 15 April 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Template:EngvarB

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 May 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Talk:The Daily Wire#Proposed merge of Mr. Birchum into The Daily Wire

(Initiated 239 days ago on 14 October 2024) The Daily Wire and associated pages are part of a contentious topic area, but this has been discussed for half a year now and the debate should be closed. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 17:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in Australia#Merge proposal

(Initiated 133 days ago on 27 January 2025) Discussion has been open since the end of January and has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal

(Initiated 123 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It has now been eleven weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archives/ 1#Proposed merge of Operation Bunyanun Marsoos into 2025 India–Pakistan strikes

(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 May 2025) These pages are attracting a lot of active chaotic editing, so if someone uninvolved could close this merger request soon, that would help. This is distinct from the ... standoff merger request that is now closed. Boud (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested moves

Talk:Doctor_Who_series_15#Requested_move_17_March_2025

(Initiated 84 days ago on 17 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Binary_Alignment_Map#Requested_move_9_April_2025

(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2025) Last !comment 35 days ago. Requesting closure by a neutral party of a contested technical move that currently has three comments and last comment was over a month ago. Thanks! WeWake (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth#Requested move 18 May 2025

(Initiated 22 days ago on 18 May 2025) Further discussion is unlikely to change the outcome.Legend of 14 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:The Holocaust#Requested move 21 May 2025

(Initiated 20 days ago on 21 May 2025) Lengthy and often heated discussion has largely died down. Obviously, this is a sensitive topic that has attracted much attention, so an experienced closer with a firm grasp of policy who can take the potential fallout is desirable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 48#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

(Initiated 89 days ago on 12 March 2025) A discussion on if and how to include reports that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considered a laboratory accident in China as the cause of the pandemic. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

(Initiated 86 days ago on 15 March 2025) As one of the main editors involved in this discussion, which has seen no activity in 12 days, I am requesting an uninvolved party to review and close this discussion so this can be formally settled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 May 2025) Discussion's died out, not sure what consensus is. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Logo change

(Initiated 13 days ago on 28 May 2025) Requesting formal closure since the milestone may get stale soon. Feel free to move to another section if this is not the right one. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Uncivil discussion by User:Sean.hoyland

User:Sean.hoyland appears to be wikihounding and violating WP:Civility. He has made matters worse by impeding honest efforts at dispute resolution. He appears unable to control his battleground behavior. His comments are in clear violation of civility, namely, by "making snide comments, making personal remarks about editors, and being aggressive." He recently put me in the same category as "advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, and others who "deny the existence of evidence." (See WP:NPA: "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. [See also Godwin's law.]") I have done nothing to deserve such attacks.

• As can be seen, I have voiced concerns politely and made an honest effort to engage in discussion in Talk:Israel#Palestinian state, but he has responded aggressively to dispute resolution of a reasonable disagreement. It is an honest discussion that does not show any signs of WP:NOTADVOCATE, for which he cites as his reason for rejected any form of DR.[redacted]
• He said I and another editor lack "basic behavioral attributes," but never explained what he means, for his reason not to resolve the dispute.[1][redacted]
• In a search for guidance, I looked for editors who are willing to volunteer to help resolve disputes. I found an admin and made a polite request for advice for this situation. User:Sean.hoyland, apparently by wikihounding, made an aggressive, uncivil, and rude comment on the editor's page after my request:

  I am not refusing to "cooperate in any form of dispute resolution". I am refusing to cooperate with you. ... I also don't cooperate with advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, a variety of editors who deny the existence of evidence, because it is a waste of time.

I have acted professionally and collegially and have done nothing to deserve these abrasive comments. I have sought to resolve our disagreement, but this user is making that difficult if not impossible. He cannot control his battleground behavior, and while I have remained civil he is not making an effort to engage in dispute resolution, leaving many cases at a standstill. I kindly bring this to your attention. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took the time to read first 20 edits of this discussion: Talk:Israel#Palestinian state. Precision123 is performing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in re-opening the unfamous case that West Bank and Gaza Strip would not be Palestinian (occupied) territories but disputed territories per WP:NPov. I can understand that the way he insists despite the responses that he receives could upset and make many lose their temper. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  (edit) And I lost my time. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no civil POV pushing at all. There are no fringe theories that I push or give any weight to. I fully support describing the Palestinian territories as the Palestinian territories. My position is against the POV pushing of "State of Palestine" on the borders. I fully support that the Palestinian territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the reliable sources do not refer to those territories as the state of Palestine. (Same with most WP articles). Please do not make those accusations. --Precision123 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why Pluto2012 is bringing up an unrelated edit that is a year old, to which I have made no further edits since. Pluto2012's edit was just quickly removed by another editor there just now, so I am not sure what his grievance is. I have made many improvements to articles of political parties (e.g., Hatnuah, Meretz, Likud, Green Movement, Ale Yarok, Yesh Atid, Shas, etc.) virtually all of them uncontroversial and accepted by editors still today. You may see. No accusations of POV pushing before. This is not related, so please stay on topic. --Precision123 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012:, you want to see civil POV pushing by Precision123 just look here: Talk:Haaretz.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is another case where Precision123 tries to make a case out of nothing against Sean.hoyland. Start being a useful contributor and you will surely get better replies and cooperation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please allow the admins to respond and read for themselves. This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. The diffs speak for themselves. A lack of civility and effort to cooperate is apparent. I have always been a useful and professional contributor and have been civil, so please leave your personal attacks to yourself. --Precision123 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123 says This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. WP:WIAPA says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. What's wrong with this picture?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have used several diffs pointing to specific incidents, unlike the other editors' comments, including yours. Please avoid accusations and let the admins see for themselves. I have acted professionally and have done nothing to deserve rude remarks or aggressive comparisons to Holocaust deniers when I politely request dispute resolution. --Precision123 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Precision123 needs to be more concise—the opening paragraph is filled with irrelevant links (people here know what "intelligent design" is, and come to think of it, they know what CIVIL is as well). I looked at the first link that appeared to be about the issue, and found a perfectly civil and helpful comment from Sean Hoyland, currently visible here. The comment may be regarded as a little blunt, but all editors who have met WP:CPUSH contributors know that mediation is a waste of time in certain cases. My recommendation would be for Precision123 to examine the message in the comment and evaluate whether any of it may have merit. Wikipedia is not available for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was trying to be as inclusive as I could, but I will take your advice. My concern is over an editor who essentially acts a stumbling block to dispute resolution as could be seen there. I have not done anything to be put in categories with people like Holocaust denier, intelligent design advocates, etc., with whom mediation might actually be worthless. Rather, I want to pursue dispute resolution, and this editor just responds abrasively and rudely to me. --Precision123 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123, can you please stop editing your remarks after people have responded to them? It's extremely confusing for everyone who's trying to follow the conversation, if anyone still is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if it was confusing for you. I put a note that says [redact] because I took the advice to make it more concise. I do not want my statement to be misconstrued. Never would I do anything like POV push (civil or otherwise), and there is no evidence that I have. Dispute resolution is between editors who do not agree, not between those who do. All I ask for is an honest discussion, and an editor should respond in a manner that is civil. Responding so aggressively to a polite request for DR is disruptive and unfair. --Precision123 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not trying it get involved in admin matters or even know if I'm aloud to post here. If I'm not my apologies. Sean Hoyland isn't patting anyone on the butt and tucking them in good night but he's hardly breached civility. I'm involved with this dispute or or least the one involving regarding Israel. Sean maybe a stumbling block for dispute resolution. But all avenues of dispute resolution used have been optional. I hate to assume bad faith but that is all can assume here. I have to ask you Precision if this is an effort to get Sean out of the way temporarily so that you can have a better chance at forcing a consensus. Again my apologies administrators if I shouldn't have posted here. As party involved in the dispute that lead to this I thought would be appropriate. Echo me if I'm required here for anything.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not at all, Serialjoepsycho. I would love to cooperate with him or any other editor in dispute resolution. I have never requested that he be blocked. As you can see I am understandably offended by such abrasive comments; I did nothing to deserve them and it is disrupting an honest effort at dispute resolution. But I did not want him to be blocked or banned. We have a reasonable disagreement that is best guided by an admin or mediator. I think that would be great for all of us if he were to engage, and did not impede, dispute resolution. I am sorry if that was not clear before. --Precision123 (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page, Precision123's behavior here and elsewhere, I have imposed an ARBPIA Discretionary Sanctions 1-week article ban on Precision123 editing Israel and its talk page. He is acting politely and within administrative channels, but in a persistently disruptive manner in which he is acting as if the others around him cannot have a valid differing viewpoint. This is not collegial; we do not require everyone sing Kumbaya and agree on the real world positions, but we do require that you respect that others can have differing opinions and that those are valid and need to be respected. Merely holding a differing opinion is not grounds for administrative challenges or disruptive behavior, even if those are done very politely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not previously familiar with WP:ARBPIA, or if I were in the past, I've forgotten it. Are you doing this under the "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, the remedy 6)? Not challenging, just seeking to be clear, especially since Arbcom's repealed some findings and provisions as well as enacting others that weren't originally included. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, standard discretionary sanctions are now enabled on all PIA articles. They enable any uninvolved administrator to warn any editor who they believe is editing in a disruptive manner in the field, which was done twice earlier this year for Precision123. Once warned, any uninvolved administrator can article or topic ban, etc. etc. Arbitration enforcement DS admin actions are not subject to one-admin overturn, but can be appealed or reviewed and overturned subject to a reasonable consensus on any appropriate noticeboard (which I think is AN, ANI, or AE). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Boomerang. I think from looking at those differences that Sean hoyland is the cool-headed person, besides being overall a constructive editor. Precision123 on the other hand appears to be a POV pusher and his overal behavior in my opinion warrants a topic ban of some sort. Pass a Method talk 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Another editor is asking Sean to be polite:

User Sean.hoyland could first apologize for foul language and again here before making any further edits in this page. Tkuvho (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

— Tkuvho, diff

Yes, that is something that I could do. There are very many things I could do, but that is one of the things I will not be doing. This has already been explained to you at Talk:SodaStream#Reducing_policy_compliance. You are welcome to keep asking at my talk page but you will be wasting your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe someone needs to lighten up? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My time is limited today so I'll keep it short. Precision123 made statements at AGK's talk page that misrepresented the state of affairs. My comment addressed those falsehoods. The editor has demonstrated a capacity to both ignore evidence and make false statements premised on the absence of that evidence. The existence of information in RS and the policies that describe the methods that must be used to build the encyclopedia and make content decisions based on that information have no dependency on my existence as an editor or my views about anything at all. Precision123 is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with all of the evidence without prejudice and using methods that will produce content that complies with Wikipedia's rules. Resolving the dispute requires participants to make content decisions based on all of the information available using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and Precision123 is not doing that. There is no dependency on my participation. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is that it's rather unusual, in my experience, for an editor in the ARBPIA topic area with Precision123's number of edits/account age to make such an effort to be seen to say the right things and exploit a wide range of noticeboards to try to get what they want while simultaneously making false statements about information and ignoring or demonstrating an aversion to subsets of reliably sourced information. Precision123's behavior incorporates a number of elements that in ARBPIA can indicate that an editor has an undisclosed editing history, that they are avoiding a block or a topic ban and have learned to exploit Wikipedia more effectively to achieve their objectives. I don't know whether that is the case here but I would like Precision123 to say whether they have used any other accounts to edit Wikipedia and declare those accounts. For example, Precision123 shares a number of statistically improbable attributes with indefinitely blocked user Shamir1. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, Pluto2012, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and IRISZOOM are all Islamic/Arab nationalist editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is promote an anti-Israeli/pro-"Palestinian" agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.190.113.226 (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment. The fact that you are apparently unable to detect from my edits that I am what could reasonably described as a fundamentalist atheist who doesn't even believe in freedom of religion and that I have almost nothing but contempt for all religions and all forms of nationalism, including Palestinian nationalism, and all identity politics, which I regard as pointless divisive nonsense, is a good thing. Almost every edit I make in Wikipedia is writing for the enemy. It's quite easy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Awe, I feel left out, or maybe he's finally realized I'm actually a white agnostic. Sepsis II (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland and Sepsis II are Muslims who constantly promote Arab lies. As they even admit here, they seek to deny the existence of the Jewish homeland so that Jews remain dispersed as oppressed slaves throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.24.173 (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, if Sean.hoyland was against "Palestinian" nationalism, then he wouldn't promote the Arab nationalist lie that there is such thing as a "State of Palestine," and he would agree that the Arabs don't deserve a 22nd state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.24.173 (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish people are "dispersed as oppressed slaves throughout the world". WTF are you on about? See WP:FRINGE. Your political views may exclude you from this site, just as the views of your opponents may exclude them. Maybe 2,000 years ago, under the Pharaoh, the Jewish people were enslaved. Now? Not so much... Doc talk 08:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Look at what happens when people with an aversion to reflecting the content of reliable sources on the issue of a State of Palestine such as Precision123 or yourself meet editors who are here to build an encyclopedia (see User_talk:Sunray#Mediation). You are wasting your time. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Now, back to more sensible matters, block evasion. I gave Precision123 an opportunity to respond to my question about declaring previous accounts here but they declined the opportunity and deleted the message. This is unfortunate because I had hoped that they had the good sense to provide open and honest answers which would, in my view, put them in a better position to perhaps negotiate for the indefinite block currently in place on the Shamir1 account to be changed to an WP:ARBPIA topic ban, a position I would have supported. Precision123 is an editor who can benefit Wikipedia but not in ARBPIA. Now resources are going to be wasted submitting and processing an SPI report with the likely outcome that an editor who could improve Wikipedia content outside of the areas where they have trouble following policy, will probably be blocked. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Arab lies" are what the IP is accusing multiple editors of. That pretty much sums the level of ignorance for me with this user. Doc talk 09:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's probably not their fault. When a family member died, someone who, at least on paper, was a Catholic, there was a conundrum. When it was explained to the priest that he had been a communist in his youth, the priest said 'weren't we all ?' Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jews are oppressed and persecuted throughout the world by Muslims like Sean.hoyland. See Antisemitism in Europe. They are fleeing France to Britain to escape the Muslim immigrants. Doc9871, I am not PrecisionNumberWhatever, but you do not believe that Sean.hoyland is posting Arab lies? Pretty much every article having to do with Israel is filled with Arab propaganda bashing and demonizing Israel and denying Jewish history and the existence of Judea. See Antisemitism in the Arab world. Arab propaganda is evil and virulent and needs to be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.24.173 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC) The Israeli topic area on Wikipedia is dominated by a select few people who use a secret Electronic Intifada-sponsored mailing list to promote Arab nationalist propaganda on Wikipedia.110.4.24.173 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And as the IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE for any purpose other than to make personal attacks, the IP has been blocked 48h. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for unblock: Swiss National Library

Some background information: Swiss National Library (talk · contribs) was an account created 30 January 2014 in order to help with one of the Wikimedia Foundation's GLAM outreach projects, see Wikipedia:GLAM for details on this. The reason they have done so under a shared account, as explained by Micha L. Rieser (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia talk:GLAM was because of the concept of corporate personhood, and the desire to attribute all contributions associated with the account to the organization and its free license. On 4 February 2014, JohnCD (talk · contribs) blocked the account under the Wikipedia:NOSHARE policy, and it was reviewed here where it was found to be an appropriate block under current policy. JohnCD's block was entirely appropriate at the time, and I would like to make clear that I do not dispute it as it was then.

But after having had time to review the contributions of this account, spread across German Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, I believe that this block and the policy behind it is actively discouraging a potential contributor from improving Wikipedia. I've given a little bit of the explanation here as well. Therefore, I wish to invoke Ignore all rules for this block, which states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, a policy even if properly applied is harming the English Wikipedia. I would like to make a temporary exemption of this GLAM account, and then immediately afterwards we would revisit and review the NOSHARE policy in the future, to see if it needs further adjusting, or if a permanent exemption could be made for certain organizational accounts. If discussion of the NOSHARE policy proves fruitless, with no consensus toward exempting such accounts, then we could reinstate the block against Swiss National Library (talk · contribs). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Due to the licensing agreement and copyright/attribution aspects, wouldn't this be more of a WMF Legal decision rather than an admin decision? Rgrds. --64.85.216.32 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • As you may have seen on the GLAM talkpage, there was a link back to outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/January 2014/Contents/Switzerland report which claims that the organization in charge of the Swiss National Library account have already filed an OTRS ticket to the German Wikipedia. I assume that this is sufficient information to prove that these edits can be linked definitively back to the actual organization; that is, the account name and the organization are one and the same. If the concern was about determining which user should be attributed while operating the account at any particular time, Rieser demonstrated that the attribution was legally necessary to ensure the organization gave permission to license its own contributions under Wikipedia's license. Individual users within the organization, rather than the organization itself, may choose to license their own contributions differently. Rieser also gave the example of an IP address, like yourself, which has edits attributed to multiple people, according to whoever has the IP address at any particular time. And if the concern overlaps with accountability, Rieser has suggested that particular users operating the account name, if engaging in discussion on Wikipedia talkpages, sign with their real name, whilst also on behalf of Swiss National Library. I think that, given this extensive explanation and accommodation by Rieser and company, we should give this account a little more leeway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this should belong better in the RFC discussion, but I'd like to reexamine the spirit of the blocking policy for starters. In an ideal sense, the block tool is meant as a last resort to prevent possible disruption to Wiki(p/m)edia's mission. There are two different but related targets of using a block: 1) against a possibly disruptive account as a technical measure, and 2) against the person (or in this case group of people) operating the account directly. The latter is more often referred to as a ban. So far, the account has not shown any promotional behavior or violation of COI that I know of, and has even managed to work peacefully within the German Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons communities without problems. We can therefore rule out #1. Then perhaps it is the nature of the organization that is under question here; in a sense, the organization itself is "banned", but not its individuals. Rieser has indicated the need for the account's contributions to be attributed directly to the organization, due to licensing considerations. He also suggested that for the shared account to participate in discussions, any member operating it at any particular time must also sign with the initials of their real life name, thereby ensuring more transparency and accountability than most of the pseudonymous editors here. If the account itself is proving problematic in other areas such as COI, then the account itself can be blocked. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• I raised this question at WT:GLAM#Usernames for GLAM participants and offered there to start an RFC on a change in the WP:NOSHARE policy if there was evidence that there would be support, specifically support from other people engaged in GLAM activity. I was particularly looking for statements from existing GLAMmers such as Wikimedians-in-residence that this would help their operations, but none have come forward to say that, and as far as I know this is the first time any GLAM institution has made it a requirement.

The policy against institutional shared accounts is not peculiar to en-wp: on it-wp the SNL account has also been blocked as "Nome utente inappropriato: ente istituzionale", and on fr-wp, though the account has not been blocked, an administrator has advised them here of a preference for individual accounts. Even if we make an exception for them, insisting on using a shared account will make it difficult for SNL to contribute cross-wiki,

The NOSHARE policy is long-standing. The last proposed exception, for couples editing together, was decisively rejected at this RfC in 2012, and I think it unlikely that a GLAM exception would be agreed in the absence of strong support from other GLAMmers. That being so, it would be a mistake to make a one-off IAR exception for the SNL account now, leading to a re-block with consequent ill-feeling later. An RFC should come first. JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• As the GLAM newsletter points out, the German WP accepts corporate accounts, once oTRS has been convinced the account is genuine. We could avoid a great deal of complications by doing likewise. We have the authority to do so in any particular case via IAR, and I think we should use it, An RfC would be appropriate, so we can make it a general rule. Accepting an obviously helpful special case for a very important partner would be the first step in this, to get accustomed to the idea. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support IAR for use of this account, as limited by other behavioral and editorial policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support IAR for this account, and also support a discussion about how to adjust our standard practice to cope with WP:SUL-related reality. These kinds of accounts have been accepted for a long time at some projects, and if they make an account with a "legal" account name there, then they automatically have the same account name here. So the question becomes, do you want one user to maintain separate accounts (and woe betide the poor image-uploader who forgets to log in and log out every time they switch from Commons to en.wp), or do you want greater transparency (e.g., it's trivial to figure out that the uploader is the one adding it to the article)? And how could we reduce the practical problem with (actual) shared accounts (as opposed to accounts that have a corporate name, but are operated by a single human), which is people claiming that their little brother/classmate/co-worker is the one that screwed up and/or read the warning you posted last week? (I'm thinking that we reduce the problem by telling them that we don't care who read it, they're all responsible for knowing what the other guy did. Also, it'd be nice if they'd tell us when the account changes hands.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose the use of IAR to make a single exception here, but I support an RfC on this policy, and would incline to support modifying it so as to make this and simialr institutional accoutns legitimate. I agree with JohnCD above, it is best to come to consensus on the rule, rather than to make a one-off exception. If This was done via IAR, any admin could later re-block and point to the existing policy to justify such action. DES ^(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In retrospect, I should probably have included some huge disclaimers at the top for the TL;DR folks, like:
  • DISCLAIMER: This block review is not meant as a reflection on JohnCD's actions, nor his good standing as an administrator.
  • DISCLAIMER: This particular case is not meant to create precedent for allowing such future accounts, although it may be referenced in the RFC as an example why the NOSHARE policy is problematic. If the RFC results in no consensus, upholding NOSHARE or anything otherwise, we can easily reblock the account. In particularly egregious cases, like if the account were to edit the article on Swiss National Library, we can always reblock for COI. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: your first disclaimer is quite unnecessary, your proposal was most courteously worded and I did not in the least take offence. With regard to the second, this may not be intended as a precedent, but how do we explain to the next applicant why this case was special and theirs is not? Also, I am not so sure that we could "easily reblock the account": there would be another row and more calls for IAR to let them continue. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Allow all accounts to be shared, limited types of accounts to be shared or no accounts to be shared. It is a slippery slope here to allow one account to be shared. The next unblock request will reference this and ask why that account and not ours? Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ignoring the policy and allowing a shared institutional account. Determine if there's a consensus to change the policy, in which case "Joe's Burger Stand," "Hungadunga High School," "Greasepit Motorcycle Club" or "University of Michigan Football Fans" could also send in an OTRS ticket showing that the account really represents the organization in question, then share the logon among all the members. No convincing case has been presented that "IAR" is appropriate here. Edison (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support, although this really is a proposal that belongs at the Village Pump. The big problem with role accounts is copyright compliance: when multiple people are using the same account, there's not a single author who can be credited. Here, we have an OTRS confirmation that this account is being used by people who work for the same entity: their edits are all basically works for hire, owned by the Swiss National Library. Since the Library's willing to release its rights to these edits under GFDL/CC, we really don't have any reason to object. Response to Ravensfire: when the next unblock request comes, we'll need them to confirm through OTRS that all edits from the account are works for hire for the organisation that's sending the OTRS. If they can't or won't do that, we tell them that the situation's different, so we can't unblock. Finally, DESiegel, since we're having a discussion about the situation, this isn't quite the same as a random admin reblocking: if we choose to unblock this account, the reblocking admin will be going against consensus on this specific situation. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to Nyttend's comments (and to some extent Thincat's), if this becomes an established practice, we would need to have some sort of procedure for the organization to confirm that it will control the account, that it will have responsibility for all edits, and assume accountability for what is done with the account, and that all people using the account have signed a work-made-for-hire agreement or something similar. Some of the details of such a policy would probably need to be vetted by WMF legal, but no need to involve them until we decide, as a matter of policy, that we want to do this at all. The we can ask them how to make it work. DES ^(talk) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, I think that might be a process that works, but we're talking about a policy. I would support a change in the user policy to allow shared accounts with appropriate restrictions and notifications. Some thought needs to be given on how to handle blocks on such an account (if I use a group account that gets blocked, does that also affect my personal account). Even with the best of intentions, I uncomfortable with something like this without a larger discussion. I don't think blanket approval to shared accounts is acceptable, but non-profit, non-advocacy groups I don't have a problem with. Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest consulting User:WMF Legal about whether it is appropriate to have shared accounts. Thincat (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Good block. One person = one account is a cornerstone of WP; allowing exceptions would degrade the 'pedia's integrity. With shared accounts, it's impossible to assign responsibility for edits. Miniapolis 23:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support like named accounts such as Swiss National Library1 (talk · contribs) and Swiss National Library2 (talk · contribs). This, I think, addresses all of the issues raised. If User:WMF Legal weighs in with an opinion to allow a single account, we can go with that. But if not my suggestion provides a reasonable alternative that could make all parties happy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For this particular account, on principle per WP:ISU. The username and account policies are not currently set up for something like this, and I would object to an IAR unblock. As has been already been mentioned, if we allow this then we have to explain to User:Joe's Super Crab Shack why we are blocking them under our apparent double standards - without the benefit of a clearly spelled-out policy or guideline. There are also attribution, licensing and legal issues that can and will get complicated. In any case, accounts named "Becky at Swiss National Library" and so on would be certainly acceptable under current policy, and I think would be preferable anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  If the issue is that's a double standard, then clearly it's the policy page that is the problem and preventing us from improving Wikipedia proper, which is why I've decided to invoke IAR. The RFC designed to change the policy to meet this practice would follow immediately after unblocking the account, referencing it as an example of the problem with the policy page itself and why it needs revising - and then we can finally get around to explaining why this shared account is allowed and others are not. Right now, it is my belief that the block is harming Wikipedia's mission. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I have sympathy for the argument that a GLAM organization should be an exception, but apart from the problems mentioned above, my concern is that an organization that insists that their work must be done their way is not likely to be helpful in the long run. They have their rules that say "Joe at Swiss National Library" is not acceptable, and likewise we have good reasons for our procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NOSHARE hooks into the principle of being a free encyclopedia and who to attribute information to. Also, I see no problem whatsoever with having 10 or however many personal accounts which all openly and clearly disclose their connection to the Swiss library. They can all edit in name of the Swiss Library, and even can hold legitimate alternate accounts for different editing. I agree with Johnuniq's solution that they can use 'User:Joe' for personal editing, and 'User:Joe at Swiss National Library' - if the latter is against their internal policies, then by all means, let other users do the work for them - they do not have an obligation to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support' Because account names like 'User:Becky at Swiss National Library' don't work. I can create an account 'user:Micha at White House'. This account does not guarantee that I actually am authorized to edit in the name of the White House. Or maybe the name 'Joe at Swiss National Library' is not just a fake account. Joe maybe works actually in the library but as a member of the cleaner team. The community can still not be sure that Joe's opinion and actions reflect the meaning of the library and that he is authorized to speak in the name of the library. - An account of the library solves a lot of problems. It is an official account which is actually authorized to contribute to wikimedia/wikipedia. - For other company accounts two simple rules would solve the problem of PR and POV: No substantial changes are allowed in the encyclopedic namespace and no contributions are allowed on their own article at all. We would accept this two rules without difficulty and other GLAM account would be able to accept that also. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Look, we have some people from the Swiss Library here, obviously - if some editor in Far Far Away would think to be funny and create a username 'John Doe from Far Far Away at Swiss National Library', then the other Swiss Library editors (who could identify themselves officially) would directly say that that editor is not from the Swiss National Library - and that would IMHO be an immediate indefinite block for that John Doe. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    • But how do you know the other Swiss Library editors are themselves genuine? They could be from Mars for all we know. John Doe would just come back and say they're the real editor, and claim the others are false. What do we have but their word and hearsay? On the other hand, the organizational account Swiss National Library has OTRS-identified to the German Wikipedia. That's more accountability than the numerous pseudonyms we got floating around here. Would you trust me if I said my real name was TeleComNasSprVen? Would you even take me less seriously? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Isn't that what OTRS is for, indeed. If User:John Doe at Swiss National Library is claiming that User:Jane Doe at Swiss National Library is not connected to Swiss National Library, then that has to go through the official channels, and if User:Jane Doe at Swiss National Library is not connected but claiming to edit on their behalf (and editing information related to Swiss National Library) then that is IMHO a blockable offense. If User:Swiss National Library is OTRS confirmed, then they can also confirm individual editors for that - there is no need to share. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
        • 1) If John Doe or Jane Doe don't work for the library anymore that specific accounts should be blocked. Because they are not allowed to speak for the library anymore. So actually there is a need to supervise that accounts. That wouldn't be necessary if you would accept accounts for GLAM. 2) The community has not the possiblity to see which is the next responsible person for that organisation. So they have no single point of contact and do not know who is responsible for a request. The whole thing (OTRS, official confirmation of the library, etc.) has to repeat by a new account. Otherwise there would be only an announcement on the user page of the GLAM account that the responsible person has changed. 3) The copyright law of the most countries also accept that an originator can be a corporate personhood. I recommendend to tle library that we make the people behind this account transparent but for the licence it is not necessery. The National Library as an organisation can make a proper edit here under this CC-licence. It is simply the community which has a problem with the fact that there are such things like organisations or corporate personhoods that also could/would edit here. But why you have problems with that fact? I do not completely understand. 4) We as wikipedians have told the GLAM that we are interested in an collaboration and that they should share their media with us and create a long-term relationship with us. It was not the library which had first the motivation to come to Wikipedia. That needed a lot of discussion and arguments before so that they were in the end convinced that sharing on Wikipedia is a good thing from their perspective too. And now they see that the english Wikipedia just says to them: Fuck off. Do you really think that helps to build Wikipedia and promote the project? --Micha 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Bad idea (that's oppose). Let's say we do this and joe editor comes across it and knows it's against policy, so they file at WP:UAA. Now what happens? Either an admin who missed the discussion here blocks and causes a ruckus, or doesn't block and politely tells the user it's a "special exception" or freaks out 'cause there's some note on the user page joe editor missed -- so what's joe editor do the next time they see a sketchy username? (If they're like me, they're gonna say "Not my problem.") Long story short, lots wasted time for no particularly good reason. Accounts are cheap and easy to create. NE Ent 00:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

However, I do see an issue here, in that the Wikimedia meta:Unified Login policy conflicts with English Wikipedia's no role account policy, which I understand conflicts with German Wikipedia's. So we do probably need to change that rule, but we need to do it in a across the board coherent manner, rather than a one off ad hoc way. NE Ent 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My aim of the newsletter report was to initate the discussion about rules and about the requirements for working together with GLAMs. But an exceptional case of that account could also be a good test case and an example how further collaboration with GLAM accounts could work in the english wikipedia. --Micha L. Rieser (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is likely to come up again and again; is anyone actively working on drafting an RfC? 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @28bytes: Started draft in my userspace here and asked for more feedback at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for getting that started, I will take a look. 28bytes (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:NOSHARE is pretty clear; this is a no-no. If they're refusing to change their ways to edit here, why should we bend over backwards to let them edit? And how on earth do we know who is editing under this account? The answer is; we don't. For all we know, this could be a bunch of banned editors, or a group containing at least one banned editor... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose allowing this. The German Wikipedia have opened their door to corporate accounts - why should we? If they won't fit our rules, tough. I'm not sure that the reasons for them to be editing as a corporate person have been explained clearly enough, or what edits they are planning. Just what are they hoping to do that requires a corporate identity? Their editing must be subject to our usual requirements of referencing and copyright compliance - why should they not by subject to NOSHARE? As the above post points out, how do we know who has access? Quite a few of our banned and indeffed accounts belong to very intelligent people, one or more of whom could just work there. For those who can't view their deleted user page, I quote in part: "To the collections of the library belong more than five million documents. They are accessible for everybody. If you need help with your research about Switzerland then just ask us. This account won't take part to any encyclopedic work on the English speaking Wikipedia. Its aim is to provide a communication channel to the community, to facilitate collaboration around our projects." Deleted as advertising/promotion. Quite correctly. IMO. I see no need for any more than one account belonging to one person creating a neutrally worded article about the library, which can contain an external link to the library's site. If this is a genuine statement from the library, they don't need a corporate account as they are not going to edit. If it isn't, well then... Peridon (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. I don't see anything wrong with a shared account being used to demonstrate editing to the site. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Policy prohibits shared accounts. If this is deemed problematic in this case, policy should be changed via consensus first, rather than exceptions made. The individuals affected can easily create their own accounts and link to their employer on their user page. I'm surprised that this is an issue here, as, in my experience, Swiss officials like having and following clear rules... By the way, this is not a corporate personhood issue, as the Swiss National Library is part of the federal administration of Switzerland, and does not have a legal identity distinct from the rest of the Swiss state.  Sandstein  20:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  Of course they have an own identity. --Micha 10:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC) To be exact: It is acutally a sub organisation of the federal administration. So this is correct. But to be clear: Actually the library has not the form of a corporate personhood because only private organisation like incorporated companies or other by law defined organisation are. But there is an identity because such suborganisation have their own responsiblities given by law. For example: The military which is also a suborganisation of de federal administration must not decide about the media of the National Library. The National Library is authorized to give copyright protected media under a licence like CC because the originators of that material gave this strictly to the Library by a legal contract. So in this case the National Library acts like an own personhood here. - But a lot of GLAMs are in fact nothing else than corporate personhoods. So it is not necessary to distinguish about that legal forms in Wikipedia. --Micha 11:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per policy. There's nothing preventing individuals from signing up to accounts and then forming a work-group or wiki-project so that related edits can be attributed to the organisation and work-group in particular. A broader question relates to what might happen if a researcher logged in to the account happens to read another article of personal interest and sees a typo they wish to change. Will they want that edit attributed to their employer or will they take the time to register a different account to make that and subsequent edits. The point is as an individual, the same concerns apply to a lesser extent. It just isn't a very good idea and there are a great many things that can be done to function in a collegial manner without sharing an account. Stalwart111 01:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As stated above: if they're not going to edit, they don't need an account. If they are going to edit, then they need to follow policy. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  There are talk pages. The community can stay in contact with this account with the talk page. The account can make recommendations and suggestions on talk pages of articles. There are a lot of different use cases where an account makes sense without the need to edit articles. --Micha 13:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha L. Rieser (talk • contribs)

  Editing a talk page is still editing. And the username policy is still policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose IAR solution as offered; probably oppose allowing a multiple account, per The Bushranger, Sandstein, Peridon, and others above, but that really is a discussion which has to happen more fully before the feeling of the community can be gauged. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think a discussion of our policy on corporate accounts is needed, and changing it may be justified. However, I can't support making a one-off exception; this should be done per policy, or it shouldn't be done at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Concern about User:Drsjpdc editing in violation of his unban agreement

In January 2010, Drsjpdc (talk · contribs) was permanently site banned from Wikipedia for having demonstrated a consistent record of working to promote his own POV regarding chiropractic, rather than maintaining the proper NPOV.

Later, in June 2010, he wrote an open letter to the community requesting that he be unbanned. At that time, he stated:

Open letter to the Wiki Community;

I would like to apply to end the ban on my editing privileges, so that I can make constructive contributions to the general body of knowledge on Wikipedia.

I certainly admit that I made some typical newbie errors when I began editing, and those errors came back to roost, even when I started making constructive edits and articles. Most certainly, I realize it must have seemed to all of you, like I was trying to promote myself, (though I promise that was not my purpose) when I initially started, and, as I said, that impression made it nearly impossible for anything else I did to be seen as anything other then POV when editing in the area of my profession. So, for that I have no one to blame but myself, and I am truly sorry.

If the ban is lifted, I propose to make edits only in areas not related to Chiropractic or alternative health, until such time as the community should see fit to permit me do so.

Д-рСДжП,ДС 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, he communicated with Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) to plead his case, and Jimbo endorsed his plea to be unbanned. Amazingly, the community agreed with Jimbo, and Drsjpdc was [unbanned, presumably with the understanding that he would keep his promise to avoid the topic of chiropractic and alternative medicine altogether. Discounting edits regarding OurMed.org (a site now defunct, so I can't assess its focus), Drsjpdc took exactly 31 days before he violated his promise. Admittedly, his infractions were minor at first: updating the president of an organization, adding some names to the list of notable chiropractors, etc. Nothing that could be considered controversial, but still, a violation of his self-imposed exile from topics related to chiropractic that was the basis of his unbanning. His foray into the World Chiropractic Alliance article in June 2011 represents the beginnings of some non-trivial changes in the area of chiropractic, adding his own POV regarding this organization with whom he had apparent differences.

His subsequent editing history shows greater and greater involvement in the areas of chiropractic and sports medicine. Although he never vowed to remove himself from the sports medicine field, he has always shown a decided POV and self-promotional tendency in this area, and policing his activities in this area has long been the bane of other editors.

Now, in 2014, we find ourselves policing him again on articles such as Chiropractic oath, Chiropractic professional ethics and Association of Chiropractic Colleges. (That last one was a doozy, as I can personally attest as the editor who cleaned it up. He basically wrote an ad for the association and its conferences, including a "why you should attend" section.)

He wrote at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard that he was the victim of a "...movement to obtain the community ban against me" and that the whole affair was "so vicious and unfair, that Jimmy Wales himself felt it appropriate to intercede to get the ban removed." I am not privy to the email communications between Drsjpdc and Jimmy Wales, but based on Jimbo' endorsement of his plea to be unbanned, I would be hard-pressed to call this "intercession" on his part. It's not like Jimbo went to the arbcom and said "You have to remove the ban on Dr Press because he's just the nicest guy ever." Drsjpdc emailed Jimbo, and Jimbo endorsed his appeal, but ultimately, it was the community that unbanned him.

Drsjpdc further wrote, in the same post the WP:FTN,

As I promised then, I have refrained from working in this field for four years. How long does the stigma remain???

Since Drsjpdc's original plea included the promise to "make edits only in areas not related to Chiropractic or alternative health, until such time as the community should see fit to permit me do so," the stigma remains until the rest of the community decides to lift it, which it has not. The original community ban was not temporary, but permanent. That ban was only lifted because Drsjpdc promised to avoid these topics, because he has demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to maintain the proper neutrality on them. But now, here he is again, behaving in a non-neutral fashion, and blaming the rest of the community for his woes.

I believe the community should reimpose the ban (or at the very least, a topic ban) on Drsjpdc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Unban" agreement was with Jimmy Wales, who had to intercede, after I was viciously attacked by this same group of narrow minded people. save you all the trouble. I resign as an editor. I'm gone\. You win... happy? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС}

I suggest blocking the account anyway, to ensure that he's really gone. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Although their departure is a tad diva-ish and definitely childish, that aside @Drsjpdc: should have been reminded that the condition to return was effectively a voluntary topic ban from all articles related to Chiropractic backed by a requirement for a community review to lift that ban. As it stands, there was no request for a community review and as such their voluntary topic ban was still in force. Their first infraction should have seen the indef block dropped back on to them, but 2010 was a different kettle of fish to today. Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Even though the user claims to have left, I think re-applying the indef block is a good idea; they've shown that they aren't to be trusted at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• As the violations of the topic ban were repeated and unrepentant, I've imposed an indefinite block regardless of the flounce. Whether or not the WP:CBAN should be reimposed is, of course, up to the community. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support community topic ban I think being blocked from wikipedia as a whole is something which could be removed at a future date since there is no evidence of issues outside chiropractic (as far as I am aware), but a topic ban should remain firmly in place. I engaged with this editor here specifically: [2], and the comparisons of a chiropractic oath being comparable to the Hippocratic Oath were illogical and unambiguously clear POV pushing/trolling. Second Quantization (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban - I think the re-application of the indef block means this is a de-facto ban; but it needs returning back to the state it was in January 2010. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Range block on 210.55.212.?

I'm not sure that I know how to apply a range block, but one might be appropriate for a number of IPs beginning 210.55.212. There's a lot of similar vandalism coming from these IPs at the moment. See, for example, Chicago, Salem, Oregon, and Columbus, Ohio. Thanks—Jeremy (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a /19 dial-up (210.55.192.0/19) range operated by a major New Zealand telecommunications company. From what I can gather and remember it's a fairly major ISP in NZ so probably best to semi protect the three articles rather than block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

After I semi'd 8 articles and placed short blocks on a few of the IPs that got used more than once it stopped. I notice that many of the IPs were used for a similar widespread attack a few months ago.—Jeremy (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

While there's an ongoing attack there shouldn't be too much of an issue with rangeblocking it for a short time (eg 12 hours). It's the same as blocking an IP except you put 210.55.192.0/19 into the IP or username field and you don't leave a block notice on their talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a number of these but all have been in the /24 space and not the /19 so unless addresses other than 210.55.212.0/24 (<== this is what should be used when blocking) are being used only block the potential 253 IPs in the /24 subnet. If this keeps up, ping me and I'll block the range.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: The ISP has a /19 range, so in theory they could use another of the IPs of their ISP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:ANRFC

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

---

There is a significant backlog at at WP:ANRFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Duolicate pages

Resolved

 – They've been blocked from an SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Chund bhawana jhang sader and User:Altafnaul are duplicate--Musamies (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse

Are there any administrators left to clerk around this particular page? Seems like it could do with a little cleaning up, since it's linked so obscurely at the top of this page, but the serious reports and work associated with it stopped sometime in August of 2010. There are probably a few more entries in Category:Long-term abuse, but judging from RecentChangesLinked there doesn't seem to be a lot of maintenance or monitoring of new entries. I note from latest activity that Zhoban is still on the main page and Wikipedia:Long-term abuseSarahTHunter‎ probably has a wrong title. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think WP:DENY has come into force more and more these days, so LTA cases aren't regularly listed up there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved Wikipedia:Long-term abuseSarahTHunter to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/SarahTHunter (a conventional subpage). Miniapolis 22:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I tagged that one under CSD G10, because the named user has never been blocked, there is no evidence of there being any sockpuppetry, or even of any abuse (let alone long-term). I've also posted a message on the filing editor's talk page about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We still need the administrators or checkusers to clerk around that page though. If it's determined to be a project that is no longer of any relevance to improving Wikipedia, and has been abandoned, I suppose we could mark it as {{historical}} then. And it's linked to in the navbox at the top of this page, which is how I got to it in the first place; if it's not really still of any interest to administrator action, I'd think it would have been removed by now.

@Administrators: Do you still clerk around that page, or do you think it should be put into the Category:Inactive project pages? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There are those of us non-admins who still add to several of the sub-pages, so I would be opposed to deep-sixing it. BMK (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the creation of new LTA pages has been on the decline for some time with a more WP:RBI approach becoming prevalent. I support that trend, but some of these persons are still active and there is always the possibility of new entries for those obsessive types for whom RBI is not a sufficient remedy. That being the case I would oppose marking this as historical or otherwise "closing" it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also aware of at least two pages currently in userspace that document cases of long-term abuse but have never properly been moved to LTA-space, so I assume it is not a unique occurence and it might explain the decline. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Closers will be needed

This discussion (not an RfC) could contentious enough to merit some forethought and discussion by the closer(s). Please see WP:VPR#Restrict A class usage, and sign up if you like at WP:VPR#Asking for closers. The discussion started on 13 Feb. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD closure

Resolved

Could another admin please close at TfD, it's been open for a couple of weeks and there looks to be a consensus. Given it's currently a matter of discussion at User talk:Callanecc#Kwamikagami I'd rather get another opinion than do it myself. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Awful article!

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

---

Read this article: Hong Kong Kids phenomenon. This is awfully written. It is written as if a pissed off kid wrote it. Really bad. --Civivlaospei (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So fix it already. We're all waiting to see what good work you do on that article. --Jayron32 20:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Scott Martin

I'm requesting assistance from administrators to establish an interaction ban disallowing Scott Martin from making further comments like [3]. I found it very disruptive to the conversation and somewhat harassing. The discussion/RfC on whether that section of Signatures should be policy or not was not the proper place for a comment about editor conduct. After I respectfully ask him to desist in the discussion about me and his perception of my conduct and telling me that I shouldn't voice my opinion on the matter, he follows up with [4] admitting that he is aware there is no topic ban on the topic for me, and includes "This has been a notably problematic area for you in the recent past." I'm not sure what he considers "recent", but I surely do not consider anything that hasn't resurfaced as an issue in six months (it has been ten and a half months since the 29.5 hour block) as recent.

What I have done since the block was lifted.

Since that time, I've accumulated a balanced 18K edits through-out article, talk, user (mostly development of user scripts that I use to assist with other projects), user talk, and template spaces. I'm an account creator, I'm an active template editor (one of a handful that responds to edit requests), I've just a little bit of my "final exam" to complete to officially a be CVU certified anti-vandal (although my activities in that aspect far outweigh this achievement), I'm an AfC developer and have dabbled in reviewing core changes on Gerrit and am an avid Bugzilla contributor. I also monitor the fully protected edit requests despite not being an admin. Of those, I've declined a few, request the protection level on others be lowered to a level that I can fulfil the request, left comments to improve the request (like suggesting to the requester to add this or that or add an RS that I've found on my own), and left others completely alone if there is nothing I can do to help or improve them and they are reasonable requests... There was no justification for that comment, and there was no justification for the continuation of comments on that page about editor conduct.

Yes, I'm frustrated because this comment comes on the heals of Bugzilla:4676#c47 which is another case of him telling me that I'm not allowed to contribute and participate in discussions because he has no clue what I'm talking about. On a Bugzilla ticket, that is also inappropriate behaviour to discuss editor conduct as an email gets sent out for every post to everyone CCed on the topic. He was then told that I was technically right, and that he should lay off a bit by Chris McKenna (of whom I can not seem to find the enwp account to notify of this discussion) in comment 48 to which Scott told him that he was misquoting what was said (c49) and Andre, in c50 had to explain to Scott that Bugzilla tickets are not the place for that kind stuff.

Now, on the flip side, I appreciated Scott's comment on my talk page a couple weeks ago (and I've made sure that he was thanked for this).

In summary, the actionable request I am making here of the administrators is to inform Scott that editorial conduct comments do not belong in RfC discussions especially when requested to stop and to take it to the user's talk page or a more appropriate forum such as here or AN/I or wherever else such discussions are appropriate. I don't mind discussing my actions, as long as it is the proper venue. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite eager to disallow Scott Martin from doing any manner of things, but you'll need to condense that into something readable before I can support such a notion in a credible way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Demiurge1000, I tried to keep it as short as I could and break it into sections to make it more readable. disruptive comment, request for comments about editor conduct moved away to an appropriate venue, refusal to do so, similar - conduct - on - bugzilla. I think this about sums it up. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think he's a bad man, but less bad than most. Would you like to work on a RFC/U with me? I certainly don't promise that it will end well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sure Demiurge1000, RfC/U would probably be the better place to discuss this, I can just never seem to remember that one with all of the noticeboard anagram soup for some reason. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page or on IRC to discuss it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• On IRC? I think not. Do you understand why some people find such an invitation troubling? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I meant it on whichever made you more comfortable, my talk page or IRC, I don't care... If my talk page (or yours for that matter) is more comfortable for you, that's fine. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• The first comment you've linked seems like a very reasonable suggestion to me. If a user has had issues leading to block in the past concerning a specific topic (i.e.: signatures), then it might be wise for them not to get involved in the same area again. I also find it weird that most of your "complaint" above actually revolves around you and your work, as if you're trying to convince someone to hire you. The fact that your nearly CVU-certified and an AfC developper is completely irrelevant if what you mean to do is spark discussion about alleged misbehaviour by another editor. I also don't think he's a "bad man" by anything conventional definition, and would be delighted to marry my sister to him, had I a sister. Perhaps T13 and Demiurge should do as they suggest and take this to RFC/U if they really think it is justified, because, let's be frank, this AN won't result in anything but fucking useless Wikidrama. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sal, while I don't disagree with your assessment there, when the block was nearly a year ago, and the user has contributed many times dealing with that topic in a constructive manner since then, and specifically has asked the user making the suggestion on multiple occasions not to make such comments in forums not about that users conduct, it borders on harassment and disruptive behavior. That section about me and my work (which I've collapsed) was in response to Scott's claim that I've "recently" caused troubles or disruption, which I have not (I've not had time to since I've been so busy with all of those other projects). I was actually really hesitant to bring it up here, as I agree, the results of discussion here are often unproductive wikidrama, but I felt it needed to be brought up someplace because I do not want such comments disrupting and throwing future discussions off-topic (which we all know some stupid silly little thing like this does all too often and all too easily). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I decided to read On the road this week, so addressing people as "Sal" is confusing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm especially agreeable to being called "Salv", if that's better for you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't find this discussion particularly productive, and I highly recommend we find something better to do. That said, I ask that all future participants in Bugzilla tickets to please read and observe Bug management/Bugzilla etiquette from mediawiki.org. This is not a comment on anyone in particular... TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
• I remember the saga with Technical 13's signature stuff, and I am quite disappointed that they are using fairly underhanded measures like this in order to try and silence any reference to it. Editorial conduct comments are valid anywhere bar article space; in this case, they are entirely valid, because it was issues with T13's signature that lead to the original drama in the first place, and the sorts of issues are exactly what this segment is designed to tackle. I suggest this thread is either withdrawn, or closed by an uninvolved editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, they are not; they don't belong on article talk per WP:TPYES, they're not tolerated at WP:DRN, just to name two examples They don't belong on policy discussion pages, either. NE Ent 03:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• DRN, OK, but article talk pages are valid places for certain types of conduct discussions/mentions (COI discussions/disclosures), and they do most definitely belong on policy discussion pages, as long as they are relevant to the policy being discussed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

[Moved from ANI] Possible interaction ban violation

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

---

(Note that I mistakenly posted this at ANI, and have moved my post and Medeis' reply here. Apologies, I'm not a regular at these boards for a while) I have been asked by Medeis (talk · contribs) to confirm whether their responding to an WP:In the news nomination by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) as at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Matteo Renzi becomes new Italian PM is a violation of their interaction ban. There have been a few such incidents. I would value a second opinion. Stephen 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please post the diff(s) to the incident(s) to which you refer, Stephen.

Please note the other editor has voted in opposition to my nominations in the past, for example diff without my objection then or now, just as I am accused of here. Please note the other editor has acted directly on the same thread on which I have just commented, with no objection by me or any other user. diff

I quote the possible violations from WP:IBAN:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

I have not editted editor Y's user and user talk space. I have posted in discussions the same discussions as, but have not replied personally or by name to editor Y. I have not made reference to or commented on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. I have not undone editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means), although he has undone mine and referred to me in his edit summary,diff even referring to me indirectly as an edit banned user a second time when he undid diff User:Spencer's edit.diff. Note that my hatting of that discussion was a standard housekeeping action on a thread that had been archived without a signature--neither a reversion, a reply to, or a reference to the other editor.

There's basically nothing to address here. I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so. Frankly, I am curious why this matter has even come up. μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ITN is not a one-way street. If someone makes a nomination, there should be no ban on anyone else commenting on the merits of the nomination. As far as I'm aware, no-one has commented on the nominators themselves, simply on the worthiness of items to be included in ITN and/or the quality of the nominated article(s). It appears that this is someone trying to fix something that isn't broken. The strictest adherence to the terms of the IBAN amount to a partial topic ban, which is an incompetently proposed outcome. On a similar note, could User:Stephen please take note of the BIG ORANGE EDIT NOTICE at the to of this page which clearly states : "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I must have missed my notification...

Still, nothing like a rainy Sunday to whip up some completely unnecessary dramaz. Can we get back to improving Wikipedia now please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

When attempting to investigate the purpose of all this, I inadvertently hit rollback on my watch list, here which I quickly re-rolled back here. I hope that this will be accepted as an honest mistake, or should I look forward to this being used to hang, draw and finally quarter me? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing as no violation. Medeis seemingly violated the ban by responding to TRM, and TRM seemingly violated it by rolling back someone's comment at Medeis' talk. TRM wants the situation re WP:ITN to be closed quietly, the rollback was quite obviously an error, and this discussion itself is not a violation, because one of the policy exceptions to interaction bans is "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I take offense at it being said I "apparently" responded to the other editor (diff?). I responded objectively to the nomination, and intend to do so in the future without restriction, just as he has both supported and opposed nominations (without my objection) like his opposition to Sid Caesar's RD nomination, which I posted. Neither of us is subject to any topic block, actually personal comments and direct reversions excepted. I find it absurd to believe that the other editor went to my edit history, clicked on undo, and hit return to revert my response to a third party on my own talk page. That doesn't happen by accident. It requires three separate deliberate decisions. It had nothing to do with the issue he himself reported to user Stephen. Nevertheless, I still don't want the other editor blocked. I really don't care about these antics. But I refuse to accept this "finding" as of any future relevance to my own actions. I also agree with the other editor that this entire affair has been both causeless and irregular, given neither of us were notified, as required, of these proceedings. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Human rights in Iran

Can an administrator please temporarily delete and then undelete this page in order to move Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran? There was consensus found at Talk:Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran#Requested move February 2014 which require closure... TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Harvest Moon

Hello, I am current editing, Referencing, and imaging a current project for a Video game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgementwolf/Harvest_Moon:_Connect_to_a_New_World I need a help with writing it, but it also says I need an admin to do the Redirect to prevent vandalism. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgementwolf (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)