Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues.

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page (and some of its subpages, including /Incidents).

Report incidents such as block evasion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Report violations of the three-revert rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Discuss general issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Report posting of personal information by following instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
Request discussions need to be closed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Andrew Orlowski (25 September 2013). "Revolting peasants force Wikipedia to cut'n'paste Visual Editor into the bin". The Register. Archived from the original on 25 September 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2013.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Antisemitism by User:2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74

This editor has been making grossly antisemitic comments on talk pages such as this, this and this. The nature of the comments is such that I think an immediate block would be in order. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ahem?

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767078691100880896 https://www.facebook.com/jimmywales

edit Looks like hacking, might want to keep an eye on the other accounts.

83.233.147.191 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership behaviour

Non-actionable discussion on the talkpage of AN. Your issue will not be decided here like this. WP:ANI be thataway should you still desire to attempt to gain action. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 15:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear administrators, I am asking you to ban the User:Rhode Island Red. This editor seems to be engaged in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and negative WP:POV pushing regarding the article about Amway (and other MLM companies). He constantly reverts all edits I make, trying to keep only the negative information about the company and holding back important information from the readers such as the most recent one, which was my addition of upcoming legislation in India to the paragraph about Amway cases in India which got reverted with an explanation that "It's out of context, having no connection with the rest of the details in that section regarding legal cases against Amway India" which is not true and I explained that on the Talk:Amway. I have provided more sources that refer to Amway cases, but each time I add something to balance the biased information in the article, it gets reverted by the very same user using apparently fabricated arguments. I have experienced this type of behaviour several months ago. I have also noticed that the very same user has a long history of this kind of behaviour in many articles about MLM companies on Wikipedia including for example USANA Health Sciences, Protandim, Juice Plus, MonaVie... to name a few. His edits are characteristic by adding only negative information and not allowing other editors to add anything positive. He had been notified by other editors in the past about his behaviour, including User:Lord Roem, User:Wikiwiserick, User:Leef5... According to User:TraceyR on Talk:Juice_Plus, he has been banned previously (verified here: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red/Archive_1#You_are_now_blocked). But I can tell I can see no improvement in his behaviour over the years.--Historik75 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) — Historik75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As far as my label as a single purpose account is concerned - I believe that many newcomers start as SPAs (even User:Rhode Island Red started as one). When their edits do not get reverted, they move to other topics as well. But if every edit I make (even those that are sourced and relevant) gets reverted from the beginning, believe me, there is no motivation to edit other articles. And I believe there are many editors out there who were discouraged by this kind of behaviour in the past. I believe that when you present the relevant facts and provide reliable sources, then it should be irrelevant whether you are newcomer (SPA) or not.--Historik75 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! An Amway SPA/troll bypasses the talk page, makes no attempt to seek consensus or outside editorial advice, and charges ahead with a stealth campaign to have a decorated veteran editor banned so that they can resume their efforts to turn the Amway article into an advertorial unimpeded. Good luck with that doomed effort. The complaint is so baseless and ill-formed I won't even bother addressing it beyond what I've just said, aside from a warning that if the underhanded tactics continue, a block/ban will likely be in Historik's future. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To reach consensus with somebody who is involved in personal attacks and is not trying to reach consensus (which was demonstrated during RfC in March) is really difficult. I tried it one time several months ago and it took us nowhere. Now the situation is repeating. I do not want to waste any more time. You are apparently involved in blackwashing all the MLM companies. In particular, we have discussed the Amway cases in India during RfC. Your recent edits keep all the negative information and at the same time eliminate all the relevant details that would explain the reader what was the real reason for what happened there. Now that 2 articles are out about the upcoming legislation and I have provided the sources, you have removed them as irrelevant. The article, as it is now, is strongly biased, non-balanced and the editors are not allowed to make any changes unless you allow it. You were successful in discouraging other editor(s) in the past from editing the article but perhaps you have forgotten that the article is not owned by you. If I have an information that is backed up by reliable sources why should I be prevented from publishing it only because you arbitrarily decide you don't like it? Am I supposed to make RfC each time I add some information only because there is one user who took over the ownership of the article and who doesn't like my edit and is not willing to accept any argument? If this is the way Wikipedia works, then I am not interested in editing it. But I hope that the rules here are different. --Historik75 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2016

I would like to be able to comment on this Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Relationship_between_Tyranny_and_Arms_Control I brought this incident up with the administrator who created the incident report, and he took the matter out of my hands by pre-emptively filing the incident report against himself, and now I can't even comment because the page is protected. Why is that? Polythesis (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected because of a disruptive IP issue a few days ago. I have unprotected it again, you should be able to comment now. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for addition to the page

Can any editor please add this to the page?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Attempted close at Talk:Abkhazia

I recently closed a RFC on that page. Unfortunately, my closure was directly removed(history). The only reasons given, however, were directed at me, the closer, and not on the close itself. If someone has a problem with a close itself, then they should voice the concerns. I would, of course, respond. Here, however, it looks like the reverters ignore that everyone can close a RFC. Further reverts would only lead to a disruptive edit war, so I am asking you all to evaluate the situation.188.174.88.23 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost right - almost everyone can close an RFC, except involved editors. As someone editing from an IP address, there is no way short of using Wikipedia:CheckUser to confirm that you are uninvolved. But that's just my two cents, will leave this template unanswered so if anyone else else checking semi-protected requests wants to move this, that's up to them. Cannolis (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, all of the reasons I pointed out to you on my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say:As someone editing from an IP address, there is no way short of using Wikipedia:CheckUser to confirm that you are uninvolved.

 I say: That is ignoring WP:AGF, and it is ignoring that everyone involved could use a sockpuppet for the same(abusive) means. 188.174.88.23 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I saw this coming a mile off, and I'm not going to be drawn into this type of debate. My response on my own talk addresses the AGF issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: As Cannolis pointed out, closing as an IP user is a tough justification because of the potential for abuse by an involved party. WP:AGF could also be used to argue the IP user could be showing bad faith as well. I would suggest opening an account here if you're interested in this contested closure. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]