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

Administrative discussions

WP:ANI § Editors reverting RfC closure at Talk:Forspoken § Indef proposal

(Initiated 14 days ago on 3 June 2025) The subsection "Indef proposal" has been open for 13 days, and there have been no new comments there in the last five days. Would be nice if that subthread is closed now by an uninvolved admin. Kind regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2: Dicklyon Topic-Banned from Capitalization

(Initiated 9 days ago on 8 June 2025) Can an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus of Proposal 2 regarding the topic ban and close this part of the discussion, please? Thank you! Some1 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Consider closing the entire Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Persistent, long-term battleground behavior from multiple editors at capitalization RMs, as the discussion and evidence that sprawled into the later threads have context for assessing the TBAN proposal. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 90 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 87 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 74 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 73 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 73 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 73 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 69 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 61 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 59 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 53 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 53 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 53 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 52 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 45 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)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM

(Initiated 35 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	2	15	17
TfD	0	0	12	5	17
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	5	6
RfD	0	0	0	37	37
AfD	0	0	0	7	7

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

(Initiated 22 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 247 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 141 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 131 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 39 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:Satanic film#Requested move 17 May 2025

(Initiated 31 days ago on 17 May 2025) Lengthy discussion mainly between three editors. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 30 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 28 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)

 Doing... I've written a closing rationale. Given the potential contentiousness of the issue, I'd prefer a committee close. If anyone wants to be co-closer, please contact me. Even a committee of two or a closing endorser is fine. Chetsford (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

(Initiated 94 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:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#California State University, Northridge (more broadly: do alumni have COI?)

(Initiated 15 days ago on 3 June 2025) A rough consensus seems to have emerged here, but it could use a close with a quick summary for ease of future reference and for allowing the result to be actioned. Sdkb ^talk 17:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:FFD

There's a little over 800 items in need of closure/review at Files for discussion, most of which are very, very easy closures. It'd be great if several admins could spare a few minutes to close some old discussions. Thanks, FASTILY 22:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFD is backlogged as well, if anyone is feeling in a closing mood. shoy (reactions) 12:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to BDD for clearing the backlog at RFD! shoy (reactions) 14:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Very kind of you, shoy, but I was hardly alone. Deryck Chan and Patar knight deserve credit, as does the project's newest admin, Tavix, who has really hit the ground running at RFD. --BDD (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll try! Deryck C. 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrators bypassing SPI to pursue a vendetta

ANI close: SPI is a formal admin board for admins and CUs. ANI is an informal admin board for discussions by the community. If you have actual evidence (rather than vague claims) that an admin is abusing their bit, file at WP:AN, not ANI. And for the record, geography isn't evidence of innocence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

In these edits Elockid (talk · contribs) reverts two editors - 86.191.126.192 (talk · contribs) in Norwich [1] and 78.145.23.96 (talk · contribs) in London. The Norwich editor has been reverted five times. No administrator should be blocking geographically distant editors as socks of the same master without giving both of them an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion. As a London editor (along with ten million other people) I have been blocked on numerous occasions and never once been given the opportunity to make representations [2]. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely no obligation to notify any account that they are the subject of a SPI for "an opportunity to make representations at an SPI discussion". SPI isn't AN/I, where parties must be notified. Doc talk 08:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The SPI page has a section for the "accused" and "third parties" to give evidence. Why should they be prevented from doing so? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is required to notify any accused party of a SPI. Period. Doc talk 08:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to prevent any person giving evidence in an SPI case, and if that happens a reasonable inference is that the administrator is pursuing a vendetta, which is the subject of this thread. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a reasonable inference. You're a blocked editor, wasting our time. Thanks fer stoppin' by! Doc talk 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is why I removed the user's first report here earlier... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this report was first filed there have been developments. The talk page discussion went as follows:

You're a banned editor. Anyone can remove anything you do here. Sorry. Doc talk 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also, I did NOT say to move the discussion. I said if you ever found any real evidence, WP:AN is where you go. You didn't have evidence, just conjecture. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2@The Rambling Man:Good morning. Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. What is "disruptive" about following administrators' directions for posting on noticeboards? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: That's an interesting theory. What other explanation could there be for protecting the SPI case page? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(sigh) There's no protection on a SPI case page preventing an IP such as yourself from defending themselves. You noted the space for entering evidence yourself. The thing is this: no one is required to notify you that you are in a SPI. Understand the difference?! Doc talk 09:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Looking at the page history, on 10 December 2015 someone wrote

Bishonen has investigated and ruled that these IPs are not sockpuppets.

A further 62 words of evidence followed. One minute later Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the evidence without explanation. The only possible conclusion is that he is stalking the editor in furtherance of a vendetta. Nine minutes later Elockid protected the page, under edit summary "Persistent sock puppetry". There is no other credible explanation for this behaviour. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha! okay, I'll bite. Refresh my memory: what page on 10 December 2015, exactly? We're talking about at least two admins conspiring against somebody, which is a serious charge. Doc talk 09:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Here's the diff: [3]. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I truly can't imagine why you would have any interest in that at all unless you were a blocked account in bad standing here. I there any possible credible explanation besides that? Doc talk 10:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871:I came up against this here: [4]. Prior to that I had a long history of trouble - free editing. What possible connection could there be between that and this? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You're hilarious. How many admins are in on this devilish conspiracy? We've got: FPaS and Elockid. ...Aaaaaaaaand I guess we also have GiantSnowman, Favonian, Ponyo (the lady of whom Drmies said spring would not arrive without her), and DoRD as well.[5] Am I missing anyone? Doc talk 10:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doc9871:I've no idea. Why don't you ask these people why they did what they did? 31.52.143.80 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to ask them. It's quite clear. I've seen all I need to see. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• How did you manage to reduce my talk page to three lines by adding 79 bytes of content?
• You're even more hilarious:

I've got evidence but I'm not going to tell anyone what it is.

• Add to that you're a liar:

It has been established that this IP address has been used by blocked user blah blah blah

Ah, I see it's that template you added at the top. Fixed the formatting. 31.52.143.80 (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy notification @Doc9871: 31.52.143.80 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The next thing to happen was this comment from Doc9871:

Patrolling admin: please disable talk page access and e-mail me for evidence of proof for Vote X if needed

Now, Doc9871 has a history. I see Melanie read him/her the riot act on Tuesday and s/he was blocked today. There is a pattern: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Threats, aspersion-casting, etc. by Doc9871. S/he also twice reverted this report when it was originally posted -

There has been discussion on the SPI page today:

• 151.225.17.59 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Same interest, style and known range. LTA is here Quack?   Aloha27  talk  11:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Everybody who edits Gregorian calendar is a sockpuppet?
• Same style? There is one edit to this article by this person, which reads as follows:

It was intended that, when projected backwards, the dates of the reformed calendar would agree with those of the Julian calendar in that year. This was one of the canons of the Council of Trent. The reformed calendar violates the canons so it is anathema to Catholics. It is also anathema to Orthodox, having been condemned at councils in 1583 and 1593. The purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to ensure that all churches used the same Easter.

I can't see the remotest similarity between the two edits.

• Known range. A straightforward lie. The last edit from this account was more than six years ago. It has long been stale. Anyway, this editor probably lives on the other side of the world from myself.

That such an inadequate report was closed within 22 minutes with a two - word post raises the suspicion of tool abuse. Further evidence is that SpacemanSpiff has never, to my knowledge, ever been anywhere near SPI, let alone closed a case. Suspicion is heightened since the LTA report alleges that the editor has criticised SpacemanSpiff (although I checked the contributions and found no evidence of this). So on the face of it we have an administrator who has developed a grudge against an editor and is abusing his tools. The next stop should probably be ArbCom. 151.224.84.58 (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked, closing. —SpacemanSpiff 11:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In point of fact, SpacemanSpiff does close SPIs, but he always gives full reasons:

• On deeper investigation, as noted at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Creation Infoways Pvt Ltd, I'm now convinced that this is linked to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexia thomas15. Also, the above finding of multiple continents by Bbb23 is supported by the PR company's own website. I would therefore think that all these should be merged into a single SPI that references the company and not the oldest account. Their Wikipedia page creation/monitoring services is the biggest link between all these accounts. —SpacemanSpiff 04:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that one minute after the IP posted its evidence RickinBaltimore reverted and two minutes after that Elockid protected the page. This AIV report by RickinBaltimore is unbelievable:

• 151.224.84.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change (diff):. Vote (X) Sock,about as blatant as can be. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:Basketballfan12

Background

Basketballfan12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beginning May 19, 2016, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#User:Basketballfan12_-_creating_non-notable_NBA_bio_stubs, Basketballfan12 has been flagged for their track record of creating biographies of non-notable sportspeople, which has placed an undue burden on the community to patrol, nominate, and discuss pages for deletion.

The following AfDs on Basketballfan12 created bios have been closed as "Delete":

Basketball-related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Pauga
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Presson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Swetoha
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Mazzella
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubba Barrage
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Wilson (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Seymour (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Brady (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Swetoha
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxie Esho
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Capers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Murphy (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Daigneault
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Walsh (basketball)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris

Baseball related:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Marder
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Perlman
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oren Gal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orr Gottleib
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Gould

The following have been speedy deleted:

• Template:Northern Arizona Suns
• Jarrell Christian
• Matt Woodley

Multiple editors have reached out to User:Basketballfan12, but the editor generally not respond, with few edits to talk namespace, and user talk namespace edits generally limited to blanking their own talk page.

Since the discussion on May 19 was started, they have since created more new sports bios at Steve Brown (outfielder), Nate Fish, both of which are dubious of meeting WP:GNG with insufficient independent sources.

Proposal

Unless Basketballfan12 finally engages the community and addresses these concerns, I am proposing a topic ban on any creation of sports-related pages (articles, templates, etc) by Basketballfan12. They are free to create pages in the Draft namespace, where other editors can move the proposed page to the main namespace. Basketballfan12 can request a lift of the ban once they have sufficiently demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia's notability criteria. —Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that there are at least 18 other pages created by this user that are currently undergoing active AfD discussions (I will not link them here due to WP:CANVASSING considerations, but I thought this might be relevant information). Full disclosure, I nominated these articles (and many of those listed above) for deletion after finding that this user had created many articles that did not meet notability guidelines. This user has not shown up at any of the AfD discussions, nor interacted with me on talk pages and appears to have no interest in doing so, yet continues to create new articles. Unless Basketballfan12 interacts with the community and displays an understanding and a willingness to fully consider the notability guidelines before creating new articles in the future, I would support the above sanctions.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I missed that less than half an hour before my above reply this user did respond on one of the active AfD pages so I've struck the above comment about it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it was Basketballfan12's first ever comment at an AfD, and it was an hour after they were notified of this AN discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern's a ban is too harsh, We will respond to all future questions regarding sources Basketballfan12 (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Basketballfan12: Wait a second - who exactly is 'we'? Are you a paid editor or is this a shared account? Katie^talk 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Basketballfan12: Unfortunately, your recent response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Makris was essentially to keep the article, but the AfD was closed as delete. There is still no indication that your view on notability is now in line with the rest of the community.—Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering if @Basketballfan12: is a non-native speaker of English, which would explain the use of the harmless Royal we. Not having seen any of the articles (as they've been deleted), I have nothing to base their grammar on. What about the articles makes them non-notable? Are they regional of local athletes? I remember when I was starting out that I practiced by making articles of people who I thought were notable (they weren't). Fortunately, I had a mentor (my Dad - that's right, I'm a generational Wikipedian) who pointed out how they weren't useful to articles. The point is, the user might not be up to speed on how the collaborative environment works, and is focusing solely on output, ie. article creation. Would it be dumb to offer a bit of AGF here? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Judging by their edits, I don't think English is a problem, but @Basketballfan12 could clear up any misunderstandings by participating in this discussion. From what I can tell, the editor assumes that any athlete, even those from minor leagues, is inherently notable. Based off the volume of their article creations that have been deleted, allowing them to continue editing but limiting their creations to the draft namespace was my good-faith proposal. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: If that is the case (English not being an apparent problem, the subsequent use of the Royal 'we', and the apparent misunderstanding of notability plus the lack of necessary discussion), then I think a temporary block of the account is in order. Topic banning them isn't going to get their attention - AfD'ing the articles the user is creating isn't stopping them. I think that a block - for the good of the encyclopedia - will get them talking, if for no other reason than to say, 'why u do dat?' That the problem made it here makes the point of its necessity, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: A block would at least an attempt to address the long-term problem. Still, I'm AGF that their contributions are useful outside of their judgement on article creation, and a topic ban would still allow them to contribute and learn about notability criteria in the draft namespace.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

This is just a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is now open for public comment. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it may have been buried in tl;dr in #Admins requested for moderated RfC, above, I want to add that a third uninvolved closer is also still requested. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is a good idea, but keeping it on the rails will require cat-herding abilities of truly awe-inspiring magnitude. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but at least we have two seasoned DR admins on it. I don't know if we'll be successful, but the alternative is WP:ARBGMO2 turning blue and nobody wants that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Question - Am I allowed to provide a diff to a page I am TB'd from?

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

---

I am considering raising a case against another editor on either AN or ANI regarding their behaviour. Some of the evidence I would like to provide are diffs to pages I am now topic banned from. The interactions between myself and the other editor occurred before the topic ban, so the question is not whether I have breached the TB, but would publishing diffs to those interactions now be a violation. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the interactions were prior to your ban shouldn't make a difference. At the present moment you can't make any reference to the topic of your ban, even in a statement of evidence. I assume you are referring your GMO ban. Without a strict understanding of what is covered in topic bans, people could keep on dueling about the topic of their ban forever. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a big place, with many people around. If the person in question is behaving in a way so as to need sanctions, someone else, who isn't you, would have also noticed, and would bring them up here as well. If only you noticed, and literally none of the other millions of Wikipedia users have, then it probably needn't be brought up at all. Either way, there's no compelling need here for you to violate your topic ban. --Jayron32 17:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step... _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks for this. The irony here is that I can not even discuss your [EJ] post directly because others have indicated this in itself would be a violation of my TB! The diffs I want to use would indicate incivility on the part of the other editor. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever to use them to discuss the subject matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can clarify the question I am raising. If an editor has called me a **** on a page I was subsequently Topic Banned from, can I provide (list) a diff indicating this edit (with no other comment about the diff) when building a case about incivility? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not. You're not editing/contributing to the page directly, meerly bringing an issue about WP:NPA to ANI. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I'm saying this as a non-admin, so you ought to see if an admin confirms what I am about to say, before you take any action based on what I say. If the situation is as simple as another editor having recently made an NPA violation against you, and they referred to you specifically, you have every right to make a complaint about it, but the complaint must be absolutely separate from anything having to do with the topic area of the topic ban. (If an interaction ban is involved, instead, you cannot do anything unless they explicitly named you.) On the other hand, if this sort of thing is really blatant, other editors are likely to have complained about it for you. And if the timing is that the comment about you was made prior to the enactment of the topic ban, that means that it was a long time ago, and is probably too stale to justify any complaint by you now. If many months have gone by since the time of the diff in question, and nobody else has raised an issue about it, I think you might get a bad reaction if you bring it up now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It would make more sense to mention the recent diffs from after the topic ban that were personal attacks and simply leave it at "This has happened before." If someone asks you for more diffs, then link to this discussion and leave it at that. They can go looking for them. If there is no recent issue from after the topic ban, then it's a non-issue that doesn't need to be brought to a drama board. ~ Rob^Talk 20:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this Rob. This sounds very sensible and is probably the approach I will take. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I see a "general" question like this posted on a noticeboard about what a topic-banned editor may or may not discuss, the fullness of time almost always reveals that the best answer is either

• Yes, your intended actions violate your topic ban and should be avoided; or
• No, your intended actions technically don't violate your topic ban, but they're still bad for you and the project and should be avoided.

Just a wild guess here, but are you planning to renew/extend a conflict with an editor who was previously involved in your existing topic and interaction ban(s)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ermmm, sorry, but I do not see the relevance of your question. Surely my question is a point of basic adminship and instruction to the community and there should be a yes/no answer. I do not mind which it is, I would just like a clear answer. What is your answer @TenOfAllTrades:? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Awfully demanding, aren't you? Part of the problem with asking a vague, general question is that you can't get a black-and-white answer. I can readily imagine gray areas and circumstances where I might respond either way. And you're explicitly insisting on entirely missing my point—merely being 'not expressly forbidden' is never a good test for whether or not one should do something. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

By utter coincidence, the talk page of the other user, to whom DrChrissy refers, turns out to be on my watchlist, and I just happened upon the specific situation in question. It seems to me, DrChrissy, that you have nothing to gain by adding the diff you ask about, and you would be better off not bringing it up. The other user happens to be blocked, and there are plenty of admins examining the unblock request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, I am talking about multiple, and I do mean MULTIPLE diffs about incivility directed at me, so I am not sure what you are referring to. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. At one point, you referred to a single diff. But I still think there could be an issue of timing. If there have been multiple diffs in the past few weeks, that could be a good reason to pursue this, but if a lot of them are from a long time ago, then I think that the admins who are discouraging you have it right. Heck, users say awful stuff about me almost every day, and I generally try to shrug it off (not that I don't also make mistakes). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I indicated a single diff. I am talking about a general point. I could ask when does an editor calling me a **** become "stale"? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:TenOfAllTrades's somewhat haughty rhetoric makes a lot of sense--well said. User:DrChrissy, folks who seek the edge of their topic ban typically end up violating it; they certainly waste the community's time and resources along the way, and avoiding that was the purpose of the topic ban to begin with, one presumes. Look, I'm still here, and I could be writing Trump on Twitter. Tryptofish, you are not devoid of reason and experience, I think: is the supposed insult blockable? is it bad? has the editor been warned? (These are things that every single editor can do, of course, and probably should.) Drmies (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm not devoid of experience. At this point, I'm not sure which insult we are talking about, per DrChrissy saying that there were multiple incidences. But I'm getting the impression that we are, for the most part, talking about non-recent stuff and stuff where there are already multiple eyes. It feels to me like DrChrissy is kind of pushing for someone to "give permission" to make a complaint, and my advice to DrChrissy is to let it go. (And I saw your other post, about "beel the fern", which is becoming my new mantra!) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's just say, I am not in the slightest seeking permission to make a complaint. I will now be making the complaint regardless of the advice given above. I was hoping to give historical evidence of the extremely disruptive behaviour of the other editor to give a more complete picture of how damaging the editor has been to the project over a period of many years. I have no desire to "seek the edge of my topic ban" ...am I not allowed to ask a question on this noticeboard without a disruptive agenda being attached to me? I will make the complaint and not place the links I had been thinking of. This editor's behaviour has been so disruptive recently that they will almost certainly attract sanctions, however, admins will be looking at this with only half the evidence. Hmmmmm..... DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless the personal attacks are very bad or they are an ongoing/recent issue, your complaint is not going to go anywhere. Personal attacks only get action when they are either new/IP editors or particularly nasty. Since in your case they are both stale and mildly incivil, you will be wasting yours and others time. RE 'disruptive', from checking the issues that led to their sanction for edit warring, while they were incorrect in edit-warring, the substance of their issues at Ken Ham was certainly correct, and a brief look at their contribution history shows they generally take a stance that is line with the wikipedia house POV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

And since we are obviously talking about Jps I have notified them of this thread. Should you actually raise a formal complaint about them, they will most certainly be unblocked in order to defend themselves. Given that you involved yourself in an edit warring report on an article you dont edit, proceeded to goad jps on the edit warring noticeboard and have a history with the user, your conduct will be equally looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

John blocked jps for edit warring and 3RR violations according to the block notice and log. He did not make any other comment to jps, but did tell DrChrissy at the EW noticeboard thread that civility was also a factor. I think John's failure to give his full reasons on jps' talk page or in the log was somewhere between careless and incompetent, given it misinformed both the blockee and any reviewing admin. I believe that DrChrissy is taking my statement on jps' talk page that it is inappropriate to retrospectively change the rationale for a block as a reason to argue that jps' manner in the discussion is unpunished and so can be blocked again. John's block was blatantly punishment on edit warring grounds as the report was stale (no warring for more than 24 hours), the previous 48 h block being escalated was reversed, and jps is right about the content (what was being added was inappropriate content). JPS' behaviour at the EW thread was problematic and unwise, I'm not gong to defend it. However, DrChrissy, the block will be seen as acting on that even though John failed to include it in his rationale. Further, your own behaviour will also be scrutinised and that won't be good for you. That John is threatening an indefinite block for not explaining what is already explained (and subsequent to my pointing this out) is not going to add to the chances of further punishment. Short version: pursuing this is not going to make anything better. I doubt John will even get other admins pointing out his poor judgement. EdChem (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 June 2016‎

Comment I hate to say this, but it feels awfully like some admins are closing around to protect an editor and provide a very chilling atmosphere to my potentially bringing an ANI case. All in the absence of knowing who the complaint may be about, or what might be the subject! If the above conversations were going on at another editor's Talk page, I would not be surprised to see an ANI launched. There seems to be a massive amount of mind-reading going on here, and a terrible assumption of bad faith. I came here to ask a perfectly legitimate question and rather than give clear answers (which is what I thought admins were supposed to do) drama is ramped up, accusations are flung at me and very thinly veiled threats are made. Should I raise the complaint I am considering, the diff to this thread will be part of that to show that some admins have already decided on what should be done without even reading any evidence. I suggest the admins making those assumptions should recuse themselves from the complaint if I make this. Furthermore, if another admin has made a bad close, that is between you guys - I don't think I have ever had contact with John before the edit-warring incident so I had nothing to do with his decision - I simply requested a clarification after the event. If you are upset with him, take it out on him, but leave me out of it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, just to clarify... I am not an admin, I have no power whatsoever, and am just expressing my opinion. I am not suggesting you did anything wrong in asking John for clarification, and had he not responded as he did, his subsequent comments on the unblock appeal would be much much worse. I think he did a poor job and yes, that is not to do with you. However, your response to me made me anticipate an ANI case. You are free to launch one, of course, but I honestly believe it is unwise. EdChem (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have just realised that my previous posting is threaded as if it were a comment on your posting. That is not what I intended. It was supposed to be zero indentation and given as a general comment, not a reply to you specifically. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: given the on-going disagreement with the user in questing (please see User_talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc#Blocked), the timing of this thread and line of commenting @ a noticeboard does not appear to have been done not in good faith. This may be just my impression and I'd be happy to stand corrected. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • K.E. my apologies, but I am having a little trouble understanding your post here (perhaps not helped by the probably unintentional double negative). Are you suggesting that my original post here was not done in good faith because the editor JPS is currently blocked? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's the timing that makes it look so suspect. Honestly bringing AN threads when jps happens to be blocked and helpless comes over as pretty poor form. Perhaps it's simply time to cut all this b.s. No don't break your sanctions. And stop from these sort of passive aggressive threads. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
      • What evidence do you have that my question relates to JPS? I have not made any accusations here, I simply asked a question which you have not even attempted to answer and ABF. You will also be asked to recuse yourself if I should raise the complaint. Are there any more for this list? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Recuse? What do you think this is? Editors are not required to "recuse" for anything whether you want them to or not and, specifically, recusing is the domain of Arbs not regular editors and admins. Capeo (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
          • I looked up the definition of recuse and read "excuse oneself from a case because of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality". I feel the comments of some here indicate they would not be impartial if I raise the complaint. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
            • That's not how WP works. If you raise a complaint on a noticeboard any editor, so long as an existing sanction doesn't prevent, has the ability to comment and present evidence. It's up to the closer (admin in most cases) to decide if any mitigating circumstances would allow for not taking said evidence into consideration when judging consensus. Capeo (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the clarification. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
        • "What evidence do you have that my question relates to JPS?" Because I have an IQ that is just *slightly* > than a doorknob. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
          • I am pleased that you are more intelligent than a doorknob, but it does not matter how intelligent you are, this does not amount to evidence. It is supposition on your part and I urge you to read WP:Casting aspersions...and remember these are findings of arbcom and sanctionable. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

These ban edge/ban questions seem to come up every couple weeks. I suggest that the purpose of a ban is to stay completely away from the topic and associated conflicts. Continually poking at it and questioning it is, in my firm opinion, becoming disruptive in and of itself. DrChrissy if you have a question about whether your ban applies or not in any given situation assume it does. That is what "broadly construed" means. My gut says that if this type of poking continues that some sort of sanction is in order to get the point across. I just do not know how it should be constructed. Fortunately figuring that out is not up to me as I am not an admin. Jbh^Talk 16:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jbh, thanks for that advice. I think like some others you have perhaps missed the point of my question. Someone has been extremely incivil to me recently. I am building a history of their incivility toward me and many other editors. Some time ago, they called me a **** on a page which I have now been topic banned from. All I am enquiring about is whether I can post a diff to that comment as evidence of the editor's incivility. I do not wish to make any comment, hint, reference to, or whatever about the topic I have been banned from. I have many eyes watching me (as evident by the massive amounts of ABF on this page - this is not aimed at you) so it would be madness on my part to do so. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If the case hinges on a single old diff then it is probably a weak case so just leave it out. If a significant number of the diffs are in the area of your ban then they are both old and a conflict you should not be continuing. My opinion is that you should be restricted to forwarding any question that even remotly touches on your topic ban to ArbCom. That will make you think whether it is really a question you need to have answered since bothering ArbCom for multiple times for trivial things generally has a bad outcome. That would give you the potential for relief if it is warranted and will cut down on these protracted threads, which to my knowledge, have all ended in "don't do it".

Like many others have noted, you do some good work here but you just can not seem to back far enough away from your problematic areas. I fear that you "have gone to the well" so often and so tenaciously in the past that even uninvolved observers like me start to think, when they see words "topic ban" in any of your comments, the disruption has not been solved by a simple topic ban because you can not disengage. Again, please assume if you have any question about the applicability of your ban not explicitly excepted in WP:BANEX just assume the answer is "don't do it" and move on to something else. Jbh^Talk 17:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for the sound advice. Please let me reassure you and others that this thread (at least for me) has not ever been about me deliberately trying to go anywhere near my topic ban. Other editors seem to feel I would not be in violation of my TB if I provided diffs about the editor's incivility, so I have actually received mixed advice, however, it will of course be safest for me to avoid providing the diffs. And no, the complaint is way, way more than just one old diff. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Then I would say you have your answer and your way forward - bring your complaint and avoid linking into the banned topic. Probably that strategy should have been self evident and the drama I see blooming above could have been completely avoided. Maybe it is time to close? Jbh^Talk 18:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I do have my way forward, but it was not self evident to me before starting this thread, nor to several others opining that providing diffs would not violate my topic ban. I think the thread should remain open a little longer - I have asked direct questions of several editors and I think they should be given the opportunity to answer these. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Hillary Clinton

I think it might be time for an administrator to check in on the back-and-forth editing at that article's intro. Note, the article-in-question is under 1RR sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

An admin might consider 12 hours of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Likely the best option, until today's multiple Democratic primaries are over. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, much too much back and forth; fully protected for 12 hours. Any admin who disagrees is free to lift or shorten the protection. Lectonar (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Aha, the corporate media is now running the Admins' Noticeboard too, huh? Beel the Fern! Drmies (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, their influence now spreads all over Europe...drawing Germany into the Sanders/Clinton/Trump-Wars....Ve haff wayz off meking you tak. Lectonar (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The same issues and behavior are happening at United States presidential election, 2016. A short protection (making sure that m:The Wrong Version is selected...) :) until the polls close at 8PM PST might be worth considering. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's been quite calm for awhile, overall the related dispute at that article hasn't been as heated as at 'Hillary Clinton'. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring (guilty as charged) will probably spill over onto other related pages such as 2016 Democratic National Convention as well. ansh666 17:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that article's been quite stable. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Relatively, yes, but I'm just worried that protecting one will move people towards other related articles, and extra eyes can't hurt. That said, no action is really necessary anywhere else either for now or hopefully ever. ansh666 18:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's not give them advice on where to edit-war at next. ~ Rob^Talk 20:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting relief

I was topic banned on 1 February 2016 on Mudar Zahran article, I would like to request relief after I stopped editing article. I was topic banned when I was talking about the users in the discussion, when my words were misunderstood as accusations. 6 months were sanctioned and now more than 4 months have passed since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Links: User banned by @Drmies:for 6 mos. on 04:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) at User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 1#January 2016 per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. HTH. Rgrds. --64.85.216.223 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked the edit history of Mudar Zahran and recommend that you wait out the full duration of the six-month ban. There were some questions on whether the various parties, including yourself, were editing neutrally and as to which sources were good enough to use. Incidentally User:Drmies' semiprotection has expired and I can see how there might be a need to renew it. Since this ban is a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBPIA, your appeal options require using the steps given at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, unless you can persuade Drmies personally. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Location map Belgrade problem

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

---

Hello! Please, can someone help me and create Template:Location map Belgrade using this image (File:Map of central Belgrade.png) I was trying so much, but its complicated! Please help! --Axiomus (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus: You should probably request help at WP:VPT. --Izno (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Axiomus:A better option might be Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Baisla

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

---

Dear sir what is the problem with the baisla page this is wikipedia source and wikipedia source is not a poor source See http://everything.explained.today/Baisla/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devnarayan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan Baisla Jdb (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but it is a poor source as Wikipedia cannot be its own source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Britmax (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats / Creating a chilling effect

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

---

Filbert007 was recently mentioned on the BLP board, he attempted to totally re-write the Peter Wyngarde article, and when that didn't work, he started creating a chilling effect / issuing threats of legal action in the article. Admin Nthep reverted him and started speaking with him on his talk page. In the meantime, Filbert007 created a content fork of the Peter Wygarde article, which I believe violates BLP. This draft was declined, and despite Ntep and I speaking with him, he's continued issuing threats of legal action. Just to be clear, he's not outright issuing legal threats in the truest sense of the word, but he's definetly creating a chilling effect, especially for those users who may be new to Wikipedia. Rather than clutter up this board, I have a write up over here . Sad thing is, I was willing to db-self this within 2 weeks of writing this (which was yesterday). I'm requesting addition eyes on the Peter Wyngarde , a possible block on Filbert007 for issuing legal threats and a deletion of the content fork in draft space here . Thank you. KoshVorlon 11:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, if the French action against google.com is successful (currently the RTBF law only applies to European versions of google, not google.com, the French are seeking to have the judgement applied worldwide), BLP will need to be seriously consider being re-written otherwise many biographies will just not show up in web-searches. While its great to say wikipedia is not-censored, and the Right to be forgotton law does not apply to wikipedia, functionally what is the point in including material in a biography if it prevents that biography from actually being seen or showing up at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a gross violation of WP:NLT. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE, block him. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Does that "what is the point in including material in a biography if it prevents that biography from actually being seen or showing up at all" only apply when it is France doing the censoring, or does that include things that China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea decide to censor? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Well technically it would be Google doing the censoring as they have the control, but hypothetically if any country can compel the worlds primary search engine to not show results *anywhere else* in the world, it will be a big problem. The prime purpose of Wikipedia is to educate. If it cant actually reach readers, it fails in that purpose. Which is why I am hoping France does not succeed. Or should it go against them, Google just tell them to get stuffed. I dont think it will come to that, I doubt China will ever manage to get Google to censor Falun Gong results worldwide for example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yay! Now there is a reason for Wikimedia to make its own Google competing search engine! Gah... </sarcasm> (Just in case Gah was not clear) But seriously if it becomes known that Wikipedia does not respond to RTBF orders and Google/Bing/etc people will simply make Wikipedia a secondary search site. It is also an issue big enough, and directly effecting its mission, that the WMF should be spending some its money to fight. As interesting as it is I guess the general conversation would be better on Jimbo talk though.

Per the threats on the draft talk page. Block him per NTL or go all the way and indef per NOTHERE now rather than later. People that try to use legal leverage to control content directly or indirectly simply do not belong here. Jbh^Talk 12:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That wouldnt actually solve anything, since a separate Wikimedia search engine would also be subject to RTBF requests. You would end up with the laughable situation where the WMF's own search would not bring up wikipedia results. Thinking the WMF can actually do anything about RTBF is silly. Google have a much bigger vested interest in fighting it, and significantly more money. So if they dont win, there is little the WMF can do other than deal with the consequences. (As an aside, I have removed the most contentious part of the BLP concerned as I feel it massively violates WP:UNDUE, left a note on the talkpage, and one for the editor explaining that if consensus decides its not UNDUE, since it doesnt violate any sourcing, crime or BLP policies, then there is no reason it cant stay in the article) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, This isn't massively relevant to Wikipedia because the vast majority of people redacted by Google under RTBF aren't notable anyway; either completely non-notable or BLP1E cases. For clearly notable people with notability stretching over a period of time (i.e. the subject of this, Peter Wyngarde), RTBF doesn't apply. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

True. My comment was more a knee-jerk sarcastic/ironic response to the recent/not so recent WMF drama/issues re search engines and such. Probably best if I do not do irony before breakfast. :) Jbh^Talk 13:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked per NLT. If the threats are retracted, any other admin may unblock if they see fit without reference to me. Bencherlite^Talk 13:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

WT:ANRFC discussions

Just a note because WP:ANRFC is related to AN but there are two discussions at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure about limitations for the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Requests_for_comment section of ANRFC. One is to bar the inclusion of AN or ANI discussions from there and the second is a bar on the addition of RFC closure requests by people who have not commented in the RFC itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

{{humor}}Oh man, I can't wait for that RfC to be open long enough to appear on ANRFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So someone can request us to close a discussion that's overdue to be closed about closing discussions that are overdue. 😳 Katie^talk 02:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls

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

---

Wikipedia has always suffered from trolls (most created by inexperienced or ignorant admins themselves but that discussion is for another day) but over the last decade, there has always been a 'common denominator' which I have seen myself many times and its when these trolls decide to stop contributing completely and start trolling..obviously most users we ban daily are sockpuppets who either are violating WP:NPOV or pushing their own agenda but a random few do it for teh lulz, these trolls are dangerous because they come to wikipedia not to just be an ass but to be the 'biggest ass they can be'..this started way back with 'WillyOnWheels' and was later carried on by the one we called 'Grawp' but it seems nowadays when admins or editors who patrol these type of trolling come across such trolls, the first thing they do is to tag them, and then report them....this is where the issue lies...If you give a troll who is chasing fame by tagging them as a "sock" and then creating categories, they would never go away...Its like giving gremlins water after midnight..but in this case, any time of the day..it will just make things worse.. I propose we delete categories and sock tags of every "current" vandal with over 100 sock accounts, salt (lock and hide) those that we can (with the help of stewards) but keep a hidden list off-server or in a private mailing list accessible by all admins (and above) and certain selected non-admins dealing with vandals like these on a daily basis....I could name atleast 2 current ones who deserve to be 'salted' for good, but I assume there is atleast 2 dozen more than should be completely and ruthless "expunged"...When it comes to trolls searching for fame on wikimedia, there is only ONE wikipedia policy we should adhere too, and its about time we did... --Stemoc 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You lost me when you wrote that "most [trolls are] created by inexpereinced or ignorant admins". After a bizarre statement like that, I didn't read any further. BMK (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well my comments were for admins and editors involved in that area..not for a glorified troll so ignore it please, till the big boys come over and read it.....--Stemoc 06:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This big girl admin stopped reading there as well. We are by no means victims, but I'm not going to listen to someone who blames me for getting rape threats just for blocking and tagging a vandal. Katie^talk 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Propose Immediate closure of this thread as not requiring any administrative intervention (indeed, it seems to exist solely to allow Stemoc to WP:VENT over an imaginary non-issue. Suggest that whatever issues the OP has, they are not ones that can be settled here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So.... we just completely remove the sock tags and templates? Seriously? That would never work at all. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I'll just add to the bottom then, I'm not venting (funny how you close this thread based on a policy which does not exists), I'm pointing out an issue which is actually being created by admins and vandal-fighters alike, we did not select you as admins so that you can ignore the masses..and can people who have no idea about anything please stop closing the threads....I'm here to talk to the more experienced and knowledgeable admins who would find this interesting and above all useful, if you are not it, no need to read the topic, just move along, its not meant for you...anyways back to the topic.. don't avoid the issue, the question asked was why are we allowing 'trolls' to use the wiki as their play ground, coming in daily and using the wiki as its playpen, not only attacking contributors and admins alike but also intentionally acting like they need their diapers changed....well like spoiled brats basically...why do we continue to keep a list of these "babies" seeking mommy's attention?...infact a good spanking (as mentioned in my OP) is all thats needed..since none of you bother to read the OP, let me give a few examples of such trolls, sadly, I'm "feeding the trolls' by listing them down but alas I have no other option, lets take this user as an example who currently has 67 tagged in confirmed and unconfirmed bu there is more or this person who does this routinely, 2 or 3 times a day who currently has over 160 confirmed accounts (but a lot more via other wikis)..why are we keeping lists for trolls?, why are we enabling them?, why are we feeding them? We intentionally ignore the basic rule when it comes to such trolls and that is WP:DENY so why not actually start using a WP policy that actually works?--Stemoc 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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