Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
ANI thread concerning Yasuke
(Initiated 67 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 22 August 2024) It doesn't appear as though consensus is going to emerge for anything in this discussion that's been going for 2 weeks. Can an admin please close this. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 128 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 125 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 125 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
- Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 97 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 14 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 79 | 0 | 79 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
(Initiated 71 days ago on 28 June 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 23 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 322 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 168 days ago on 23 March 2024) This discussion died down, unclear what the consensus is. (uninvolved editor) The Banner talk 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 101 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 91 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 18 July 2024) – I'm requesting that the discusion reguarding the merger being being discussed be closed so that the pages may be merged as the proposed merger is unlikely to controversial.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 12 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal
A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would affect the position of administrator. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- This was already announced once on this page, and archived by the bot. If you want it to stay on the page until the RFC closes, you'll need to fake a timestamp or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note! I looked to see if it had been announced, but didn't find it. I didn't think the bot would archive it so fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here:
Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .
- Thanks! I did not know about {{bump}}. I did now find the archived notice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here:
- Just so you guys are aware, this and other relevant community discussions are posted up in the centralized discussion, which is posted at the top of both AN and ANI. See? You can even transclude the {{centralized discussion}} template on your own user or talk page so as to stay up to date on any major community discussions! No problem with stickying this post, just a little PSA. :) Swarm we ♥ our hive 03:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well aware, but thanks. Issue was raised at the RfC that this RfC was not publicized enough. I was attempting to respond to that. Yes, the centralized discussions are posted liberally, but realistically few pay attention to that list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On a related point, since I might be a closer on this one: so far, I've generally announced on this page any intention to close RfCs that show up at CENT, mainly for transparency and to try to get other closers to sign on. One problem is that I don't want to interfere with other closers, so I'm not going to do that any more. (Another problem is that someone who wants to be a closer now may not be so enthusiastic when it's time to close.) So, fair warning: if an RfC is at CENT and I'm interested in closing, I'll make a perfunctory statement in the RfC itself, so that a closing process or statement doesn't catch anyone by surprise, but I won't advertise for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus
- Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talk • edits) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
RfC closure review: Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment
I have started a closure review for Talk:Kosovo#Request for comment. The RfC was closed by Kingsindian (talk · contribs) on 5 August 2015 in response to an WP:ANRFC request. The close was hidden as a contested close by Red Slash (talk · contribs). There is discussion about the closure at Talk:Kosovo#Post RfC.
There is a re-closure request here at WP:ANRFC, where Red Slash wrote:
Administrators, is there any chance one of you could close this? A non-admin stepped into a really complicated RfC and kind of made a mess of closing it, and we really could use a full-on administrative close. Thank you.
But per the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review:
On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.
Kingsindian put a lot of thought into his close. His close should not be summarily overturned by an admin. Therefore, I am taking the close here for review by the community.
Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kinsindian did a good job on the close. I say leave it the way he closed it. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Here is my version of events.
| A short account of the sockpuppet matters. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There was some disruption by a sock in the RfC comments. Robert McClenon suggested on WP:ANRFC that the closure be handled by an admin because of the sock disruption. However, by the time I got around to closing, the sock had been blocked and its comments struck out. I asked Robert on his talk page as to his judgment about whether this needs an admin close, and he said that since the sock has been eliminated he does not see any obvious need, and told me to use my judgment. So I closed the RfC. |
- According to comments on the talk page, Red Slash thinks that my closure is vague and that it is a "supervote". I am not sure what he means by this. I explained my reasoning in detail, and my closure is unambiguous: consensus against option "#1" and consensus for option "#2 and #3", which I even clarified on the talk page. It is not a "supervote" in any form: I just assessed the consensus of a complicated discussion by looking at the arguments for all options, and determined that "#2 and #3" is the best (or the least bad).
- As to the point about non-admin closure, my feeling is that Red Slash in not acquainted with policy here (especially since he asked for re-closure at WP:ANRFC instead of starting a closure review, as I advised on the talk page). As I explained to him before, there is nothing special in being an admin; any uninvolved editor can close RfCs, provided they explain themselves thoroughly. Please see WP:ANRFC (point 3). Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian I think you wrote a very detailed closing, and I want to ask before assuming, did you find any consensus in that RFC, or just something close to consensus but not actually consensus? AlbinoFerret 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @AlbinoFerret: I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps my last paragraph in the RfC close is not as unambiguous as I think it is. I definitely found that the consensus is against option #1. For the rest of the options, option "#2 and #3" came the closest, and in my judgement, was close enough to be considered consensus. I clarified this on the talk page here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am another editor closer. I have found when a 50/50 question in my mind arises to just as the person to make sure. While I personally would not have touched this RFC with a ten foot keyboard cable, its a good close. Since the sock issue was cleared up, I dont see why an editor couldnt have closed it.AlbinoFerret 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @AlbinoFerret: I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps my last paragraph in the RfC close is not as unambiguous as I think it is. I definitely found that the consensus is against option #1. For the rest of the options, option "#2 and #3" came the closest, and in my judgement, was close enough to be considered consensus. I clarified this on the talk page here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian I think you wrote a very detailed closing, and I want to ask before assuming, did you find any consensus in that RFC, or just something close to consensus but not actually consensus? AlbinoFerret 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- If I may be allowed to comment here, firstly - no disrespect to admins - but just as trained judges are not "superhumans", persons with admin status are not somehow better qualified to cast judgement than any third party uninvolved editors. I cannot help but think that the editor to request admin closure is using this track as a sneaky "appeal" because he personally disagrees with the decision of Kingsindian. Seeing the closing statement by Kingsindian, I see all the hallmarks of a good judge who read every comment and weighed through them to arrive at his rational conclusion. If he became an admin tomorrow I doubt he will have suddenly acquired new observation methods, we are all human beings. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
gotwikipedia.com
Just wanted to know if this was on anyone's radar. It purports to guarantee Wikipedia backlinks for at least 6 months, and this edit, given as an example at this subpage, reveals no disclosure per the requirements in the Terms of Use. http://wikipediaeditorsunited.org/ uses the same content and is probably related. The edits of User:Tzufun are another example, given as one of the case studies on the site. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- They claim to be in "moderator positions" on Wikipedia. User:EBY3221 (blocked for spam, had rb and reviewer rights), made edits that linked to OMGMachines.com in the references of Mike Long [1] (linking in refs appears to be a modus operandi of his). gotwikipedia.com has testimonials from a guy whose website is listed as "ONGMachines.com". Seems pretty interesting. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- wikipediaeditorsunited uses our logo as their favicon, and gotwikipedia uses it as their portrait picture on their Facebook page. Figuring that these might be trademark violations, I've emailed the address given at meta:Legal for reporting trademark violations. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Found the guy who runs wikipediaeditorsunited, it is User:Kingoptimizer. The gotwikipedia.com owner appears to at one point have been User:Duberz. To err on the side of caution of violating the outing policy I will not show my evidence here but administrators/legal should free to contact me for private evidence. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Email that to the Foundation, or to me and I will forward it to Jimmy. On the face of it, this appears to violate the terms of service and if your evidence holds up then these users must be banned. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what the legal team do, but it's certainly worked for me in the past! See this COIN thread for background on EBY3221. They accepted many AFCs written by SPAs which in light of this might need looking at in more detail. I don't recall seeing SEO-type edits though so there must be other users we haven't found yet. Pinging @Brianhe: as he first noticed EBY3221. SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've asked Mean as custard whether they've noticed any refspammers like this recently and then noticed on their TP an exchange with WilliamFinnHarrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked) who was adding links such as this ony a few weeks ago. Do we think this is enought to justify CU attention? SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- That also led me to ArdenM29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's been adding similar links: [2]. SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Judging by her earliest contributions (example), EBY3221's real name is Elizabeth B. York, a name that I'm not finding on either of these sites, although admittedly they're almost totally anonymous. Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- That also led me to ArdenM29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who's been adding similar links: [2]. SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've asked Mean as custard whether they've noticed any refspammers like this recently and then noticed on their TP an exchange with WilliamFinnHarrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked) who was adding links such as this ony a few weeks ago. Do we think this is enought to justify CU attention? SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what the legal team do, but it's certainly worked for me in the past! See this COIN thread for background on EBY3221. They accepted many AFCs written by SPAs which in light of this might need looking at in more detail. I don't recall seeing SEO-type edits though so there must be other users we haven't found yet. Pinging @Brianhe: as he first noticed EBY3221. SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Email that to the Foundation, or to me and I will forward it to Jimmy. On the face of it, this appears to violate the terms of service and if your evidence holds up then these users must be banned. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Found the guy who runs wikipediaeditorsunited, it is User:Kingoptimizer. The gotwikipedia.com owner appears to at one point have been User:Duberz. To err on the side of caution of violating the outing policy I will not show my evidence here but administrators/legal should free to contact me for private evidence. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- wikipediaeditorsunited uses our logo as their favicon, and gotwikipedia uses it as their portrait picture on their Facebook page. Figuring that these might be trademark violations, I've emailed the address given at meta:Legal for reporting trademark violations. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes we worked out who EBY3221 was off-wiki but from what I understand there is a lot of outsourcing of PEing, so it's perfecly possible that EBY is linked to these companies even if there is no trace of her on their website. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone who reads these testimonials and still supports this activity, probably does not belong on Wikipedia. "They helped me beat my competitors within a few months!". For pay. And now volunteers will have to pick up the pieces. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, more work for us at COIN, at WP:COIN#EBY3221_revisited. Most of the articles listed aren't corporate PR, though. They're mostly bios of marginally notable individuals. There's a forgotten band from the '70s, and a wood carver. Three marginally notable startups are on the list, and those articles look promotional. But out of 37 entries, maybe five look like possible paid business PR. Are there particular articles that need COIN attention? John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- These types of edits are usually done by single-use accounts which are set up, quickly make a single edit and then disappear. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, more work for us at COIN, at WP:COIN#EBY3221_revisited. Most of the articles listed aren't corporate PR, though. They're mostly bios of marginally notable individuals. There's a forgotten band from the '70s, and a wood carver. Three marginally notable startups are on the list, and those articles look promotional. But out of 37 entries, maybe five look like possible paid business PR. Are there particular articles that need COIN attention? John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure this is a rather sophisticated operation, so the reviews of the AfCs could be covers for reviewing the paid PR. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Here are some recent examples of spam references being sneaked in under cover of apparently-legitimate edits, which appear to fulfil the claims made by the spamming websites mentioned above: *[[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. In some cases the edit includes several academic references and the single spam link is hard to spot. . Mean as custard (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a SPI for these accounts? I'm going to stick these domains on the spam blacklist, but such a measure is not going to be effective unless we get a substantial portion of the spammed sites. MER-C 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not yet. I'll start one later on today. SmartSE (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a SPI for these accounts? I'm going to stick these domains on the spam blacklist, but such a measure is not going to be effective unless we get a substantial portion of the spammed sites. MER-C 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Here are some recent examples of spam references being sneaked in under cover of apparently-legitimate edits, which appear to fulfil the claims made by the spamming websites mentioned above: *[[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. In some cases the edit includes several academic references and the single spam link is hard to spot. . Mean as custard (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure this is a rather sophisticated operation, so the reviews of the AfCs could be covers for reviewing the paid PR. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Section transcluded from Technophant's talk page
- Please do not directly edit this section; if you must reply in-line, do so on the user talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I am semi-active, response time may be days to weeks.
MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was too late on to vote, however I marked it as inactive and I'm fine with deletion. Technophant (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Response about Clampi on the Cleanup project page
Hey Technophant, have you seen my response? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
NSFW
Just a quick note, as I saw your edit on the Death of Darren Rainey page: There is no NSFW on Wikipedia; it is uncensored and for educational purposes. See Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED
Happy editing! Kirby777 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
The WikiEagle - January 2022
 |
| The WikiEagle |
| The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter |
| Volume I — Issue 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ankündigungen
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mitglieder
New Members
Number of active members: 386.
Total number of members: 921.
Closed Discussions
|
Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| New/Ongoing Discussions
On The Main Page Did you know...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal
I have closed your topic ban appeal as unsuccessful. There was also a consensus that you may not appeal this topic ban again for two years from this date. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I wish the users at AN put more effort and time into their decisions. There may be more than this, but the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was a edit that slightly reformatted a reference link, a revision that produced the same text output as the original but didn’t need to be reverted but did by Doc James. How do I search for only my edits for a topic or page? Technophant (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I hope you don't mind a word from me, but there really was no other way that appeal at AN was going to go, no matter how long it stayed open or how much time people put into it. And the "straw that broke the camel's back" edit, if there is one, is not really relevant. Your topic ban is based on your general approach to alternative medicine topics, which does not appear to be in line with the Wikipedia approach. That approach is to base content on what the consensus of mainstream medical science says, and not on our own disagreements with that, alternative analysis of evidence, our own opinions, or claims of personal experience and expertise. If mainstream medical science turns out to be wrong on a specific issue, Wikipedia will echo that only after the medical consensus has changed. In short, your approach to writing about medical topics and Wikipedia's approach are not compatible, so you really will need to find different topics to write about here. I do think it would be best for you to stay away from medical topics, and I wish you well with your health issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- Wasn't there just an unblock request here at WP:AN for Technophant? Did it get removed somehow, or am I just remembering wrongly? Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Check out the last bit of his above post -- there was a request for his TPA/email to be restored so he could appeal the block properly. It was successful and TPA was restored to allow him to appeal his block. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to believe that the behavioural issues that led to this block won't return. Technophant was blocked both for the topic ban violation and for repeatedly lying. I don't see anything in his unblock request that addresses the issue that he lied and lied again when he was confronted about the lies. Instead, we get a big waffle about how Wikipedia policies have shifted away from "verifiability, not truth". What would be the motivation for unblocking?—Kww(talk) 03:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- My impression is that the applicant is trying to Wikilawyer his way out of a block. That deos not sit well with me. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Too soon. There are half a dozen edits, all in the short period since Talk access was requested. The purpose of the Standard Offer is to allow people to demonstrate commitment to the goals of the project and a track record of acceptable quality contributions - a handful of edits in the last 48 hours does not do this, and the last edits before that were in May. Come back when you have several hundred uneventful contributions over a period of months. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- JzG: Just to clarify, you are talking about the simplewiki edits, correct? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. That's the Standard Offer, is it not? Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- That consideration was taken out of Offer quite a long time ago. Blackmane (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's an interesting new use of "taken out" that I hadn't come across before.
"Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects."
- Wikipedia:Standard offer #Variations. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's an interesting new use of "taken out" that I hadn't come across before.
- That consideration was taken out of Offer quite a long time ago. Blackmane (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. That's the Standard Offer, is it not? Guy (Help!) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Inconsistency Although the editor makes a vague reference to a "Wikimedia child porn scandal", their previous account was blocked for one or more WP:FRINGE-related topic-ban violations which have not been addressed. Miniapolis 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The block was apparently related to this notice. This block was quite inappropriate: Technophant was simply remarking about his opposition to the use of "fringe" and using a commonly accepted medical concept as an example. Not alternative medicine and not acupuncture, and unless the ban were extended at some point between the initial banning and the block, this wasn't a ban violation. This is where verifiability, not truth comes in, if I understand correctly: he's saying (quite correctly) that WP:FRINGE is routinely used to advocate The Truth by demeaning positions that aren't widely accepted. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Let me translate that: FRINGE is routinely used to advocate accepted mainstream scientific and medical positions held by the vast majority of scientists and doctors and validated and verified by more references from reliable sources that you can shake a stick at, as opposed to unproven and speculative fringe positions not accepted by the vast majority of scientists and doctors -- yes, that is quite true. BMK (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Which perfectly illustrates the point that he was making. GregJackP Boomer! 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, it's sorta like complaining that "WP:RS is routinely used to advocate VERIFIABILITY by demeaning sources that aren't widely accepted." BMK (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Technophant: - note that Kww was recently desysopped. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support unblock request. Editors are judging too much on past editing. Technophant has convinced me he has changed and I welcome him to return to Wikipedia. People make mistakes. We are all human. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per QG. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support User:Technophant are you requested both an unblock and a lifting of your topic ban or just an unblock? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to see reassurances that high quality sources will be used and paraphrased going forwards as their was issues with both of these in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- User acting in good faith. Desires another chance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to see reassurances that high quality sources will be used and paraphrased going forwards as their was issues with both of these in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Conditional support, provided the Alternative Medicine topic ban remains in place and the user commits to stop "banning" people from their talk page and to be less combative. In my opinion the sock block stuck not because the logged out edits were disruptive (they were pretty much harmless) but because Technophant showed an inability to disengage from conflict. There was also some WP:IDHT exemplified by their choosing to interpret an (admittedly less than tasteful) comment as a "death threat" despite evidence to the contrary, and excessive "talk page banning". The user's statement above is encouraging, and I think they're a good candidate for the "standard offer", but I'd like to see more of a commitment to avoid the more serious problems as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Also, could this not have been done with a standard unblock request? This was just a regular old block, not a community-imposed sanction. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Believing that any other bans should be raised separately, should Technophant wish to appeal, to avoid them overshadowing the central issue. Per wikipedia's blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users ". Banak (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support It's been long enough for Technophant to have worked out whether they are going to edit according to accepted norms. If they are, then an unblock is a good idea; if not, then reblocking won't be a problem. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support I agree that it's been long enough and they should now be prepared to edit under accepted wikipedia norms. I'm not aware of the topic ban on Alt med that Adjwilley mentions but if it was indefinite it should remain intact. Technophant can later ask that it be lifted. There also seemed to be somewhat of a personal dispute going on here at the time. I don't see a need for a iban but I would urge caution on the part of technophant in interactions. I'd also urge caution in any prior areas of conflict.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Seems a reasonable request. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Technophant was blocked for somewhat minor infractions. I believe the main reason they have remained blocked this long is because of his generally unpleasant disposition, ridiculous talk page banning and his zero-tolerance for criticism of his edits and behavior, resulting is some comments and e-mail that exacerbated the problems. Aside from that his editing was generally pretty good and it has been 8 months since the block, so I'm willing to give another chance.--Atlan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Behavior of Fangusu
- Fangusu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 69.42.15.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This user was indefinitely blocked in 2008, and then engaged into sockpuppeting (see: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu/Archive). She was unblocked on 6 July 2015 by MaxSem after a successful unblock request (see: User talk:Fangusu). But, just several days later (on 18 July), the user started IP socking again. She admitted it after being accused of sockpuppeting (see: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu). This is obviously deliberate logged-out editing used to avoid scrutiny (see: [7][8],[9][10],[11][12]). Not just that the editor wants to give expression of being another person, but she uses logged-out editing to attack other editors (see this edit summary). Obviously, this editor has not learned anything from her 7 years of being blocked. I propose to ban her from Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support site ban per WP:NOTHERE. I agree that she has apparently not learned a darn thing. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support How the unblocking admin missed this reversion of advice during Fangusu's attempt at asking for an unblock is beyond me; that should have kept the block going. Their noms at AfD for Digimon come down to WP:IDLI concerns and when I called them out for it, they made aspersions that I thought they were evil, which I never said. No improvement and admission of socking on the SPI shows nothing has been learned. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support To return to the same behavior that brought about the block shows that they are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MarnetteD|Talk 02:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I rarely support these requests, since they're normally made either in bad faith ("this admin deleted my page; ban him!") or for people who already haven't a hope of getting unblocked. This editor's not so bad that she couldn't be unblocked, and normally someone who requests unblock after several years is reformed, but she's proven herself otherwise: if you don't change after this much time, you're not likely to change. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support User evidently does not "completely understand why (they) got so many blocks". Blackmane (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Level 1 desysop of Malik Shabazz
Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed. This is temporary until the entire Committee has had time to review the situation. Discussion is continuing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case at the present time.
Supporting: Courcelles, Guerillero, GorillaWarfare, Seraphimblade, and LFaraone.
For the Arbitration Committee;
Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Searching for deleted articles
When one searches for existing articles, one gets a choice of reasonably near guesses by the software. When searching for a deleted article (whose title is not remembered exactly), one gets no guesses. The title you type in is the only thing searched - or rather, offered as a page to create. I don't know about other admins, but I would find a search-deleted that would give near choices amongst the graveyard of the deleted. If you search in the current way for 'Fred Bloggs and the Twinkles', you won't find 'Fred Bloggs & the Twinkles' or 'Fred Bloggs and the Twinkies'. There may already be a way of doing this - I haven't found it and would be grateful to anyone who can point me in the right direction. Failing that, would anyone else feel that it would be a useful feature? Possibly not just admins would find it of use - I can see NPP and others making use of it to locate deleted titles (but not the content, of course...). It could be handy in salting too - if salting 'Fred Bloggs and the Twinkles' (fourth creation) one may also need to salt 'Fred Bloggs & the Twinkles' (created twice). Peridon (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find any way to search for deleted articles either. It would be helpful to be able to search a deleted article using a partial title. -- GB fan 12:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- The major problem I see with this is that the title of a page is often the reason the page is deleted (i.e. attack titles). By having these attack titles returned in search results, the offensive content is still public-facing. –xenotalk 12:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would it alleviate your concerns for this to be an admin-only search function? Sam Walton (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've long wanted such a feature. It's especially needed in places like WP:REFUND, where someone may be asking for a page that someone else created (i.e. the requesting user's deleted contributions won't help) and at other newbie-facing pages such as WP:HD. Why don't we just ask for a way to search the deletion log? It should resolve the problem entirely. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd support this too. It will also help OTRS agents with "why was my article deleted" queries. Most OTRSers are either admins or know a friendly admin who will check it for them so admin-only would work for this. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another example of why I want it. I'm pretty sure I've seen a category like "Films in the public domain", but Category:Films in the public domain and Category:Works in the public domain have never been created, and none of the subcategories of Category:Public domain are relevant. If there were a way to search for deleted pages, or a way to search the deletion log, it would be easy to decide whether such a category never existed or whether it has been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't attack titles be removed from the logs anyway as part of OS? I too would very much like to see deleted articles. Or perhaps more accurately, I'd like to see a log of created/deleted articles by users. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Wouldn't"? Sometimes, but not all the time. "Shouldn't"? Yes. WP:CRD explicitly permits log redaction when a page title itself is highly problematic. Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't attack titles be removed from the logs anyway as part of OS? I too would very much like to see deleted articles. Or perhaps more accurately, I'd like to see a log of created/deleted articles by users. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another example of why I want it. I'm pretty sure I've seen a category like "Films in the public domain", but Category:Films in the public domain and Category:Works in the public domain have never been created, and none of the subcategories of Category:Public domain are relevant. If there were a way to search for deleted pages, or a way to search the deletion log, it would be easy to decide whether such a category never existed or whether it has been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- We do have this highly dubious service brought to you by the fine and responsible people at Wikia, which uses bots to scrape everything tagged for deletion on en-wiki and copy it across to Wikia where all our spam and libel can live in peace for ever more. (Jimbo's much-trumpeted moral resolve apparently only applies to WMF projects and shuts down when it comes to his other sites.) I have no intention of looking into its history to see how far back they've been doing this. ‑ iridescent 18:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- (Adding) To answer User:Nyttend's original question, the deletion discussion you're looking for was here. ‑ iridescent 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir, regarding "I'd like to see a log of created/deleted articles by users", both are already publicly available for all users. Here's my deletion log as an example. ‑ iridescent 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: pardon the lack of clear wording. I meant to say I'd like a log of now-deleted articles created by users. For example, if I created Iridescent like donuts, I'd like to see it somewhere even after it's deleted. The best we have are AFD notifications on user talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- You'll find that less useful than you expect. A lot of AFDs end in the article being blanked and turned into a redirect, which doesn't technically count as "deletion" so doesn't show up in deletion logs. I'm not sure it would even be possible to have "created a page which was then deleted" show up in the logs; I've just checked and page creations of since-deleted pages just show up as edits in the logs, without any kind of "new page" flag. ‑ iridescent 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- My thought was that it would be useful for sockpuppet investigations. But you're probably right that it wouldn't be terribly useful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- iridescent, the history of their main page began on 5 June 2012. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- About the articles not deleted but turned into redirects - won't they be available in the ordinary search? It wasn't so much things like that I was thinking of with this idea. It was more the niggling 'I know I've seen something like that somewhere, but this one's only just been deleted so it wasn't this one' sort of thing. The last creator's talk page can find some, but some of the authors change name with each repost. Peridon (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- iridescent, the history of their main page began on 5 June 2012. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- My thought was that it would be useful for sockpuppet investigations. But you're probably right that it wouldn't be terribly useful. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- You'll find that less useful than you expect. A lot of AFDs end in the article being blanked and turned into a redirect, which doesn't technically count as "deletion" so doesn't show up in deletion logs. I'm not sure it would even be possible to have "created a page which was then deleted" show up in the logs; I've just checked and page creations of since-deleted pages just show up as edits in the logs, without any kind of "new page" flag. ‑ iridescent 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: pardon the lack of clear wording. I meant to say I'd like a log of now-deleted articles created by users. For example, if I created Iridescent like donuts, I'd like to see it somewhere even after it's deleted. The best we have are AFD notifications on user talk pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Something like Peridon's original suggestion - suggestions from the list of deleted articles - would be enormously useful. It would especially help when you are looking for something you sort-of remember, as with Nyttend's category, or when you suspect there were previous articles with titles similar to the one you are dealing with now. Example: Quebec Telemarketing, Quebec telemarketing, Quebectelemarketing, Quebec Telemarketing Corp, Quebec Telemarketing Inc - each of these was a real, now-salted article title. If I'm trying to recall that series but I look for Quebec Telemarketing Inc. with a period, Wikipedia will give me no hint that any of those others exist. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- FYI: Special:Undelete with no arguments is essentially a Special:Prefixindex for deleted articles. MER-C 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, MER-C, interesting link! (Only works for admins I see.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Very nice, and a lot better than before! But still, it would be nice to have a way of searching the deletion log; I never would have found "Category:Public domain films" with my method of searching or with Special:Undelete, but if we could search the deletion log, it would be easy to find all category pages that had "Public domain" in the title. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I found a nearly six year old Phabricator ticket for this. Search functionality should also probably exist in Special:Undelete -- I lodged phab:T109561 for this purpose. These requests are something we should bug the Community Tech team about when they canvass community wishes in a couple of months time. MER-C 07:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Very nice, and a lot better than before! But still, it would be nice to have a way of searching the deletion log; I never would have found "Category:Public domain films" with my method of searching or with Special:Undelete, but if we could search the deletion log, it would be easy to find all category pages that had "Public domain" in the title. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, MER-C, interesting link! (Only works for admins I see.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
NAC closure undone, again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Handshake Murders unclosed the discussion which I closed as "no consensus" after it had been open for almost two weeks. I left a message on their talk page about WP:NACD, and they answered this which is difficult to parse. IMO, with two keep !votes and no more opinions in a whole week, there is not much chance that this can be deleted. Hence the "no consensus" instead of relisting again. Please, somebody have a look. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kraxler I agree with your close. Per WP:CLOSEAFD , AFD's run for 7 days, this has gone on for eight, in that time, 2 keep and one delete vote, mostly centering on whether the band was notable or not. I'd say your close is accurate. For sure Walter_Görlitz should not have been the one to re-open this AFD since he started and voted in the AFD which makes him involved. Further, his rationale on the AFD of "closed too soon" is inaccurate, it ran 8 days. It should be closed back up as no consensus. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- RE User:KoshVorlon The AfD was opened on August 4, it had been open for 13 days when I closed it. It had been relisted on August 11, not getting any further comments. Per WP:NACD "...any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO" Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Update, the discussion has been relisted again, and another "keep" vote was added. Under the circumstances a restoration of my closure is not feasible. Anyway, I wish users of 10 years Wiki presence would follow the guidelines instead of wasting other users' time. Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your rationale in the closing was sound, but the decision to close as a non-admin can sometimes be polarizing when it's not close to a unanimous decision. I wondering if Walter was expecting a different close, or just felt more comfortable with an admin closing it. While it wasn't an admin who re-opened your close, NACD's advice still seems applicable: "take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought"—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Update, the discussion has been relisted again, and another "keep" vote was added. Under the circumstances a restoration of my closure is not feasible. Anyway, I wish users of 10 years Wiki presence would follow the guidelines instead of wasting other users' time. Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- RE User:KoshVorlon The AfD was opened on August 4, it had been open for 13 days when I closed it. It had been relisted on August 11, not getting any further comments. Per WP:NACD "...any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO" Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kraxler I agree with your close. Per WP:CLOSEAFD , AFD's run for 7 days, this has gone on for eight, in that time, 2 keep and one delete vote, mostly centering on whether the band was notable or not. I'd say your close is accurate. For sure Walter_Görlitz should not have been the one to re-open this AFD since he started and voted in the AFD which makes him involved. Further, his rationale on the AFD of "closed too soon" is inaccurate, it ran 8 days. It should be closed back up as no consensus. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit filter noticeboard
As part of our efforts to improve the use of the edit filter, an edit filter noticeboard has been created. We hope that this will be a better venue for users to discuss and ask questions about edit filters, whilst also freeing up WT:EF for discussion of the corresponding project page. Sam Walton (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)