Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. Sections older than six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion Proposal for coordination of Good articles Stand-alone lists - eligibility for nomination as Good Articles Closing deletion discussions with low participation Patrolling new pages without a user right AWB reordering references Password strength requirements and advanced permissions Pending changes level 2

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC) (Initiated 111 days ago on 26 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

N. B. the permalink is here (the do-not-archive tag expired; but so has discussion, so the permalink should suffice.) Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

RfCs

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#Request for comment on “vulture” descriptor

Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source (Initiated 105 days ago on 1 September 2016)? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years:

Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude>

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude> (Initiated 103 days ago on 3 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus seems apparent enough, so I don't think a formal close is strictly necessary (all the more so because the discussion has now been automatically archived), but it would be be good to have someone uninvolved confirm that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that this should be formally closed, especially because, if there is consensus to do anything in that discussion, it hasn't been done. Pppery 23:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

My reading of the consensus has been challenged, so a formal closure would be needed. – Uanfala (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation (Initiated 79 days ago on 27 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 73 days ago on 3 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:AD 1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AD 1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to? (Initiated 70 days ago on 6 October 2016)? Please consider Talk:AD 1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by involved editor. The closing statement of the earlier RfC stated: the consensus is that the pages 1-100 will be moved only if a consensus can be reached as to the name of the articles. If there's assessed consensus for a title, please consider suggesting a period of time in which pre-move preparations can (need to) be made before the batch moves. This will involve new conditional logic such as year nav/dab templates. If it's assessed there's no consensus, these template updates will not be necessary. Take this with a grain of salt; I'm an involved editor, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment by involved editor. Concur with Andy. There would be a lot of work required in the year-related templates, although some needs to be done anyway, and the first RfC was contingent on a WP:CONSENSUS as to the move targets, which is not related to a majority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment by OP – Work on the templates has started and is not very difficult if we stick to changing the targets of years 1–100. There was a rather strong consensus in the original RfC for limiting the move to this range. Titles of year articles should be consistent but several name variants are already handled by redirects, so there is no harm in whichever solution is adopted. — JFG ^talk 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Update – By collective effort of some editors, pages 1…9 have been moved to AD 1…AD 9 as a testbed to validate all necessary technical changes, including numerous templates dealing with years. Titles 1…9 are now assigned to the disambiguation pages. There were no objections from readers and other discussion participants so far. We are waiting for a formal closure of the second RfC in order to proceed with the migration work for 10…100 if a naming convention can be decided. — JFG ^talk 16:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#RfC: Jane Doe content

RfC will be 30 days old on 21 November (ignore signatures near the top as they are re-signs or material added significantly after RfC start). FWIW, there is a consensus to close now, due to no activity, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Call for close. Thanks in advance! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style? (Initiated 56 days ago on 20 October 2016)? Please consider Talk:Johannes Brahms#Illegitimate RFC in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park (Initiated 55 days ago on 21 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:National Hockey League#Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Hockey League#Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL" (Initiated 56 days ago on 20 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:MPay#Proposed merge with Advanced Info Service

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MPay#Proposed merge with Advanced Info Service (Initiated 51 days ago on 25 October 2016) after 30 days have passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#RfC about the names of both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#RfC about the names of both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church (Initiated 57 days ago on 19 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages (Initiated 91 days ago on 15 September 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right

Unanimously opposed; it's snowing, someone please close this. Sam Walton (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• (involved comment) - I think it is reasonable to snow-close or procedural-close the original proposition, but to keep the "alternative proposal" by Jbh open. Maybe refactor the whole page or something. I made a comment to that effect here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• The alternative proposal should certainly remain open, yes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'll close the first part. BethNaught (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Y Partly done by BethNaught. The other part of the RfC (which should probably run at least a full month) was (Initiated 23 days ago on 22 November 2016). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fidel Castro#Request for Comment

I initiated this RfC yesterday to deal with a situation already extensively debated on the Talk Page and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Over the past 30 hours the RfC has seen a great deal of attention, with twenty statements of opposition/support/neutrality with regard to the central question. It has reached the point where insults are being traded and the same of issues are being trotted out again and again. Perhaps it is too early to bring it to a close, but I feel that it has served its purpose. Would an experienced editor who is well versed in Wikipedia policy and determining consensus please take a look and, if they see fit, bring it to a close. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

Someone uninvolved should review the page for accurate consensus. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for an update, I relisted the discussion because waiting time for a volunteer would be longer than I thought. I can still welcome the closure. George Ho (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#End

Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cold war (general term)#Proposed merge with Cold War II

While the discussion might need more time, requesting it earlier is best due to the backlog of requests above. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Judith Barsi#Cause of death

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judith Barsi#Cause of death {(Initiated 52 days ago on 24 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement? {(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 October 2016)? Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#RfC: Is the language biased? and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity {(Initiated 48 days ago on 28 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox {(Initiated 41 days ago on 4 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content {(Initiated 46 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead {(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions? {(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark {(Initiated 42 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Popular election#RFC: what sort of page should this be?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Popular election#RFC: what sort of page should this be? {(Initiated 42 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides? {(Initiated 46 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dental caries#RfC about article's lead image

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dental caries#RfC about article's lead image {(Initiated 42 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion {(Initiated 25 days ago on 20 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Center for Security Policy#RfC: Wording of Lede

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Center for Security Policy#RfC: Wording of Lede {(Initiated 41 days ago on 4 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table? {(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 187#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes {(Initiated 34 days ago on 11 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2016#RfC: Shall we ban macrons in titles?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2016#RfC: Shall we ban macrons in titles? {(Initiated 42 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC {(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC {(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects {(Initiated 44 days ago on 1 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Nothing Was the Same#RfC: Should metacritic be listed in both the review scores box and the critical reception article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nothing Was the Same#RfC: Should metacritic be listed in both the review scores box and the critical reception article? {(Initiated 52 days ago on 24 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#The initial sentence in this article is not factual. There are two problems, one is a major objective issue in that non factual information is being presented. The other is possibly subjective, as discussed here

This section and others, for example the already closed Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi, are protracted WP:FORUM debates and seem to be going nowhere. (Initiated 101 days ago on 5 September 2016) —DIY Editor (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Rozen Maiden characters#Straw Vote Redirect Dec 2016

After discussing with the closing admin for the AFD and DRV, could an editor close the straw vote and redirect the page? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)#RfC for above proposal

RfC template has expired for this merge discussion (Initiated 31 days ago on 14 November 2016). Formal close would be nice. Discussion has pretty well dried up. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves

Talk:Charlotte (wrestler)#Requested move 29 October 2016

Needs closure from uninvolved editor.LM2000 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion

This discussion forum currently has an average backlog, 17 items going back to November 7, 2016. (15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The backlog has grown to about one month (plus one extremely old one listed below). Pppery 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8#Roman Empire establishments (1st century and earlier)

This discussion has stayed open for nearly six months! ((Initiated 190 days ago on 8 June 2016)) Pppery 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Amber

Has been open for nearly a month; needs closure from an uninvolved admin (I personally have no opinion on the subject). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 109

The discussion has been left open for a month, I cannot close it as I am involved. Thanks Nordic Nightfury 11:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 272 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Hobo Style Films 2016-12-15 17:59 2017-01-15 17:59 create Repeatedly recreated Fabrictramp Two-Face 2016-12-15 09:38 2017-01-15 09:38 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: same unsourced edits were made by autoconfirmed users during last semi-protection Samsara Allen West (politician) 2016-12-14 23:35 2016-12-21 23:35 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy CambridgeBayWeather Albania 2016-12-14 20:19 indefinite edit Apparent sockpuppetry which cannot be stopped by semiprotection. Page covered by WP:ARBMAC EdJohnston Faisal of Saudi Arabia 2016-12-14 13:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Samtar Hebron shooting incident 2016-12-14 09:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine 2016-12-14 02:33 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm User talk:TheGracefulSlick 2016-12-14 00:39 2016-12-21 00:27 edit,move converting to extended confirmed protection Barek Tel Rumeida 2016-12-13 18:21 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm Israeli Military Governorate 2016-12-13 17:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 History of the Arab–Israeli conflict 2016-12-13 14:35 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page BethNaught Gush Etzion 2016-12-13 08:31 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 Quneitra 2016-12-13 08:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 Haspin 2016-12-13 08:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 Nov, Golan Heights 2016-12-13 08:29 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 Merom Golan 2016-12-13 08:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 Shebaa farms 2016-12-13 08:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 BU Rob13 Golan Heights 2016-12-13 08:25 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page BU Rob13 Geneva Conference (1973) 2016-12-13 06:27 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm Camp David Accords 2016-12-13 06:17 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm Israel–Jordan peace treaty 2016-12-13 06:11 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty 2016-12-13 05:13 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm Palestinian views on the peace process 2016-12-13 04:50 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm Israeli views on the peace process 2016-12-13 04:42 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page Ks0stm Popular Front of India 2016-12-12 22:35 2016-12-19 22:35 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute CambridgeBayWeather Wikipedia:New admin/Protecting/Protect/cascade 2016-12-11 18:23 indefinite edit,move Plastikspork Basil Leaf Technologies 2016-12-11 04:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Nick-D Hank Goldberg 2016-12-10 15:37 2017-12-10 15:37 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing CambridgeBayWeather Ibn Saud 2016-12-10 08:21 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab-Israeli conflict related page: RFPP request Ymblanter Cedric tylleman 2016-12-09 15:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Cenarium

Pre-emptive Extended confirmed protection for templates

I've just been asked by a user to reduce a protection level I set some years ago, downgrading from Template Editor protection (TEP) to Extended Confirmed protection (ECP), on the basis that past requests for TEP to ECP were undertaken by administrators (two such changes are in the ECP log further up the Administrators' Noticeboard) and that it would be more suitable for the template in question (Template:Location map Russia).
I've read through the note which was left on my talk page regarding ECP, and I've read through the policy on ECP, and it doesn't appear to permit this pre-emptive usage, but I agree with the broad view expressed by the user, that ECP would be more suitable for some templates.
Any thoughts on this ? Nick (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying my response to Nick from his talk page: WP:PP does not discourage ECP on templates per wording of the policy... not yet. Actually, the wording looks vague, especially WP:PTPROT. Would trying to interfere with protective levels, i.e. upgrading protection from ECP to template-protection, violate the "Wikipedia is not bureaucracy" rule? --George Ho (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and Magioladitis: (Talk page stalking elsewhere). --Izno (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I declined a couple of those as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Totally uninvolved; I don't think I've ever seen this template before. Do you think that TE protection is necessary? If so, don't reduce it: this is fundamentally the same thing as going from full to semi. If not, go ahead; we don't have anything against reducing a page from full protection to semiprotection, and this is, again, basically the same thing. Reducing a protection you imposed, if you now believe the protection to be excessive, is reasonable, and it would go against WP:BURO if someone would oppose your action because the lower protection level isn't explicitly authorised for the page in question. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was a large RfC to determine usage of ECP, located here. In that RfC, the consensus was for Option C, which states "Allow use to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective." That was very specific consensus to use ECP only to combat active disruption where semi-protection is ineffective. The absence of specific guidance on applying ECP to high-risk templates doesn't mean it's up to administrator discretion. It means that the community has not yet supported us using the tools in this way. Prior to the RfC, administrators could not use this protection level without specific community consensus or a relevant ArbCom remedy. Similarly, I believe that we shouldn't expand the usage of ECP without some evidence of community consensus specifically for that. I expressed similar sentiments when admins started applying ECP creation protection. Maybe these are positive uses of the extendedconfirmed user right and protection level, but administrators who believe that's true should pose the question to the broader community. Admins are provided the tools to use them as the community has determined they should be used. We shouldn't deploy our technical abilities to effectively change the protection policy without an appropriate level of community input. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Has the community opposed using ECP for templates? George Ho (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't use administrative tools on a "Well, they haven't explicitly told us not to do it!" basis. The community hasn't supported using ECP for templates, which is what's relevant here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If "high-use" templates are not "high-risk" templates, can ECP apply to "high-use" (not "high-risk") templates? I'm basing this on "high-use" and "high-risk" message templates. George Ho (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it can, the community has only recently discussed the matter and agreed that extended confirmed protection is for cases where semi-protection has been tried and where it has failed. The policy says In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. We, as administrators, have to respect the wishes of the community through the use of our tools. I know things change and the wishes of the community often change over time, but we're talking about the most recent significant change in the administrative toolset, something which was ratified only a few weeks ago, I feel this definitely has to go back to the community to be discussed further. Nick (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If the community has only just decided it, why would we go back to the community to discuss it further? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, though pre-emptive Extended Confirmed Protection for templates, as a replacement in some circumstances for Template Editor Protection wasn't discussed during the discussion, so there could be something for the community to discuss without rehashing old arguments. Nick (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Brexit means Brexit, don't forget.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The community just decided on a policy, but this use case never came up. It's not rehashing things to bring a new use case to the community for discussion. Ideally, such a discussion should also discuss ECP creation protection, which is currently applied to 17 pages but has no basis in the protection policy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• This request is make-work nonsense. Template:Location map Russia was last edited in September 2010 and the only talk page comment was in July 2010. Editors should not wander about the project looking for things that might be useful. Clarification I mean George Ho should give a reason for wanting a bunch of people to spend time on the template. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  I was going to compare this to Template:Location map China, transcluded by 1,300+ pages and semi-protected. However, I almost forget that Russia is part of Eastern Europe, which is subject to discretionary sanctions. So are its related pages. I added discretionary sanctions banner in its talk page. I did the same on the template talk page. Shall I add "ds/talk notice" on many other related pages? If discretionary sanctions is justified for using template-protection on related pages, like "location map Russia", then... I shall not challenge that. Nevertheless, other templates not related to Eastern Europe shall be discussed. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  What are saying? Are you thinking of adding tags somewhere? If so, do not add anything to any page unless there is a need. There may be a theoretical possibility that a tag is needed, but the tag should only be added if needed. Or, are you wanting to have a protracted discussion about why a template that has not changed in six years is protected? If so, do not discuss stuff unless there is a need. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  I'll rephrase: ...I'm giving up on requesting downgrade on that template for now. The talk about it is done. Now back to general concern about templates and ECP... George Ho (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

George Ho you need to stop posting at WP:RFPP asking for changes in template protection. If the template has less than 1,000 uses or is semi-protected and there is no disruptive activity it doesn't need changing. If it is template editor protected it doesn't need changing. Thanks to BU Rob13 they have all been taken care of. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is all the thanks I get for making requests of any kind? You know what? Have it your way. Until you trust EC users to edit templates, I'll not make any more requests for protection on templates. George Ho (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC); edited, 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To be fair, I don't mind the edit requests where template protection is needed even when they're currently semi'd. Those requests aren't particularly necessary, as I regularly go through the database report and widdle away at unprotected or underprotected high-risk templates, but they aren't damaging. The continued requests for ECP protection to high-risk templates do need to stop, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

George Ho I didn't say you should stop just that you need to be more selective in your requests. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for my outbursts hours ago; I struck that comment. However, I still decide to hold myself off from such requests until the time being, i.e. allowing EC users to edit templates without telling them to request the special right to have access to template-protected pages. George Ho (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As for requesting protection on templates transcluded by <1,000 pages, I saw one of administrators accept some of my such requests in the past. I thought any of you would do the same. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: It really depends on the template. I'd template protect a template with 100 transclusions if those transclusions were Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama, United States, etc. It's very possibly I would semi-protect a ~800 transclusion template if the pages were medium traffic, but not for low traffic pages. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up ECP discussion

I've drafted an RfC to gauge consensus on two use cases of ECP at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy 2. Could some of the admins here look over the proposal and provide any suggestions? I'd like to keep it at these two use cases for now to avoid muddling things up. Note that the RfC isn't live, so no actual comments should be made there yet. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you add more proposals of usage? "High-risk" can be interpreted broadly. What about "high-use templates"? And what about protecting titles of articles? --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I overlooked or misread the bold statement. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'll say what GH struck himself on: We should distinguish between high-use-low-risk and high-use-high-risk templates. I know that I would very clearly not support ECP for Template:Navbox, but I might for Template:WikiProject Video games--both are considered high use but one has a highly-visible impact and one does not. --Izno (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: If we get into the weeds of what a high-risk template is, we're never getting out of that with any type of consensus for anything. That's been posed to the community many times but failed to gain consensus any which way. As always, protection should be a matter of administrative judgement, and the protection level should be comparable to how widely used, complicated, and high-risk those templates are. We already trust administrators to correctly differentiate between templates in need of semi and templates in need of template protection, so I think it's safe to trust them to make this differentiation as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If the community doesn't form a consensus in favor of using ECP on "high-risk" templates, maybe another RfC proposal to use ECP on "high-use" templates might do. George Ho (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we need to keep this simple. Protection is an administrative discretion area, including about which templates are high risk and which are not. Approve it for templates or don't, and if we do, let the decision about what is at risk be up to the administrator. Katie^talk 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this should be generally discretionary - and can be entertained at RFPP as needed. Being able to use LESS protection (ECP as opposed to TP when TP would have otherwise been used) shouldn't be a big stretch. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur, Protection should never be based on a set of "if-then-else" conditions. The admins were already granted discretionary use of ECP, I don't see why template protection should be made an exception. Blackmane (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If template protection is not an exception, how do we motivate people into requesting to become template editors? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Two things: Blackmane, the community never granted purely discretionary use of ECP. They granted discretionary use on these conditions: "In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic." Extending that to pre-emptive protection of high-risk templates is more than trivial. The community may or may not want the use of ECP to be extended in that way. George Ho, I'm not terribly worried about "motivation" to become template editors. If we create a situation where less editors need the right, then less editors will ask for it, and that's completely fine. There's no need to grant user rights just for the sake of granting them. Lastly, I will be launching this RfC in the absence of any additional comments in a week or so, when I have time to go about notifying everyone from the last ECP RfC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@BU Rob13: yes, you are correct. That was the decision that I was referring to as I was involved in the RFC. Apologies to George Ho for not being specific on this. Blackmane (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: may I suggest adding the sentence "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure on templates against disruption that has not yet occurred" (bolded words mine) in accordance with the existing policy on the use of ECP? While I am disappointed with the last ECP RfC, the community spoke quite clearly, and I don't see a strong case against allowing ECP for templates with ongoing severe disruption. However, I will oppose any attempt to allow using ECP to preemptively protect templates. There are already more than enough protection levels for that. Altamel (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: Where are you suggesting I add that? The RfC is already clear that it's addressing only use on high-risk templates. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

After the last sentence of the second paragraph, after "two such potential use cases." insert "In accordance with existing protection policy, if extended confirm protection is approved for either of these two cases, it should only be used with prior evidence of disruption, not as a preemptive measure." That, or something carrying the same meaning. Thanks. Altamel (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this asking for more unnecessary rules, Altamel, or is semi-protection adequate enough or something? Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making tackles that. Also, WP:TPROT says that "template protection" should not be used on less risky templates on the grounds that the template editor user right exists – the existence of the right should not result in more templates becoming uneditable for the general editing community. In other words, maybe we can make templates editable just for autoconfirmed and/or EC users. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, in theory, ECP is less restrictive than full protection or template protection. That is a reasonable point. But in practice, I have not seen evidence that ECP is being used to make page protections less restrictive rather than more restrictive. Of the 248 pages that are currently extended confirm protected, I count 8 instances where full protection/template protection was reduced to extended confirmed, and 32 instances where a page was upgraded from semi to ECP. The empirical evidence shows that in general, ECP is being used to deny additional editors the ability to modify pages, not the other way around. I noticed that you have made efforts to downgrade some templates from template protection to ECP—thank you for that. But on the whole, I am concerned that if preemptive ECP on templates is allowed, the general trend will be to upgrade, not downgrade protection, which is precisely what has happened with articles. In the last RfC, the closer wrote that extended-confirmed protection should not be used as a first resort, which I interpret as barring preemptive protection. We ought to respect the result of such a widely attended RfC, and note this condition in the upcoming RfC. I see no harm to clearly spelling out the rules under which ECP may be allowed for templates. All the best, Altamel (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Somewhat echoing Xaosflux and KrakatoaKatie in regard to the case of high-risk templates, if it is to be allowed, it should be at the discretion of protecting administrators. That being said, I've always found the template editor usage guidelines to be excellent advice. I don't think potentially opening up the ability to edit high risk templates is necessarily a good idea, because of the higher possibility errors being introduced to them, the chance of bold changes being implemented without consensus, etc. Editing high risk templates can affect the display of thousands of pages, as opposed to just one with the majority of edits. An understanding of that is important when editing said templates.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:PC2016 is still open, Godsy and Altamel. Vote soon before it is closed. PC2 allows other editors to edit under the supervision of administrators, especially when ECP or semi-protection is used, as opposed to TP, which blocks non-administrators out but allows those who have rights to edit TP-locked templates. But the number of TE is very small. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Closure Review: Talk:Michael_Portillo#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F

This is a request for an official review of the decision to close the Request for Comment at Talk:Michael_Portillo, which was requested by Smerus and carried out by Midnightblueowl. The RfC concerned the issue of whether the subject's infobox should contain his political predecessors and successors, as is customary on other BLPs and as is provided for in the community-endorsed infobox template. As you will be aware, the standard policy is to let RfCs run for 30 days, unless the discussion has come to a standstill and there is either an agreement by both sides that the RfC should be closed or another compelling reason for closure. This RfC was opened on November 14, 2016 – it was closed today, Dec. 3 2016, whereas under normal circumstances it should have been closed no sooner than 11 days from now. Discussion has not come to a standstill (an editor !voted and commented just 10 hours before closure), and there was no such agreement by both sides that the RfC should be closed; the request for closure was filed by Smerus without the consultation of other editors. Moreover, as this issue is relevant to thousands of BLPs wiki-wide I think it is all the more important that the RfC be allowed to run for at least the full 30 day period. Prior to making this review request, I informed Midnightblueowl here and they agreed that an official review was appropriate. I have also notified Smerus on their user talk page. Best wishes, Specto73 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It might make more sense to open an RfC about including predecessors and successors in politician infoboxes in general. Everything said there pro and con has general applicability. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: That is precisely my view. As the inclusion of predecessors and successors in political infoboxes is the current status quo standard, I agree that a wiki-wide consultation would be more appropriate. Given the general applicability of this issue and the overwhelming past consensus, I would be exceedingly grateful if you would reopen the discussion – I don't see any reason that suggests the RfC should have been closed in the first place, and I am disinclined to start a general RfC as I am very much in favour of maintaining the status quo. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

" Simply believing a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently, is not sufficient for requesting review. Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." (WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). If anyone is concerned about the "thousands of BLPs wiki-wide" (actually it only affects 'Infobox officeholder' articles), they should, as suggested by DGG, take the issue to discussion at Template:Infobox_officeholder. If they are 'disinclined' to do this, that may offer some index of the true level of their concern.--Smerus (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have said, WP:RFC very clearly states that an RfC should run for at least 30 days unless there is a compelling reason why it should not. No such compelling reason was provided at the time, and the request for closure was submitted without the notification of any other editors. My submission is that, as the discussion was still very much active at the time of closure, the closure has cut short any opportunity for further valuable input on either side. I did not want to start a further RfC as I think that it is pretty clear where the past consensus lies, but, if that is what it takes, I will gladly do so. Specto73 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would ask, also, that admins take into account the fact that three 'Yes' voters (Smerus, Nikkimaria, and Gerda Arendt) have been previously sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for unhelpful or disruptive contributions to infobox discussions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use_of_infoboxes. Specto73 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What a lovely comment ;) - Seriously: we just saw a RfA fail because of things 4 years ago, and this is just as old. Two of the three were only warned, I was restricted and have never found out why, but also don't care. The restrictions were lifted in 2015. I think any closing admin would be better advised to check if comments in the given discussion were helpful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would add that, in that distant but spectacular battle, I was one side and Nikkimaria and Gerda on the other. The fact that we have concurred on this issue might give food for thought.--Smerus (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we always agreed that infoboxes should be concise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ps: The then-arbs saw you and Nikkimaria on the same side, but we know how well they looked at evidence, proposing to ban a user because he uncollapsed an infobox. I asked the next arb candidates what happened in the edit in question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator protection for block-abusing edits?

An administrator is ordering me to protect the edits of socks with the edit comment, "Do not edit closed AfDs".  Two examples are, [1] and [2] I am giving the administrator a chance to explain himself, but if there is no response here, I will simply revert him, as such edits have no 3RR limits.  @Sandstein:.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Might want to discuss this on User talk:Sandstein before coming here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was clear in my warning: "Do not edit closed AfDs, not even to strike through comments by blocked editors. This creates the mistaken impression that the closing admin closed the discussion in the state after your edits." Our policy at WP:TPO is also quite clear: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." I'm not sure what the point of this is, except to waste the time of others.  Sandstein  17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:TPO is not a policy it is a guideline.  Further WP:TPO has in no way been disregarded.  Changing the meaning to the rest of the discussion is covered by dating the strike.  This is exactly why the edits of blocked editors in AfDs cannot be directly reverted, with the exception of when their post is the last post in the AfD.  Changing the meaning to the blocked editor's comments is exactly the purpose of the strike, which is covered by policy.  Also, this is long-standing practice in closed AfDs, and you've not responded to the point that I can revert you and my revert is not subject to 3RR.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• For further examples of Unscintillating's obsessive attitude and repeated long-term misbehaviour regarding this issue, please see e.g., Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_7#Template:Banning-enforcement_undermining and Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_7#RfC_to_re-validate_WP:Banning_policy. It's also worth mentioning that, after I disagreed with him regarding this issue, he stalked and hounded me for over a year. It might be time to consider a topic ban formally restricting this chronically annoying editor from any edits to closed AfDs. Reyk _YO! 17:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Don't edit closed discussions. Barring serious issues like outing or a severe BLP issue, that's pretty absolute. The discussion is an archive of exactly what the closer saw when they made their close, and it's important to maintain it as such. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that WP:Blocking policy is a policy, and WP:SOCKSTRIKE is established practice, your comment seems to be a matter for you to take up at the respective talk pages. 

Your other point that AfDs are harder to read, I disagree with, as it has been my experience that reading old AfDs with block-abuse strikeouts in place allows considering if the closer was improperly influenced by block-evading editors, which is only done while considering the information available to the closer.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"Barring serious issues" - I think we're all agreed on that much. But some of us see socking as just such a serious issue. (I would support this strike-through.) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

*Just my 2c here but what's the problem with Unscintillating striking a socks comment & adding a note?, Nac & admins have done it for quite some time & in one case a comment was struck a month after the closure so I don't get the issue here ?, Although AFDs shouldn't be edited after closure I just don't see an issue with striking a socks comment after closure? .... –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Nevermind I didn't realize one sock-strike was added despite the AFD being closed back in October - I personally have no issue with anyone adding a sock strike perhaps a few hours or days of it being closed but these shouldn't be added 2 months (or even a month) after a closure - I'm not going to revert but I would recommend the sock-strike be reverted because it's rather pointless - Many socks have been blocked and many have commented at AFD and many haven't had their !vote striked (nor should they). –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• There's pretty much never a valid reason to edit an AFD that closed a month an and a half ago. Spouting off policies and essays that you imagine support this behavior is not compelling, especially when It looks like you haven't read them very carefully, i.e. SOCKSTRIKE reads, in part '"When deciding how to clean up after a sock, ask yourself "What is the cleanest and least disruptive way of dealing with each edit?" and use that as your guide. As long as you aren't emotionally motivated, you will probably get it right most of the time. If you are unsure with any modification, just ask an admin first" emphasis not added. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• The issue of closed AfDs has no relevance for policy.  Nor is there any theory that the edits of banned or blocked editors have a statute of limitations.  The following is from WP:Blocking policy:

== Evasion of blocks == . . . === Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors === Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Unscintillating (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't revert, you struck them out. Not the same thing. In any case, you may notice that literally nobody who has commented so far agrees with your position. As I would hope you are aware, consensus, not quoting rules, is how decision making works here, and consensus does not appear at this time to favor your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I also agree the striking in closed AfDs was inappropriate. Would anybody object to a mass undo of his other such edits today? BethNaught (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the op is so fond of linking to things, I would suggest that both WP:POINT and definently WP:BOOMERANG apply at this point and it's unlikely anyone would object other than the filing party here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll get on with it. BethNaught (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: It is not desirable to make a fuss about socks or banned users. Certainly sock edits should be struck or removed from active discussions, but there is no point doing that to a closed discussion. We know that some comments are from dubious contributors while others might completely miss the point of the discussion—tagging them is not helpful, and the excitement may in fact be counter productive per WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq, We recently started a similar discussion at WT:Dealing with sock puppets#Recommendations for WP:TPO violations for AfD restored on project page.  Your main focus there seemed to be to prefer removal to strikethrough.  As for your objections to WP:Blocking policy, can I suggest airing those at WT:Blocking policy?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Your last sentence suggests the boomerang is in full effect here. Beeblebrox said it best above in that consensus is how decisions are made. No party in this thread seems to be in full agreement with you. It might suggest your actions were not ok. Killiondude (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• I noticed the strikes on a few closed AFDs as well (some were closed like a month ago?). Personally, I don't get the point in striking out the stuff from closed AFDs. Considering that we are trying to WP:DENY recognition, it is better to just let it be. Sometimes, edits made to an AFD after it has been closed are also disruptive in the sense that other editors need to double check the edit - which wastes time of multiple editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There has always been a large wiggle room between that which needs to be done and that which can be done, but most editors wouldn't bother to. I see these strike-throughs as being within this. There is no need for them (the AfD has gone now, it wouldn't have been affected by them). Yet Unscintillating also has justification for striking them: these were socks. It is not a good thing to start talking about BOOMERANGs. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

For reference, I'm not assuming any bad faith and I'm not in support of any boomerang here. I'm just saying that it goes contrary to WP:DENY. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is pretty ridiculous. The others are correct imo that closed AFDs and similar discussions should not be altered unless there's a serious issue. Striking the comments of a sock for the sake of striking them is not serious enough. Doing so changes the meaning. Even an IAR perspective yields little as this behavior does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• If you stirke through a sock's comment in a closed discussion, you're giving a false impression - namely that the closing admin saw the comment crossed out. Please also note that in some cases, a user may appeal a closure on the grounds of sockpuppetry not recognized until after the closure - and if you strike it out, it looks like the issue was known at the time of closure. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oyi, I can kind of see the point of wanting to strike those out. It could be relevant to a later DRV or other review of the AfDs. For example, it is common to see someone commenting at an RfA that the RfA candidate was often on the wrong side of outcomes at AfDs and if those were greatly influenced by socks, it might be helpful if those socks comments/votes were struck. That said A) that seems rather unlikely, B) striking them seems confusing, C) the whole thing (honestly on both sides) seems like a huge waste of time. Maybe just let Unscintillating add a note to the end of the AfD saying "bob and tom were later determined to be socks of mary" would be a workable solution (outside of the AfD close box if someone really wants to be hugely litteral about _that_)? Again, I honestly don't think it matters much either way, but if it's somehow important enough we need to discuss it here, I think we can find a compromise rather than having both sides quote policies/guidelines at each other and not be willing to move. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

How about the following compromise: In cases where the sock's participation in the XfD had no meaningful effect, leave it alone per WP:DENY. In cases where there is a real reason to believe that the sock's participation could mislead someone who later looked at the XfD, rather than edit the closed RfA, an editor can post a note in small print at the bottom of the XfD, along the lines of "Post closing note: User:X was later revealed to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Y." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Rereading, I see that Hobit made the same suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Great minds :-). In all seriousness, I'd be okay with this being in all the AfDs if someone _really_ wanted to do it (otherwise I fear we'll be back here with folks arguing about "meaningful effect"). It seems like a waste of time to me, but people are allowed to waste their own time and I don't see how it could be considered disruptive. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It is disruptive because editing a closed discussion breaks the integrity of what is shown in the discussion. If no one ever reads the closed discussion, adding comments to glorify the achievements of a banned user achieves nothing other than encouraging the banned user by doing the opposite of WP:DENY. If others want to read the closed discussion, they now have to check the history, notice that someone made an edit, and then check the diff of the edit to be sure what changes were made. It is simple to link to an archived closed discussion, but if it has been edited, the link is misleading because it does not show the situation when the discussion was closed. Editing closed discussions to glorify socks is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with Johnuniq. Editing the archives in this manner serves no helpful purpose and makes review of the discussion history more convoluted than need be. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear on how this applies to what NYB and I suggested. We are suggesting not striking anything, but instead just adding text at the end (probably outside the closed section). It would be clear without looking at the history. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you are aware of how unclear that would be when most of the AfD is sockstrikes.  But [I]t is something to look at.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• This argument has moved into a discussion of WP:DENY, because of disagreement with WP:Blocking policy.  But WP:Blocking policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow", so unless this noticeboard is a place to engage in "consensus denial", the place for that discussion would be at WT:Blocking policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Had Sandstein accepted my request for G5, link, there would be no issue now, although there is another AfD that IMO should be relisted and needs more discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, note that the request for G5 took place when there were no edits to the closed AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• facepalm I need a great shot of happy beverage to deal with this kind of special... Does post facto editing of closed discussions improve the encyclopedia? If a closed discussion gets incorporated into precedent/evidence in annother discussion the editors and their commentary will be analyzed then. If an editor takes a principled position against a sock swarm, the explanation will be plain as day (if it wasn't already considered in the discussion itself) when editors look and discover that the "majority" POV was actually the sound of a great many ducks singing in concert. I strongly suggest that OP drop the stick unless this is the molehill they wish to sacrifice their wiki career on. Hasteur (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• And now we see attempted WP:FORUMSHOPing since he doesn't like the result here:[3]. Don't worry, I already shut it down. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Are you closing that RfC in your authority as an administrator?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking this question because you have something to say about that? Because if you do I'd rather you just come out and say it, your passive agressive style of questioning everyone is extremely tiresome and does not serve you well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

trying to unilaterally alter policy as a result of this discussion

• I've updated WP:Blocking policy to reflect the administrator's close of the RfC at WT:Blocking policy that comment is not needed on the question "Are block-evading edits within closed AfDs protected edits?", as the question has been asked and answered.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • After a revert I went with a bit weaker wording and there is some discussion on the talk page if anyone is interested. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• You are really acting the fool here. There was no formal policy change, there was a consensus arrived at here that your edits were not helpful. It's really not that big of a deal unless you make it into one, which is only going to WP:BOOMERANG on you. Drop it, like now. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • *le sigh* this is par for the course, with its utterly misleading edit summary. I think it's sour grapes but sometimes it's hard to tell when Unscintillating is being sarcastic. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Wurdi Youang RFC closure

This is a request to review the closure at Talk:Wurdi Youang#RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus (or lack thereof) incorrectly. I and other editors have discussed this with the closer at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure.

The RFC was closed as "no consensus"; there were several editors on each side of the debate, and (to my mind) no indication that any editors were likely to change their minds on the subject. However I do not think that "no consensus" is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because:

• According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies"
• According to WP:CLOSE#Consensus the closer should "discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy"
• Editors in favour of including the coordinates in the article explicitly cited policies, and well-established guidelines and precedents, specifically.
  • WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia will not remove ... information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic
  • WP:5P1: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. "a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information".
  • WP:GEO#Usage guidelines: In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place.
    (As is currently done on 1,000,000+ other pages.)
• Editors wanting to remove the coordinates appear not to have cited any Wikipedia policies at all that would exclude the coordinates.

Even the closing statement says that there is a policy that would have the coordinates included in the article (even when an external organization wants them removed) but does not mention any policy that would exclude them.

The result of "no consensus" is not appropriate because it applies equal weighting to opinions that have no basis in policy, whereas those opinions should have been discarded; only those opinions based on policy should have been considered. I submit that result of the RFC should have been to include the coordinates because there are several policies and guidelines that say we should include them and explicitly say that we will not remove them at the request of an external organization. There are no policies that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The GEO wikiproject can state whatever it wants, it is not valid policy or guideline regarding content, any more than any other wikiproject. The only real argument with a policy back was NOTCENSORED which relies on the information being 'encylopedic', given that the only point of co-ords is to precisely pinpoint a location, it is arguable if that is useful information if the location is in private ownership and is a culturally significant area that is highly unlikley to welcome tourists tramping over it. As the owners have specifically requested it not be geolocated, this is even more unlikely to be useful. What it is - useful information, precisely where it is (beyond a general area) - useless given you cant go to it. As there was only one policy-backed argument, which was directly opposed by people arguing the information was not encyclopedic, a 'no consensus' result is acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agreed that WP:GEO#Usage guidelines is not a policy, but it is a generally accepted guideline whose existence - together with the existence of coords on many, many other articles - tell us that the precise (precision per WP:COORDPREC) location is deemed by the Wikipedia community to be encyclopedic. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects only indicate that members of that wikiproject find the work they do encyclopedic. It does not necessarily make their focus encyclopedic just because a number of people are interested in what is (for a lot of projects) less-than-useful cruft. It is arguable that there is an encyclopedic benefit to that information, and since multiple people have argued that, a no-consensus result is a reasonable close to that RFC. You need a stronger argument than 'other stuff exists' and 'its encyclopedic' when people disagree. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I note that I already pointed to Mitch Ames that policy reasons were presented, and that they are aware of it. It is their choice to come here and state otherwise. Diffs: Mitch Ames disagreeing with the RfC, just about the same text he posted here (but I have not compared thoroughly); me pointing two presented policies; Mitch Ames replying to me, so he knew that policy reasons were presented. - Nabla (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that the "removers" did not present any policy, I'm asserting that the removers did not present any policy that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Here's where I point out that your two policies do not exclude the coords from the article, and thus are immaterial to the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

From that point of view, then I may say that you have not presented any policy either... - Nabla (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• endorse Here we are weighing potential real-world damage vs. harm to the quality of our article. This is not a trivial issue--in fact it is in many ways one of the key issues at Wikipedia. We need to weigh these trade-offs all the time here (that trade-off is, in fact, the basis for our BLP policy). The claim by those wanting to remove it is that there is no significant gain to be had by including the GPS coordinates, and there is potential harm to the site. The claim by those wanting to keep it comes down to NOTCENSORED and a wikiproject best-practices document. I think both are fairly reasonable. So I endorse given the numbers and the relative strength of both arguments (I'm honestly not sure what I'd have voted here). Hobit (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Overturn. Once something's added, and you have an RFC requesting its removal, "no consensus" defaults to retaining the content, not to removing it. Moreover, the closure depends on "ethical concerns voiced by several editors", but we aren't bound by certain groups' ethical concerns. Perhaps there's actively consensus to remove the coords (I haven't looked over the discussion itself), but if that's the case, we'll need to have a completely new close, because the current one is deeply flawed. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close. Personally, I think an interpretation of policy that would give WP:BOLDly inserted content special status is incredibly wrong-headed. Consensus requires substantial agreement which is too large of a burden to require for removing material that never had a real prior consensus. Also, you have conflated "ethical concerns voiced by several editors" with " certain groups' ethical concerns" which is a misreading of my closing statement. One oppose commenter spoke specifically to Wikipedia's overarching purpose ("The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the preservation of human knowledge and culture."), which is an argument of some merit. One commenter asked "Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners?", which is a valid rebuttal of the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments, a policy that specifically relates to removal or inclusion of offensive material. - MrX 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". — As I stated at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure, [4] taking the literal wording of the question ignores the fact that the disputed change was the removal of the coordinates, for which there was no consensus. [5][6]. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the state of the article when the RfC was started. The article did not include the coordinates at that time, nor for a full five days prior to the start of the RfC. - MrX 01:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NC is a tricky thing. What is the default when we can't reach a decision? An IP added the data and no one edited the article for a long time. But soon (in terms of edits, but certainly not time) after the addition was reverted, then reinstated then reverted again. It's not clear where the "bold" edit was. In cases like this, I think we need to defer to the closer. But a review is certainly reasonable. I'll continue to endorse that close. The more I think about it, the more I think the request to keep the data out of the article seems reasonable. It's a lot like a BLP issue IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

An IP added the data ... — We should judge the edit on its merits, not on the editor that made it. If we are to judge edits based on the editor, then we need to also consider that Dhamacher has a potential conflict of interest as a researcher working on the site. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My intent when researching the history was to figure out the timeline of all of this and mention them. In this case, it was an IP. I suppose I could have given a full IP address but I felt the exact address didn't matter. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot like a BLP issue ... — There's a fundamental difference: we have a WP:BLP policy; we do not have a policy that says "do not include coordinates" I know there is no policy that says "include coordinates", but see my previous points re WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines as to why we should include coords). That's why my review request says the "no consensus" result is wrong - when you exclude the arguments that are not based on policy, the consensus of editors who refer to relevant policies is that the coordinates should be included.

Perhaps we should have a policy on not providing coordinates in some cases - I've certainly suggested it several times during the discussion, but none of the "excluders" seem to be sufficiently motivated to try to create one. But the reality is that we do not have such a policy, and consensus should be based on existing policies. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Policy follows practice here, not the other way around. AFAIK, this issue hasn't come up before and seems like something that is rare enough that it likely won't come up often. As such, we shouldn't have policy--instead we figure out what the right thing is to do. And we do use relevant policies. (NOTCENSORED doesn't _really_ apply because it's not about offensive material, but the spirit of the idea is there. Same with the ideas of BLP even though this isn't a BLP. We look to policy and history to help us make decisions, but when no policy is fully on point, we need to wing it and figure out what we think is the right thing to do.). Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Similar discussions have occurred before: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82#Unsourced geocoords] is about unsourced coordinates, but also delves in to sourced but sensitive coords; Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations is about wildlife, but it's the same principle - the risk of damage to something if its location is published. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Those discussions are a bit old, and not quite on point, but seem pretty relevant. One common thread is that we shouldn't be publishing information that isn't published elsewhere (WP:V etc.) and that that argument is a fine way to keep unpublished information off of Wikipedia. Is there a reliable source for this location? Hobit (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates originally come from an UNESCO-IAU case study about Astronomical Heritage, author was Ray Norris. This case study was published on the UNESCO Portal to the Heritage of Astronomy (see http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1 ). I am the Technical Manager for this UNESCO site. As soon as we became aware of the formal request (by the traditional owners of the site) to conceal the precise location, we complied with this request and changed the original coordinates to the "cultural center" where the traditional owners are happy to receive visitors and guide them to the site. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates are reliably sourced, as mentioned several times during the dicussions: [7][8] Mitch Ames (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The second one is effectively a blog from what I can tell, and the 1st is a later redacted report. Which I will note that the owners of the site could have removed from the archive if they requested (or created a robots.txt file). I think the situation is more complex than I had thought, but I'll stick with my endorse. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

actually we submitted such a "right to forget" request to archive.org (dated october 27, 2016), but have not yet received an answer from them... Ruediger.schultz (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Endorse non-inclusion'. When it comes to inclusion or non-inclusion of material, Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out". All the wikilawyering in the world about whether the material was in or out at the time of the RFC doesn't change that basic guideline, so "No consensus" means "No consensus to include". And absent any compelling reason to include the exact coordinates -- an ACTUAL reason, not handwaving about principles -- then the cultural center is perfectly appropriate to use for the co-ordinates. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out" — What is the actual policy? (You know, those things that RFC decisions are supposed to be based on.) In the absence of policy, can you please provide some evidence to support this assertion of "Wikipedia's practice has always been ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I fail to understand how Mitch Ames thinks that further ridiculous Wikilawyering would be any way convincing. It's also not my job to educate Mitch Ames on the most basic of practices here -- his entirely self-serving interpretation to the contrary . But tell you what, I'll go dig up the (ludicrously unnecessary) evidence just as soon as Mitch Ames provides NOT further bureaucratic waffle or vague, question-begging handwaves about "encyclopedic", but ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center -- which is where the general public would actually go and is therefore ACTUALLY USEFUL and ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is not my job nor responsibility to read his mind to figure out why this is so goddamn important to him yet he is unable to give a rational explanation that is not 100% bureaucratic. --Calton | Talk 12:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

... ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center ... — The article is about the stone circle, not the cultural centre. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

In other words, no, it's bureaucratic bafflegab all the way down. Is this some sort of "fight the power!" issue with you? --Calton | Talk 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the existence of coordinates on 1,000,000+ other pages suggests that the locations of places and objects of fixed location is generally considered encyclopedic, ie appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether or not the site is accessible is irrelevant to the fact that the location of a fixed object/place has encyclopedic value.

I repeat my earlier question: What is the actual policy or guideline, or where is the evidence that says Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out"? You may not agree with my interpretation or weighting of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines, but I have cited policy, guideline and precedent to support my case. Perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of citing some evidence for your alleged "When in doubt, leave it out". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note on "reliable sourced coordinates": We just got informed by the archive.org team, that (as per our request based on the request by the traditional owners http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/duane-hamacher/files/2016/10/Letter-to-Wikipedia-re-Wurdi-coordinates.pdf ) the UNESCO Astronomy and World Heritage Portal page about Wurdi Youang has been excluded from their index. So the UNESCO page (nor any historical snapshots of it), where the disputed coordinates originate from, can no longer be referenced as a reason to include these coordinates into the WP article.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Template for the editors with editing restrictions?

Just wondering, and posting this here since I'm sure an administrator would know: Is there a template that exists that editor with editing restrictions can use to make editing requests on pages' respective talk pages? For example, for an editor to use on a redirects' talk page for a rather uncontroversial edit, but cannot make the edit themselves due to restrictions placed on them, but cannot use a "protected page edit request" template since the page is not protected? I've looked through the pages listed at Category:Request templates, and I cannot find one that meets this need. (But, I also want to ensure that the template places the templates page in a category that gets checked frequently.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. It's pretty simple: use {{Request edit}} and replace "COI" with "Edit restriction". However, I don't a situation where an editor with a restriction would even be allowed to make such an edit request. Standard TBANs include talk pages. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer for User:Spirot67

Per the consensus here, I have unblocked User:Spirot67, given the WP:STANDARDOFFER. I have advise them that their edits may be watched more to ensure they do not fall into the habits that caused their initial blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

User:Spirot67 made an unblock request (at their talk) page after they were given the WP:standard offer. I copied the whole request here for admins' consideration:

Dear Wikipedia. I seek a review of my blocked status on this site. I have understood that my editing efforts in March, relating to the Daily Beast, constituted a violation of the rules and etiquette of the site. Although my intentionat the time was never malicious, I have realised subsequently that the manner in which I edited the articles was deemed aggressive and in contradiction to the rules and etiquette with regard to disputation on this site. I have since then become aware of the rules and have understood how (going forward)to more effectively and constructively edit an article in such a manner that it complies with the site's rules and regulations. I understand that this would involve dialoguing with other contributors on the Talk page when matters of differing opinion arise. I am also aware of the three-revert rule within 24 hrs, and that in matters of ongoing dispute, where consensus cannot be reached with other collaborators, that a formal 'dispute resolution' process exist to over come the dispute. I thank you for your consideration of my request and look forward to your reply. (Redacted) Spirot67 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we unblock this user? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• The 2016 U.S. presidential election is over, so the temptation to edit disruptively in favor of one's preferred candidate is probably much diminished. I think it's alright to give Spirot67 another chance. Just the same, I would advise Spirot67 to avoid political articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• The election may be over, but social and political conditions in the US haven't changed one iota, and are more than likely to be exacerbated on all sides in the next four years, so the argument made above by NRP doesn't really hold water. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I think BMK makes a good point, but what's the worst that can happen? If he goes right back to edit warring over American politics, he can be instantly topic banned via discretionary sanctions (as long as someone gives him a warning prior to unblocking). If you want to give me a trout if he starts edit warring again, that's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • That's certainly true, but why give an alcoholic a shot of bourbon just because he asks nicely? Sure, we can throw him into jail if he then goes on a bender and does harm to others or damage to property, but he wouldn't have done it in the first place if we hadn't enabled him, so why do it? (And, yes, I'm quite aware of the irony and dangers of the analogy.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm all for second chances, but like Reagan, I believe in "Trust but verify". I prefer a CU review before unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• CheckUser shows no evidence of socking from the current IP address Spirot67 uses, and he has made no edits other than to his talk page in the last six months. The suspected socks listed on his talk page are stale. Katie^talk 14:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Katie. While CU isn't magic pixie dust, it does lend credibility, and as such, I would support extending some rope here. Blocks are cheap if it doesn't work out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I echo the concerns voiced by Beyond My Ken, but there will be plenty of scrutiny of Spirot67's future edits, and blocks are indeed cheap. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblocking. I believe we can give him/her another chance. SQL^{Query me!} 17:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support unblock. While I also agree with BMK's comments, the passions surrounding the elections themselves is likely to be substantially diminished. While the next 4 years will likely be tumultuous, I don't see how that would be necessarily a stickler provided that doesn't impact Spirot67's editing. Blackmane (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Past history in the modern era would certainly lead to that conclusion, the problem is, I think this particular time is going to be an outlier, and the tumult is likely to be somewhat more severe than you might think. However, if other editors are convinced that watching Spirot67's edits will be sufficient, I'm not going to mount any additional arguments against unblocking them (and I'll try my damndest not to say "I told you so" if things don't work out, which I hope will not be the case.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock per reasonable request, BMK is welcome to place ITYS on my talk page in 72-font, bold letters if warranted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Nah, I'd get very little pleasure out of that, but thanks for the offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support of lifting the block, with the understanding that any recurrence of problematic behavior will very likely lead to another block which may very easily receive much less favorable review later. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - request sounds sincere enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

2017 Ombudsman Commission

Hello everyone - particularly CU/OS holders,

The WMF has posted a call for volunteers for the 2017 Ombudsman Commission. The responsibilities of this group are to evaluate functionary compliance to the various global policies surrounding access to non-public information, on all Wikimedia projects. See m:OC and the announcement for more information.

In my opinion, enwiki has been routinely under-represented on this group, as well as many other global groups. If any enwiki functionaries think they have time for the relatively-light workload, then it would be nice to see some volunteers from here! The more knowledgeable functionaries they have on there, the better. Note that anyone can apply, not just those with CU/OS rights.

Regards, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Eddington

I would like to call attention to the article Arthur Eddington, where an unregistered user is adding a weird scenario on the evolution and ultimate fate of the universe, with various analogies, and with some references which don't actually mention Eddington. (I have twice removed the addition as original synthesis, and don't want to be revert warring.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• And it's now removed again. [9] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• I just semi-protected the page for a week, via disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New automated spammer blocking bot going active

Hello admins, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 3 has completed the "passive" portion of the trial and is getting ready to go active. If you see any issues, please report them at the BRFA. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Once again, errors has numerous items, some of which have been waiting for six or more hours to be addressed. This is a daily occurrence. Please attend to these issues which affect the main page expeditiously. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Was just about to post an alert when I saw TRM has already done so. ERRORS has some issues that need expeditious attention from an admin. On a side note please see this discussion at ITNC. Admins really need to stop posting substandard articles to the main page w/o, or even against consensus. This is becoming a recurring problem and it is very annoying to those of us lesser mortals who spend time reviewing and working on nominated articles. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Just replace the main page with a banner that says "Welcome to Wikipedia", it's fairly useless anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there actually any admins here?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleared some outstanding or outdated requests. Additionally I'll keep more of an eye on this, though I have very little understanding of the processes going on right now. Sam Walton (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. If any admin needs help in understanding how to fix up the various sections of the main page per ERROR reports, don't hesitate to contact me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin needed

(non-admin closure) Community discussion closed by KrakatoaKatie. AE discussion closed as moot by Lankiveil. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Could use a closer at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ag97. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Or, alternately, the community topic ban proposal at [10]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Relisting of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

Though there are a lot of votes, I relisted the discussion because I feared that waiting time for a volunteer to close the discussion, which I requested ten days ago, is getting longer. --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin and/or expert assistance needed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_109

The above AfD has been running for a month - I cannot close it as I am involved, as opener. Thanks Nordic Nightfury 11:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Have posted the request at WP:ANRFC. Nordic Nightfury 11:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

Either this jerk or a copycat was doing this last night as well. IPs I blocked already are 2607:FB90:A084:951A:2EB5:7DF8:2A2B:4C95 and 2607:FB90:2BC:4C23:CF9:EF23:FCF5:2FDC. Widr blocked another one a few minutes ago. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

See here for more: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2607:FB90:A025:56C3:6F1A:1DC3:6173:E38F. I've blocked a few myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Last night it was this and many others. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I placed a short rangeblock on the /32 above to stop the immediate disruption. CU shows that they may be using some sort of bot for the disruption. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I love you like a son, but I can't block that range. It's huge. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
      • That's what Zilla said? Block Chicago, come on, do it. You get shot there anyway. You walk out the door, you get shot. But thanks for looking into it, mom. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
        • You mean that doesn't just happen here? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
          • And another edit conflict with the little Drmies. Never mind, Zilla tired of this. Why is the SPI link red? Bishonen | talk 19:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
            • After I posted the link, DoRD deleted the SPI it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
              • Yeah there is no point to it. It's some LTA, no doubt, and I think their lunch break is over. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (talk page stalker) @DoRD: It looks like they are back again under the 2607:FB90 IP range, as 2607:FB90:17CC:9B8F:2B3F:72F4:5CFD:197A (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A2BA:C01C:4B2A:5162:98F7:6BED (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:2B4:722B:2F0A:297A:F70E:2AFC (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A29B:C9E3:558A:F709:74C7:1042 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A2A9:13A1:F12C:BF05:55F5:BEDC (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A287:8D1:2B1D:ED24:5715:3031 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:2CE:BDED:2335:8358:7259:2FE6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2607:FB90:A236:36B:4CF3:FD6D:9053:9359 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2607:FB90:A03D:7D1A:9E20:3A50:1C1E:6B8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS) among lots of others, I'm sure.

I also have access to the 2607:FB90 range, as it can used by all T-Mobile customers, and getting a new IP address in this range is as easy as rebooting your android/smartphone, or even just simply turning on airplane mode, then turning it back off again and just after one IP address is blocked, the serial vandal is able to obtain a new one only in a matter of seconds.

I have often used that range to do anti-vandalism work, as RickinBaltimore has seen me at WP:AIV a lot... With that said though, there is no trouble switching to the IPv4 range for this network. All you have to do is change/edit your APN settings to force an IPv4 (172.56.X.X, 172.58.X.X and/or 208.54.X.X) address to be used instead of an IPv6 (2607:FB90) address. While this may seem irrelevant, performing another (perhaps longer than the last one) rangeblock on 2607:FB90::/32 once again may not have as much of a collateral impact as one may think because you can switch to the IPv4 network by changing/editing your APN settings in order to use an address from a different range to edit. Though, I'm pretty sure that not everyone using this network knows how change/edit their APN settings, which would be very problematic here...

Anyhow, just some food for thought, and since I also use the 2607:FB90 range, I thought that I might put in my two cents as well... :-) 73.96.113.62 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't be talking about ways to bypass rangeblocks, for fear of WP:BEANS? Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion regarding Darkfrog24

In the past year, Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been subject to a series of Arbitration Enforcement actions under the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Article Titles and Capitalisation case. In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted, following an AE request. In February this topic ban was broadened to encompass the Manual of Style and related topics following another AE request. Later that month, they were blocked indefinitely "until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it" after a third AE request. They were unblocked to participate in an appeal to ARCA in April 2016, which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The block was lifted again in November 2016 to permit the present ARCA appeal. The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued. The appeal is declined and the block will be reinstated. They may appeal again in three months (one year from the original indefinite block). They are very strongly advised to focus that appeal on their future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of their topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Darkfrog24

Last call for 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey survey ends in roughly 90 minutes. Get your votes in if you haven't already! See also the admins and stewards category. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion regarding Fæ

Remedy 5: Fæ banned (March 2013) in which Fae was unblocked with the conditions that he was topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed as well as topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Fæ fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in these areas, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Fæ

Original announcement

Request for admin action to protected page Haredi Judaism

Please see: Talk:Haredi Judaism#Replace image with infobox

Action required: Add {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} to top and move rabbi image to terminology section.

I would do it but am involved. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Close review: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

(non-admin closure) I am withdrawing this. I still think the speedy close was out of process but upon reflection I think a) the MfD should not have been filed as it was and b) in any case there is good discussion about revising NJournals. So I am going to let sleeping dogs lie, without regard for why. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

The above MfD was speedy-closed by User: Nyttend on the basis that The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. Quoting the top of WP:MFD: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early". If you wish to prevent this page from being used, seek consensus to have it tagged with {{historical}}. (diff)

I discussed first with Nyttend at their Talk page here and Nyttend was unwilling to undo the close.

I find this speedy-close to be unhelpful and out of process. Yes the top of MfD says that, but per WP:DELETION MfD is how we delete essays. The reasoning that "we don't do that for established pages in WP" is not true, per (for example) two project deletion discussions -- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism - one of which was successful and the other not, but each of which proceeded through full discussion and was closed and was not speedy-closed. Nyttend also said that we don't MfD essays that violate policy/norms, but in my view we do, per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks.

Nyttend also said that there is no disruption being caused by the Njournals essay, but there has been a slew of discussion all around WP including Jimbo's talk page, this AfD) this User talk page, ANI here, FRINGEN WT:NJournals, etc.

The deletion discussion should be re-opened and allowed to continue through its course and be closed normally. Thanks for your time. Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason, this is being treated as a piece of the previous section, despite properly having == header text ==. Can't explain why. Despite explanations from people at the MFD and from me, Jytdog repeatedly has failed to get the point: (1) we don't delete such pages, as is demonstrated by his example of Wikipedia:Esperanza, which actually still exists and has no entry in the deletion log; (2) the strife surrounding this page is caused by people making a fuss, not because of a problem with the content on the page itself. The speedy close was due to a failure of the deletion-advocates to advance any reasons for deletion: the nomination was created and supported by people misusing MFD to deprecate a page's use, and it's well established that MFD is a place for deleting pages, not modifying their use: if you don't understand this, you need to be taught (if you'll listen) or ignored (if you won't), not accommodated. You'll note the numerous "keep" or "speedy keep" voters who noted that the nominator's and supporters' stated goals could have been accomplished by getting the page marked as {{failed proposal}} or {{historical}} or something of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Nyttend. I heard you at your Talk page, and posted this to hear from others. Yes the outcome of a MfD is not always deletion; this is true. Sometimes it is. Stepping back now to see what folks say and if this turns out to be a waste of time indeed, i'm apologizing in advance. Jytdog (talk) 004:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Cross posting from Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academic_journals)#Problematic)
  The speedy close was appropriate, because MfD is not a forum for settling policy questions. This issue of notability of journals, of giving them an easy run relative to the WP:GNG for example, is clearly in policy space. MfD was the wrong forum. The correct forum is an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC) Also note that this is the wrong forum to challenging an MfD close, the right one is WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• The nominator stated that they thought the page should be, "delete[d] ... and put ... out of its misery", so deletion was being sought. If this were a policy or guideline, speedy keep number five (i.e. "The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy.") would apply, but it is an essay (tagged as such since 2009). None of the other speedy keep criteria are seemingly applicable. I found the rationales of those with a preference for deletion to be reasonable (though I disagreed with them and !voted keep); I certainly would not call six contributors with a preference for deletion (meaning it wasn't snowing) all providing substantial reasons a "failure of the deletion-advocates to advance any reasons for deletion". Unfortunately, "established pages" is vague, and that section addresses policies and is titled "Policies, guidelines, and process pages". An essay falls outside of that in my opinion, and it is not unprecedented for them to be listed at MfD. For example, one of similar size and "establishment" was listed in 2015, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks (the information at the top of Mfd was basically the same at that time). The listing of smaller, lesser known essays like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bitter stories made sweet is more common. I can see where Nyttend was coming from, but I think this is a borderline case that is not cut and dry. As such, especially as the opinions were so divided, I think the discussion should have been allowed to continue. Therefore, I must conclude that we should overturn the close and relist the discussion. I concur with SmokeyJoe that deletion review would have been the appropriate venue to have this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• my apologies to those saying this is the wrong forum. I brought this here because I am challenging the speedy-close ... there was no decision on the consensus or lack thereof. Perhaps that was incorrect. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• "Speedy Keep" is clearly wrong here, but a SNOW close (also effectively a Keep before the time is up) wouldn't have been out of place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Move made during Requested move discussion

Please see [11] and [12].

Move made during ongoing Requested move discussion.

Please move the page back and protect until the Requested move discussion has run its course.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Note the tag on the top of the page (before) the move, said: Do not move the page until the discussion has reached consensus for the change and is closed. (Emphasis in original tag). Sagecandor (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Page was moved back by Volunteer Marek. I've asked the user who renamed the article to refrain from doing so again; no need to protect it unless we have more problems there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the user who renamed the page has stated that "it was a mistake for me to just change" the title of the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Two IP's constantly edit warring and harrasing each other

The IP's of Special:Contributions/95.49.103.80 and Special:Contributions/95.235.130.101 have been constantly editing and warring against each other on both sandboxes and userpages, 95.235 has been insulting the other constantly and 95.49 has been spamming the other with warning templates and including a report to ARV. Either one or both of these IP's are in the wrong and should be dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -glove-(alt, public) (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/95.235.130.101 for 31 hours for vandalism due to a number of their edits. Looking at the 2nd IP right now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They might be the same person. This may be a sideshow. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and the other IP's edits are showing a attitude that they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This diff here: [13], calling the placing of a unwarranted level-4 warning "a joke" is enough to warrant a short time out for disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

And to add one more detail, both IPs were globally blocked due to LTA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and attacking

187.67.133.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been revert-warring on Live from the Suwannee River Jam. When I reverted their removal of the redirect and warned them on their talk page, they proceeded to leave an WP:NPA violation on my talk page. Please block. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously "fascist" is no good, but seeing as how you're kind of acting suboptimally on that page yourself, how about we just let their momentary loss of cool slide? Also, you need to tell them you're talking about them here. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for editing Mediawiki:common.css

Hey, Per Special:PermaLink/753600253#RfC for changing colors to align with Wikimedia UI and Special:PermaLink/754556867#Reopening discussion about aligning colors with Wikimedia color palette and no objection after the given time, please change content of Mediawiki:Common.css with content User:Ladsgroup/common.css. Thanks. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. An unadvertised section at the village pump that has only been open since the 8th is not cause for changing the main CSS for every single user of Wikipedia. Normal RFCs last quite a bit longer. --Majora (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Majora The change is almost unnoticeable but if you think it should stay open longer, Can you give a time? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

More then a week, less then a year? More people have to have a chance to look at it and 5 days is not enough. Many editors only edit once a week. There are numerous admins who understand CSS and how delicate that particular page is that watch VPT all the time. You definitely didn't need to post here. Those that are involved in technical matters know of your thread. And worse comes to worse you can always use {{edit fully-protected}} on the mediawiki talk page. --Majora (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful time span. I'll do the {{edit fully-protected}} instead :)Ladsgroup^overleg 02:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The time span was to make a point since I can't give you an exact time frame. It doesn't work like that. --Majora (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was open for three weeks in the talk page of common.css, it's almost unnoticeable change. Use common sense. And I asked you to give me a time span and not to make a point, right? Why seven days is enough for RfAs and not for a slight change in the Mediawiki:common.css when it's constantly changing even without an RfC sometimes? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 03:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's such a "slight change", why are you so all-fire hot to implement it immediately? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Because I have a lot other things to do and I want to finish this so I can move on to other things. Is it clear? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 06:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so Wikipedia should hop to it because you're one very busy chap. Got it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not busy, Otherwise I wouldn't be answering to you :)Ladsgroup^overleg 08:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladsgroup, you have a rather intrusive signature, could you please change it (remove the yellow smiley bit)? Fram (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, sorry for that. I did it when I was so young. Ladsgroup^overleg 12:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Old SPI case needs admin attention

A clerk, an admin and then an admin clerk teamed up and processed the case. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Can someone please look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JShanley98? It's been open for almost a month without a single comment. The evidence is pretty much obvious, but I'll provide more if necessary. Just tell me what to do, and I'll do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Request for unblock discussion from User:The Rambling Man

Speedy overturn of the hasty block per the "clear, active consensus" here, specifically to allow the ongoing AE filing to continue and reach its conclusion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Pursuant to the terms laid out at WP:AE for overturning an arbitration enforcement block, User:The Rambling Man has requested that he be unblocked here. Background on this block can be found here, here, at TRM's user talk page here and at the blocking admins talk page here. As I, at this point, am merely acting as a means to transmit information here, I am officially done commenting on the matter, and will make no vote in this discussion. --Jayron32 12:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock and allow the WP:AE thread to come to a consensus one way or another, per my comments at the ANI thread. Regardless of whether TRM's comments were or weren't a breach, the blocking admin was both clearly WP:INVOLVED by any possible measure, and in disregarding the ongoing WP:AE discussion was either inappropriately supervoting (if he was aware of it), or failing to conduct even the most cursory of enquiries into the circumstances (if he wasn't). I do feel that the tone of a lot of TRM's recent commentary has been inappropriate, and this block was arguably correct, but this is clearly a single admin using the letter of the law as a pretext to block someone against whom he has a grudge, rather than the genuine neutral enforcement of policy. ‑ Iridescent 13:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• WP:INVOLVED states that "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor." In the previous incident on TRM's talk page, Mike V was acting an administrative capacity, issuing an AE warning. Mike V is therefore not involved in a way that would prevent them acting in following up that warning. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• But he has also prevented evidence against TRM at the ArbCom case[14] and made proposals against TRM there[15]. Fram (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• That evidence seemed mainly about TRM's interactions with other editors. Providing such evidence and suggesting remedies is an administrative type of action, not an indication of personal involvement. Where is the evidence of some direct clash between these editors? Andrew D. (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The refusal to even come back to the incorrect interaction ban reminder, coupled with the addition of evidence and proposals to the arbcom case, and the block bypassing an ongoing AE discussion, certainly gives a very strong impression of an admin out to get someone at all costs, as most people in this discussion (here and ani) seem to recognise. Fram (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that I support an unblock, on the basis of my comments in the AE thread, but as I have twice declared in the context of this incident that I am not uninvolved when it comes to TRM (as we have collaborated on WP for years) I ought not to count towards consensus here. Iridescent's proposal to return the matter to AE is a sensible one. Bencherlite^Talk 13:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose - the terms of the arbcom sanction under which this block is imposed clearly state that it may only be appealed at the the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. As this is not that page, appeal is moot. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That same section says "If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator[...]" The argument for the unblock is that Mike V is not an uninvolved editor, making the block invalid under that section. Valid blocks can only be appealed at AE, but this one can be discussed here. Fram (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Policy is absolutely explicit that AE blocks can be appealed at AN as well as at AE. Arbcom are not Govcom, much as some of their members may like to pretend they are; they have no authority to unilaterally overwrite policy in that way; they can create additional processes for appeal, but they can't close off the existing ones. The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. if you want chapter-and-verse from WP:ARBPOL. (I should know; I was there.) ‑ Iridescent 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Withdrawn. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, the sheer amount of procedural bureaucratic (Redacted) wrapped up in this is staggering. TimothyJosephWood 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Iridescent. I want to go one further and see Mike V desysopped or, at the very least, admonished, for abuse of tools which were used incorrectly in order to have the last word here. He was way too involved to administer any kind of block here. Cassianto^Talk 13:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Like Bencherlite, I don't think I would count as uninvolved here, but I do believe that Mike V should not have blocked TRM (and should have removed his incorrect interaction ban warning). So, as an editor involved with TRM (but as far as I recal not with Mike V), I support an unblock and a continuation of the AE discussion. Fram (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - two fold, a) Mike V is clearly involved and shouldn't have done the block themselves plus the "supervote" or "didn't even bother to look" issue and b) because as stated above ArbCom should not be given the ability to unilaterally override policy to suit themselves. This is a lesson for both to learn from. Mike V about appropriate actions, and for ArbCom not to try and create situations where they have all the say and everybody else has none as they did with; The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Nope, among other things this is policy; request review at ... AE or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). Plus also the enforcing admin and ARCA, but, they aren't relevant here. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support and a gigantic trout to Mike. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support speedy unblock so that TRM can participate in the AE thread. No comment on the block itself at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent. JAGUAR  13:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Re-creation of a salted title

Moved it to the dab-less title to keep history in one place, and deleted it under G4 because of substantially identical sources that led to an AfD deletion less than two months ago. Oh, and sock  Blocked and tagged. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

---

I'm not sure about the right way to handle this but I suppose we should move Matheus Soares (DJ) to Matheus Soares, if it's good enough for prime time, or move it to Draft:Matheus Soares if it's not. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Standard offer unblock request

Years ago, when I was still an immature High School student, I made the mistake of block evasion and copyright infringement on Wikipedia. When I was first banned, I didn’t know anything about the possibility of a fresh start, so I simply kept coming back in disguise, which eventually turned into a pattern of sockpuppetry, spanning numerous accounts. Satt 2 is the earliest account that I still have access to, hence my submission through this account.

After my most recent block as Damianmx, I had an honest, off-the-record conversation with an experienced administrator @Drmies:. Drmies told me about the possibility of a clean start and encouraged me to admit to my wrongdoings in order to make things right, which is what I set out to do. Following up on that advice, for over six months now, I have not produced any sockpuppets and neither do I intend to engage in that kind of behavior in the future. Moreover, I have not engaged in any copyright-related violations for several years.

Drmies has graciously unblocked me on the condition that I make this official unblock plea to you directly. After a long period of socking, I understand that many will not be eager to support unblocking me. However, if I am given a way out of this long cycle of block evasion, I intend to make the best use of this opportunity. In the past, I have authored countless well-sourced articles and edits, many that I have been thanked for. If I am given the possibility of a new start, I promise to channel my productivity on Wikipedia but, this time, as a legitimate editor. I ask that you consider.--Satt 2 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: @KrakatoaKatie: @Boing! said Zebedee: @78.26: @Drmies: @Od Mishehu: and others: I tried to keep my appeal as short and to the point as possible, so I apologize if I mistakenly gave the impression that I was not willing to be held accountable for instances of combative attitude and editing on my part. I take full responsibility for that behavior and cessation of that type of combative editing was implied in my promise to be a productive and rule-abiding member of this community. I don't know what caused me to be as pushy as I was in some of my past edits. Perhaps it is the fact that many editors I was up against employed similar tactics. For instance, my most recent "conflict" was with Tiptoethrutheminefield, who has already been subject to various forms of blocks 8 times, yet he has no longstanding bans. Surrounded by freewheeling editors like that, I was mistakenly led to believe that I could employ similar tactics and get away with it. I was wrong and immature in that belief and there is no excuse for instances of battleground tactics on my part. If I am given a one year topic ban, perhaps I could prove during that time that I am capable of being a rule-abiding and responsible editor.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

---

• Support, of course! - We all grow up. 6 years ago I was much more immature! I initially made an account to write a shitty page about myself, thinking of Wikipedia as on the same level ar UrbanDictionary. And now see where I'm at. Time for a second chance, and thanks for deciding to stick with us and continue volunteering your time and efforts to Wikipedia despite the initial mishaps. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Addendum for the closer: The fact that I would support without a topic ban implicitly means I'd also support with a topic ban, even if I don't personally think it is strictly necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• • User:Salvidrim!, I'll write a shitty page about you for free, any time. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually don't. I'm not notable (yet?), so UrbanDictionary will suffice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless combined with a rigid topic ban from all things Georgia (country). This user was initially blocked not merely for being an immature high school student, but for making problematic content edits, and his socks (up until this year) kept getting recognized and blocked not merely because of block evasion, but because they were still making those exact same problematic content edits. This user has apparently always been a national POV warrior, and I see nothing at all in his unblock request addressing this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Satt 2: Before I would be willing to consider supporting this, could you supply a full list of accounts you've used in the past? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: since the socking happened over a considerable stretch of time, and rather casually as well, I can't really give you a full list of accounts because I honestly don't remember. However, I can confirm that all of the accounts discovered through this string of SP investigations are indeed mine.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The above needs clarification. In a previous statement [16] Satt2 wrote "some poor soul Olivia Winfield was indefinitely blocked on "behavioral grounds" as my sock but she really, really had nothing to do with me". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support with 1 year topic ban per FuturePerfect. Saying that this behaviour was "years ago" is dishonest when the same behaviour was recurring just six months ago, though the request acknowledges this further down. I share FuturePerfect's concerns but see no reason this user shouldn't be given a second chance. They should stay out of the topic area that caused problems for them until they can establish a pattern of productive editing. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban per FPAS. I find it interesting that this OFFER appeal comes exactly six months to the day after his last edit as Damianmx. I'll extend my good faith about the socking, but I won't extend it to the POV-pushing that took place and isn't addressed in this appeal at all. Katie^talk 15:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban. If we'd had an appeal that convincingly covered the POV-pushing, I'd probably support a unconditional unblock. But as it stands, I share the concerns of others here and I would only support an unblock coupled with the topic ban suggested by Fut.Perf. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Having considered Satt 2's additional comments above, and Drmies' below, I'm now happy to change my preference to an unconditional support. My confidence that Satt 2 really does understand the old problems is strengthened. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I kind of want to stay out of this, since I am not very familiar with the editor's work. The conversations I've had with the editor have been positive, and I'm a big fan of good faith. On the other hand, I can't find fault with Fut.Perf.'s comments, and I would support the proposed topic ban. On the other hand (third hand already?), one of the edits pointed out in the SPI for Damian (behavioral proof of socking) was this one--and while it is true that it established proof both of socking and of a preoccupation with Georgia, it is also true that those tags were valid: the sentence was weaselish, not touched upon in the rest of the article. Moreover, the linked article (Greater Iran) is littered with tags that seem valid to me, and a matter of contention since 2006. (Boing, sure--POV pushing, but this time it pushed toward a proper balance, IMO.) In other words, the socking was bad, but some edits at least were valid. It is unfortunate that we're then hamstringing someone because of their bad behavior (socking, edit warring, etc.) in an area where they may well have something positive to bring. Satt/Damian, you brought that on yourself, unfortunately, and if you get unblocked with a topic ban, you'll just have to suck it up. But this is a good start. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban per reasons given above as I have nothing useful to add to the conversation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban, ans perhaps a ban on uploading images (per his last block log entry). I think we can give the user a second chance, gien that he understands that a third chance would be MUCH harder and with appropriate safeguards to kep him from the causes of the disruptive behavoir. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Question Satt2's past actions, when combined with administrator incompetence and arrogance, hurt at least one entirely innocent third party. Will Satt2 confirm here that they had no connection whatsoever to Olivia Winfield [17], an editor who was blocked for being a sock of Satt2. And will an administrator now reverse Olivia Winfield's patently unjust block. Or are they happy to create a situation where the sock is unbanned but the person incorrectly banned for being the same sock remains banned? Oh, I see no evidence that Satt2 has changed - he accuses other editors of being "freewheeling editors" who led HIM astray! This shows his lack of acceptance of or understanding about why he was blocked, and hints that little may change if he does return. I agree a ban should not last forever, so let him return, but a topic ban from ANYTHING to do with Georgia, very widely construed (i.e., including Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran) and for the suggested year, seems a minimum restriction to have in place to safeguard such a return. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal

Some editors have previously brought up issues with the existences of pages like Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal in the project namespace. Comments at this would be welcome. 103.6.159.65 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Mike V

I would like the community to take a look at admin Mike V's recent behaviour, and perhaps past behaviour if others have anything to add. He erroneously warned me for what he incorrectly believed was an infringement of an IBAN. I immediately rebutted the warning with a correction to whom I was referring, yet he dismissed my statement with his incorrect opinion that "I believe it is quite clear that you were ... (referring to the IBANned editor)" , i.e. that my previous rebuttal was therefore a lie. I then asked him to "leave me alone" to allow someone else to assess the issue and provided a series of diffs of the individual I had been referring to. He then refused to acknowledge any further requests to remove the warning. Then he re-appeared to block me for 72 hours yesterday, a block which was considered WP:INVOLVED and against the consensus at WP:AE, and one which a number of fellow admins considered inappropriate. He has since refused to accept any responsibility for his actions and inaction, going on to accuse me once again of lying.

I note that a number of vastly experienced Wikipedians including many admins have expressed concern over some of these specific events and Mike V's actions over the past two weeks ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], more on request...) and I have been strongly urged by a number of editors to start this thread to enable this situation and all other such instances to be discussed with a view on what remedies should be imposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have not seen any evidence presented that Mike V was involved apart from in an administrative capacity. The block itself was justifiable as many others have noted you did violate your restriction on insulting other editors. It is perhaps unfortunate Mike V was not aware of the discussion already taking place, so a gentle reminder to be more careful in that respect might be in order. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahem..., people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Cassianto^Talk 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • An editor who proposed to get an editor sanctioned at Arbcom, presenting evidence and proposing FoFs; who then goes on to present an interaction ban warning which, even when it is shown that there is no evidence that it was a violation of the interaction ban and when good arguments are presented that the links refered to another editor just leaves the discussion (and later reasserts that his warning was correct, just because he says so), but two weeks later jumps to the opportunity to block said editor when someone makes a passing remark on IRC, without even bothering to check if an AE discussion is ongoing... No, no evidence at all that he was involved and out to get TRM. A gentle reminder to leave TRM alone (in his administrative capacity), to re-examine and retract warnings when multiple people provide good arguments and evidence that it may have been wrong, and to change his approach to adminning if he wants to stay an admin for much longer might indeed be in order. Fram (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I am not familiar with all the Arbcom details that have gone before, but in my view Mike V is involved here by virtue of not replying (for 13 days) to TRM's response to the initial interaction ban reminder. People should not regard silence as a proxy for nothingness.(Non-administrator comment) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's a shame that the original AN was closed in an hour with only a dozen participants and the AE was closed in less than 24 hours, as I had wanted to make a comment about this. I'll try to be brief, but I do have a number of things I want to say. First, TRM violated his restriction on belittling other editors. As far as I can tell, no uninvolved administrator challenges that. The only question was over whether this should be a final warning or a block, and both outcomes were defensible. The repeated claims that this AE block was "bad" are just incorrect. Second, this was an AE block, which can only be overturned by a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". That simply can't be achieved in an hour, giving no time for the blocking administrator to even respond. The use of administrator tools to "speedily" revert an AE block deserves considerable scrutiny. Third, Mike V is not involved. He has acted only administratively with regard to TRM, which is explicitly allowed by WP:INVOLVED. Fourth, Mike V should have exercised better judgement in this situation. I happen to think this was a good block, but Mike V should have realized how much of a shit-storm any enforcement of TRM's restrictions would be. It would have been better handled by a group at AE than unilaterally. It wasn't an improper action or use of the admin tools, but it was an unwise one. Lastly, TRM is dangerously close to violating his restrictions again. Some of the comments in this thread are certainly belittling. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  That is absolutely wrong and in no way "belittling". It's a statement of fact. There's a club of admins protecting their own. This is precisely the problem with the sanctions, that people don't seem to understand what "belittling" really means and see "statements of opinion" as such. Incidentally, the AE block was determined to be out of process, hence the closure notes. And why ignore his accusations of lying against me? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  And if it really was "belittling", why didn't the admin to whom it was addressed get all sniffy about it and block me on the spot? Probably because he's competent. I suppose if you run personal opinion past a sufficient number of admins, you'll find one who finds it offensive or contrary to sanctions or whatever, particularly when they're so subjective. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) I'll also note that this post may disproportionately draw editors to the discussion with a particular point of view. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

    Then you'd be wrong again. If you took the time to read my talk page, you'd see that many editors and admins have asked me to open this thread, so I have done so and noted as such. Perhaps you're looking for some angle here and not really covering the actual initial issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

    As TRM's Arbcom case showed, there's a sizable group of 'we hate TRM'ers equally or more likely to come out of that. Which is ironic, as it was TRM's comment about Banedon canvassing this group during the Arbcom case (ignored by Arbcom) that started this whole thing when Mike accused TRM incorrectly of referring to another editor, rather than Banedon. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed; many of them seem to be watching TRM's edits and are ready to pounce on any move he makes. They'll come. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• My opinion: leaving the initial warning response for 13 days was inappropriate and the block was both involved and a poor decision, given the concurrent AE process that was under way. The lack of communication and refusal to apologise makes these bad behaviours worse. This all feels like bullying the kid who's in trouble with teacher - it's playground level and unbecoming of an admin. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mike V should, at the very least, be admonished for being too involved and using his tools to have the last word on TRM. TRM spent days asking for an apology from MV for insinuating that he was a liar, among other things, but he was ignored. Then, when TRM sailed perhaps a little too close to the wind (I'm not up on the where and wherefores in the matter) along comes a silenced MV to dish out a block. This person is far too block happy (as illustrated on my own block log) and he needs to be reminded of how to treat people, first and foremost, and then how to be an administrator. It's people like him who gives administrators a bad name. Cassianto^Talk 13:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• It was acknowledged at AE that Mike V's block was likely subpar given the flack he ought to have reasonably expected from it, but it was also acknowledged that he was not WP:INVOLVED to a degree forbidden by the policy and as Rob said above, nobody uninvolved is challenging that the block was correct. TRM ought to consider whether repeatedly rehashing this discussion with obvious intent to bring sanctions against another editor is a further violation of the same Arbcom remedy he was just sanctioned under, or whether it would be better to drop it and get on with building an encyclopedia. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  I'm responding to the requests of numerous users to bring this up, and I'm also here to get the interaction ban warning revoked and to seek for Mike to acknowledge that calling me a liar twice is unacceptable behaviour. Like some of his fellow admins above, you have failed to address the whole opening thread. And are you now trying to suggest that I can no longer bring any user's misbehaviour to AN because it's a "further violation"? Seriously? I guess that's one way to fly below the radar. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  • In what way would this be a violation of his restrictions? If his restrictions mean that he is now free to be attacked by any passerby and isn't allowed to complain about it, then the restrictions need to be abolished or rewritten. And how is he "repeatedly rehashing this discussion"? He was blocked during the previous discussions, which were closed when he was unblocked but didn't really address things like the previous interaction ban warning. Some editors here believe Mike V shouldn't have made the previous block, some believe he can happily block TRM again if he sees anything which he believes violates the sanctions (like, apparently, this very section does). Leaving such issues unaddressed isn't helpful. Fram (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• I find that Mike V.'s behavior over the past few days WRT his handling of the TRM block was, at best, lacking in basic competence and at worst, shows a willful disregard for basic due process. I find Mike V's explanation here to be wholly lacking; specifically the way his story changed multiple times to respond to evidence presented by others that he was unjustified in his block. Bencherlite raises some interesting points here at ANI as to the sequence of events. The fact that he invoked WP:AE, while there was an actual discussion going on at WP:AE and then acted in contravention of the consensus at that discussion at WP:AE is irresonsible at best. That an admin would claim to be doing the will of consensus at WP:AE when, at the time the block was issued, another admin had already assessed that consensus and formally declined to block TRM is just awful. Either Mike V. saw the comments and directly violated the developed consensus, OR Mike V. didn't even bother to check the very forum he stated in his block notice he was enforcing a block for. I'm profoundly disturbed by either possibility as to his competence to wield the admin tools. --Jayron32 14:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mike V presented evidence against TRM at the arbcom case. He also issued an interaction ban reminder in response to ambiguous questions by TRM, which could have referred to any of the two users that were said to have canvassed during the case, and which in context likely referred to the one that TRM doesn't have an IBAN with. When called out, he didn't respond until this blocking incident blew up a week later. This is IMHO enough to make him WP:INVOLVED, and the timeline noted by Bencherlite and Jayron's comments on that timeline above show that this block was likely in bad judgement. As for the block itself, while it may technically fall under the arbcom remedy, it seems overly strict to impose this in cases where the other party very clearly failed to follow instructions that left the Main Page open to image vandalism. The first three diffs presented there are harsh, but largely true statements when directed at Michael Hardy's attitude towards the main page. The fourth, is more problematic, because of telling a female editor to grow a pair can be seen as sexist, but was likely used in its metaphorical sense, and is at best a borderline reason for blocking under the restriction. Any block resulting from that comment should have been from the AE discussion and not from an admin like Mike V who is already arguably involved. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• This should be closed so we can all move on. Many eyes are now watching Mike V, and if he slips up in the future I'm certain we can address it. The root of this problem is that TRM told a female editor to "grow a pair" [27]. If there wasn't a concern about the AE process being violated, I'm certain the outcome for TRM could have been worse. (Non-administrator comment) Mr Ernie (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No once again you haven't read the opening post fully. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, so Mike V. incorrect interaction ban warning and refusal to revisit it for two weeks is caused by TRMs stupid remark two weeks later? That's a rather relativistic approach to cause-and-effect you have there. That TRM made an easy target of himself (I'm sorry TRM, but I think you know this to be true) is not the cause of the problem or of this section, it just highlighted the problem more rapidly. Fram (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • No problem Fram, I did indeed apologise to Katie a day or two ago about the "pair" comment, which was below the belt, both literally and metaphorically, but yes, easy target when my concerns over the integrity of the main boiled over through general malaise and lack of competent individuals to sort things out. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Fram and User:The Rambling Man The AE was largely focused on the lack of process in the Mike V block, not in TRM's behavior. In that sense, I believe he (TRM) sort of got off easy, where any straightforward look at the diffs would have revealed clear violations. If you want to revisit the Mike V situation, then your behavior would need to be re-examined also. That's why my advice to you is to drop it and move on and let Mike V use up the rest of his WP:ROPE on issues that do not concern you. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Well thanks but we're here now so we might as well examine Mike V's behaviour in this thread. The issue of admins who fail to meet WP:ADMINACCT most certainly does concern me, and should concern all of us. This is about Mike's behaviour remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict × 2) Closing "so we can all move on" means "sweep it under the carpet", and that's not the best outcome here. Mike V is once again showing an inability to consider his actions on other editors and a lack of competence in use of the admin tools. Mike V's mass-removal earlier this year of IPBE flags left a productive editor like LouisAlain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked from editing for a month despite clear explanations of the mistake Mike V made and his consistent denial of that. A look at the threads in User:Mike V/Archive7#IPBE Questions give a broader idea of the problems caused. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that, given the history between these two editors (especially during the Arbcom case), whether it technically goes against WP:INVOLVED or not, Mike should probably not be the one issuing warnings and hasty blocks (obviously hasty due to the fact that Mike failed to notice the AE notice posted to TRM's user talk). However, that in itself is not evidence of abuse of the tools.

The more serious matter is Mike's radio silence following the warning and accusation of lying. I believe that to be a serious breach of WP:ADMINACCT, and falls far below the conduct we expect of a Functionary who holds both Checkuser and Oversight permissions. To quote the Arbitration Committee on the case that established admin communication standards, all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

I have no love for TRM and, frankly, find him arrogant and rude. However, that is no excuse for an Administrator and Functionary, one of the most trusted roles on the entire project, to fail to uphold our community's standards and cast unfounded aspersions about the integrity of a fellow editor. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is an issue here, I certainly agree it's an accountability issue. Not one that I believe needed to be addressed at AN, particularly, but Mike V could have perhaps headed this whole thing off with a more thorough explanation of the original warning. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm hard pressed to see how someone who brings evidence against someone in an ArbCom case and presents FoFs suggesting said someone be desysopped is not involved. Maybe not technically, but common sense says given that MikeV was trying to get RM sanctioned and have his tools removed then MikeV probably shouldn't be dealing with RM. MikeV's claim that he was unaware of the ongoing AE discussion doesn't pass the smell test. Either he was so extraordinarily hasty that he didn't see the AE notice on RM's talk page or he's not telling the whole truth here. Both options are obviously sub-optimal. I also cant help but see the irony that MikeV specifically quoted the part of admin accountability that states that an admin is expected to respond to queries about their actions yet MikeV ignored multiple questions for 13 days or so.

To be clear, RM should have been subject to a short block for what he said to Katie. I'm sure that's where the AE would have ended up if MikeV didn't come in guns blazing as he so often does. Capeo (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• On a side note here, when did we give ArbCom complete discretion over blocking policy and where people can appeal things? My confusion stems from the original AN above. In 2014 ArbCom changed the appeal process by motion as well as giving themselves the power to insta-desysop any admin who didn't follow the procedure. That motion named AE, AN and ARCA as places where appeals can be made. Yet in the final decision of the RM case they seemingly ignored this motion and further limited where RM could appeal, while at the same time citing the blocking policy, which contradicts their decision. Capeo (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have to say I find Mike V's conduct in this case somewhat cowboy-like and certainly sub-par. Rather than restating things, I'll just say I agree with the opinions of Fram, Dweller, Jayron32, RexxS, Patar knight, The Wordsmith (excluding the opinion on TRM) and Capeo. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the AN discussion leading to the unblock should have run for longer than an hour or so, and that Salvidrim!'s actions should also be scrutinised here. Would it have helped if administrators intending to take action unilaterally against a single user to enforce an arbitration decision were required to check WP:AE and that user's talk page first? And if there is an active arbitration enforcement discussion, to participate in that, rather than take action unilaterally? This seems to be one of the central issues here. It has happened before, that an active AE discussion has been rendered moot by an admin taking action and claiming not to be aware of that discussion. It might seem an annoying restriction, but I think admins who follow best practice do try and do this sort of thing. i.e. check that there is not an active and ongoing discussion. On the other hand, the 'cowboy' comments may be a tad unfair on admins who are more decisive and take action on what they think is obvious without feeling the need to look around for existing discussion. That seems to be the difference in mindset here. Most of this could have been avoided if the AE thread had been allowed to run to its conclusion and if Mike V had participated there rather than acting unilaterally. Mike, what do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, allowing the AE report to run would have been wise, and not taking clandestine admin actions via IRC (which of course are untraceable) too. But actually, I'm also still looking for the accusations of lies to be removed, along with the false warning about IBAN infringement. That's part of the major problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed ban

I don't believe that it remains an option to allow Mike V to decide whether or not he is involved with The Rambling Man. So I'm seeking consensus here for a finding by the community that Mike V is too involved (as evidenced by the discussion above) with TRM to be able to take administrative action against him. I therefore propose that

• Mike V is community banned from unilaterally taking administrative action against The Rambling Man.

That still leaves him free to raise issues at ANI, the same as any other editor. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like him to redact his claims that I lied. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose We shouldn't put limits on admins like this. You either have access to the tools or not. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  So do editors have access to edit tools (including moving pages, uploading etc.), but we still ban them frequently. Not sure why admin tools should be treated differently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Sure, but if a community ban to limit administrative tools is the best option, it means to me that this admin has lost the trust of the community and shouldn't be an admin at all. Therefore, this proposal should go to the arbcom to determine if Mike V still has the trust of the community necessary to administrate this website. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  That's what we're doing here, discussing why so many members of the community were dismayed by Mike V's behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  And that's why I opposed this proposal. If every editor with a grudge against an admin sought to limit that admin's interactions with them, we'd have a mess of way to resolve issues. Admin is all or nothing. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  This isn't a single editor and it isn't a "grudge", it's a pattern of misuse of tools, an abuse of WP:INVOLVED, an abuse of WP:ADMINACCT and many, many individuals seem to agree. So yes, if your position of "admin is all or nothing" then MikeV should be desysopped, de-oversighted and de-checkusered. Correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  If you think that MikeV should be de-mopped going to ArbCom is a smart move (although unlikely to be successful), but opposing a community topic ban motion over this seems odd to me. And not having community sanctions on admins has never stopped bogus complaints, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  In the past, Arbcom has desysopped by motion after a community consensus was established at AN or RFCU (which we no longer have). Any sort of community-initiated desysopping or de-Functionarying (I guess that's a word now) has to start in threads like this one and the one above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose because phrasing this as a "community ban" is unduly harsh, but support in spirit. While there isn't any broad agreement as to whether or not Mike V's warning and subsequent block merit treatment under WP:INVOLVED, I'm sure he is aware that as a result of these discussions any future action is likely to cross that line and ought to refrain from it. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe the actions were improper, but the IPBE incident shows that there are user conduct and admin accountability issues that go beyond TRM. Closing with a resolution like this would be easy, sure, but it would prevent a full examination and community consensus on the broader issues. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. To deal with sanctions and/or reports regarding other editors, an admin needs the ability to be disinterested and dispassionate, and must be prepared to respond to questions about their actions and to accept their own mistakes when they make them. Mike V has failed in these requirements with respect to The Rambling Man, and should not act in an admin capacity with respect to him. I'd prefer to see a voluntary commitment from Mike V to avoid The Rambling Man in an admin capacity, but if that is not forthcoming then I think a community ban is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose it's not wide-ranging enough. Mike V has demonstrated beyond his manner of dealing with me that there are wider and deeper issues that need closer examination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  The wise can achieve great things in small steps, Grasshopper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, and given the strength of feeling from numerous editors and admins alike, Mike V's behaviour needs close examination, not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying which he has had an opportunity to do now for about two weeks. To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as there seems to be larger issues here than just MikeV's interactions with TRM. I do think Mike should refrain from further unilateral action against TRM and that he should retract his claims about TRM lying. Anything beyond that, I know little about and can't comment further as of now. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support restricting Mike from making Arbitration Enforcement actions towards TRM - In response to Mr Ernie, such a restriction is precisely mentioned in existing procedure as something that can be done. From the AE header: "Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities." I think the community has demonstrated (here and in the AN thread that led to the unblock) that it believes this restriction to be appropriate at this point in time. I thereby support the restriction as a valid implementation of the community's wishes. I'm hoping Mike V will voluntarily agree to this as well to being questioned every time. Users who oppose this first-step restriction because of "larger issues" with Mike's adminship in general should keep in mind that an immediate lesser restriction does not prevent future wider examination of administrative conduct at the proper venue (an ArbCom case) if they deem it necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on both factual and philosophical grounds. Factually, Mike V is not involved, and this block wasn't overturned on the grounds that it was outside of community norms. It was overturned due to a consensus of administrators preferring a final warning to a block. No uninvolved administrator argued that a violation did not occur. Philosophically, I don't believe any active administrator should be under sanction. If an administrator has erred so heavily that the community considers a restriction necessary to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, then that administrator should be desysopped. Holding a position of significant community trust and being under sanction should be mutually exclusive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the consensus above and AE is that the block was proper. And the unblock was against the ArbCom ruling. This all smacks of revenge, not at any meaningful attempt at prevention. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't get the "no admin should have such sanctions" or "if this happens, then he should be desysopped". What we do (perhaps in too strong language) is formalize that Mike V. is considered to be involved wrt TRM and should refrain from taking actions towards him, just like every admin must do with editors he or she is involved with. I have a fair number of editors I shouldn't take admin action against, and if there was one were I thought I wasn't involved but the community felt I was involved, I wouldn't be surprised if they made it formally clear to me that I should step back if I had blocked them. If such a thing happens too often, or if there are sufficient other issues, then this may be one element leading to a desysop. However, having a formal community declaration that, no matter what the admin believes, the community considers them to be too involved to act, is in itself nothing extraordinary or desysop-worthy, and opposing on those grounds only seems misguided. Fram (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• RexxS, wouldn't an iBan achieve the same result? It has the advantage of leaving the "administrator" mess out of it. You can't block without interaction, really. I'm merely offering this as a suggestion--I wonder if this will fall in our lap one way or another anyway. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You may be right Good Doctor, but I think that my proposal actually goes to the heart of the matter, and has no unwarranted side-effects. What if, for example, both MV and TRM were involved as editors in a discussion about a topic they were both interested in? Would one have to step away and not participate? It's true that I also wanted to test the water on the issue of providing finer-grained checks and balances on the possible misuse of admin power. I don't believe the community is best served by a "all-or-nothing" approach to that. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, you know I live to avoid the heart of the matter. Nothing one finds there is worth talking about in public. That's not to say I don't dig where you're coming from, and frequently narrow is better--but in this case the narrow approach brings on additional problems/complications. The problems you signal (discussion on something they're both interested in), that's the kind of thing that's always hard to figure out with an iBan, but that's not more difficult in this case than in others (or even less, given which mainspace articles Mike V is interested in--and they're not at ITN or DYK frequently). But go ahead and get to the heart of the matter--I'll step back and watch the show, and I'll put a few beers on ice for you, in case you ever get done. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support -- per RexxS. I'd also like Mike V to make a public apology to TRM. Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with the apology, but the ban will simply result in Mike V using IRC to get someone else to do his dirty work. He's already demonstrated that he works with other admins behind the scenes before leaping on-wiki to make decisions. This ban is just treating the symptoms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  I see your point. How about he be punished by being forced to write a GA or FA? That'll learn him; he'll be so out of his depth that he won't even consider messing with anyone again, let alone you. Cassianto^Talk 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support This sort of behavior needs to have a consequence. --Tarage (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  The ban will simply result in Mike V using IRC to get someone else to do his dirty work. He's already demonstrated that he works with other admins behind the scenes before leaping on-wiki to make decisions. This ban is just treating the symptoms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, with the understanding that this is only an interim measure while desysopping or other action is considered. I've seen my share of self-important, high-handed, no-account admins in my day (and here I insert my usual disclaimer that I'm talking about 3% of them – the other 97% doing good, hard work for little or no recognition) but this guy takes the cake. I addressed this post to him elsewhere yesterday:

Of course you weren't aware of the AE discussion: you were in too much of a hurry putting another notch in your belt and reassuring yourself you're the big swinging dick to even bother looking at the most recent post on the talk page of the user you were about to block. Comments at your RfA were amazingly prescient:

• "I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not"
• "Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first."
• "Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions"
• "I fear I see a general trend of eagerness take punitive action rather than problem solving"
• "Over-eager with his desire to block"

If ever anyone ever deserved desysopping, it's you. Why don't you just save the community the time and trouble (it will take two or three more 50-editor dramas like this one before even your apologists give up) and voluntarily resign? TRM has serious problems, but I'd take 50 of him over one of you. At least he actually contributes content – something you never do (and as someone commented at your RfA, "I'd like to see some evidence of constructive editing").

It's a shame those warnings weren't heeded, because guys like this bring the entire administrative corps into disrepute. This is his third instantly-overturned block that I just happen to casually know of within the past year alone. That's two too many for an entire admin career, much less a year.

None of this is to take away from the fact that T.R.M. still has a way to go in terms of modifying his own behavior; part of what's so destructive about Mike V's misbehavior is that it distracts from necessary efforts to help T.R.M. with his.

EEng 19:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I've already accepted that I need "competent" admins to help out in those maintenance areas, not just "admins", so I'll certainly be changing my requests going forward. And please, desist with the periods in abbreviating my user name, it looks like something shambolic from an American 1970s sitcom. (Or maybe that was your belittlesome theme???!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My God, T-h-e R-a-m-b-l-i-n-g M-a-n, you're hard to help. EEng 20:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And you're so hard to cope with but somehow between us we muddle along, right? So retain focus on the issues in hand. Unless you consider that honest comment "belittling" in which case, see you next week! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

<disbelieving silence> EEng 20:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Retain focus - you may want to consider doing this yourself. EEng delivers a scathing review of Mike V and you're worried about a few dots turning TRM into an acronym from some show? Mr rnddude (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit suppression needed - non controvertial

The previous version of the picture here is non-free, I have reduced the image sufficiently to suit. The previous version needs to be deleted. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 14:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done by Nyttend. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: FYI, the best awy to deal with that is to tag the image with {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)