EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Possibly prematurely archived discussion?: Closing with six-month topic ban of Robertinventor from the Four Noble Truths |
|||
Line 524: | Line 524: | ||
== Possibly prematurely archived discussion? == |
== Possibly prematurely archived discussion? == |
||
{{archive top|result=There is consensus to place a restriction. Robertinventor made lengthy posts during the ban discussion that were an illustration of the problem, showing that he is well intentioned but can't work effectively with others on Buddhist topics when there is disagreement. He has made 811 edits to [[Talk:Four Noble Truths]] and has added more text than all others put together. He defends his understanding of Buddhism tenaciously (with many repetitions) and some editors believe he has a poor grasp of Wikipedia policies about article content, making discussions with him unfruitful. The idea of a posting limit was kicked around but did not find consensus. There is support for a [[WP:TBAN]] from the Four Noble Truths on all pages of Wikipedia. I counted only two editors who opposed a topic ban. In terms of duration, some people who favored a ban said indefinite, one person wanted a year, but others wanted only three or six months. So the discussion ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive280#Topic_ban_requested from Archive280]) is closed with a six-month ban of [[User:Robertinventor]] from the topic of the [[Four Noble Truths]] on all pages of Wikipedia including talk. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC) }} |
|||
Would anyone like to look at thread #118, entitled "Topic ban requested" on the page [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280]] and maybe restore it or close it? [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
Would anyone like to look at thread #118, entitled "Topic ban requested" on the page [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280]] and maybe restore it or close it? [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Is it appropriate for a non-admin to make a close potentially resulting in a topic ban? I've read through the majority of the discussion and am comfortable making a closure (after doing a more thorough read-through, of course), but both [[WP:BAN]] and [[WP:NAC]] are silent on this issue. I won't make a close unless a couple administrators or otherwise experienced editors give me the go-ahead to do so, since I'm not so sure what convention is here. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC) |
:Is it appropriate for a non-admin to make a close potentially resulting in a topic ban? I've read through the majority of the discussion and am comfortable making a closure (after doing a more thorough read-through, of course), but both [[WP:BAN]] and [[WP:NAC]] are silent on this issue. I won't make a close unless a couple administrators or otherwise experienced editors give me the go-ahead to do so, since I'm not so sure what convention is here. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 530: | Line 531: | ||
::::If convention indicates non-admins shouldn't do sanctions, then I'll stay away from it. Just looking to help out, since I noticed the discussion at ANRFC and again here. Based on my initial (just about everything but the collapsed sections) reading yesterday, there is clear consensus for some form of sanction, and a topic ban limited to the Four Noble Truths, broadly construed, seemed to be the likely option. Limits on just the length of comments or number of edits clearly had no consensus. I'd need to give it a complete read-through to know for sure, though, and I'll leave that to an admin. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::If convention indicates non-admins shouldn't do sanctions, then I'll stay away from it. Just looking to help out, since I noticed the discussion at ANRFC and again here. Based on my initial (just about everything but the collapsed sections) reading yesterday, there is clear consensus for some form of sanction, and a topic ban limited to the Four Noble Truths, broadly construed, seemed to be the likely option. Limits on just the length of comments or number of edits clearly had no consensus. I'd need to give it a complete read-through to know for sure, though, and I'll leave that to an admin. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::Non-admins cant/shouldnt close anything that requires admin tool use. As they technically cant enact the closure (see discussions closed as delete etc or those requiring removal of permissions). A topic ban discussion requires no tools to close as the closure is basically 'you can no longer edit in that area, dont do it'. Any actual enforcement would obviously require tools, however that is not at the point of discussion closing, and assuming the editor abides by the topic ban, may never be required. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 08:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::::Non-admins cant/shouldnt close anything that requires admin tool use. As they technically cant enact the closure (see discussions closed as delete etc or those requiring removal of permissions). A topic ban discussion requires no tools to close as the closure is basically 'you can no longer edit in that area, dont do it'. Any actual enforcement would obviously require tools, however that is not at the point of discussion closing, and assuming the editor abides by the topic ban, may never be required. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 08:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
== Captain America == |
== Captain America == |
Revision as of 14:21, 27 May 2016
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFC on including DC Comics
(Initiated 154 days ago on 21 December 2023) Long past 'best before' date. - wolf 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: Done Qono (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 69 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 47 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead
(Initiated 43 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders
(Initiated 37 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?
(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
- In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
- I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
- I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
- The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails
(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 55 | 66 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 23 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 28 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 46 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 18 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season
(Initiated 114 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive
(Initiated 101 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Closed by editor QuicoleJR. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 37 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles
(Initiated 22 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests
(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk: Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 13 May 2024
(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 May 2024)
Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Relisted by editor BilledMammal on 21 May 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Reducing List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi guys I recently encountered List of social networking websites which under an indefinite full protection, which seems like major overkill given it's history, all the while semi/PC protection doesn't seem like enough of a solution. Looking at the history of the page, it would seem the 30/500 protection is an almost perfect fit for this article, and would go a long way to making it editable by the community. Most problematic edits/edit requests come from users who don't meet this threshold, while the majority that do, meet the threshold.
Since only the community can authorize the 30/500 protection level, I propose reducing the article List of social networking websites from indefinite full protection to indefinite 30/500 protection.
TO CLARIFY: This is a discussion, as required per policy, to protect this single page with 30/500, not if we should make 30/500 a routine protection level.
Another Clarification: This page is already fully protected indefinitely. No one but admins can edit this page. This is a proposal to reduce it to 30/500 protection indefinitely, so more established users can edit it.
Yet Another Clarification: People seem to be opposing on the belief that only ArbCom can authorize this protection level. This is false. A community discussion like this one is also a valid way to authorize this protection level. From WP:30/500,This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community.
- Support per initial statement.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd rather if we ran an RFC on the idea of starting to use 30/500 protection outside of the current arbitration-imposed cases in general, before we started looking at requests case-by-case. –xenotalk 15:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The community can also authorize the use of 30/500, but this isn't a discussion to change the policy but to keep in line with current policy and to have the community authorize this protection, especially since this would be indefinite protection.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The community has not yet decided to authorize this new form of protection, and I oppose it being used anywhere that isn't absolutely necessary. I believe it to be counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Semi- and full-protection are necessary to protect certain articles, but 30/500 unnecessarily creates a new hierarchy as to who is allowed to edit what. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it has. The community and the arbitration committee authorizes certain articles for this level of protection. And arguing "that anyone can edit" goes against your argument as this article is indefinitely fully protected. The disruption is caused by users who usually don't yet possess the extendedconfirmed right.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose 500/30 should only be used when it is known to be a topic area that has external agencies working in some type of coordination to affect the article, where full protection is not sufficient to prevent long-term disruption. It should never be used as a mid-point between semi- and full- since, as the Wordsmith points out, the very notion of it is counter to the open wiki nature of Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- So exactly how is indefinite full protection helping the open nature of Wikipedia? I can't even edit the article as it stands to make a minor correction if I needed to. With 30/500 protection, bots, and experienced editors can at least edit the article. 30/500 is an ideal protection level in this case.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reading the logs of why that page is fully protected, 500/30 wouldn't help. It attracts random users wanting to add unrecognized social media sites too frequently, which includes users that have passed the 500/30 level. As one of the admins that FP'ed it put [1] it also helps to account for all requests to add sites to the list so that there's little to argue if someone wants to argue for removal or the like. So in this case, this is a use of FP simply to better audit an article that is otherwise a highly attractive one for unsourced/inappropriate additions from across WP but without any constant external influence, so I agree FP is the best call, and 500/30 would not help. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a reason pending changes cant be used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pending could be used to achieve the stability, but I see the value discussed in the diff above that since all additions have to have an edit request and subsequent discussion, and we are talking a topic area that would seem ripe for favoritism and self-promotion, that having a record of all requests and accepted additions is of high value. But this is a situation unique to that topic area. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a reason pending changes cant be used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reading the logs of why that page is fully protected, 500/30 wouldn't help. It attracts random users wanting to add unrecognized social media sites too frequently, which includes users that have passed the 500/30 level. As one of the admins that FP'ed it put [1] it also helps to account for all requests to add sites to the list so that there's little to argue if someone wants to argue for removal or the like. So in this case, this is a use of FP simply to better audit an article that is otherwise a highly attractive one for unsourced/inappropriate additions from across WP but without any constant external influence, so I agree FP is the best call, and 500/30 would not help. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- So exactly how is indefinite full protection helping the open nature of Wikipedia? I can't even edit the article as it stands to make a minor correction if I needed to. With 30/500 protection, bots, and experienced editors can at least edit the article. 30/500 is an ideal protection level in this case.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please identify the specific phrasing of the policy which enables administrators to use this protection level outside of ARBCOM/AE areas. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- From WP:30/500: "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community." This is a community discussion which is competent to authorise the protection on the page. BethNaught (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Does that wording give us the leeway to authorize its use on a page by page basis outside ARBPIA3 or the Gamergate pages? I read it as we have to authorize it for topic areas. I mean, I'm all for giving us the ability to use the protection (not necessarily in this case as I'm not convinced it would work) but I'm not sure we can do it. Or am I reading it too literally? Katietalk 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The wording of the original close was "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". Besides, even if that were not the case, I think that is too literal a reading. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Does that wording give us the leeway to authorize its use on a page by page basis outside ARBPIA3 or the Gamergate pages? I read it as we have to authorize it for topic areas. I mean, I'm all for giving us the ability to use the protection (not necessarily in this case as I'm not convinced it would work) but I'm not sure we can do it. Or am I reading it too literally? Katietalk 17:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- From WP:30/500: "This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community." This is a community discussion which is competent to authorise the protection on the page. BethNaught (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The arbitration committee has made it clear that the community is not prohibited from creating policy in relation to the imposition of 30/500 protection. Whether this is the appropriate forum for that is another question. Speaking generally, 30/500 appears to be a protection level that is a step between semi-protection and full-protection, though much nearer to semi-protection. Like other protection level, it should only be used to protect the encyclopedia and used for a minimal time. No comment on whether this particular case is ripe for this.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Indefinite full protection is well, not useless, but it is aggravating. Plus, most people who have passed the 30/500 protection are trustworthy. Peter Sam Fan 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: The slippery slope has begun. I opposed creating the 30/500 usergroup back when it was proposed at the Village Pump because I feared that this protection level would go from an ArbCom mandated sanction of last resort to just another sanction level. Even the creator of the RfC, Cenarium, recommended that "Pages may be protected by admins with the new level only when a decision of the arbitration committee mandates it". Well, here we are in April, facing a decision whether 30/500 protection should be a routine substitution for full protection or only used under ArbCom authorization. Although I don't like either option, I strongly recommend against the former. Altamel (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is not what this discussion is about at all. This protection can only be used by authority of ArbCom or by a community discussion. This is a discussion about to protect this ONE page with 30/500, not to make it routine.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Allowing this protection once sets a precedent regarding the circumstances that would justify its use. The community should exercise this protection very sparingly, but I don't believe we should start with this particular case. Altamel (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm trying to understand your rational, and it makes sense to an extent, but can you tell me how 30/500, which allows more users, who are likely productive and WP:CLUEful contributors, to edit an article, over the current status quo, which is restricting a page to admin edits only, indefinitely? I'm not proposing this to set a precedent, I'm proposing this because this option upholds the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" more closely, and see it as the idea solution to the specific problem this article faces. I would otherwise not have proposed this, and requested semi-protection instead, which I initially did, until I learned about the article's history. From my point of view 30/500 isn't meant to be another hierarchical protection level, but rather an in the middle solution when semi isn't enough, leaving the only alternative indefinite full protection, which IMO is unacceptable. If it was only a temporary protection, I wouldn't have bothered starting this discussion. I hope this helps.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Allowing this protection once sets a precedent regarding the circumstances that would justify its use. The community should exercise this protection very sparingly, but I don't believe we should start with this particular case. Altamel (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is not what this discussion is about at all. This protection can only be used by authority of ArbCom or by a community discussion. This is a discussion about to protect this ONE page with 30/500, not to make it routine.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, both procedurally, as this isn't the largest community forum for such a discussion, and on general principles, as my understanding was that 30/500 is for serious problem areas. Fighting over social networks on a list is relatively small-time. —Torchiest talkedits 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- So as it's a less serious problem area it should have less protection, not more? Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand this oppose either. If this isn't a big problem area, then why leave it fully protected. If it's not a problem area, then semi should be sufficient right? But it isn't. That means to keep disruption at bay, it's either PC2, template, or 30/500, which is a middle-ground solution I am proposing to keeping most disruption at bay, while still allowing all the established editors to edit, not just admins.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- So as it's a less serious problem area it should have less protection, not more? Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support this is already being used, and most opposition is either a request for process or "slippery slope" argument that is unlikely to be a consequence (most BLPs are still unprotected, for example). Peter James (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like the 30/500 protection seems perfect to me. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support, assuming that arbcom is not reserving this userright for their own purposes. What is more I think it should be used liberally throughout Wikipedia when there is a semi-protection is not enough but protection is too much. That being said I am not sure this is what arbcom intended for the userright or what the status of use of it outside arbcom is. HighInBC 16:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose 30/500 is intended to be for Intractable areas of dispute, not as a step down from full protection. Second, if we disclude the 30/500 we're only left with semi-protection as the only place to reduce the threshold to which has been shown to be easily gamed and thereby crash the page back into edit warring about inclusion on the list and going right back up to full protection. Third, as much as we don't want it to be, being listed in Wikipedia is a great way to increase the prominance of your venture (whether business, website, art endeavour, etc). See also COI/Paid editing. Fourth, if something needs to be changed/added to the page there is the "Edit Request" way of proposing the change and potentially securing consensus for the change. In short: 30/500 should not be authorized barring a Village Pump discussion authorizing it and Full Protection is not set in concrete. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thread bump, to keep the bot off of this.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Point of order - 30/500 is not a community protection level. It must be authorized by ArbCom, and it has not been for this topic AFAIK. This proposal is out of order. If you want to propose 30/500 protection for this topic, file a case with ArbCom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please re-read the policy. It says this protection level can be authorized by ArbCom or the community. This is a community discussion to authorize this protection, and so this proposal is in line, with policy.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Altamel. I agree with Ivanvector that "30/500 is not a community protection level". Furthermove, this noticeboard is for "information and issues that affect administrators"; this discussion affects the community as a whole, and as such, this is the improper forum (along similar lines to what Torchiest stated).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is a community protection level. Policy dictates that this protection level can be applied by the community, as such this is a community discussion. As for picking the location of this discussion, I chose AN as we are dealing with potentially protecting a page with 30/500, but this discussion seems to be going south, because people keep misunderstanding the use of 30/500, and why I proposed this protection level on this page.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Any oppose arguments because there's no consensus for use of the protection level are circular and nonsensical, as this is an attempt to get consensus for use of the protection level. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Not the best place for community discussion
Top o' the page clearly says: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators," therefore it is not a proper place for discussing policy changes. If someone wants to make a proposal it goes somewhere like Wikipedia Talk:Protection policy, gets slapped with an RFC template and listed on the centralized discussion list. This notion that it's appropriate for the admin corps to make policy decisions a) gives admins, collectively, a bad name, and b) pretty much ensures you're going have non-admin stalkers here. NE Ent 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to be a little confused. Per the RfC on this matter the community can impose 30/500 restrictions on any article they deem it to be necessary on. That is what this discussion is about. At least that is what I think this discussion is about. This seems like the perfect place for that kind of discussion since this is a highly watched page and things of this level should have a lot of eyes on it. --Majora (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- NE Ent, this isn't a policy change I'm proposing. I don't understand why people seem to be thinking that when I clearly noted above what this discussion is about. To protect a single page 30/500, which requires community approval. I chose AN because we are dealing with a fully protected page, to have it's protection discussed. That kind of requires an admin for that, hence I thought it would be appropriate to discuss here.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your problem is that you didn't fill out Form 86-20924Z/3OY in triplicate and file it with the proper affidavits. You'll never work in this town again. BMK (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Aw damn. I knew I forgot something. PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- No forgiveness - your TPS sheet came in without a cover page. SQLQuery me! 05:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I needed a cover page for that? I thought you only needed that when filing for authorization to change your signature. :-(—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- No forgiveness - your TPS sheet came in without a cover page. SQLQuery me! 05:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Aw damn. I knew I forgot something. PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your problem is that you didn't fill out Form 86-20924Z/3OY in triplicate and file it with the proper affidavits. You'll never work in this town again. BMK (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned the original proposal only intended this as arbitration enforcement, and didn't allow use outside such context. In the discussion, also allowing use by "community consensus" was suggested, and the closer stated it was restricted "to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation". But the "or the community" mention isn't explained, and I believe not supported by the discussion. It should require a formal proposal at village pump and actual consensus before being suggested for use on a particular page outside AE, and the proposal should specify where and how it should be requested for an article (e.g. on article talk page with mandatory WP:CENT listing...). Cenarium (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions, which are similar to this; village pump is for decisions that don't require administrator action. If a decision made here is invalid, so are community sanctions (including bans) and these would have to be regarded as lifted. WP:CENT is for discussions with "potentially wide-ranging impacts" - use of this protection on one page wouldn't change anything as a similar discussion would have to take place when it is proposed for another page. It would have less impact than full protection of the same page which doesn't require any discussion. Peter James (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- "ANI is already the noticeboard for community sanctions" That is an incorrect statement of practice. In fact, this board (AN) is the preferred board for community sanction discussions. Frequently a discussion about sanctions will arise from an already ongoing discussion on ANI, and the consensus has been to allow them to continue there rather than breaking the flow of the discussion by moving it here, but otherwise sanction discussions are preferred to happen here. It's a bit less like the Wild Wild West here as compared to ANI, so presumably a more reasonable discussion can be held. BMK (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The top of the page says "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices". I would say that a discussion on the acceptable use of a new admin tool falls into discussion of administration methods. It is the discussion about if admins should use a tool on a specific page when there is no clear guidance about the tool. If it was a proposal for a policy then I would agree that another place would be better, but this is no different than discussing the use of admin tools in any other specific area. HighInBC 16:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the alternative, I hope that people here take the result from this discussion (I'm more of a meh on it) and incorporate it into the protection policy. If 30/500 is a new protection standard, it would be easily just to put it into policy, whatever it is, and then to use WP:RFPP for it in the future. ANI can always be the backstop if no one at RFPP agrees to it. I mean, we have the technical ability to PP2 but that's been wholly rejected for years. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- A proposal with 72.9% support is "wholly rejected"? 82.132.184.165 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I mean PC2, the second level of pending changes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- A proposal with 72.9% support is "wholly rejected"? 82.132.184.165 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone is proposing a community ban
I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradediatalk 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion here with examples provided: [2]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [3].
Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katietalk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "
The block log is longer than my arm
" - That kind of jaded hyperbole is completely unnecessary, and in this case quite disingenuous. Just sayin'... - theWOLFchild 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- "
- Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
@Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.
He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!
Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradediatalk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 18:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:
- You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
- You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
- You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
- You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
- You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
- Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
- You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradediatalk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:
- I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[4] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.
- User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.
- It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- How many times a person can ignore what he is told and do it his way before it's obvious he is playing stupid? 5 times? 10? 20? I think You passed all that limits. Assuming good faith doesn't mean letting one person making idiots of 10 others indefinitely. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please stop with the personal attacks. It's not civil, and it demonstrates poor character and an unwillingness to work with others. You are also confusing vandalism with good faith edits made in error. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately despite all appeals[5][6][7] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradediatalk 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- How busy does one have to be to be too busy to make less than thirteen edits a day I wonder...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: This is not the point. The point is that "being too busy" is just an excuse used by him to justify his edits that are intentionally and consistently misinterpreting sources, his edits that are against consensus, etc. When editors complain about his edits on talk pages and ping him, he does not respond. You cannot have time to make dishonest edits, but then pretend to be "too busy" to respond to editors who are complaining about it. This is clearly an editor who wants to make POV edits and do not care about what other editors are trying to say to him. You can see this pattern in Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline, Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages. And this is not even mentioning all the messages on his talk page that he keeps deleting dismissively... Tradediatalk 09:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- How busy does one have to be to be too busy to make less than thirteen edits a day I wonder...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- So you are too "busy as a person" to "participate in discussions", yet you find the time to make 500 edits in the last 40 days? Tradediatalk 09:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for not addressing this earlier, but I'm quite busy as a person. This is the reason for my lack of participation in many discussions (some of which I regret). I probably could have done better, and I am sorry about by lack of input in many past discussion, but I do try my best to respond to discussions involving crucial issues. I will make more of an effort to engage in future discussions, where or when my attention is required. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately despite all appeals[5][6][7] User:LightandDark2000 continues to play lawyer and deliberately ignores the subject matter. He does not respond to criticisms while asking detractors to remain civil, he uses the lack of civility as a smokescreen to avoid having to listen to the discussion at all. This is extremely frustrating and is the cause of why too many editors lose their patience with you in the first place. Those that attack you could well be wrong, but your unresponsiveness is itself the original sin. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
LightandDark2000 continues to disrupt Syria map page. More here: user: LightandDark2000, Qaryatan, Syria tell and al-Mihassah (permalink). Please, block him. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. There is more! Check the talk page with complaints. --Hogg 22 (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is the ban being proposed a ban from the site, or a topic ban? --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Rubbish computer: What is being proposed is a ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradediatalk 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has been almost a month since anyone has taken any interest in this. I highly doubt that any action will be taken, so it's probably time to let this die off. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Permission to come back to the Ref Desks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Due to a dispute last year I agreed to a voluntary ban. The dispute was about medical advice, but it was also more of a "who is the boss here" issue. I decided to leave because I saw that I got carried away too much by the power play. I have contributed a lot to StackExchange, and I think that I can come back here without causing problems. I'll just stick to 0RR, so if someone sees a problem with anything I do there, they can revert and if that revert is seen to be a problem then that's an issue for the others to sort out, I will stay out of any disputes. I don't see the need to "protect my contribution". The lesson I've learned is that as soon as I would get such feelings, then it's time to leave for a while to prevent wasting time on futile issues. Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Why would one need permission to end a voluntary ban? That's asymmetrical. But, if necessary, Support. Sounds sincere and rational.―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)- See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Proposal to Topic-Ban User:Count Iblis from Reference Desk for the original discussion. There was no formal ruling on consensus at the time. Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- To Count Iblis - I would support your request if (and this is a big if) you were to give a clear, unambiguous undertaking to abide by the Reference Desk guidelines concerning medical advice (WP:RD/G/M). I do not see such an undertaking in your comments from October or in your current request. Tevildo (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also thick to 0RR. Let me explain. The way the medical issue is dealt with on the ref desk is in practice quite ambiguous. If there were any truth about what was said on AN/I about me, then anything remotely close to medical advice would not be approached with a ten feet long pole. That's far from the truth, and when I took a look yesterday I saw a question about diet and exercise, the question about exercise was posted by a ref desk regular. Because I'm not allowed to post there I replied on the talk page of the OP, and the answer was appreciated. So, clearly that answer I gave yesterday would not have been judged as falling foul of that medical advice guideline. But there is no way to tell this in general a priori. The way to avoid disputes is thus for me to disengage from any arguments about medical advice issues. So, I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also stick to 0RR. Anyone can modify anything I write there without me going to revert them. There is then no need to run to AN/I in case of problems, there won't be recurring problems where I continue to post something else later that also needs to be refactored which would then necessitate intervention. I'm not going to play any such games, if anything is edited in an answer that I write, I'll stay out of that particular topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is actually how it's supposed to work - our guidelines say "Generally speaking, answers are more likely to be sanctioned than questions... When answering a question that appears to be soliciting medical advice, outright removal of the question is discouraged. It is preferable to add a link to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and answer by giving information, such as links to articles. The first answer in particular should advise the person to seek a qualified professional. Subsequent answers must never bring this advice into question, and should reiterate it if there is any doubt." Emphasis mine. If you do get allowed back, I invite you to run potential replies by me first if you are concerned about understanding where to draw the line. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also thick to 0RR. Let me explain. The way the medical issue is dealt with on the ref desk is in practice quite ambiguous. If there were any truth about what was said on AN/I about me, then anything remotely close to medical advice would not be approached with a ten feet long pole. That's far from the truth, and when I took a look yesterday I saw a question about diet and exercise, the question about exercise was posted by a ref desk regular. Because I'm not allowed to post there I replied on the talk page of the OP, and the answer was appreciated. So, clearly that answer I gave yesterday would not have been judged as falling foul of that medical advice guideline. But there is no way to tell this in general a priori. The way to avoid disputes is thus for me to disengage from any arguments about medical advice issues. So, I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also stick to 0RR. Anyone can modify anything I write there without me going to revert them. There is then no need to run to AN/I in case of problems, there won't be recurring problems where I continue to post something else later that also needs to be refactored which would then necessitate intervention. I'm not going to play any such games, if anything is edited in an answer that I write, I'll stay out of that particular topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose based on the above reply.I would hold that a firm commitment to abiding by the guidelines is essential for Count Iblis' rehabilitation. Tevildo (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Opposebased on Count Iblis' very apparent continuing lack of understanding of what "no medical advice" means. His action in answering a question about diet and exercise is a blatant example of violating that rule, so I have absolutely no faith that he would be able to control himself if allowed to return to the Ref Desks. Since it was a voluntary self-ban, if CI returns despite any consensus here that he shouldn't, the previous discussion should be unarchived and continued until there is a community consensus on whether he should be banned or not, since the original discussion was short-circuited by the voluntary ban and never concluded. BMK (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Struck my support for now. I haven't been around the desks much for some time, but I don't recall much (if any) editing of others' responses because they were improper. It's a bad example to set for the less initiated, and the questioner very easily might see the improper answer anyway. Striking it or removing it from the page does not erase it from their memory. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to stay out of anything remotely resembling a medical/physiological/health question, just to be safe. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support- CI wants to help. WP:AGF applies here too. I think CI is making this request in good faith, and we always need more good faith help at the ref desk. Keep in mind he sort of self-topic-banned in the past, and he doesn't need our support to come back. I think he'd prefer our support, as few people like to post if they feel unwanted. He's admitted fault, and wants to reform. I think our ref desks get better with more eyes on the questions. CI knows he will be on very thin ice, and if he's allowed back I assume will be on his best behavior as part of an unofficial probationary period. If that goes sour, we have nothing much to lose by offering some attempt at rehabilitation in lieu of punishment. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I don't doubt Count Iblis' good faith and his potential for useful contributions, and I accept that his disagreement with the guidelines isn't unreasonable in itself. I'm concerned that he's not apparently prepared to make the simple statement "Yes, I will follow the guidelines." If he does so, I'll change my opinion. Until then, I feel the risk of last year's disruption being repeated is still too high. Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support for starters he doesn't need anyone's permission to come back, and also he's a lot less hypocritical and dishonest than most of the more zealous self-appointed enforcers of the refdesk guidelines. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment from "OP": I am the refdesk regular who posed the question (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Exercise: Repetition vs. weight lifted.) and who Count Iblis answered on my talk page. (User talk:Guy Macon#Frank Medrano knows the answer) The notion that my question or any of the answers I received are "medical advice" goes against Wikipedia policy and against longstanding refdesk policy. Exercise isn't a medical issue. It is a normal part of life. I am leaning toward supporting Count Iblis returning to the refdesks. A simple declarative statement along the lines of "I will abide by the existing refdesk rules even if I disagree with them" from Count Iblis will turn my position to full support. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - In view of his history not only of giving improper advice but of maintaining his right to do so, I see no reason to be assured that he will follow the Ref Desk guidelines strictly. He may want to help, and I am willing to believe that he wants to help. He just has shown that he doesn't know when help is not help. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, he should need permission to come back, because he "voluntarily" departed under a cloud. Allowing people to come back without permission after departing under a cloud would set a bad precedent. (Admins who depart under a cloud have to come back via RFA.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strong agreement. The basic concept of "under a cloud" (no matter where used) allows us to halt proceedings when the accused voluntarily withdraws. This is a Good Thing; it saves us effort and allows the accused to save face. But if he is later allowed to undo that decision without permission, we will have to continue the proceedings and decide upon sanctions just to avoid gaming the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, Count Iblis, please read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Dealing with questions asking for medical advice (see section #2). Because it explains that while editors are welcome to go to the questioner's talk page to explain why medical advice can't be given, editors should not then provide medical advice on the user's talk page. You're not abiding by a guideline against providing medical advice by providing it on a user talk page instead of at the reference desks. Don't provide medical advice, anywhere, period. Can you make that promise? Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was my question and my talk page (see above) and I dispute the assertion that it was medical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like a medical question or like medical advice to me. It's an exercise question with an exercise answer. He replied correctly on Guy Macon's talk page rather than on the Reference Desk because he is banned from the Reference Desk. That doesn't mean that I support reinstating him to the Reference Desk, only that he didn't violate any rule in that matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- It absolutely is advice that should not be coming from the Ref Desk, whether directly on the Ref Desk or on a user talk page. CI told Guy Macon how he should exercise, without knowing anything whatsoever about GM's physical condition, or having the professional qualifications to evaluate them if he did. We may have gotten used to infomercials telling all and sundry what people need to do to "get in shape", but we don't do that, whether you call it "medical advice" or not. CI's inability to differentiate between information that can be given and advice that cannot be is a prime example of why he should not return to the Ref Desk. BMK (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was basing my comment on CI's explaining that his user talk page comments were medical advice not suitable for the reference desk
"Because I'm not allowed to post there I replied on the talk page of the OP, and the answer was appreciated. So, clearly that answer I gave yesterday would not have been judged as falling foul of that medical advice guideline."
. That is how he identified his remarks in his comment, that his remarks would have been inappropriate at the Ref Desks because it would be considered medical advice but they didn't violate the guidelines because they were posted on a user talk page. - My concern was not whether or not the comments were medical advice and more that CI didn't seem to realize that the medical guidelines apply to any talk space, not just the reference desks. Liz Read! Talk! 13:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like a medical question or like medical advice to me. It's an exercise question with an exercise answer. He replied correctly on Guy Macon's talk page rather than on the Reference Desk because he is banned from the Reference Desk. That doesn't mean that I support reinstating him to the Reference Desk, only that he didn't violate any rule in that matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - CI's tendentious argument which led to last year's proposed topic ban is archived here. CI's current "I'll obviously not post anything intended as medical advice, but I'll also stick to 0RR." indicates that they plan to steer clear from such arguments in the future. -- ToE 19:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment To repeat what I've said above, that statement is not a clear commitment to abide by the guidelines. Count Iblis needs to refrain from posting anything which comes under our definition of medical advice, not his definition. I'll also add that Guy Macon's question and Count Iblis' talkpage answer do not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines. What took us to ANI last year was Count Iblis' recommendation of medication in response to a question. We need to be sure that he doesn't intend to do that sort of thing again. Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, I never ever wrote anything intended as medical advice. What happened was that what I wrote could, when taken totally out of context, be interpreted as medical advice. However, one may impose such a stronger rule, so I should have let others redact the text. Resisting that is the only real mistake I made. Your demand that a priori it should be clear that no one can ever fault anyone for violating the guidelines is unworkable, as this very thread demonstrates. Editor BMK argues above that what I wrote on Guy's talk page is a violation of the guidelines, and when pointed out by you and a few others that it is not a violation he vigorously disagrees and continues to argue why you are wrong. So, what if BMK were to summon editors like you to AN/I and then point out that what matters is not your interpretation but his interpretation? Clearly then, the best way to avoid problems is to work within the spirit of the rules, which means that no diagnosis of medical issues is permitted but when something is written that looks like could be interpreted as such, then it's best for the text to be redacted, the editor should allow that redaction to proceed, the matter should be discussed on the talk page. I have promised above to go out of my way to make sure that no problems w.r.t. medical advice will ever happen. Should e.g.BMK accuse me of giving medical advice then I'll still recuse myself and let others handle it. If he is wrong, other editors will correct his mistake, if not his intervention was justified. In neither case will there be an edit war involving me there or a big fight at AN/I. Count Iblis (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, in my eyes that's still not sufficient. You took a voluntary ban because you were on the cusp of receiving a community-imposed topic ban. Obviously you felt the need for community approval for your return. Many of the editors here are looking for a straight-forward statement from you that you will follow the guidelines, but instead, you're still dancing around them. Speaking for myself, what I need from you is a statement that you will not give advice in any area that could be considered to be medical or health-related broadly construed - and the community does the construing, not you. Given the background to this, I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
Failing that, if you return to the Ref Desks without making such a statement, and without a clear consensus to do so here, the discussion about your community ban should be unearthed from the archives and continued from where it left off, as such a decision on your part would be an indication that you have not changed your views about what is and isn't allowed on the ref desk. BMK (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is an unreasonable request given that there was no substance to the original case in the sense that something terribly dangerous had happened. Certainly not in the context of the frequent disputes on the ref desk at the time for which no one ever got restricted. I'm willing to go out of my way to prevent any problems involving me w.r.t. medical advice. Count Iblis (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, you're in the same position as the editor who goes to AE to appeal a sanction on the grounds that the sanction was unjustified. Those appeals almost never succeed, because the working assumption is that the sanction was justified, and what the people hearing the appeal want is some indication from the appellant that they understand why they were sanctioned, and a pledge not to do that anymore. Evidence of having changed is also helpful. You, apparently, don't think that your imminent community topic ban from the Ref Desk was justified, so how are we supposed to take your word that you will "go out of my way to prevent any problems involving me w.r.t. medical advice". Don't "go out of your way to prevent any problems" just say that you will not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines. Your curious unwillingness to make such a straight-forward statement is what's holding things up here, and your continuing to carefully parse your words is simply not helping you - at least in my opinion, as it gives the distinct impression that you are setting up loopholes for yourself to use should you get into trouble in the future. As for your statement below that what you have said "has exactly the same meaning", I'm afraid that's not the case. BMK (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problems to say "I'll not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines." you can take this sentence as me having said this. I think the problem is that I add additional context to the matter and explain how in practice any problems will be resolved. Note that I was already sticking to that rule, as problematic requests for medical help appeared almost every day. So, I would have been serial violator of that rule had I not stuck to that rule. So, the problem was not me not sticking to that rule in general, it was some exceptional case where I wrote something offhand that in the judgment of others did violate the rule and I was edit warring to revert the redaction of my comment. While I can then also take measures to prevent that particular kind of incident from happening, one has to keep in mind that something else on some other sensitive point, not necessarily involving medical advice, might go wrong. Take e.g. BLP. Clearly, I'm not a serial violator of BLP, but who knows if something I say will be judged to be in violation of that and we're at AN/I discussing that? Take e.g. people who are widely judged to be pseudoscientists, so it's easy to see how something written on the Ref desk can fall foul of BLP. Again, I'll do my best to stay away from such problems, but we're talking about the one in a thousand exception here not the general editing. That's why I'm saying that I'm going to stick to all the rules, but also that I'll stick to 0RR to allow other editors deal with whatever they see is a problem. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support - "Weak" because I would much rather have Count Iblis make a positive declarative statement rather than say "[Y]ou can take this sentence as me having said that." Once again, the semantic shenanigans are off-putting and redolent of game playing, but since he has agreed not to give out medical or health-related advice and not to otherwise violate the Ref Desk's guidelines, I'm obligated to change my !vote, with the assurance that if he is brought up again on a similar complaint, my !vote won't be swayed by any arguments he might make. BMK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problems to say "I'll not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines." you can take this sentence as me having said this. I think the problem is that I add additional context to the matter and explain how in practice any problems will be resolved. Note that I was already sticking to that rule, as problematic requests for medical help appeared almost every day. So, I would have been serial violator of that rule had I not stuck to that rule. So, the problem was not me not sticking to that rule in general, it was some exceptional case where I wrote something offhand that in the judgment of others did violate the rule and I was edit warring to revert the redaction of my comment. While I can then also take measures to prevent that particular kind of incident from happening, one has to keep in mind that something else on some other sensitive point, not necessarily involving medical advice, might go wrong. Take e.g. BLP. Clearly, I'm not a serial violator of BLP, but who knows if something I say will be judged to be in violation of that and we're at AN/I discussing that? Take e.g. people who are widely judged to be pseudoscientists, so it's easy to see how something written on the Ref desk can fall foul of BLP. Again, I'll do my best to stay away from such problems, but we're talking about the one in a thousand exception here not the general editing. That's why I'm saying that I'm going to stick to all the rules, but also that I'll stick to 0RR to allow other editors deal with whatever they see is a problem. Count Iblis (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, you're in the same position as the editor who goes to AE to appeal a sanction on the grounds that the sanction was unjustified. Those appeals almost never succeed, because the working assumption is that the sanction was justified, and what the people hearing the appeal want is some indication from the appellant that they understand why they were sanctioned, and a pledge not to do that anymore. Evidence of having changed is also helpful. You, apparently, don't think that your imminent community topic ban from the Ref Desk was justified, so how are we supposed to take your word that you will "go out of my way to prevent any problems involving me w.r.t. medical advice". Don't "go out of your way to prevent any problems" just say that you will not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines. Your curious unwillingness to make such a straight-forward statement is what's holding things up here, and your continuing to carefully parse your words is simply not helping you - at least in my opinion, as it gives the distinct impression that you are setting up loopholes for yourself to use should you get into trouble in the future. As for your statement below that what you have said "has exactly the same meaning", I'm afraid that's not the case. BMK (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is an unreasonable request given that there was no substance to the original case in the sense that something terribly dangerous had happened. Certainly not in the context of the frequent disputes on the ref desk at the time for which no one ever got restricted. I'm willing to go out of my way to prevent any problems involving me w.r.t. medical advice. Count Iblis (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, in my eyes that's still not sufficient. You took a voluntary ban because you were on the cusp of receiving a community-imposed topic ban. Obviously you felt the need for community approval for your return. Many of the editors here are looking for a straight-forward statement from you that you will follow the guidelines, but instead, you're still dancing around them. Speaking for myself, what I need from you is a statement that you will not give advice in any area that could be considered to be medical or health-related broadly construed - and the community does the construing, not you. Given the background to this, I don't think that's an unreasonable request.
- No, I never ever wrote anything intended as medical advice. What happened was that what I wrote could, when taken totally out of context, be interpreted as medical advice. However, one may impose such a stronger rule, so I should have let others redact the text. Resisting that is the only real mistake I made. Your demand that a priori it should be clear that no one can ever fault anyone for violating the guidelines is unworkable, as this very thread demonstrates. Editor BMK argues above that what I wrote on Guy's talk page is a violation of the guidelines, and when pointed out by you and a few others that it is not a violation he vigorously disagrees and continues to argue why you are wrong. So, what if BMK were to summon editors like you to AN/I and then point out that what matters is not your interpretation but his interpretation? Clearly then, the best way to avoid problems is to work within the spirit of the rules, which means that no diagnosis of medical issues is permitted but when something is written that looks like could be interpreted as such, then it's best for the text to be redacted, the editor should allow that redaction to proceed, the matter should be discussed on the talk page. I have promised above to go out of my way to make sure that no problems w.r.t. medical advice will ever happen. Should e.g.BMK accuse me of giving medical advice then I'll still recuse myself and let others handle it. If he is wrong, other editors will correct his mistake, if not his intervention was justified. In neither case will there be an edit war involving me there or a big fight at AN/I. Count Iblis (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment To repeat what I've said above, that statement is not a clear commitment to abide by the guidelines. Count Iblis needs to refrain from posting anything which comes under our definition of medical advice, not his definition. I'll also add that Guy Macon's question and Count Iblis' talkpage answer do not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines. What took us to ANI last year was Count Iblis' recommendation of medication in response to a question. We need to be sure that he doesn't intend to do that sort of thing again. Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per CI's comment immediately above dated 20:36.
What I wrote could, when taken totally out of context, be interpreted as medical advice
doesn't tally at all with what he actually wrote and the context, and the fact that he genuinely appears to believe there's any other possible interpretation gives me no reason to trust him to interact with the often vulnerable users who ask questions on the reference desks. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)- Why then don't you close down the Ref Desk? The incident I was involved in was a minor incident, I got referred to AN/I based on the whim of a single editor, not as a result of a big discussion. On AN/I a false picture was painted as if this particular incident was a huge violation of a sort never seen there, when in reality there were far bigger disputes, sometimes real big fights there almost every week. I almost never got involved in any of these disputes. These disputes were always handled locally. If your argument is that I can't edit there then why can all these other regulars continue to edit there, given that they have violated the medical advice rule in much more unambiguous ways than I have? Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I saw a comment by an admin yesterday, "Editors are treated inconsistently by administrators all the time." Within the context, it was clear that the admin felt that is an acceptable situation, just one of those things. The admin's statement is consistent with my 3 years' experience. If you're looking for fairness and even-handed treatment (a normal human instinct), you won't find a lot of it at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why then don't you close down the Ref Desk? The incident I was involved in was a minor incident, I got referred to AN/I based on the whim of a single editor, not as a result of a big discussion. On AN/I a false picture was painted as if this particular incident was a huge violation of a sort never seen there, when in reality there were far bigger disputes, sometimes real big fights there almost every week. I almost never got involved in any of these disputes. These disputes were always handled locally. If your argument is that I can't edit there then why can all these other regulars continue to edit there, given that they have violated the medical advice rule in much more unambiguous ways than I have? Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Waiting to see if Count Iblis responds to Guy's comment which said "A simple declarative statement along the lines of 'I will abide by the existing refdesk rules even if I disagree with them' from Count Iblis will turn my position to full support." I too would support if he made that pledge. Moriori (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I already made that statement above (not the same wording but it has exactly this meaning), and I promised much more than that. Not only will I stick to the guidelines, I will also step aside, stick to 0RR should there be any dispute about anything on the Ref Desk. This to prevent any issues where I edit something in good faith according to the guidelines but which according to someone else is seen as a violation. Should that occur (but note that I'll stay away from topics where I think this has a chance of occurring), I'll let other handle the issue, I'll not defend the edits I've made. Count Iblis (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- While I do not support a return (See Moriori's comment above to see why) I would very much like it if anyone who thinks I or Count Iblis have violated a guideline or policy on my talk page would please report it at ANI so we can get a clarification. Don't worry -- nobody is going to block me for doing my best to follow the guidelines. The worst that can happen is me being told that I misunderstood them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Statement by Count IblisTo clear things up, I make the following statement: I'll not give out anything that can be reasonably construed as medical or health-related advice or otherwise violate the Red Desk's guidelines. As discussed with BMK above, this seems reasonable. There may still be disagreements about my attitude regarding this problem, but to solve problems one has to consider the proper context. As I explained above, the idea that I was flouting the rules in general is not correct, because there were request for medical advice almost every day and I had not engaged with such requests in the many years I have been editing there. I was not a new editor who went in there and on day one decided that the rules were wrong and therefore I would violate the rules. What happened was that out of many hundreds of cases, there was one atypical case where in the opinion of others, I had made a mistake. Note that the AN/I case was only about that one incident, it doesn't list many problematic incidents as is usual in most AN/I cases involving problem editors. To prevent the rare in in a thousand accident you need to do more than just to say that you'll stick to the rules. A few years and thousands of edits later, you may bump into another freak incident, this time involving another rule (say BLP). That's why I'm saying that I'll also stick to 0RR and let others deal with problems should they occur. Count Iblis (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- support return to refdesks, given the intention not to violate the rules. Also there was no systematic problematic editing either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Seems reasonable, uncontroversial. Lesson learned and net benefit for the refdesks. -- Ϫ 05:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:UAA backlog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently around 35 entries waiting for action. BMK (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't get any beer the last time I cleaned it up and it took me hours. My thirsty cry for recognition is still unanswered--look up. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: If you give your address, I can mail you one. It'll be a nice seven years old when it gets to you. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- My address is on Earth--yours, likely, not so much. Seven years? Drmies (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your beer is in the mail, via passenger pigeon. Expect some delay. Jonathunder (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- My address is on Earth--yours, likely, not so much. Seven years? Drmies (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: If you give your address, I can mail you one. It'll be a nice seven years old when it gets to you. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Mass Rollback
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am trying to get mass rollback per Wikipedia:Administrators'_guide/Rollback to work. It is a script by User:Writ Keeper.
We have a couple of users adding ELs to 100s of articles to a website they have created per here.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the interim, the spam blacklist might be of use to stop the bleeding while we figure out cleanup. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blocking would also work to temporarily halt the edits and get their attention. It also has the bonus of being easily reversible by any admin without arcane blacklist knowledge. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Editors are User:L.C.Reimer and User:AnnaVetci. Website is http://bacdive.dsmz.de/ Have left messages on both their user talk pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I see you've installed a different one, which is of course okay, but if you still want to use mine, you just have to put
importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js')
into your common.js (or monobook.js, or whatever) page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Recently there has been a steady trickle of inappropriate uses of extended confirmed protection. I have been sending the responsible admins requets to change, but I think we need a mass-message to get across the message that it is currently only authorised for ARBPIA articles or discretionary sanctions. BethNaught (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is not the case. Those are the articles it is currently authorised on. It does not limit its use to them. The motion makes it clear the future expections are "Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption." and makes no mention of limiting it by topic area. If it was their intent to limit it only to DS and ARBPIA areas they would/should have explicitly said so. As it stands the motion very carefully avoids making policy - which if they said 'You can only use ECP in these areas' would be doing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is not the case. If you read the talk for that motion, you would see arbitrators saying that the motion applies only to DS. Given that the policy says ECP "is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community", and the community has not yet made any authorisations, my original post was correct. I grant you that the rollout of ECP has been a cock-up from start to finish, since nobody seems to have been told what's going on. BethNaught (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with BethNaught, but wish it were like Only in death stated. We're going to have to bite the bullet and start talking about this in earnest. If we don't do it in short order this is going to really get out of hand. Katietalk 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think an RFC is in order, but it may be valuable to start gathering ideas at e.g. WP:VPI. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you at least agree with me a mass message is in order so all admins know the current state of play? BethNaught (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think an RFC is in order, but it may be valuable to start gathering ideas at e.g. WP:VPI. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Er its worse then, because in that case the community (read, all admins at this point) can apply it wherever they want - as their is no policy prohibition or community discussion that indicates they should not do so nor any limits from Arbcom (except when used in discretionary sanctions). Someone may want to start a policy amendment discussion very quickly to lay out specifically as to how it should be used. Policy is reactive - the general presumption is if it is not prohibited it is allowed. There is a good reason 'the community can authorise' is not used in wording, because it is effectively a carte blanche for any member of the community to act.Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not true either. The RfC closed as "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation, not in response to a request for page protection or any other reason." This implies a positive endorsement from the community to authorise a topic for ECP. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The implication is that a community discussion would be required to implement it, but that is not what the policy actually says. Oh well, easily fixed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay done, I retract all my previous comments and endorse a mass-mail. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I realise it's a mixed-up situation. BethNaught (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not true either. The RfC closed as "it only is to be used with respect to pages where the ArbCom or the community has applied the 30/500 limitation, not in response to a request for page protection or any other reason." This implies a positive endorsement from the community to authorise a topic for ECP. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with BethNaught, but wish it were like Only in death stated. We're going to have to bite the bullet and start talking about this in earnest. If we don't do it in short order this is going to really get out of hand. Katietalk 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is not the case. If you read the talk for that motion, you would see arbitrators saying that the motion applies only to DS. Given that the policy says ECP "is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community", and the community has not yet made any authorisations, my original post was correct. I grant you that the rollout of ECP has been a cock-up from start to finish, since nobody seems to have been told what's going on. BethNaught (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've begun a brainstorming section at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Extended confirmed protection policy. Katietalk 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Am I the only one that thinks it would be easier if we raised the bar for autoconfirmed to 30/500, get rid of PC (optional), and just used semi-protection? We have so many gaming the current autoconfirmed (see: WP:SPI) that this would solve several problems. We keep making it more and more complicated, evidenced by this discussion and the fact that most admin have no idea how to apply this, and a good portion aren't sure about PC. If you want more done with fewer admin, making it simple is the key. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposed site ban of Mangoeater1000
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am proposing a site ban of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user is already blocked and has a long-term abuse page. Mangoeater1000 is a prolific sockpuppeter whose SPI archive stretches back to 2012 and continues to this day. I was surprised this user is not already banned and figured a formal ban is long overdue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support However the user is de-facto banned it seems and their edits are reverted on sight. Bit of a formality, especially if their edits are treated under WP:DENY or WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Agree they're de facto banned... but I wasn't sure if that was "banned enough" to use my rollback tool since they're technically only blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. —SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: Yep! Thanks. That's why I didn't use my rollback tool on him. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question" has long been taken to mean that they can be rolled back, and it's safe to say that rolling back socks of indef blocked editors is descriptive of current practice and I don't think anyone's going to argue that an LTA case should be banned for someone else to rollback the socks. I don't have an opinion on this ban discussion but I don't think we should worry about rolling back problem cases like this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SpacemanSpiff: Yep! Thanks. That's why I didn't use my rollback tool on him. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. —SpacemanSpiff 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Agree they're de facto banned... but I wasn't sure if that was "banned enough" to use my rollback tool since they're technically only blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support his sockpuppet archive page is ridiculous ! He's beyond net negative , banhammer him from Wikipedia, we'll be better for it. KoshVorlon 16:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support as per nom. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support of course. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment His long term abuse page says he has 365 socks and 20 suspected. Might as well as support a ban. — Etimena 19:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Striking comment by indefinitely banned sockpuppet. Omni Flames let's talk about it 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - this is the kind of user who should be banned; some contributions which are not obvious vandalism, but disruptive enough to warrant indef blocks on their main account and sockpuppets. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support The editor is clearly doing more harm than good. Support as per nom. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support, might as well make this official. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC).
- Support. + 1. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have suggested to Nyttend that they re-close this thread in a polite way. While there's no strong need to formalise de-facto bans (especially in very clear-cut cases like this), I certainly wouldn't characterise doing so in good faith as time wasting. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. That close was uncalled-for, especially in the light of the unanimous support the proposal had received. Absconded Northerner (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Nyttend has made it clear that he thinks bans on LTA cases are pointless, my advice would be to just ignore them. The reality is that certain defacto banned users insist that they are being picked on by a few admins, a community ban has the effect of making it clear it is the community that is banning the user. @Nyttend: please undo your close and allow the consensus to be accepted by an admin who does not consider this a waste of time. HighInBC 18:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Policy is clear on this: the user is already banned. If you don't like this, try to get the banning policy changed and don't object that I'm merely enforcing it. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- An indefinite block, even one that's unlikely to ever be lifted, is not the same as a ban. clpo13(talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are not merely enforcing policy. Nothing in the banning policy says that a defacto ban prevents a community ban. I get you think this is a waste of time, how about you don't spend time on it instead of shutting down what other people find of use? HighInBC 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- An indefinite block, even one that's unlikely to ever be lifted, is not the same as a ban. clpo13(talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Policy is clear on this: the user is already banned. If you don't like this, try to get the banning policy changed and don't object that I'm merely enforcing it. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is an issue
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This Ellos_Volvieron is copied from [9]. All the person other edits also appear to be copied from sources. imdb is editor created. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Names of IMDB editor and enwp editor aren't the same, so nuke all and talk to editor or as a last resort, block if they won't talk. Pretty common misconception where a new editor thinks it is ok to copy/paste from the internet, but IMDB is fully covered by copyright like any other source. Looks like Nyttend already got this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
All there edits are here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Evan131163
- Have posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iv%C3%A1n_Noel as a copyright issue
- The led of this one is just a big quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodillas_Quemadas
The rest have been dealt with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Evolution
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I believe there is some clear POV pusihing from practicing atheists around the Evolution which denies strong arguments against the idea that earth was created in 1 million years. Proudpatriot233 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you doing this - that is against my basic freedom. The founding fathers literally shed bled for the people's right to theocracy - which you are denying --Proudpatriot233 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Announcement regarding Gamaliel
Gamaliel has resigned as an arbitrator because he is currently unable to edit the English Wikipedia and is therefore entirely inactive as an arbitrator. This has come about as a result of circumstances which have been disclosed to the Committee, and which in no way reflect negatively on him. We thank Gamaliel for his service on the 2016 Committee to date and wish him the best.
For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee [cross-posted], Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
What to do if disagree with a CFD outcome?
Hi, please could you advise as to the correct process if an editor disagrees with the outcome of a WP:CFD? An involved editor has just undone and then tried to fully revert a purge close by User:Fayenatic london after two months of discussion [10]. In six years of editing I have never seen a formal close reverted. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have just found WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Sounds like the discussion needs to come here. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think WP:DRV is what you are looking for. That is for reviewing anything deleted at a deletion discussion. Stuff gets overturned regularly, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was interesting. I have re-closed the CFD amicably to the satisfaction of the editor who undid my original close, after a discussion on my talk page between others while I was away for a day. The matter seems to be resolved, although of course another editor could still take it to DRV. – Fayenatic London 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. It was probably best that you were away - it was getting a little chaotic. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 4 with the proposal "Remove archive.is from the Spam blacklist and permit adding new links (Oppose/Support)". Cunard (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Mass moving of Ukrainian toponyms
Earlier this year, the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law banning toponyms of Communist origin. Several days ago, it approved (and in some cases not approved) lists of localities to be renamed. Because of that, we have many Ukrainian users, some of them being established editors, but others just being random lurkers, renaming a large amount of articles. Some of the moves went smoothly, but some met resistance, for example, I had to fully protect Dnipropetrovsk. In most cases (in contrast to Dnipropetrovsk) renaming is uncontroversial, however, the edits are often substandard (an example) and almost always premature (i.e. a new name has been proposed but not yet legally adopted). Since many of us will have to deal with this, I suggest the following strategy:
- All changes should be sourced. If there are doubts as whether a source is reliable, I am willing to provide advise;
- Old names should be kept as historical, not just removed;
- No nationalist cruft should be added and no useful info should be removed (for example, if a Russian name was in an article, it should stay there and not just get removed);
- They should be uncontroversial. If users in good standing object, the discussion should start at the talk page. All moves of Crimean toponyms are likely to be controversial.
I suggest that if a move with subsequent editing does not satisfy the above guideline, the user should be notified at their talk page, and if they are unwilling to correct, their contribution should be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea; further, I'd be willing to watchlist some articles (if a list of articles which might be editid is feasible at all); in additon, pending-changes level 1 protection might be appropriate to stop the worst "onslaught" of anonymous or newly-created users. Lectonar (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because the Ukrainian parliament is not English usage, we need to enforce our naming conventions by reverting all moves of this sort unless solid evidence can be shown that English usage has changed. This is why Kyiv is already a protected redirect, for example, because of nationalistic attempts to use the Ukrainian-derived version that's nowhere near as common in English as is the Russian-derived Kiev. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Nyttend. All new Ukrainian names should be redirects to the old names until standard English usage can be shown ti have started using the new names. Protection may be used as necessary to enforce this, as we do with all other issues. And yes, when we do move the articles to the new Ukrainian names, we should keep the old names as redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging for safety @TaivoLinguist:. I guess most of the names just have no common English usage, and these moves should pretty much be uncontroversial, since we just adopt WP:UKR romanization. The only move so far which created a serious turmoil was Dnipropetrovsk, and there is a heated discussion at the talk page. However, since the Rada also renamed some localities Ukraine does not control - in Crimea and in the separatist areas of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts - I can imagine some issues there as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Nyttend. All new Ukrainian names should be redirects to the old names until standard English usage can be shown ti have started using the new names. Protection may be used as necessary to enforce this, as we do with all other issues. And yes, when we do move the articles to the new Ukrainian names, we should keep the old names as redirects. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because the Ukrainian parliament is not English usage, we need to enforce our naming conventions by reverting all moves of this sort unless solid evidence can be shown that English usage has changed. This is why Kyiv is already a protected redirect, for example, because of nationalistic attempts to use the Ukrainian-derived version that's nowhere near as common in English as is the Russian-derived Kiev. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I see Nyttend's point, but agree with Ymblanter that most names are outside English usage so I see little point in waiting for English usage to emerge; I'm guessing 99% of locations in Ukraine are not mentioned often enough for there to be an English usage. For the few exceptions (Kiev, Odessa etc.), we should of course continue with the established English usage. For all other localities, I don't see a problem in them being moved. Jeppiz (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Plenty of detailed maps of Ukraine have been printed in English-language publications, and those will demonstrate established English usage. Of course, if they disagree with each other, that will demonstrate the absence of establishment. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Mass additions of RfCs at ANRFC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:ANRFC is perpetually overloaded, to the point that the transclusion on this page was collapsed into a small notification due to consensus that it overwhelmed this noticeboard. I've been working on reducing the backlog at ANRFC for a month or two as a non-admin, and I've noticed that many discussions are added there by a single user (Cunard). Discussions are regularly added which do not appear to need closure, either because the consensus is so overwhelming that anyone with a basic understanding of English can interpret it properly without formal closure (example here), there's no ongoing dispute (i.e. changes have been made that make the question irrelevant; example here), or there's obviously no useful consensus (example here). As noted at WP:RFC, "Formal requests for closure can be posted by any participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."
I don't see how it's sustainable to list 29 discussions just two weeks after listing 50 discussions. I'm not the first editor to express these concerns (see this past discussion). After the May 8th addition of 50 discussions, I discussed this with Cunard, but after closing some of the discussions added within the past day, it's clear that the results weren't what I'd hoped. All of the examples linked in the first paragraph are from the latest batch. These mass additions are interfering with the closure of contentious RfCs that desperately need a closure from an uninvolved editor, but I have no idea how to fix it. One possibility would be to actually enforce the language at WP:RFC that requires a participant to list a discussion, but I'm not really sure that's a net positive. ~ RobTalk 14:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm notifying Cunard of this discussion, but this is not meant to be a behavioral discussion in any sense. I'd like to come up with a solution that involves new guidelines on listing discussions at ANRFC or something similar, not biting an experienced editor. ~ RobTalk 14:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the problem is almost entirely behavioral; Cunard insists on adding things that don't need a close. It's time to ban Cunard from ANRFC, because as any history check will demonstrate, he's always been responsible for the vast majority of items, including the vast numbers that go against the specific notice at the top of the page, Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think I need more diffs to get a better idea of the problem but one thing people should consider is that I think this is supposed to be an emergency backlog and reporting things that are 3 days overdue for a close is just not good in terms of triage. We have severely bad backlog at the discussion forums at the moment as well but I think the agreement was against just putting each one of the individual listings up there. Should we consider creating a separate RFC closures backlog page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: I think the problem is that there isn't a massive backlog, though. Unclosed RfCs aren't a backlog to be cleared. The vast majority do not need any closure. If an editor working in the area of the RfC needs a closure or the RfC is difficult to interpret, that's when ANRFC should be used, but most RfCs resolve perfectly fine without formal closure. As for more diffs, this is not a new issue, and here are some other examples: [11] [12] [13] [14]. More generally, the "edits by user" tool shows this has been going on at least since September 2012, with discussions such as this being listed in that month. ~ RobTalk 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Enough for me.
Propose a topic ban of Cunard from requests for closure. Front side only, Cunard can still engage in talk page discussions given what I'm going to suggest.I still think we should have a page that does list all the unclosed RFCs. While they don't need an admin closure, I do think there's a fair concern that someone should close them and since it can't be the people involved in the discussion, they are kind of left in a loop if it's a pretty obscure talk page. From there, we can leave it as another backlog or whatever people want it called here (CSD and TFD are listed even though non-admins can close those as well) with like real complicated past-120 days or something ones separately identified when it gets really bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)- And yes, I acknowledge most of them don't need a formal "close" but people seem to want one so I don't think it's a crazy suggestion. I'll propose it at VPP and see if there's interest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll strike the topic ban. If even the nominator here is against it, no reason to be the wild one. Cunard, can you help us out here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think I need more diffs to get a better idea of the problem but one thing people should consider is that I think this is supposed to be an emergency backlog and reporting things that are 3 days overdue for a close is just not good in terms of triage. – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is for requests for closure. Nothing in the page's text or history suggests that it is an "emergency backlog".
I still think we should have a page that does list all the unclosed RFCs. – I agree.
I am fine with WP:ANRFC having a section for "an emergency backlog" and a section for unclosed RfCs. I would list nearly all of my closure requests in the non-emergency unclosed RfC section. Would you support that?
- I think I need more diffs to get a better idea of the problem but one thing people should consider is that I think this is supposed to be an emergency backlog and reporting things that are 3 days overdue for a close is just not good in terms of triage. – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is for requests for closure. Nothing in the page's text or history suggests that it is an "emergency backlog".
- I'll strike the topic ban. If even the nominator here is against it, no reason to be the wild one. Cunard, can you help us out here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- And yes, I acknowledge most of them don't need a formal "close" but people seem to want one so I don't think it's a crazy suggestion. I'll propose it at VPP and see if there's interest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Enough for me.
- @Ricky81682: I think the problem is that there isn't a massive backlog, though. Unclosed RfCs aren't a backlog to be cleared. The vast majority do not need any closure. If an editor working in the area of the RfC needs a closure or the RfC is difficult to interpret, that's when ANRFC should be used, but most RfCs resolve perfectly fine without formal closure. As for more diffs, this is not a new issue, and here are some other examples: [11] [12] [13] [14]. More generally, the "edits by user" tool shows this has been going on at least since September 2012, with discussions such as this being listed in that month. ~ RobTalk 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- What would an "emergency backlog" of RfCs even be? Nothing about RfCs usually involves an immediate "emergency", as they are meant to last thirty days anyway. This is absolutely strange, to hear this kind of talk. One of the tasks that the community expects administrators to do is to provide proper closures to community processes, such as RMs, RfCs, AfDs, &c. WP:ANRFC includes listings for all these processes. RMs lingering in the backlog without closure are a problem, but at least no one says that RMs do not need closure. RfCs are a community dispute resolution process. If no uninvolved administrator (or other closer) provides a closure, it completely renders the process useless, and becomes merely another forum for involved parties to duke it out without end. RfCs need closure to function, otherwise they do not serve as a dispute resolution venue, merely as a different kind of talk page discussion that will go nowhere. Why are administrators here desiring to abrogate their responsibility to the community in carrying out their expected duties, one of which is to provide formal closure? The best way to reign in ANRFC is to start closing RfCs, instead of just ignoring them for ages as is done now. Removing the "AN" implies that administrators simply can't be bothered to do what they were appointed to do. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, well who can tell the RfC's truly in need of closing from the long list of crud currently clogging up ANRFC?! As of now, it's a completely useless list for Admins. We might as well just have people come here and directly ask for the few individual RfC's that need to be "Admin closed". I guess the rest can stay at the useless listcruft that ANRFC has degenerated into... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The obvious answer is that if there is a "junk" RfC listed at ANRFC, someone should close it as "junk" and delist it, rather than just ignoring it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Forgetting, of course, that this is a volunteer project, and Admins are volunteers too. Admins are not required to do anything! So, when ANRFC is rendered useless by one overzealous editor, are we surprised that they've been conditioned to ignore it?! Now, I am of the opinion that one single topic ban would take care of this problem, as no one else, not even the editors that claim to support Cunard's goals (though I doubt they support his exact methodology...), would spam ANRFC as severely, and thus ANRFC's usefulness could be restored. But it's also clear than neither Admins as a group nor the community have the stomach to do that, so bemoaning the current situation is wasted effort. It's time to just move on and acknowledge that the current system is broken, and won't be fixed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course this is a volunteer project, but if administrators have no desire to administrate, why are they are administrators? They are "not required" to do anything, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do the job they were appointed to do. Someone has got to administrate this mess, and ignoring it is not the solution. All Cunard has done is brought the brokenness of the RfC process to the front. Shuffling it off into the dark beyond shan't do anything other than prolong the problem. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think some are going to be more complicated than others and do require an administrator. Something like Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring should not be done by any one person. That could be posted separately while the remainder of unclosed RFCs are in a general backlog listing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course this is a volunteer project, but if administrators have no desire to administrate, why are they are administrators? They are "not required" to do anything, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't do the job they were appointed to do. Someone has got to administrate this mess, and ignoring it is not the solution. All Cunard has done is brought the brokenness of the RfC process to the front. Shuffling it off into the dark beyond shan't do anything other than prolong the problem. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Forgetting, of course, that this is a volunteer project, and Admins are volunteers too. Admins are not required to do anything! So, when ANRFC is rendered useless by one overzealous editor, are we surprised that they've been conditioned to ignore it?! Now, I am of the opinion that one single topic ban would take care of this problem, as no one else, not even the editors that claim to support Cunard's goals (though I doubt they support his exact methodology...), would spam ANRFC as severely, and thus ANRFC's usefulness could be restored. But it's also clear than neither Admins as a group nor the community have the stomach to do that, so bemoaning the current situation is wasted effort. It's time to just move on and acknowledge that the current system is broken, and won't be fixed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The obvious answer is that if there is a "junk" RfC listed at ANRFC, someone should close it as "junk" and delist it, rather than just ignoring it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, well who can tell the RfC's truly in need of closing from the long list of crud currently clogging up ANRFC?! As of now, it's a completely useless list for Admins. We might as well just have people come here and directly ask for the few individual RfC's that need to be "Admin closed". I guess the rest can stay at the useless listcruft that ANRFC has degenerated into... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- What would an "emergency backlog" of RfCs even be? Nothing about RfCs usually involves an immediate "emergency", as they are meant to last thirty days anyway. This is absolutely strange, to hear this kind of talk. One of the tasks that the community expects administrators to do is to provide proper closures to community processes, such as RMs, RfCs, AfDs, &c. WP:ANRFC includes listings for all these processes. RMs lingering in the backlog without closure are a problem, but at least no one says that RMs do not need closure. RfCs are a community dispute resolution process. If no uninvolved administrator (or other closer) provides a closure, it completely renders the process useless, and becomes merely another forum for involved parties to duke it out without end. RfCs need closure to function, otherwise they do not serve as a dispute resolution venue, merely as a different kind of talk page discussion that will go nowhere. Why are administrators here desiring to abrogate their responsibility to the community in carrying out their expected duties, one of which is to provide formal closure? The best way to reign in ANRFC is to start closing RfCs, instead of just ignoring them for ages as is done now. Removing the "AN" implies that administrators simply can't be bothered to do what they were appointed to do. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to note I strongly oppose a topic ban at this time. Cunard is doing something I don't like, but he's not doing anything against the rules by listing discussions. It's disruptive to bombard the process, but we should be putting guidelines in place that make it clear what is and isn't acceptable. Topic banning a good-faith editor when we haven't tried any alternatives is downright silly. I thought coming to AN instead of ANI would avoid an over-reaction, but guess not. I'm intrigued by Ricky81682's idea to keep a list of all unclosed RfCs separate from ANRFC without necessarily eliminating a triage list. What if the RfC bot replaced RfC notices with a template noting the unclosed discussion instead of removing the RfC notice entirely? We could use such a template to create a tracking category for all unclosed RfCs. We could include a simple link to that tracking category at ANRFC and allow participants of discussions that need closure to continue listing their RfC like normal if a formal close is actually needed. I think this satisfies all parties without any need for a topic ban and automates the work of putting together a list of unclosed RfCs. Thoughts? As a side note, this doesn't push work onto whoever operates the RfC bot; changing the bot's function from removing an RfC notice to replacing it with some static text is technically trivial. ~ RobTalk 23:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think we need to agree that (a) there should be a separate list and then (b) how to populate it. The bot is an obvious way. Cunard, how were you getting your list of unclosed RFCs anyways? I'm open to reconsidering a topic ban if another solution presents itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cunard is doing the right thing. If an RfC is approriately opened, then it needs to be appropriately closed. "Doesn't need a formal close" is a very odd position. Close it anyway. An unspoken agreement to not close a heap of RfCs is far worse than there being a backlog. Hiding unclosed RfCs is definitely bad, Cunard should keep up his excellent work.
- The root of the problem, the real problem, is that there are too many poorly-posed RfCs. I propose that the solution is to require that to open an RfC must involve a seconder. At least two people must agree that there is a good reason to ask the question, and that the question posed is a good question.
- If you can't find a single person to support your RfC question, either:
- (1) you are wrong (unanimously disagreed with), or
- (2) WP:3O is more appropriate, and if WP:3O can't produce an experience opinion-giver who agrees that you have a worthy question, most likely you don't, or
- (3) you seriously need to work on improving your question.
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please review WP:RFC. The policy has always been that RfCs are a method of getting extra eyes on your question, not a bureaucratic nightmare that must have every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. More importantly, though, Cunard is volunteering the time of other editors when he insists an RfC be formally closed despite a clear consensus. I spent a solid 2-3 hours working through a good chunk of his latest addition of RfCs trying to find the few that genuinely needed closure. ~ RobTalk 00:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am familiar with WP:RFC. It is quite uninviting, and when you dig you find an overwhelming content of RfCs. It has been that way for a very long time. That it has unchanged for a long time is evidence of a lack of review. Covering for the problem is the custom of advertising important questions outside of WP:RFC.
- Requiring of a seconder is not a bureaucratic nightmare as evidenced by its common use in many places. Reference to "i"s and t"s is absurd, getting the question wrong wastes an awful lot of time and space. I disagree with "Cunard is volunteering the time of other editors...", there is an obvious backlog, and documenting the backlog is what he is doing.
- If an RfC has an obvious consensus, why not close it?
- If an RfC has an obvious consensus, why not close it? – I agree. Those RfCs take very little time to close. I've closed discussions this week (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) that I've felt comfortable with closing.
- Unclosed RfCs are often a recipe for disaster, and nothing more. Often times, an RfC about a controversial topic will go on, everyone will have said their bit, but it will languish without closure forever. Then, the dispute comes back as there has never been any resolution, which is what a formal closure provides. RfCs should not be left unclosed unless they really are approaching unanimity. Unclosed RfCs are the basis of the continuance of many needless disputes. Please, if you've got the ability to carry out a close, do so. RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion shows why nothing will ever be done about WP:ANRFC, and it's getting to the point that entirely abolishing it needs to be seriously considered. The fact is, many discussion that are "tagged" as "RfC's" are in fact discussions that don't need closing. What Cunard is doing with his unselective spamming of ANRFC is seriously disruptive. But it's clear nothing will be done about it, and if ANRFC is going to continue in its present state because no one is going to do anything about it, let's just get rid of it, or at least "demote" it (i.e. cut the "AN" part...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- There are things "tagged" as "RfC's" that are in fact discussions that don't need closing? Is that opinion or objective fact (genuine question). Why does an RfC not need closing? Is it because the result is obvious? (I am guessing from Rob's comments.) AfDs that are obvious are still closed. Why not close them? A closing statement can be "no consensus", or "derailed" or "discussion has moved beyond the original question", or "moot", or "no question articulated". Or is the problem with the template, and the lack of template {{RFC-openended}}? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Some RfC's are either derailed by a poorly formed "statement question", or in fact are simply "discussions". The most recent one I tagged at ANFRC as "Not done" was in fact in the latter category – rather than a "question" with "support" and "oppose" !votes, it was more of a back-and-forth discussion, so there was truly nothing to "close". Other RfC's are simply "unclosable" due to a lack of participation. Still others are "overtaken by events" or are rendered "moot" by the time a "formal close" would take place. The fact is a significant percentage of the RfC's that Cunard spams to ANFRC simply do not belong there, as they are either "unclosable" or are not in need of an "Admin (or otherwise) closure". If ANRFC could be pared back to just the "serious" RfC's in need of closure that RGloucester is referring to, ANRFC's usefulness could be restored. But it's clear no one has the stomach to make that happen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- What if Cunard was asked to only list "closable" cases? I guess this is asking Cunard to close all the unclosables with closing statements such as "unclosable due to a lack of participation', "overtaken by events" or "moot". Maybe I should close them myself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Deciding whether it's "closable" requires good judgment. It would be more reliable to require Cunard (or anyone else who wants to list RFCs that they have no particular interest in) to ask the participants if they need to have the RFC listed at ANRFC. That step alone ought to weed out the discussions that are still active, overtaken by events, moot, had no participants, or when the result is obvious enough (and accepted by all of the principals) that nobody ought to have to waste time writing it down. It should be a matter of substing a template onto a talk page and checking back for a positive response later. NB that Cunard has previously rejected this suggestion as being too difficult, so we should probably not expect voluntary adoption of this approach now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes – something like the addition of a {{RFC-closeneeded}} template to an RfC open for 30+ days being a needed qualification before listing at WP:ANRFC is a capital idea. (Perhaps we need an RfC on this proposal?!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes – something like the addition of a {{RFC-closeneeded}} template could be very good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, {{RFC-closeneeded}} should not be a requirement for listing discussions at WP:ANRFC. That an editor took the time to formally create an RfC already signifies that the RfC initiator wants the issue to be formally resolved. Likewise, that an editor took the time to formally create an AfD or DRV already signifies that the initiator wants the issue to be formally resolved. Requiring the template would be like asking an editor to put up a "close needed" template for an AfD or DRV before requesting closure. Both RfCs and AfDs and DRVs should have their consensus assessed regardless of whether a "close needed" template is put up and responded to. The "resolution needed" is implicit in an RfC's creation like in an AfD's creation.
I agree with RGloucester that "Unclosed RfCs are the basis of the continuance of many needless disputes." That is my primary reason for listing RfCs at WP:ANRFC.
I guess this is asking Cunard to close all the unclosables – I've closed several discussions this week (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) instead of listing them at WP:ANRFC that I've felt comfortable with closing.
Cunard (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- See, I'm thinking that if an editor took the time (which can be as little as three seconds to type {{rfc|code}} at the top of a comment) it takes to create an RFC, then the editor might have read the long-standing advice at WP:RFC, which says
Formal requests for closure can be posted by any participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance
(emphasis in the original). - Providing unrequested or unwanted closing statements is like telling these editors that you think they're too stupid/biased/incompetent to evaluate and agree upon the results without outside assistance – outside assistant that too often, unfortunately, comes from a non-admin who knows nothing about the subject matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- See, I'm thinking that if an editor took the time (which can be as little as three seconds to type {{rfc|code}} at the top of a comment) it takes to create an RFC, then the editor might have read the long-standing advice at WP:RFC, which says
- No, {{RFC-closeneeded}} should not be a requirement for listing discussions at WP:ANRFC. That an editor took the time to formally create an RfC already signifies that the RfC initiator wants the issue to be formally resolved. Likewise, that an editor took the time to formally create an AfD or DRV already signifies that the initiator wants the issue to be formally resolved. Requiring the template would be like asking an editor to put up a "close needed" template for an AfD or DRV before requesting closure. Both RfCs and AfDs and DRVs should have their consensus assessed regardless of whether a "close needed" template is put up and responded to. The "resolution needed" is implicit in an RfC's creation like in an AfD's creation.
- Yes – something like the addition of a {{RFC-closeneeded}} template could be very good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes – something like the addition of a {{RFC-closeneeded}} template to an RfC open for 30+ days being a needed qualification before listing at WP:ANRFC is a capital idea. (Perhaps we need an RfC on this proposal?!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Deciding whether it's "closable" requires good judgment. It would be more reliable to require Cunard (or anyone else who wants to list RFCs that they have no particular interest in) to ask the participants if they need to have the RFC listed at ANRFC. That step alone ought to weed out the discussions that are still active, overtaken by events, moot, had no participants, or when the result is obvious enough (and accepted by all of the principals) that nobody ought to have to waste time writing it down. It should be a matter of substing a template onto a talk page and checking back for a positive response later. NB that Cunard has previously rejected this suggestion as being too difficult, so we should probably not expect voluntary adoption of this approach now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- What if Cunard was asked to only list "closable" cases? I guess this is asking Cunard to close all the unclosables with closing statements such as "unclosable due to a lack of participation', "overtaken by events" or "moot". Maybe I should close them myself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Some RfC's are either derailed by a poorly formed "statement question", or in fact are simply "discussions". The most recent one I tagged at ANFRC as "Not done" was in fact in the latter category – rather than a "question" with "support" and "oppose" !votes, it was more of a back-and-forth discussion, so there was truly nothing to "close". Other RfC's are simply "unclosable" due to a lack of participation. Still others are "overtaken by events" or are rendered "moot" by the time a "formal close" would take place. The fact is a significant percentage of the RfC's that Cunard spams to ANFRC simply do not belong there, as they are either "unclosable" or are not in need of an "Admin (or otherwise) closure". If ANRFC could be pared back to just the "serious" RfC's in need of closure that RGloucester is referring to, ANRFC's usefulness could be restored. But it's clear no one has the stomach to make that happen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- There are things "tagged" as "RfC's" that are in fact discussions that don't need closing? Is that opinion or objective fact (genuine question). Why does an RfC not need closing? Is it because the result is obvious? (I am guessing from Rob's comments.) AfDs that are obvious are still closed. Why not close them? A closing statement can be "no consensus", or "derailed" or "discussion has moved beyond the original question", or "moot", or "no question articulated". Or is the problem with the template, and the lack of template {{RFC-openended}}? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Support Cunard's work. Sure, he listed some that didn't need it, but he listed plenty that did. --GRuban (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Second, I'm sure this is not the intent but 'shoot the messenger' comes to mind. We need a good system for settling these kinds of questions, RfC is the system we have - it would be great to make it better, remembering that the RfC is all about participation in settling/clarifying matters. So, just hoping they don't exist/ignoring them does not even approach making the participatory system better. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is what's known as a straw man, as no one has actually said that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with IJBall unless someone can tell me specifically how a formal close (which does not take a small amount of time, unless a closer is not carefully reading the discussion) helps editors reach an agreement on RfCs that have a near unanimous outcome. Do we really think our average editor so mentally deficient that they can't tell what 10 yeas and 1 nay means? And before someone says this, we're not talking about closes where a WP:POINTy user is contesting the outcome, since any participant of the obvious discussion could list the discussion at ANRFC if that were the case. ~ RobTalk 19:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The question was asked why a formal close is needed when there is a near unanimous outcome. I have a further question. Was the outcome truly unanimous, or merely near unanimous? If the outcome was near unanimous, first, a formal close does only take a small amount of time, but, second, a formal close is useful. The reason is that, not infrequently, a stubborn editor will continue to push their edits after the RFC went against them by saying that there was no consensus. There was indeed no consensus in a terminological sense if one means that consensus is established by an RFC. That is why I respectfully disagree with the statement that most RFCs don't need formal closure. It is true that there are too many RFCs for which formal closure is nearly impossible because the RFC was worded badly. That is a different problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that a closer must read the entire RfC before making a closing statement, with absolutely no exceptions. You cannot make an informed close without first reading what was written, period. To do otherwise is to invite contested closures. The time sink to read entire RfCs where there's really nothing much in dispute is significant. I can say that because I've put in that time, which amounts to several hours every time Cunard posts a wall of RfCs to ANRFC. No-one can argue away the time that editors (including myself) have spent doing that. If an editor causes problems due to a WP:POINTy claim of lack of consensus, then nothing stops anyone who sees those problems from asking for closure at that time. Why preemptively close discussions that likely will never be disputed because of the small probability someone will violate WP:POINT? If there's really no consensus against closing every single RfC, I'll drop the stick, but I also won't waste my time at ANRFC when I can be a larger net positive elsewhere. Lots of wasted time. ~ RobTalk 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that a closer must read the entire RFC before making a closing statement. That doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion, RFCs where the result is obvious still do need formal closure. The time sink is not formal closure, so much as it is some RFCs themselves. I agree that closure sometimes be deferred until it is needed, until an editor is editing against consensus. (I wouldn't call it a WP:POINTy claim, so much as a disruptive claim, but the principle is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Rob that providing unnecessary closing statements communicates our beliefs about whether typical editors are capable of figuring out the result of a typical RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that a closer must read the entire RfC before making a closing statement, with absolutely no exceptions. You cannot make an informed close without first reading what was written, period. To do otherwise is to invite contested closures. The time sink to read entire RfCs where there's really nothing much in dispute is significant. I can say that because I've put in that time, which amounts to several hours every time Cunard posts a wall of RfCs to ANRFC. No-one can argue away the time that editors (including myself) have spent doing that. If an editor causes problems due to a WP:POINTy claim of lack of consensus, then nothing stops anyone who sees those problems from asking for closure at that time. Why preemptively close discussions that likely will never be disputed because of the small probability someone will violate WP:POINT? If there's really no consensus against closing every single RfC, I'll drop the stick, but I also won't waste my time at ANRFC when I can be a larger net positive elsewhere. Lots of wasted time. ~ RobTalk 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The question was asked why a formal close is needed when there is a near unanimous outcome. I have a further question. Was the outcome truly unanimous, or merely near unanimous? If the outcome was near unanimous, first, a formal close does only take a small amount of time, but, second, a formal close is useful. The reason is that, not infrequently, a stubborn editor will continue to push their edits after the RFC went against them by saying that there was no consensus. There was indeed no consensus in a terminological sense if one means that consensus is established by an RFC. That is why I respectfully disagree with the statement that most RFCs don't need formal closure. It is true that there are too many RFCs for which formal closure is nearly impossible because the RFC was worded badly. That is a different problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with IJBall unless someone can tell me specifically how a formal close (which does not take a small amount of time, unless a closer is not carefully reading the discussion) helps editors reach an agreement on RfCs that have a near unanimous outcome. Do we really think our average editor so mentally deficient that they can't tell what 10 yeas and 1 nay means? And before someone says this, we're not talking about closes where a WP:POINTy user is contesting the outcome, since any participant of the obvious discussion could list the discussion at ANRFC if that were the case. ~ RobTalk 19:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is what's known as a straw man, as no one has actually said that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Second, I'm sure this is not the intent but 'shoot the messenger' comes to mind. We need a good system for settling these kinds of questions, RfC is the system we have - it would be great to make it better, remembering that the RfC is all about participation in settling/clarifying matters. So, just hoping they don't exist/ignoring them does not even approach making the participatory system better. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Two Innovative Ideas
Two innovative ideas have been proposed above that are ways forward from the chronic backlog of long-open RFCs. I personally think that both are good ideas, but that they should be discussed at the RFC talk page rather than here. The first is to require or strongly encourage RFCs to be seconded. In particular, I would suggest that RFCs that are seconded should be formally closed. RFCs that are not seconded may reasonably be ignored, or treated as RFCs now are, which is said not to require formal closure. The second is that maybe the RFC bot, rather than simply pulling the RFC tag, should replace it by a tag that the RFC needs closure. (I would reconcile the two by saying that RFCs that are not seconded within some number of days, maybe four, should be manually pulled, and, if not pulled, the tag requesting closure can be manually pulled.) Those are in my opinion good ideas that should be discussed at the RFC talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree on a single point: we should go to the RFC talk page. It seems like the resolution here is against doing anything to Cunard at the moment so it should be closed and AN left to its usual issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I started the noticeboard/backlog board question at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Separate_noticeboard_for_RFCs. Beyond that, we can then argue once we agree on where it should be, what should be listed there. Otherwise, a debate about what should be done belongs on that talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs can be rewritten. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
What is WP:MINOR?
Hey there admin fellows, what's WP:MINOR? Is it a policy? A guideline? An essay? Nothing? I've got an editor who's generally been a pain in a variety of ways, who keeps mis-marking non-minor edits as minor. Given his history of logging-out to avoid scrutiny, his minor edits look like yet another attempt to escape scrutiny by hiding edits like these: [15][16][17][18]. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Its help namespace, its descriptive of the use of the 'minor' flag, not meant to be taken as policy anymore than a description of the use of the 'edit' button would be. This may be an oversight if someone is using it incorrectly, however there is clear consensus in the archives for AN that inappropriate use is subject to blocking. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Vandalism#Gaming_the_system. I personally would consider anyone marking minor an edit that substantially changes or alters content as 'bad faith' if they feel the need to deliberately hide it. Others may disagree, but consensus has generally held dont mark edits as minor if they are not minor edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's important because most watchlists and the like tend to ignore minor edits. If it's a repeated antic, it can fall into disruptive editing and is block-worthy. While one of the dumber things, I've seen it go that far. The page itself, I agree is a help page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Completely agree. I've probably seen two blocks for repeated abuse of marking minor, but it has happened. Talk first, then a warning at ANI if it doesn't stop, then a block. Each step needs to show a pattern, not one questionable marking. That is the usual pattern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Minor edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Completely agree. I've probably seen two blocks for repeated abuse of marking minor, but it has happened. Talk first, then a warning at ANI if it doesn't stop, then a block. Each step needs to show a pattern, not one questionable marking. That is the usual pattern. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's important because most watchlists and the like tend to ignore minor edits. If it's a repeated antic, it can fall into disruptive editing and is block-worthy. While one of the dumber things, I've seen it go that far. The page itself, I agree is a help page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rcrox was not notified of this discussion of his behavior. I have corrected this oversight. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nihonjoe, appreciated, but this wasn't a request for intervention, rather a request for community input for my own edification, using Rcrox's edits as real-world examples. That said, your point is noted and I'll do that in the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I know, but all the examples were from his edits, and you wrote, "I've got an editor...", which implies you are discussing that editor's edits. Therefore, you must notify him of that discussion. If nothing else, it's polite. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nihonjoe, appreciated, but this wasn't a request for intervention, rather a request for community input for my own edification, using Rcrox's edits as real-world examples. That said, your point is noted and I'll do that in the future. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Persistent Vandalism by IP's
A group of IP's were vandalizing on the page Eliza Taylor, but after I filed an RPP, they are currently vandalizing about the same topic, just in other (unrelated) articles. This is a large group of different IP's. (This is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_leg&type=revision&diff=721722771&oldid=720118990) Any admin who can help is appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Filed an SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.252.91.180. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's probably nothing we can do, except block IP addresses in sight and semi-protect the multiple-time target articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Can someone keep an eye on this article
List of companies based in Oklahoma City has become a linkfarm for external links. I tried to pare it down, but am being reverted, and I don't want to get into an edit war. If someone else could look it over, and act accordingly, that'd be great. Thanks! --Jayron32 02:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given the initial edit to the article by User:Roserock16, perhaps the addition of the remainder of the linkfarm is intended to disguise their actual purpose/COI (and it might warrant a username block). --Kinu t/c 02:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you guys are way off base. I found that article and it already had 25+ external links to other companies. Since I had never edited anything on Wikipedia before, I created an account and added a link to my company website, just like the other dozens of companies. It did not occur to me that adding a link would violate user terms since it was obviously being allowed on that site well before I edited it. The reason you were "being reverted" is because after adding the link I looked at it later and noticed my link and the 25+ existing external links were gone. Again, as a first time editor, I thought I had done something wrong and accidentally deleted all of them. I still had a tab open with the original code so I edited it again to restore what I thought I accidentally erased. A simple warning would have been plenty for me to remove the link and not add it again, but blocking my account because you think you're in an "edit war" with me? And accusing me of adding dozens of other links to "disguise their actual purpose?" Really? User:Jayron32 User:Kinu User:Cryptic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron12354 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- For someone who has never edited Wikipedia, you did manage to find ANI and ping three users, which is astonishing. One possibility is that our HELP: section is world class. There are other possibilities. Yet, me thinketh thou doth protest too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It took me 30 minutes to figure it out. I ended up looking through the posts above me to see how they pinged me, and I followed the format because the help section was not very helpful. Far from "world class." Just because I've never edited Wikipedia before doesn't mean I can't figure it out. But learning how to ping someone makes it "astonishing?" It must have taken you much, much longer than 30 minutes to learn it if that's astonishing to you. User:Dennis Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron12354 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Check the internet archives for the link to that page. The snapshot back in January shows 27 external links to other companies. I'd post the link to the page for you but Kinu might try to get me blocked again for posting links. Dennis Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron12354 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Skipping over the usual paranoia of AN,On your block, the main reason you were blocked is because of your username violating the username policy. The rest of it had to do with you promoting the entity your username was apparently connected with. Normally when this happens, the user is familiar with wikipedia, and not here to build an encyclopedia. However, as you are admittedly connected with the business, you should read and follow the conflict of interest policy to avoid additional problems. As far as external links are concerned, please see this guideline for what is not allowed for external links. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
User:The Voidwalker I apologize for not reading those terms before posting. I did not think I was breaking any rules since there were over two dozen external links on that page already. I will not be using that username any longer and will not post any links, now that I know. Thank you for your professional and informative explanation. Aaron12354 (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm not blaming you for not reading them, as Wikipedia rules are often difficult to find when you just start off. I'll leave you a template message for new users about getting started. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 22:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
IPBE Proposal
An editor has opened an RfC regarding a change to the IP block exemption procedures. Members of the community are invited to comment on the proposal. Mike V • Talk 04:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Actions required for my alternate accounts
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear admins, I would like the following doppelganger accounts of mine to be softblocked to prevent abuse. I keep them in accordance to WP:VALIDALT, nevertheless I would like them softblocked for the aforementioned reason. These accounts were made via both new account creation and account request.
0ptakeover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
0pt4k30v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
0pt4k30ver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
0pt4k3ov3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
0pt4ke0v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
0ptak30v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ooptakeover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Oooptakeover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Optakeoverr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Optakeoverrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Optakeoverrrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I also have an account, Optakeoversandbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), used for the testing of automated tools like Huggle, to familiarize with the behaviour of said tools. I do not request block for this account, as I may like to make test edits in accordance to WP:VALIDALT. Such edits will be limited to my own user space, of course.
Next, I found there was an account which I may/may not have created in 2008. The account is Optakeover123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am unable to access the account because I do not know/forgot the password, and there is no email linked to the account so I cannot recover the password. I would like this account to be blocked on the grounds of impersonation and/or the fact I lost access to that account. No edits were made on that account.
I would like also like to ask if it is possible for some form of Checkuser because I have no idea what other accounts I may have created but I have forgotten or do not know of. If I can find out what are they, I would like to log into them and tag them as accordingly or request block on them, just so I don't face trouble with these accounts in the future.
Lastly, User:Optakeover is my main account, and the only one to be used for all my Wikipedia activity, in accordance to WP:VALIDALT. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is kind of silly. I can think of 2 dozen other usernames that would look, at a casual glance, more similar to yours than these do. Are you going to create them all? Should we then block them all? Should everyone do this? As long as you don't give anyone the passwords, these accounts are as secure as your real one. Just don't use them and everything will be fine. And for God's sake stop creating doppelganger accounts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Time for 50-100 new admins ASAP?
I don't know what's happening, but it seems administrating WP is coming to a grinding halt. At ANI, for instance, a large number of even the most obvious reports are ignored and it seems the default option is to just let things get archived. I understand this perfectly well, and none of it is because of any poor admin actions as such; it's just a matter of admins being unpaid volunteers and seriously understaffed. But that, in a nutshell, is the problem. There are far too few active admins on WP to cope with demand. At WP:RFA, there are currently two candidates, and the last three months has seen on average one new admin per month. This is, quite frankly, far too little. If WP is to function smoothly, it needs active administrators. Looking at RfA, the implicit question seems to be "who is worthy of becoming an admin?". That is, I posit, the wrong question and the wrong mindset. The real question should be "how many active admins do we need?", coupled with "how many active admins do we have?" and, if there's a gap (as I believe it to be), then that gap should be filled, not through a slow and cumbersome process, but as fast as possible. Once again, I have no complaint with any existing admin and argument is with the current system, not any admin or any administrative action. Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just an observation re: ANI. It seems to me that quite often the correct response to a thread there is to let it play itself out, the participants come up with their own solution or they tire themselves out and move on to something more constructive. The reports that need to be actioned quickly often are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you, that is often a good strategy that can lead to a solution, in which case everything is fine. It can also lead to things completely spiralling out of control, which unfortunately also happens. I do not object to a strategy of supervising without stepping in, but no supervision at all is not a good response. My comment today arose from seeing a number of (in my view) very obvious cases being ignored. I myself commented on a POV-pushing nationalist actively using an IP-sock. The comment after mine is on a clear vandal, and after that an even clearer case of very disruptive IP. In my reading, all of these are clear cases where admins could and should step in quickly to close, as the policy violations are obvious. Instead, I found all of them completely ignored many hours after they were filed. Do note that I don't think my own report to be particularly urgent and I did not start this tread to get a close for that report. It's rather a feeling I've had for some time when looking at ANI, but also at AIV and RFPP at times. Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Half the issues that come to ANI do not need admin attention. Often they need mediation, discussing or as Ivanvector points out, just to play out. Some of the best mediators around aren't admin. The places we do have serious backlogs are places that admin don't like to do, no matter how many we have. Sometimes a thread stays open without admin intervention because it revolves around a topic that no available admin is familiar enough to dive into. More numbers don't guarantee quicker responses because most admin don't patrol ANI anyway, particularly new ones. Finally, more than once I've just gone and addressed a problem I saw on ANI and didn't post about it for various reasons. And we don't "supervise" as much as mop up or use the tools on behalf of the community once a consensus is obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- First ten callers get to become admins. And if you're the 12th caller, you'll win two tickets to the monster truck extravaganza being held tonight at the Carson Fairgrounds. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Admin? I'm just here for the tickets, man.TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah! A-N tailgating! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Admin? I'm just here for the tickets, man.TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- If anyone is wishing to become an administrator, they are welcome to apply at WP:RFA. The community would not reject qualified candidates. If a potential candidate wishes an objective review before submitting an RFA, there are a number of experienced admins willing to review a candidate's activity on the project prior to their application at RFA. Nakon 04:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whiiiich, the OP having already suggested the RfA MO is lacking fitness for purpose to a certain extent, singularly fails to address his stated concerns :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also, largely because RFA is probably only second in nastiness to ANI. One basically has to have a squeaky clean record as well as no grudge bearers, but then the argument swings to the other side by saying that if an editor hasn't experienced or gotten involved in the dirty side of WP, where one would generally collect grudge bearer, then how would they be able to handle being an admin? Catch 22 much? Blackmane (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Catch-22???? That's one helleva catch, that one. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- RFA is still better than it was a few years ago. Mine sucked but I got over it. In some ways, the RFA does the vetting itself. If you can't handle hell week at RFA, you probably can't handle being thrown in the middle of a heated dispute in an Arb restricted area. Sometimes, you don't choose what you thrown in, it simply gets dropped on your lap. Perfection isn't the goal at RFA, we've selected admin with blocks on the books before, and they passed unopposed. It is all about judgement and reaction under pressure. Yes, we could use more admin and you don't have to be a genius or perfect to be one (take me, for example), so if you want to run for it, just run. Or go search out candidates, vet them and nominate them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- "we've selected admin with blocks on the books before, and they passed unopposed" - Can you provide two or three examples of such RfAs, please? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Berean Hunter passed unopposed with a block in his history. Secret wasn't unopposed but I'm fairly sure he had blocks from his previous account. There are others, those are just off the top of my head. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well in that case Admins have been promoted despite being sanctioned under their previous accounts ;) It didnt work out well in the end. Personally I favour de-bundling over 'more admins'. Most people willing to do 'admin rights needed' work only want to work in a specific area. RFA basically gurantees they will get oppose votes based on 'has no experience in this area' which can scupper an otherwise worthwhile candidate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hunter had one block from about 8/9 years ago, and the other had to use another account for a "clean start". So unless you're squeaky clean or a sock, you've got pretty much no chance of getting through. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well in that case Admins have been promoted despite being sanctioned under their previous accounts ;) It didnt work out well in the end. Personally I favour de-bundling over 'more admins'. Most people willing to do 'admin rights needed' work only want to work in a specific area. RFA basically gurantees they will get oppose votes based on 'has no experience in this area' which can scupper an otherwise worthwhile candidate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Berean Hunter passed unopposed with a block in his history. Secret wasn't unopposed but I'm fairly sure he had blocks from his previous account. There are others, those are just off the top of my head. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- "we've selected admin with blocks on the books before, and they passed unopposed" - Can you provide two or three examples of such RfAs, please? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- my limited experience with ANI suggests it is a total zoo over there..I've done some things to try to look into this recently (proposed some things on TALK page there etc)...I do think a big problem is there are simply not enough admins out there to deal with things (ie theoretically competent editors)..if Wikipedia has less admins today than it had in the past than it could be in for a death spiral...with more and more articles to be maintained etc etc....68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
IPBE proposal v2
Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#RfC:_Automatically_grant_IPBE_to_users_by_proof_of_work_alone Sai ¿?✍ 23:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Possibly prematurely archived discussion?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would anyone like to look at thread #118, entitled "Topic ban requested" on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive280 and maybe restore it or close it? John Carter (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is it appropriate for a non-admin to make a close potentially resulting in a topic ban? I've read through the majority of the discussion and am comfortable making a closure (after doing a more thorough read-through, of course), but both WP:BAN and WP:NAC are silent on this issue. I won't make a close unless a couple administrators or otherwise experienced editors give me the go-ahead to do so, since I'm not so sure what convention is here. ~ RobTalk 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, it's best practice to leave an admin to close a discussion that may result in sanctions against another editor. Reason being, only an admin has the tools to enforce the close. This isn't to say a non admin can't close it, especially if community consensus supports it, but it's best to close out any loopholes for the sanctionee to wriggle out of. Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- It looks to me that the archived discussion was approaching a topic ban of User:Robertinventor. If User:BU Rob13 wants to read all the comments and offer his own neutral reading of what the consensus said, why doesn't he post his recommendation here, and see if an admin wants to take action on it. I think we could make an up-or-down decision on a topic ban (based on the arguments of the original participants) and that the archived discussion covered all the bases well. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- If convention indicates non-admins shouldn't do sanctions, then I'll stay away from it. Just looking to help out, since I noticed the discussion at ANRFC and again here. Based on my initial (just about everything but the collapsed sections) reading yesterday, there is clear consensus for some form of sanction, and a topic ban limited to the Four Noble Truths, broadly construed, seemed to be the likely option. Limits on just the length of comments or number of edits clearly had no consensus. I'd need to give it a complete read-through to know for sure, though, and I'll leave that to an admin. ~ RobTalk 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Non-admins cant/shouldnt close anything that requires admin tool use. As they technically cant enact the closure (see discussions closed as delete etc or those requiring removal of permissions). A topic ban discussion requires no tools to close as the closure is basically 'you can no longer edit in that area, dont do it'. Any actual enforcement would obviously require tools, however that is not at the point of discussion closing, and assuming the editor abides by the topic ban, may never be required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- If convention indicates non-admins shouldn't do sanctions, then I'll stay away from it. Just looking to help out, since I noticed the discussion at ANRFC and again here. Based on my initial (just about everything but the collapsed sections) reading yesterday, there is clear consensus for some form of sanction, and a topic ban limited to the Four Noble Truths, broadly construed, seemed to be the likely option. Limits on just the length of comments or number of edits clearly had no consensus. I'd need to give it a complete read-through to know for sure, though, and I'll leave that to an admin. ~ RobTalk 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- It looks to me that the archived discussion was approaching a topic ban of User:Robertinventor. If User:BU Rob13 wants to read all the comments and offer his own neutral reading of what the consensus said, why doesn't he post his recommendation here, and see if an admin wants to take action on it. I think we could make an up-or-down decision on a topic ban (based on the arguments of the original participants) and that the archived discussion covered all the bases well. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, it's best practice to leave an admin to close a discussion that may result in sanctions against another editor. Reason being, only an admin has the tools to enforce the close. This isn't to say a non admin can't close it, especially if community consensus supports it, but it's best to close out any loopholes for the sanctionee to wriggle out of. Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Captain America
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Captain America a topic area authorized by the Arbitration Committee for extended confirmed protection, or as a result of community consensus? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you only assume those two options? Admins can also decide the issue on their own. Heavily vandalized pages can be subject to extended protection. Did you make a request at WP:RFPP to reduce the protection? Is there a reason to do so? Are there extensive approved edit requests on the talk page that would evidence that protection isn't needed? There's no ARBCOM notice on the talk page and Arbcom sanctions are more for editors not for page protection. The last protection added doesn't include a link to any community discussion either so I doubt it but BOZ can probably answer that question. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:EC-P, I believe the protection is used only in these two circumstances, and "a process for community use has not been established." I'm also aware that there's an ongoing discussion about this protection level at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Extended confirmed protection policy. I'll stay out of this, but I know folks with strong opinions on the matter. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ricky: I don't see support for use of EC-P in #Vandalism. Regardless, #EC-P makes it clear where it presently is authorized for use; without a community decision agreeing to its use otherwise and creation of the associated process, I think clearly the default is "don't use". --Izno (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Did you ask the protecting admin about this yet? — xaosflux Talk 10:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it might be a simple mistake while protecting (it's easy to go one line too far)...semiprotection was intended imho. Lectonar (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe I may have selected that option in error. If it makes more sense to switch this to a regular semi-protection, I will do so. BOZ (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The article University of Law seems to contain suspiciously WP:Advert-like material, including a few dubious claims. I attempted to place an advert tag, however this was removed. I may be wrong about this article but if anyone has the time to investigate it that would be much appreciated. Reaganomics88 (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Reaganomics88: I have replaced it as "well sourced" is not a valid reason for removing that tag. I encourage you to post on the talk page of the article and explain why the article reads like an advert (I agree it does lean that way). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
AfD issue
At AfD, due to there being a large, unnecessary backlog, I combined 50 or so related pages into one AfD report. The pages have been added again by a bot. Can you delete all of the separate AfD's, as they are unnecessary? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator observation) @ThePlatypusofDoom: The bot re-added them because the AfD templates in each article all still point to their individual discussion pages. If you want the articles to point to a single AfD discussion page, then you'll need to modify the tags on each individual article to point to that single page, preferably (IMHO) with the explicit approval of the original nominator. --Finngall talk 23:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I know why the bot re-added them, it seems easier just to WP:NUKE, instead of going through every single one, which I did to combine the articles into one AfD discussion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- If the nominator agrees, it would be best to simply redirect all of the individual AfD pages to the main one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Games), then change the tags on each individual article to point to the main AfD page. The tags need to stay on each article, so that people who visit know they're being discussed. Also, Asian Games itself probably shouldn't be linked/tagged, but WP:IAR so whatever. ansh666 02:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I know why the bot re-added them, it seems easier just to WP:NUKE, instead of going through every single one, which I did to combine the articles into one AfD discussion. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Rollback function process has changed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Rollback_function_has_been_changed. — xaosflux Talk 23:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Oluwa2Chainz: collateral damage from Wikicology?
As an ArbCom clerk, I hardblocked Wikicology as part of closing his case. Yamla (talk · contribs) unblocked Oluwa2Chainz (talk · contribs), who had been autoblocked as a result of the Wikicology block (is the IP-address pool that small in Nigeria?), and Oluwa2Chainz is now requesting IPBE. I'm trying to AGF, but O2C began editing the day before Wikicology was blocked and I'm not familiar enough with Wikicology's socking to grant WP:IPBE without input from someone who is. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see what you mean: Oluwa2Chainz's first edit was 12 May 2015, not 12 May 2016 (the day before Wikicology's block). BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- And has 11,000 edits... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given how their talk page history isn't filled with complaints I am thinking it is probably someone different. I know that in Kenya every IP I tried to use was blocked on a lot of websites, I don't think they have a lot of IPs. HighInBC 13:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- And has 11,000 edits... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)