Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff[edit]

(non-admin closure) Appellant moved appeal to AE. BMK (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOTE: Because of items brought up newly within the Meta Discussion, and discussion on with which group reviews the item, this is moved to the A/R/E board, intact. Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advice on AE procedures[edit]

Please respond to an ongoing AE discussion in your section at the AE board (which shouldn't need to be explained). If an admin imposes a topic ban per the standard discretionary sanctions authorized in the area of article titles and you want to know how to appeal, read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modification.  · Salvidrim! ·  13:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another editor has just made some pretty serious accusations about me (in an AE thread that was originally about something else, which has since run its course). I am pretty taken aback and I would like advice on the relevant AE procedures. Am I allowed to ask for time to compose a response? Am I allowed to call witnesses? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Cannabis dispensary page move[edit]

Article now at AfD: please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis dispensary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would someone be willing to review the move of Draft:Cannabis dispensary from its main space article Marijuana dispensary back to its draft.

Article was approved via AFC and from the edit summaries[1] [2]it appears there is some disagreement on if it should have been moved or titled as such. The move back to draft was then followed up by an edit to redirect it to a page which has in turn prevented it being moved back again.

There has been a string of edits on the page by the original editor who was unaware of the process for reversing the changes and he has sought help on the irc channel. I'll ask them to confirm this here shortly. If someone is willing to review the move as I feel it was out of process to move the page and then edit the redirect to prevent it being moved back and for a discussion to follow.

If not I'll take it to a requested move.

Pinging @Anna Frodesiak: as original approver and @Viriditas: as the editor who moved it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not all that familiar with the AFC process, so some clarification would be helpful. Potguru added a link to the new mainspace article in an article I created. I went to look at it, only to find that it had been declined by two AFC reviewers but somehow made its way to mainspace. The current article is mostly original research and cherry picked poor sourcing. I agree that Wikipedia could use an article on cannabis dispensaries, but this is not ready for mainspace. I tried to point out problems on the draft talk page in two different threads only to have my comments deleted. I am very familiar with the history of cannabis dispensaries in the US, so I was surprised to find this poorly sourced and poorly written article in mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I too am unfamiliar with the AFC process hence asking the person who approved it to see if they can advise further. Just to note I am unsure of the exact process so comments on uncertainty on process are just that and not aimed at implying wrongdoing. Amortias (T)(C) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
My apologies if I have caused all this by moving it to the mainspace prematurely. It seemed fine. Such page moves from main to draft have been done before, but cannot find a policy on it. It is not on the list. I will post at AfC about that and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis to help get a review. The author must be very upset and the sooner he is un-upset the better. I have a long, long history with Viriditas, so I really should stay out judging right and wrong here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Anna, it is perfectly fine for friends to disagree. Btw, when editors refer to a "long history" with another user, that generally means they are enemies. I'm guessing you did not intend to imply that interpretation. In any case, I note that the problems observed by the two previous AFC reviewers who declined it, were not fixed when you moved it. In order to move things toward resolution, I have noted on Potguru's talk page that I have no objection to a well-sourced stub that shows room for improvement and development. [3] Since you have lots of experience, maybe you could try starting a new stub on the subject? Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Viriditas I also was one of the people that helped Potguru on this draft. Why would Anna have to start a new stub? Why wouldn't they just be able to use the draft that was already made? It is not referenced properly but it is referenced and there is plenty of news coverage out there on marijuana cannabis dispensaries. So it is a notable topic. As to your original move, I find your edit summary a little inappropriate. If I had created the page I would take your comment as calling me a "racist and prohibitionist." So Potguru's idea that you were calling them that is not farfetched. You could have just cited COMMONNAME and been done with it. But that is a different issue. This entire thing has blown up to an unnecessary level and I fear that we may lose an editor that actually wants to improve the encyclopedia over it. --Majora (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem with the term "marijuana" is entirely separate from the problem with the article. As Anna has said below, she mistakenly moved a declined draft to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Enemies? Of course not. You were my mentor and we have been good friends for six years.
When I moved it, I saw no comments from other reviewers. Now, digging into the history, among the long string of Potguru edits, I see [4][5]. My apologies. Those pink boxes had been removed. I have been away from AfC for too long. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, potguru asked whether he should remove the pink boxes on the IRC channel. The manner in which the question was asked, and the answer he received (no fault on either side, IMHO) resulted in the misunderstanding that he should remove them. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I was participating in the IRC conversation between potguru (talk · contribs), Amortias (talk · contribs), Chrisw80 (talk · contribs) and I. First off, I'd personally like to know if we have a policy in place as to what to call marijuana/cannabis. If we don't have a policy, perhaps now we be a good time to make an RfC and get one set in stone. Secondly, potguru (talk · contribs) posted a response over on his user talk since he currently can't participate here. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Nathan, nothing is set in stone, however our stable articles on the subject of cannabis were the result of long community discussions on the topic. Given that Wikipedia prefers to use terms that are accurate and precise, it would seem a step back to open a new discussion about using a xenophobic, Prohibitionist term to replace the more traditional historical term that is free from neutrality problems. The term "marijuana" is an early relic from the reefer madness days, when government agencies tried to scare people about immigrants using the drug. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I just posted at his talk about those pink boxes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This whole situation seems to have gotten out of control rather quickly, and I think we are all a little worked up over this. I would humbly (very humbly) suggest that the two parties remember that it IS possible to resolve differences of opinion calmly and that it will likely be resolved more quickly (and more to everyone's satisfaction) if we allow a civil discussion to take place. I have attempted to research "precedent" regarding use of the two terms and haven't found much, much less an actual RfC. Has an RfC been conducted regarding this that I'm missing somewhere? If so, could someone link it here? I think different folks have very different ideas about what each of these terms means and as far as I can tell the correct course on Wikipedia is to have an RfC in this situation. If one has not been conducted already, please let's have one. Thank you! Chrisw80 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This has already been discussed to death, which is why marijuana redirects to cannabis. The new user in question has problems with his draft article that need to be resolved, so anything else (especially a debate over terms) is a distraction. I have discussed the subject on the user's talk page, but they don't seem to be very familiar with the subject, which explains part of the problem. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as all of us engage in a bit of autodidactic editing, but there remains the problem of basic, foundational source material that remains to be answered. So instead of reinventing the wheel, I have encouraged the user to focus on improving his source material. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: If the draft was already accepted, it should have been improved, tagged, or sent to AfD, not moved back to draft namespace. I completely understand potguru's anger over the whole situation. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 06:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The draft was declined twice by two different reviewers. Anna says she moved it to mainspace by accident (at least I think that's what she said, correct me if I'm wrong). Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The declines were due to it not having enough information to warrant a standalone article. It is very common for people that have had their drafts declined to come on IRC and ask questions. Dozens of people do that every day and the decline template specifically says that that is an option. So saying that they were "lobbying on IRC off-wiki" is nonsense. Frankly, the two reasoning behind the two declines were fixed in my opinion anyways. So they would have had no bearing on Anna's review of the draft. Anna is an intelligent person who can fully decide for herself what drafts are ready for mainspace. Her decision here should have been allowed to stand without you moving it right back to draftspace. Once accepted, if you don't believe it meets standards you should have taken it to AfD or fixed it yourself. Moving it right back to draftspace after an editor worked hard on something, and it was accepted, is a massive slap in the face to the editor. --Majora (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Did Anna review the article? I saw the two declines by two different reviewers, then I saw the article in mainspace, no review. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Anna moving it into mainspace was a review was it not? A draft does not just move on its own without a reviewer pressing the buttons. And per her move edit summary [6] she accepted it. --Majora (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw no review and the problems raised in the previous reviews, such as the unsourced content, were unaddressed. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas:, encouraging the user to improve the article is admirable and we've been working with the editor to do so, and the article has improved materially since it's inception. Unfortunately, I think that they are misunderstanding your intentions and not sure that they are receptive at this point (they are obviously not responding well, evidenced by the walls of text on his talk page). That aside, there seems to be at least somewhat legitimate dispute regarding the terms marijuana and cannabis. Could you please provide some links for the discussions that have taken place previously regarding this? I've found a couple and the newest was over 5 years old, the environment, politics, and culture surrounding cannabis have changed in that time and I feel it may be worthwhile to have a new discussion regarding it. I understand that there is history regarding the term "marijuana", but society DOES change and so do the definitions of words. If there is something more recent I'd like to review it. With many thanks! Chrisw80 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that is a separate issue from the overall problem, and you are welcome to start a new thread over at the relevant WikiProject or on the cannabis (drug) talk page, however, I think you have it somewhat backwards, as society has changed in the opposite direction, from using and abusing prohibition language rooted in racism and xenophobia to a return to more neutral language rooted in science and history. There are an enormous number of sources on this subject, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding them. Search for "Anslinger" and "racism". Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Of course you wouldn't see a review on an accepted draft. That is not how AfC works. Comments are only written down when the draft is declined. Why would there be a written review when the draft is accepted and moved to mainspace? That would make absolutely no sense at all. Where would the review go? On the article's talk page? On the creator's talk page? Why would you write a review for a draft you accepted? And per the AfC reviewer's instructions the main task for reviewers to decide is whether or not the article will survive a deletion discussion. This article may have messed up citations but it certainly would survive a deletion discussion as there are dozens of reliable sources about cannabis dispensaries. The citation issues are another thing and you should not have moved it back to draftspace because of that. --Majora (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The original concerns with unsourced content leading to a decline were not addressed.[7] Anna has also said that she failed to see those declining comments. The article should never have been moved to mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Another point that I feel I should make. If Potguru made this article outright, instead of going through the AfC process, would you have still moved it draftspace? If I saw that article at NPP I would have tagged it as needing cleanup. I may have even done a little bit of the cleanup myself. But I certainly wouldn't have drafted the article. Just because it went through the AfC process does not mean it should be treated any differently than articles that are made outright. --Majora (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It would have been redirected. And considering the opinions of the two declining reviewers, that decision would have been supported. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Viriditas, you said above that it is perfectly fine for friends to disagree and I said above that I should stay out judging right and wrong. Okay. Let's say those two cancel each other out. :) You are a dear friend, but I must totally disagree with you on this one. Thank you, Majora and others. You make very good points and I agree with all of them. Viritidas, this is (probably) a brand new user and this is a big bite. We don't want to lose him. I think there were so many alternatives:
  • Asking him if it would be okay to move back to draft space for a few days
  • Giving him time and guidance on what needs to be done
  • Working with him to edit it
  • Adding citation needed here and there and tagging
  • Chopping a bit
  • AfD, although I suspect that would have been a quick keep per GNG and because of no satisfactory place to merge

My review[edit]

I must respectfully disagree with Viriditas' "...Anna mistakenly moved the declined draft to mainspace...". I have looked at Draft:Cannabis dispensary again, and the reasons for the declines. I still think this draft should be in the mainspace.

I also respectfully disagree with Viriditas' "...unsourced content, were unaddressed...". That was one of the decline rationales made when the draft was but a few sentences long.

Viriditas, you said, I did not review it before moving it. I did. When reviewing and declining, details are required. When reviewing and accepting, it is common to leave no other comment or rationale than "acceptable for the mainspace" or the like. Am I right in this?

Viritidas, you say that I moved a "declined" article to the mainspace. To be fair, it was also an article waiting for review. I inspected the article, checked for duplicates, noticed lots of references that seemed good, did a copyvio check. All seemed fine, so I moved it. Even had I seen the two declines, I would have moved it:

The first decline was when it was a tiny stub. The rationale was "...note that dispensaries are covered in the Medical cannibis article, so first you should see if this fits in there because we like to keep related information together when possible....". Well, it was a stub. Now, it is way to big to fit into that article. It passes GNG and seems perfectly fit for a standalone. That rationale no longer applies, in my view.

The second decline's rationale was "Recommend merging into the Cannabis in the United States article..." The draft at that point was still only a few sentences long. Dispensaries exist in other parts of the world too. It passes GNG and seems perfectly fit for a standalone. That rationale does not apply to the current version, in my view.

In neither of those two recommended targets for the draft are is there a dispensaries section. Dispensaries are discussed here and there. The draft, considering its current size, could never fit into either of those articles, and nor should it.

I also posted part of this post at Potguru's talk. As he is blocked, I thought he might like to comment on it. I am sorry to split the discussion like that, and also sorry for the long post.

Moving on to getting this sorted out, can't all who are involved just step back and let the project cannibis people decide what to do with the draft? They can see and take the draft at face value and make up their minds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. Encouraged by your defense, I took another look at the draft. I don't see any good reason why this should be in mainspace. The entire article consists of unsourced original research written in incomplete sentences lacking proper grammar and punctuation. The entire lead section consists of an unsourced original research comparison between Dutch coffee shops and dispensaries while the body consists mostly of unsourced statements. Where sources are used, they either don't support the content at all, or are improperly used. For example, the entire section on "locating services" is sourced to citation 27, but there's nothing there supporting the paragraph, nor is it a RS. Out of 23 paragraphs, 12 are unsourced, virtually half the article, while the ones that are sourced are sourced poorly or don't support it at all. I'm also a bit concerned about another article this user created concerning marijuana vending machines which appears to consist of rumors, crystalballing, and promotional press releases by the company. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You may be right. I would like to know what other reviewers would have done and have asked at AfC talk. I haven't done AfC work for ages and perhaps didn't do a thorough enough job.
However, the main task stated in the AfC instructions is... " identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined..."
As for marijuana vending machine, t'was I not Potguru who created it. I left it in this state 19 October 2013. Maybe I should send my drafts through AfC in the future. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think at this stage, the best course of action would be to open an AfD on the article. That is our process for determining whether an article should exist in mainspace or not. I would advise in future that once an article has been accepted at AfC, it should go through one of the deletion processes rather than attempting to revert the AfC review by moving it back to draft space. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mister Poeticbent ‎reverts on his talk page.[edit]

Unactionable. No one did anything wrong, so there is nothing requiring Admin action here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! User Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is removing [8] my comments on his talk page without a correct reason. I have not made a personal attack. What do you admins think about this? He is accusing me of POV pushing and sockpuppetry without a valid reason. I think he is attacking me personally. I know that most of you are more familiar with him and I'm probably 100% unknown to you but be kind and try to be as objective as possible while checking this report. Jomlini (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jomlini: See WP:BLANKING. Users are not prohibited from removing other users comments from their own talk pages. — Strongjam (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Mister Poeticbent is doing exactly that. Jomlini (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jomlini: You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. They are allowed to remove messages from their own talk page. Also see WP:OWNTALK that Drmies linked to. — Strongjam (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Strongjam: Yes I did. When I get really nervous that sometimes happens to me.
  • Ah well--another case of "not for this forum", but this one a bit worse: Jomlini, before you start lecturing other users about what they can and cannot do on their own talk page, please familiarize yourself with the proper guidelines. You cited Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, but you seem to have totally missed WP:OWNTALK. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And admins, I pray. Be compassionate. I'm not so known here compared to Poeticbent, but be fair while investigating this thing. Jomlini (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • There is nothing to investigate. You misquote policy, and when that is pointed out you misread the comment. Strongjam said Poeticbend is NOT prohibited from removing your comments. NOT prohibited. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So users can remove everything what is writed in their talk pages? In Finnish wikipedia that is 100% prohibited, only after a month. Jomlini (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • No, not everything. Read the guideline I linked. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. Thank you for this lesson, I'm sorry for interrupting you. Jomlini (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • That's quite alright. We aim to please. Please convey my best wishes to the Finnish colleagues, especially when the days are short and the nights are long. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman closed[edit]

"This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above."

The following remedies have been enacted

4) For consistently poor judgment in undertaking administrative actions following a formal admonishment, Kevin Gorman is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. Passed 13 to 3 at 17:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Requests_Case_Kevin_Gorman_closed

Adding Template:Empty-warn-deletion and other post-deletion notices to Twinkle[edit]

Not sure about the rest of you, but I didn't even know these templates existed until recently. I have been doing a terrible practice of first using Twinkle to request speedy deletion, then deleting it (never mind if this was done too hastily, let's assume it wasn't). That way the user gets that important info they need about why the page was inappropriate, along with a welcome template, etc. I know of other admins who also follow this less-than-ideal procedure.

So, I thought this workflow should be incorporated into Twinkle. This would be a whole new interface change, that I figure would mimic the Block module. That is, you have a "delete page" checkbox, and another for "add deletion notice to user talk page". The latter would welcome the user if they haven't been already, and issue a deletion notice if they've haven't already received a notice about the page being nominated for deletion. We'd need to map each rationale to one of the existing post-deletion templates, or create a few new ones as needed.

Any thoughts or suggestions on this matter? Is this effort worthwhile - as in, would you use it!? =P

Related: Around midday GMT on 15 January I'm going to deploy a big update to the Twinkle CSD module. This will just make it so that admins can delete under multiple rationale, enter in URLs for copyright vios, etc, just like you can for requesting speedy deletion. More on that later! MusikAnimal talk 04:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cool! That sounds absolutely appropriate for certain types of speedy, like ones dealing with copyvio, since those almost never can be successfully contested. I'd be more concerned about enabling an instant A7 with no warning, though. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I had the same thought, however the page could have been up for a while with no modifications, in which case A7 without prior notice might be appropriate. I feel like Twinkle functionality can have a big influence on what users do, so maybe there should be an additional confirmation for certain criterion like A7 MusikAnimal talk 05:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You wouldn't be "enabling an instant A7 with no warning", that option is available to every admin anyway, and some (many?) use it (I do, to give an example). Whether a page gets tagged for A7 by an editor and deleted two minutes later by an admin, or gets deleted straight away, won't make much of a difference for the user being informed / warned. I have no objection to the proposal, automatically informing the user isn't a problem, but this shouldn't be used to impose new restrictions on what can be deleted. Fram (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't want Twinkle to introduce any unaccepted restrictions. However there is a somewhat accepted norm to allow users some time to work on their article before deleting under less serious criterion like A7. I'm thinking once you hit submit to delete under any of the A-criteria (except maybe A2), Twinkle will check when the article was created. If was created say, less than 30 minutes ago, it will prompt if you are sure you want to proceed with deletion. This functionality should probably also be applied when requesting speedy deletion. The idea here again I think is not to enforce some practice, rather to recommend and/or make it easier to follow that practice MusikAnimal talk 19:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I've got a better idea. Unless it's a copyvio / attack or something actually urgent, one editor should CSD tag it, and then another editor can delete it if they agree with the assessment. It's best to keep the "editor" and "administrator" roles separate. NE Ent 21:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Why? When I come across an article written by FirstNameLastName with the text "FirstName LastName is a Software developer who works for Tata Consultancy Services Lmtd.", I don't wait for a second opinion, I A7 delete on sight. Tagging articles for deletion is hardly part of the "editor" role, it is maintenance, just like deletion is. People are made admins (or remain admins) because their judgment in deletion discussions is judged to be sound and because they are trusted not to use the tools too fast normally. If admins regularly make bad deletions, they are normally called upon this. Adding bureaucracy (the need to have two people involved in a speedy, the need to wait 30 minutes, the need to first inform the page creator, ...) will only result in poor pages being kept longer (with more pages slipping through the cracks), encouraging people to create more of the same. Is there an actual problem your "better idea" is solving, or is it just a philosophically "better" idea? Fram (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Admins needed at UTRS[edit]

It seems that I am practically the only admin reviewing unblock requests that come in through UTRS lately, and as a result it is getting backlogged. Some of them are appeals of blocks I did, so I can't review them. UTRS is generally actually simpler than on-wiki unblock reviews as it is mostly semi-automated. If you don't have a UTRS account it is easy to get one, see WP:UTRS for details. More checkusers would be handy as well, I'm still pretty new to CU and some of these appeals need a more experienced CU to handle them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for your dedication and time Beeblebrox. I don't have a lot of time to respond to appeals these days but I remain the active tooladmin and will approve accounts for any admins who can volunteer some time. Most appeals are either easy declines (trolling or companies) or referrable to on-wiki.  · Salvidrim! ·  21:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a couple there right now that I'm not sure what to do with. They are from IPs that are blocked as proxies. The persons filing the appeals claim to be in mainland China, which is one of the valid reasons for granting IPBE, but they don't have an account, they just want the proxy unblocked. I know that's a bad idea, but what I'm not sure about is if they can create an account at all while stuck behind the great firewall, so I really don't know how to respond. Any ideas? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I did a few of them and I'm waiting for blocking admin input on a couple others. I'll do more once my latest headache fades away. Katietalk 22:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm back from my unexpected break and will be able to help out more. I'm knocking a bunch of the outstanding requests back now.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
PS @Beeblebrox: I created a new template for IPBE requests where the range is hardblocked if you would like to use it in the future. (title: "IPBE request on hard rangeblock").--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello Beeblebrox. I have emailed the UTRS admins list to offer my assistance. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome. The more the merrier. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yamaguchi先生 I regret to inform you that we have not received an e-mail from you. In any case, to volunteer you can simply register an account here. We're currently developping a new OAuth system to auto-authenticate admins, bypassing the need for individual registration, for that's just a project. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  03:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Deceased admin/Dreadstar[edit]

Here Dreadstar.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC))

Sad news. –xenotalk 18:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this is outing but can I ask how this information was obtained? I corresponded with Dreadstar as recently as last fall so this is a surprise to me. Regardless of the fact that he was a former admin, he was a longtime Wikipedia contributor. Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
News was obtained by Diannaa: [9]. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Liz is in the US, so that's the Northern Hemisphere fall. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • FWIW: In my past conversations with Dreadstar - I believe that he preferred that his privacy be respected. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Littleolive oil and Ched in particular, I was wondering whether his family or friends (at some later point) could be asked for a good photograph of him for Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, but I can't work out whether he would have wanted that. I think maybe yes, but I'm not sure. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I've left a note at WP:BN. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Aggressive Canvassing (WP:VOTESTACKING) to Ensure Deletion[edit]

See ANi Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

move to ANI - sorry posted on wrong board LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bambifan question[edit]

Could someone familiar with Bambifan address WP:RFPP#Bambi II? The article was semiprotected in 2008 after a pile of trivial vandalism, and a new user asked that it be unprotected. The user in question doesn't at all look like a Bambifan account (all other edits are stuff like [10] and [11]), so I'm not questioning the request; I just don't know how we handle these pages that Bambifan loves to mangle. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that, in the absence of any BF activity, the article should be unprotected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for Trinacrialucente[edit]

WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
boomerang to filer Legacypac (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. And yes, this is an actual proposal. I hereby propose we ban Trinacrialucente for removing talk page comments without warning, making personal attacks, canvassing, and copyvio. Evidence found will be below:

If you see his talk page history, it is often blanked, shows a dangerous edit summary, is his block log (notice the copyvio), is an old but shocking example

For the community, (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Non-admin comment My personal suggestion for AN is that whenever the first edit of IP is to come to AN or ANI to suggest a user be banned, it should be speedily closed under WP:DRN, followed by an WP:SPI. Jeppiz (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
IP blocked for disruptive editing after blanking AN and issuing a PA on his talk page. Katietalk 17:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TFA semi-protection[edit]

Hello. Earlier today I semi-protected Banker horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to vandalism from multiple IP editors and newly registered accounts. It has been brought to my attention that this is today's feature article and was not intended as a controversial administrative action. Please review and adjust the expiration time (or remove semi-protection entirely) as warranted. Signing off, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've shortened it to just cover while it's TFA because it's incredibly unlikely any vandalism will continue after that. And no prejudice against any other admin shortening it further if they think even that is overkill. I will note we don't seem to be as leery about protecting TFAs as we once were, so the current situation is probably fine. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:RHaworth Wrongful deletion[edit]

Banned user, nothing to see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:RHaworth wrongfully deleted Draft:List of shape topics in various fields under G13 but it was never under the AFC banner. This was no small draft and a lot of information has been lost. (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Click on the title and get this advise: 11:51, 24 January 2016 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:List of shape topics in various fields (G13: Abandoned Article for creation – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND /G13) Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't see where you have approached User:RHaworth and asked for it to be undeleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Look at 166's contribs; it looks like they are the banned IP from the oldest person debacle. They also posted on ANI from a different 166 address also about draft space deletions. Looks like they have a new pet project. Rgrds. -- (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Orthodox2014?[edit]

User indeffed by Bishonen. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A topic ban on User:Orthodox2014 has already been suggested at WP:BLPN and I for one agree it may be the only solution left. Orthodox2014 has been a single issue editor on the Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management apart from a brief sojourn on 17/18 January. A number of experienced editors including myself have attempted to improve the articles in the interests of balance, accuracy and NPOV. User:Smalljim in particular has expended a great deal of time recently engaging Orthodox2014 in discussion with an attempt to reach agreement or, at the very least, explain their actions to improve the article. Orthodox2014 in response has taken to lengthy accusations of 'libel' at WP:BLPN, personalised scrutiny of Smalljim's edits on the article Talk page and noticeable 'forum shopping' at WP:BLPN, Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance.

Orthodox2014's recent tactic has been to create his own version of the article and, after considerable discussion and incremental edits, revert wholsale [12][13] or dump his preferred sandbox version back [14][15], making it difficult if not impossible to meaningfully discuss any issues. They have, in their most recent post on Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson announced their intention to do the same thing again, after which no doubt we will have all gone full circle. Their obsessive attention to one specific subject is not constructive and a draining time and resources which can be better applied elsewhere.

Pinging other involved editors @Doncram, DGG, Green Cardamom, Grayfell, and KoshVorlon: (sorry if I've missed anyone) Sionk (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't guess the motive, but the editing is obviously unconstructive, and there does not seem any way of reasoning with him. This is the only recourse short of a block. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That is a particularly vexing and unconstructive approach to editing, I think a TBAN is amply justified. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm past thinking a TBAN would necessarily stop the user's character assassination campaign against Smalljim, which is now officially past ridiculous. I've blocked indefinitely. Read all about it on User talk:Orthodox2014. It's an ordinary block, not arbitration enforcement. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close, please[edit]

Discussion has since been closed by an uninvolved party. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The debate appears to have run down and some of the more vociferous are now topic-banned, it's enormous and slow to load, I think we could probably do with closing it now. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massive MFD reversal required[edit]

Hasteur has pointed out that hundreds of MfD discussions have been wrongly decided in terms of this stale theory for Draftspace. There are multiple discussions of the like today. Can someone reciew all past discussions and reverse those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with "probably not". If consensus was that the pages be deleted, they get deleted. WP:REFUND is always available if anyone actually wants to work on any of this stuff again. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is clearly WRONG. Again, the CREATOR of Draftspace says that MFD is wrong. These must be overturned as against policy. Everyone who points this out has been ignored. (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
"Required?" No. "Discussed?" Sure. Hasteur's doing that now. As noted yesterday to the other block-evading IP, retribution is uncalled for. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand why the unregistered editor is saying that the consensus is clearly wrong. MFDs, like AFDs, are decided by consensus. What exactly is the unregistered editor saying was done wrong? Drafts can be speedy-deleted (not just MFDd) if they are stale. I have often nominated drafts from MFD if they are in my opinion unsalvageable (especially if created by users who were later blocked as promotional), or if the author is tendentiously resubmitting them without improving them. Why is the unregistered editor saying that the consensus was wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs) 21:43, 21 January 2016‎ (UTC)
He's quoting User:Hasteur who has declared that "I had a hand in creating the Draft namespace, so I tell you with great authority there was no mandate for any form of Stale Deletion. If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong" which is nice and all but he's no authority on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
If I see this correctly, then quite a bit of those stale drafts were personal unsubmitted drafts from active editors that were moved into draft space without asking the active editors. Some of those got tagged for deletion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────That sounds about right. The issue here is what is the best use of our limited administrative resources. One option is to compile a list of every one of these, go through them one-by-one, and determine which ones may have been deleted inappropriately. Another option is to just restore any draft that is a subject of a request at WP:REFUND, which we would do anyway and requires no further action or discussion. I vote for option two. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the standard WP:REFUND process is available and works; also Hasteur's WP:OWN attitude towards Draftspace is concerning. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No, there were no unsubmitted drafts from active users. Those were inactive users. Everyone there claims that I was stealing pages from active but no one can point to one for a good reason, it didn't happen. User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Afrikaner identity politics was a single draft moved to draftspace in February 2014 by Dodger67 (NOT ME), left inactive the whole time, tagged with AFC in August 2015, left inactive another six months and then the editor was given a G13 notice in January 2016 and exploded onto that page screaming about me stealing and deleting pages from active users. Point out a single one and I will move it back and reverse it immediately. An editor leaving a single sentence sitting around for a year and a half in draftspace is not the same as "stealing drafts from active users and deleting them." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll note again that, contrary to what is asserted, there's no indication that any active users lost their drafts. WP:STALEDRAFT is pretty clear that one year of inactivity is sufficient to be considered stale and for them, the pages not deleted per CSD nor blanked nor taken to MFD were moved to draftspace, tagged with the AFC without asking for a review and the editor was notified. The editor was again notified when G13 became applicable and so was instructed to go to WP:REFUND if the draft was deleted. As always, if there's interest in any draft there, I'm willing to refund and move it to whoever wants it. The local consensus expressed there does not seem to be in policy expressed elsewhere (in particular the view that draftspace is exempt from WP:WEBHOST for some reason). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no reason to waste our limited amount of admin hours to manually rethink each and every draft-space MFD; should any be brought to REFUND (you should only do it if you either want it back personally, or are acting on the behalf of someone who seems to), it can be re-discussed there based on your issue here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible bot login problems / logged out bots[edit]

I've been seeing a few notes in various locations, that changes to the bot logon process may already be in effect. See Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Breaking_change for more technical details. Possible impacts: certain bots may not be able to log in. If the bot checks to ensure it is logged in before operating, it may be out of operation. If not, it may edit without logging in. Please evaluate impact if it appears to be a not logged in before just blocking (e.g. if the edit summary or comments indicate the bot and the edits are not massively disruptive the block may be able to wait). Contact the operator if known and refer them to Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Breaking_change. Should it continue, block as necessary. — xaosflux Talk 13:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Basque&Roll- Vandal and sockpuppeteer[edit]

He made several ip disruptive edits (as in Olympiacos B.C.. They were reverted by Jim1138 and myself. As soon as the page was protected, he returned today with the exact same edit he made as ip user (vandalism - POV edit in a matter already discussed and explained over and over again in the past), this time as Basque&Roll. There is a high posibility that he uses even more ips. I made a report for Checkuser here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Basque&Roll, but he keeps vandalizing (see Olympiacos B.C.). At first he vandalizes as ip user, then the page was protected, now he keeps on as Basque&Roll. It's obvious that he has some kind of fixation and as soon as the page was unprotected (after a six-month protection) on 25 December 2015, he came back with the same old story. It's the same drill. I don't want to revert yet again because I'll violate 3RR. I defer to the admins. Gtrbolivar (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the proof (beyond any shadow of doubt) that he is the same person (ip and account): [16] and after the page gets protection: [17]. Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, this isn't really the right place for it, but who cares. EdJohnston, you semi-protected the article, which is fine with me, but I'm not sure I see the IP-hopping. There's a bunch of IPs in that history; are they making these edits? Because if that is the case then there's abuse going on rather than, say, forgetting to log in. Gtrbolivar, filing an SPI with a request for CU is way over the top and, as far as I can tell, premature. To put it another way: I don't mind longterm semi-protection (it's par for the course with sports teams), but I don't see yet that this is some serious socking or account abuse problem. In the meantime I'm going to have a word with the editor--Gtrbolivar, you should have done that already, and you should have notified the editor of this thread. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies Forget to log in? He made edits after edits as an ip user. When the page was protected and he was unable to edit as an ip user, he came back with his account and made the exactly same reversion. Here is the proof: [18] and after the page gets protection: [19]. He comes back from time to time with the same story. We explain it, he goes away and after months/years, when the page becomes unprotected, he comes back with different ips and does the same thing. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • EdJohnston did absolutely the right thing, the page was protected for six months and the protection ended on 25 December 2015. After that, numerous ips started messing with the page. Every ip user who wants to become basketball coach does it through wikipedia. This - Basque&Roll has a certain fixation-POV regarding a matter which has been discussed and explained numerous times in the past. This page needs permanent semi-protection 100%. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Checkuser can't act in this situation since it implies revealing IPs. But if the registered editor continues to repeat these changes it may be best to re-file at WP:AN3. I left a warning for User:Basque&Roll. I wish somebody could explain to outsiders what this war is actually about. (On the article talk page, rather than here). All I see is a bunch of (apparently) non-consensual changes that get reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Gtrbolivar, you gave those diffs already, and they don't prove it is a longterm problem. I am not saying Ed did not do the right thing; I was saying he did. I think you should be careful talking about fixations lest you be accused of having one yourself; next time, if you say something has been discussed extensively, please point to such discussion--which I assume happened on the talk page, and which I hope shows consensus against the other editor. Finally, the account continued edit warring so I blocked them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want me to explain yet again what's this all about I'll do it on the article's talk page. It's something so obvious and self-evident that it's a complete waste of time. The matter was discussed in the edit summaries, not in the talk page because it is something so simple and plain that nobody, except this ip user-Basque&Roll, would spent his time explaining self-evident things in detail. Now the fact that you imply that the fixation may be mine really saddens me, but I won't react because I'm aware that you, as an admin, should be impartial and objective. But it was truly unnecessary and unfair. Gtrbolivar (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't so clear to Ed or to me; and note that things that seem obvious to us aren't obvious to others. Yes, that should be on the talk page. And I believe you should not use phrases like "fixation" since they can easily be perceived as personal attacks. In the end, they have nothing to do with what we should be doing here, which is focusing on content. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Motion to return Oversight privileges to Floquenbeam[edit]

A motion has been posted at Arbitration requests/motions that Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is re-appointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored.

Comment from the community is encouraged either at the above linked page or via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee if the comment is private or sensitive.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for review of Kasaragod article[edit]

Thread has been moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Request for review of Kasaragod article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ooops, I goofed![edit]

Administrators need to be open to explaining the rationale for the decisions they make. KrakatoaKatie has responded to Skyring's argument and she has said she could have made a different, better decision in this incident. Regarding other disputes among some of the editors, please take your case, with diffs, to the appropriate noticeboard or, even better, Dispute Resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is a common and normal human failing to downplay one's errors. How many times does an investigative journalist turn up on the doorstep of some public figure accused of an interesting scandal (diversion of government funds to build a new wing on their mansion, sending photographs of party members to ex-lovers etc.) and the answer is "No Comment"?

We're all public figures here on Wikipedia, and our admins are a little more visible than most, I guess, being magistrates, maintenance workers, local politicians, teachers and donut-munching deputy sheriffs all in one. They fill an important role here in our community, and for the most part they do a fine and thankless job.

But every now and then, like every other human being, they screw up a little.

Twice recently, I've found an admin to have made an error. Probably an honest error: an oversight in haste, a failure to know every single line of every statement of wikiprocedure, whatever. But when the mistake is raised privately, the response has been "No comment".

I don't think that's what we should expect from admins. I think that if admins are expecting others to toe the line, comply with policy, admit to misbehaviour and face consequences, then they should accept the same in their own wikibehaviour. If they get something wrong, as every one of us does from time to time, then what's wrong with admitting it?

OK. Rant over. This example, from an admin I've never dealt with in the past, is an honest mistake, so far as I can see. I'm not looking for any blame to be laid or action to be taken. The thing's past and let's keep it there.

But the problem remains. An admin makes a mistake, responds "No Comment", and if the matter ends there, then there's a sour taste and a lack of transparency. That's not good for the community, when editors begin to doubt the powers that be, such as they are.

The incident in question is on WP:3RRN now archived here. These two editors had previous history of edit-warring, resulting in User:Dennis Bratland receiving a warning.[20]

This incident is pretty straightforward: each party reported four reverts by the other and each claimed they had only made three. The admin, User:KrakatoaKatie, blocked one editor (User:Spacecowboy420), saying:

I am sure that she believed she was correct, but she actually erred here. WP:3RR states (in part):

Bratland had made four reverts in 24 hours: three on one word, and one on another. Both parties had crossed the bright line.

SpaceCowboy420 raised this in an unblock request here and later on KrakatoaKatie's talk page here. No comment, except to say "See you in court." So, here we are.

Admin Krakatoa Katie has indicated that she will respond here. I'd like to hear what she has to say. Again, I don't think she has done anything wrong beyond being unaware of the exact wikilaw, and she acted in good faith, but there are wider implications here, and I believe that this is an appropriate forum to discuss them.

  1. If an admin makes an error and polite discussion ensues over the problems this has caused, is a "No comment" response appropriate? This forces the editor to either give up in frustration, or "take it to court", which can be a daunting process for some, especially new editors.
  2. If the editor is blocked, the difficulty level is higher. There is a (possibly indefinite) delay before the wronged editor can take it further, and if the admin refuses to acknowledge or engage in polite discussion on the blocked editor's talk page, then that creates more frustration with Wikipedia and its processes.

Can we do anything to help both admins and editors work through such issues in a transparent and non-judgemental fashion? --Pete (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have blocked both editors and fully protected the page, though much good it would have done. One gets upset because another wasn't blocked, another gets upset because another was. They throw accusations of sockpuppetry around but won't take it to SPI. They're still edit warring over the word 'winningest' on Harley-Davidson XR-750, they're still sniping at each other over multiple articles about motorcycles, and they're dragging it out from my talk page to Swarm's (two separate sections) to SQL's to others, I'm sure. It's becoming a problem with each of these editors disrupting all over the encyclopedia. Topic bans may be in order, but someone else needs to do it. I have no opinion on the article content and I'm not going to take any further administrative action here. Katietalk 18:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, Katie, I'm not concerned with your actions as an admin. I believe you acted in good faith in that incident. I'm interested in your inability to respond in polite discussion when the error was pointed out. --Pete (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec)Unblock- both editors crossed the 3RR line, so they either should both be blocked, or neither should be. As Pete says, one revert by one of the parties was disregarded for erroneous reasons. This could unfortunately give the impression of playing favourites. Reyk YO! 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In such situations like this? the article should be protected. If blocks are going to be handed out? it shouldn't be to just one participant. Certaintly not 60hr blocks, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The block was 24 hours, not 60 hours.[21].—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Pardon me. I was speaking of Administrator Swarm's 60hr-block of Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Lousy block, and attempts to evade valid criticism after the lousy block don't impress me. KrakatoaKatie should be sent back to admin school, if we had such a thing. Meantime I don't think she should exercise admin tools unless she is able to grasp the magnitude of her error. I don't see such understanding in her statement above. I would welcome further reflection on her actions followed by a better statement. Otherwise my respect for her judgement skills will be permanently tarnished. Realistically we do not desysop for one stupid mistake followed by avoidance. In a way that's a shame sometimes. --John (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to avoid criticism. I'm open to criticism anywhere and I try to respond as politely as I can. I think what happened on my talk page was the editors in question started talking amongst themselves and I wanted that to play out, without realizing I let it go on too long without my own input. Sorry about that to all involved. As I said above, I should have blocked both editors and protected the page. No excuse for not doing that. We've got a problem now, though, with the disruption spilling out in multiple places, and that needs to be discussed somewhere. Katietalk 19:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@John: I also don't think Katie was attempting to avoid criticism. See my comments below (or diff here)—Bagumba (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair points, KrakatoaKatie, and I apologise if my comment was unduly harsh. I think when I looked at it the edit I found troubling was this one. It is always better to deal promptly and openly with such requests, rather than refer them to a central venue like this one. But I accept you made an honest error and have acknowledged its seriousness. Thanks for that. I also agree there is a wider problem. --John (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • These discussions would take far less time if Pete/Skyring would simply tell the truth. I wish I could make this brief but the facts don't allow it; we have to wast valuable time with point-by-point refutations of Skying's ludicrous howlers.

    Skyring habitually posts statements which are blatantly untrue, easily disproved by the page histories, or easily Googled reliable sources, and when you point out that he's making erroneous statements, he doubles down, and fills talk pages with long rants repeating the same unsupported claims. Fundamentally, Skyring never gets the point. At least four admins, Drmies, SQL, KrakatoaKatie, and Swarm told Skyring to drop the stick, but here he is. Can't ever drop the grudge and move on. It gets so frustrating that you are sometimes drawn into making personal attacks, like when I said "You are a ***** liar, Pete".

    Drmies pointed out that while "f***** off" is not usually considered a personal attack, calling someone a the other thing is, and so I WP:LISTENed and resolved not to keep calling Pete that and instead tell him to "f**** off" as often as necessary when he is posting more of these false claims.

    The MOS winningest debate? All about opinions that defy gravity, or verifiable, reality-based facts that force us to one conclusion. The VW emissions violation debate with me, Skyring and John? Some thing: let the sources guide us, or make up our own tone and wording with no regard for external sources. XR-750? Dodge Tomahawk? Also a basic question of whether we arbitrarily ignore what's in the sources based on ignorant opinions, or whether we follow wherever the sources lead us, like it or not.

    The falsehoods that this thread begin with are the howlers that these admins ignored Skyring's whining and said "no comment". Not true. Look, anybody can read the record. He was told, 1.) admins are not required to use their tools 2.) the target of the complaint was blocked 3.) one of the reports against Dennis Bratland (moi) was for 3 reverts, not 4, and item 4.) Skyring was blocked for edit warring after having posted in the discussion at the MOS talk page, proving he was already aware of it, and edit warred more after he was "officially" notified of the discussion he had already participated in, and edit warred again after he agreed to stop! Wow! No wonder. 5) He was told that his block was also the result of his history of 3RR blocks, harassment, Wikihounding, refusal to drop the stick and arbcom interaction bans from his obsession with getting even with others (as he is doing right now).

    Maybe Skyring doesn't like the answers he got, yet here he is, with the chutzpah to baldly accuse these admins of not explaining their decisions, of saying "no comment". The whole premise is a lie hi-fucking-lariously bullshit.

    I'm sorry I don't have every single diff of the above events, but Skyring has been disrupting Wikipedia for something like 12 years and he is very skilled, and prolific. He gets away with it partially because it's so much effort for one person to collect all the evidence, and so much work to review all of it. Look at virtually every page he has posted on in the last several weeks: the evidence proving he is making false claims is all there. It would be wrong to call him a purveyor of falsehoods for that, but who could blame you for wanting him to "f*** off" after wasting so much time learning that he never should have started this because the facts don't bear out a bit of it.

    @KrakatoaKatie: The reason I have not taken this to SPI is that I already did and the IP trail doesn't support it. I've said that whether they are the same person, or several people, intentional or accidental, the behavior shows that they are meat puppets who edit in a coordinated, tendentious way, they have admitted tracking my contribution list to find targets, and that is Wikihounding and meat puppetry. But they'll never get blocked for it unless a volunteer spends a great deal of their time researching it, and that's a thankless task. Look at the admins who are now facing blowback for trying to mitigate some of the damage caused by Skyring, Spacecowboy420, 72bikers and Zachlita. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: KrakatoaKatie erred in their interpretation of 3RR, but there's no denying the blocked editor was edit warring. Being that the editor who made the report to AN3 was also warring, alternatives such as full protection would have been better options. I don't think she's been intentionally ignoring the requests. The block was 24 hours, and the unblock request was clearly against WP:NOTTHEM, and the block expired. Looking at the related thread on her talk page, it started off as more about THEM, before others turned it into a TLDR mess over the related debate over the word winningest. Katie's suggesting a topic ban for multiple editors is not far fetched. See the chaos and voluminous text at related threads over an MOS debate on winningest, MOS debate on article tone, and the ongoing AN3 report by the OP here, Skyring, on Dennis. Skyring themselves has already been blocked over this winningest debate . The winningest participants need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.—Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Speaking of dropping the stick, Bagumba… I've made it quite clear that this discussion isn't about any of that. I'm not criticising Krakatoa Katie for her admin actions. I believe she acted in good faith. It's the consequent question about admins withdrawing themselves from polite discussion, even when they have made an honest error. If you want to bring up other matters, perhaps another forum? Or well, take your own advice and drop the stick? Please. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You are more than welcome to present the date of my last edit related to winningest in comparison it to yours. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
        • "Gaslighting" is the specific term for the type of harassment Skyring is doing to you and the rest of us here.Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Was anyone checking out what Skyring was posting at the exact time he was here projecting his own inability to drop the stick onto Bagumba? He's over at Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750 pestering me to keep debating him about Winningest! Less than 1 hour after that, he's back here skeevishly trying to take the high road on dropping the stick. But wait it gets better: I said to him: "It's WP:WABBITSEASON, bud. I just can't do this with you any more". And does he finally stop debating winningest? Of course not, he goes on hectoring me: "Just out of curiosity..."!!! This is gaslighting, it's provoking more pointless, lame discussion then attacking others for beating the same dead horse. Swarm specifically told Skyring it was these kinds of two-faced broken promises that bought him a 60 hour block. Back on January 14, Drmies warned Skyring: "Dennis Bratland may be wrong in all kinds of ways, I don't know, but hounding is still a policy violation. I really, really, hope that you two can leave each other alone." And, of course, Skyring made another false promise "Thanks for the advice. I'll do more watching and less helping."
  • The other boomerang Skyring has coming his way? Forum shopping. He's said he's not here to get any one de-sysoped, and not here to criticize any admins. Why the hell is he here now? Same old same old: to get Dennis Bratland. He wanted to get me blocked, twice, at AN/I, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. He asked to get me blocked twice at 3RR/N, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. He took it to 3 (or was it 4?) different admin's talk pages, and didn't get the outcome he wanted. So now? Here he is, at AN, posting false assertions and disingenuous canards hiding his real purpose: trying again, in yet another forum, to get Dennis Bratland blocked. If he doesn't get the block he's after today, is he going to be allowed to keep coming at me in yet more forums until he gets the revenge he seeks? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Pete, Katie and all concerned. The block was short, I was curious if it was a result of an error, or just me deserving a block. I was also curious as to why other parties were lucky enough to avoid a block. Those questions have been answered. I stand by my comments that Dennis was in violation of 3RR and should have been blocked, but for a stale violation that wouldn't seem to help much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Not trying to pile on here as this subject matter has nothing to do with me. But really do not appreciate my name once again brought up about sock and meat thing. Dennis you openly stated that the IP trail doesn't support it. So there is no evidence to support it yet you continuously make these false unsupported accusations. Then repeatedly go on too attack other editors of making false or unsupported claims. Not sure if you are aware that is a bit of a contradiction as well this claim. they have admitted tracking my contribution list to find targets I have never done this or made that statement and I could be wrong but not aware of others making that statement either. Or am I aware of some conspiracy out to get you as you have repeatedly stated verging on sounding like paranoia. But you have openly admitted this. When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) And that was proven by him posting on my talk page just moments after another editor he deems disruptive that he follows around. Even when asked politely to stay off my talk page with harassing messages. Dennis you are aware the admin has stated she made a mistake in not blocking you. Because I see no remorse no apology no humility nothing just more attacks more incivility. And you have gone on to the very same misconduct of the 3rr rule. Having not been reprimanded on your misconduct has just seem to emboldened you. And maybe you feel like the rules don't imply to you. Because it has made you a bear to deal with when a editor does not share your views. None of this gives me any pleasure to say. And as I live a very active life I have limited time to come here and edit. But instead editing I find myself either defending myself or in some drawn out debate over what should just really be a trivial matter. 72bikers (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This statement by Dennis sums up how much respect he has for Wikipedia and the attitude in which he interacts with others: " instead tell him to "f**** off" as often as necessary" while it might not be a personal insult as per certain guidelines, it shows a total lack of respect for his fellow editor and a very aggressive, confrontational and provocative attitude. How this attitude can be seen as compatible with a group project like Wikipedia is beyond me. I see no reason why Dennis should be allowed to continue editing, especially when he sees nothing wrong with acting like this towards fellow editors. Indef block please. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
IP evidence is not definitive proof of socking or not socking. The above comments are yet more evidence that these guys follow each other around, yapping at each other's heels "me too! me too!" It doesn't matter if they are intentionally acting as meat puppets, or if it is entirely accidental that they ignore Wikihounding policy, click on my contributions list, and then each, individually, without coordination, choose to hound me and all agree to oppose me. The point of WP:DUCK, which Spacecowboy420 and 72bikers have proven once again, is that the behavior is the problem, regardless of what caused the behavior. The behavior is Wikihounding and meat puppetry. I've posted many diffs showing they track me, and they have admitted the click on conbribs for that purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Rehashing the edit-war and block is pointless, IMHO. What's done is done. The problem as I see it is that if an admin is unable to engage in polite discussion with the person they have just blocked, where an error has been made, they are unable to respond effectively to correct the problem. If the blocking admin has been called away from Wikipedia for some reason (travel, illness, parturition, drunkenness, whatever) or feels that they haven't made a mistake at all, or just doesn't want to admit it, then there is perceived injustice.

When unblocked, there is the chance to discuss with the blocking admin, but again, if the admin is unable or unwilling to respond to a polite request, the next option seems to be here or WP:ANI

I'm not saying this is the case here, but some admins (being naturally human) are inclined to take shortcuts, and "No Comment" is certainly an easy option to take, especially if one feels that errors are things made by others. --Pete (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Collapse digression"? You mean the part about the WP:BOOMERANG that you've earned? I don't think so, bud. I can see why you'd want to suppress any thought of that, but you're the guy who jumped from one venue to another to another bleating "Dennis Bratland! Dennis Bratland!" It is a fact that you are gaslighting, hounding, and that you are pushing a vendetta, and forum shopping to get your way. Don't try to censor it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing of comments: "Collapse digression" refers to Pete's edit summary when they attempted to collapse a large set of comments here at 15:55, 27 January (UTC), which included remarks concerning them. While WP:TPG allows an editor to be bold when they believe a discussion has gone off-topic, the guideline clearly states: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." It's clearly not productive to edit war on what is "off topic", as they did again in another attempt to collapse the same comments at 16:41, 27 January. Please leave it to an uninvolved editor at this point. Personally, I think WP:BOOMERANG is fair to discuss. The accused, Katie, opined that "Topic bans may be in order", while John stated "I also agree there is a wider problem".—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Stray observation: Skyring grumbled but moved along when apparently male admins SQL, Drmies, and Swarm told him to drop the stick. But when an apparently female admin, KrakatoaKatie, ignored him, it seemed to inflame his sense of male entitlement, and precipitate this bizarre attempt at public shaming. Far fetched? I don't know. Is Skyring gaslighting? Is he as obsessed with me as Captain Ahab? Is he being so two-faced that it almost seems like a put on, like performance art? Maybe. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And now the gaslighting and beating a dead horse goes one and on. After four days, Skyring doesn't get the block he wanted at 3RR/N, after canvassing all sorts of talk pages, and forum shopping it to this noticeboard. So today, he floats the frankly batshit insane proposal for an indef (!) block for my 3 (not 4) reverts last week is that today I made two reverts. Where? Right here!

    "Discussion – polite discussion, as opposed to ranting at others – is far more productive" he says. So he comes here and I gave him the discussion he value so much, but it doesn't go the way he likes, so he tries to squelch it. I object -- Don't collapse my comments, bro! And what does Skyring do? He reverts! After edit warring over refactoring other people's comments, he heads else where to sniff, "edit-warring is wrong"!?! Edit warring is wrong, Skyring? How many times have you edit warred today? Well, here obviously. Fine, whatever. Where else?

    Here you reinstated your own personal attack on Miesianiacal (talk · contribs), where Skyring hits him for "a long history of severe violations of Wikipedia rules" Skyring? WP:POT much? Who has a longer history of violating WP rules? Longer than any of us? You, bud. Skyring calls Miesianiacal's good faith edits "vandalism", (that's the civil way to reach consensus, right?). Calls his ideas "odd" and calls him "often wildly out of touch with personalities and issues here." Which, even if true, is using WP:EXPERTISE to WP:OWN a topic and discourage participation and input. Who was it who said "Discussion – polite discussion, as opposed to ranting at others – is far more productive"? Uh, Skyring said it.

    So, If I should be "indef blocked" for two reverts today, shouldn't Skyring be indefed for his 3 reverts today? The day before today the guy who said "edit warring is wrong!" reverted twice.

    The common denominator behind all this drama is Skyring. He's obsessed chasing his white whale and has lost all perspective. He's had blocks and interaction bans before for exactly the same harassment. At the minimum, Skyring needs an interaction ban to stay the hell away from me. And if you really want the disruption to end, tell 72bikers, Zachlita, and Spacecowboy420 to leave me the hell alone too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANRFC again[edit]

Here's a story, for those who haven't met their recommended daily allowance of drama yet: Over the last few months, we've had a series of RFCs at WT:MEDRS, some of which would have benefited from closing statements by experienced admins. Most of these RFCs have dealt, directly or indirectly, with whether sources from a particular country, whose academic journals are under political pressure to publish only The Right Answer™, are desirable sources. (The overall "vote", if you care about numbers, is about 3 to 1 against this idea.)

We've simultaneously, and not really as a result of this, had another one of our periodic fights about the exact scope of MEDRS, with the usual (i.e., very low) level of immediate success, but with some useful and interesting comments that might eventually help us improve that guideline. This fight mostly covered the question of whether and when information about violent crimes needs medical sources, e.g., rather than legal or social ones. Having both of these fights at the same time, and mostly involving the same people, has been more than a little inconvenient.

(I'm omitting names, because identities actually don't matter much, and I don't want to bother with a long string of notifications or to have anyone think that the problem is just one person's personality.)

Order of RFCs:

  • The first round was originally closed by a NAC who was TBAN'd (from something unrelated to the RFC) last year. Multiple editors involved in this RFC were also involved in the TBAN discussion. As it happened – I explicitly do not allege any sort of dishonesty here, but rather an unfortunate circumstance that the NAC may not even have noticed – the closing statement was in favor of the minority who favor citing politically manipulated journals and against the editors who voted for the TBAN. "Losing" editors have made this NAC suffer for volunteering to close this enormous discussion.
  • Then we had a long fight about whether there exist things that are related to health, but that aren't exactly intended to be covered by MEDRS (e.g., violent crime). Initially, there were two of these RFCs; thankfully, the OP for the first stated that he formally withdrew it in favor of the other, and it therefore did not end up in the laundry list at ANRFC. (If it had, then we might have ended up with contradictory closing statements.) The second one was closed, about two months after it began, by an admin who deserves praise, because this was not a small task and because it was impossible to avoid disappointing some good editors. The thoroughly explained closing statement is getting a few complaints, but IMO they are largely respectful complaints, and I expect the overall dispute to settle down as people find ways to adjust and meet their needs.
  • The second round on politically pressured sources demanded that ediotrs pick a way to implement the first RFC even though they objected to everything about the close, from the outcome to the identity of the NAC. This newer one was closed the other day by an apparently innocent editor, who created an account two months ago and has made exactly 384 edits so far, including closing several RFCs and a lot of edits about a movie. The new editor has tried to provide helpful advice, like narrowing down the five options to the two least-contested.
  • Now we have another RFC that's trying to force people to pick between the two least-contested wordings about political sources, even though the clear signal from the editors is that they do not want any of those options at all. Realistically, I expect this to either keep going for a month, or for someone to propose a TBAN against the OP.

Why I'm bothering telling you about this:

The fact that two NACs have tried to close some of these incredibly contentious RFCs on hot-button issues means that we have a structural problem with ANRFC. We have a lot of "process" and a lot of "activity", but the RFCs that need admin attention aren't getting that attention.

I don't believe that this is due to having too few admins, because we had too few admins a few years ago, and we didn't really have this problem a few years ago. What's changed since then is:

  • One editor has been filling ANRFC with about 90% of the RFCs that have expired. The number of listed RFCs has gone up 3x to 4x compared to 2012, although the number of complicated or highly contentious RFCs does not appear to have changed. (I've checked the RFCs listings for formatting problems off and on for years, so I've got a decent idea of what goes through the pipe.) Listing almost everything might make the signal-to-noise ratio unfavorable for admins. When you see that there are dozens listed, with no sense of priority and with many that can have nothing more than a rubber-stamp on a nearly-unanimous vote, it would not be unreasonable to start ignoring the whole list. It's also on a separate subpage, which means that changes probably aren't appearing in your watchlist.
  • We have formally agreed that NACs can and should be encouraged to close all sorts of discussions, and we have relied upon their experience and wisdom to stop them from stepping into a mess like this. I actually saw the ANRFC listing for one of these a while ago, contemplated adding a note warning off NACs, and I decided that such a comment was unnecessary, because it was so obviously contentious that nobody except an admin would touch it. I was wrong. At this point, it might be reasonable for WP:NAC and related advice to stop assuming that all editors have the necessary experience and wisdom figure out which discussions come with a free bull's eye target for their backs.

I'm not really proposing a specific solution here. Instead, I want to point out that there is a problem, and that I have identified two separate factors that I believe are contributing to it. There may be others; I would really appreciate hearing ideas about other probable factors. I think that if we can identify the probable causes for this, then we might be able to find a way to make this system more functional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAC is less relevant than WP:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs and WP:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure. You were wrong in thinking a non-admin would not close the discussion because becoming an admin bestows no magical consensus deciding powers. In fact the majority of admins have little/no more experience in that area than many long-time editors. Not to mention the 'this is a contentious RFC' line is trotted out whenever someone disagrees with the result. Just because people have different opinions does not make something contentious. Although I will agree that most of the MEDRS stuff does follow that path by MEDRS own design. The problem at this point is not with non-admin closures, or closures in general, its that MEDRS is full of people who want MEDRS to apply everywhere. Even when it really shouldnt. Some of the recent articles I watch where people insist on a MEDRS compliant source - crime articles for example - are not remotely medical, yet people are seriously arguing crime is always a health issue so MEDRS should apply. Now couple that with the fact that at MEDRS, people generally fall into two camps, a)editors demanding the highest possible quality source (the inference being: Western published) and b)editors who want the criteria lowered so they can use all sorts of crap as a source anywhere MEDRS applies. This wouldnt normally be a problem (people arguing in their walled gardens) except for the aforementioned over-reach of MEDRS scope. It has the potential to impact large sections of wikipedia. At this very minute people are arguing over wording that (as it reads) says "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions." Anyone who spends any time at RSN knows that (apart from possible country of origin) those are considered all the time. The problem isnt with ANRFC, discussion closing etc, the problem is MEDRS and the crap thats argued over there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that a NAC wouldn't close those discussions because I figured that they had a decent sense of self-preservation, if nothing else, and that nobody in his right mind would really want to close a discussion involving thousands of words and lots of yelling. About half the list at WP:BADNAC and its #Pitfalls section applies, too. But that assumes that the NAC has enough sense to figure out when "a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous". Or even "The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally", for the newbie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know anything about this specifc situation but I do agree with WhatamIdoing regarding over-reporting at ANRFC. It's become a bloated mess that is often longer than the whole rest of this noticeboard, and as a result suffers from disinterest. I think a re-organization of ANRFC is in order, something that would make it clear what is a priority that really needs a close and what is just a low-level content dispute that petered out days or weeks ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • When I tried to deal with the over-reporting some time ago, merely removing stuff that didn't need to be listed, I got reverted: [22] and [23] were followed by reversions by Dicklyon (who hasn't touched ANRFC since his unblock) and by the 90%-filling editor. We need to enforce WP:ADMINSHOP — when an admin has responded to your request, don't re-post the request as if it had been removed by accident or by a vandal. If you don't like being told that it doesn't need a formal close, ask another admin privately; I'm not trying to shut down the asking entirely. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I fully support reigning in ANRFC. This even came up at one of the Village Pumps last fall, and I tried to get Cunard to quit spamming ANRFC, but got nowhere. I'm not an Admin, but even I took to knocking out some of those entries a few days back as "Not done" as they were clearly "uncloseable" – a significant percentage of the entries that keep getting spammed to ANRFC simply don't belong there. (As an aside, it might be good if something like that – "Uncloseable" or "Declined" – is added to the other options at ANRFC like "Done" or "Not done"...) But I think it's going to take concerted action from Admins to reign ANRFC back in. Heck, it might even require a temporary Topic Ban in one case... But this is going to have to be done by Admins – after all: this is your page here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I am seeing here, I think a formal RFC on ANRFC is in order to establish some reasonable guidelines and best practices for what should be reported there and how to handle the sheer volume of reports. I have been trying to force myself to take a prolonged break from creating policy RFCs, but I would offer up User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal as guidance for anyone wishing to construct such a process. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As a NAC that has closed quite a few RFC's on WP:ANRFC, I see no problem with the listing of RFC's in bulk. The editor opening them may not be aware of where to request a close and may just think its automatically done because the header is automatically removed. I honestly believed that when I started editing. The RFC's go down to a respectable level before more are added. As the editor who specifically requested an admin to close the last RFC on MEDRS, even if I were not involved I would not have closed it. Not because it was contentious, all RFC's are contentious to some extent, there is a disagreement, thats the reason a RFC was started in the first place. The reason is that a NAC was completely ignored when last a NAC closed a RFC there. There was no respect for the process and edit warring ruled. The RFC close was not followed, but the larger number of editors edit warred to keep the page exactly as it was. AlbinoFerret 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    The problem is that it's obfuscation through volume. I stopped looking there when I realized I was wasting my time going through all manner of discussions that are 1. almost without exception the most stunningly boring issues imaginable and 2. didn't need a formal close anyways. After a little while I felt like it'd be less painful to pound my nuts flat with a ball peen hammer, and judging by the size of it now I don't seem to be the only one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Agree with TBotNL – a significant percentage of the content getting put up at ANRFC are either, 1) not actual RfCs and thus don't belong there at all, or 2) are RfC's that are "unclosable" either because no real "Support/Oppose" voting took place or because there was too little discussion to even establish "Consensus/No Consensus". I doubt anyone has an issue with real "problem" RfC's being posted to ANRFC – the problem is 1) the volume of postings to ANRFC, and 2) the relative percentage of "junk" entries there. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    I have been checking for non RFC's for the last three months. I have seen some editors request a close of a discussion they are a part of. So far the only discussions that I have seen that are listed as a RFC had a RFC header removed by Legobot. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    I haven't scrupulously checked, so I'll concede that what you say may very well be true. Nonetheless, even if they had proper "RfC headers", some of the ones I've seen were not properly formatted as RfC's, and thus shouldn't have been put up at ANRFC. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    The bulk listings by Cunard rely entirely on the removal of RFC tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────yep. Just putting {{RFC}} on a page does not mean it has to have a formal close no matter what. Robotically reporting everyhting that has had that header on it at some point without seeing if it really needs a closer is a disservice to the community because it increases backlogs and leads to disinterest in the whole process. Look how bloated it is right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. There isn't currently any way to differentiate "bulk listing just because Cunard wants (almost) every single RFC to get a formal closing statement" from "this one really needs outside intervention", and the sheer volume of the bulk listings discourages people from searching for the critical ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you to the WP:ANRFC closers, particularly the recent prolific closers AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs), Fountains-of-Paris (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), GRuban (talk · contribs), and Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), for your hard work.

    Mariah Carey birth years discussion; a "consensus is clear" close is referenced 16 months later to enforce the consensus

    Here is a "consensus is clear" closure request from September 2013: link. The consensus was already implemented. Mariah Carey's two possible birth years were added to the article. An admin wrote "no need for a formal close of this". I asked again for a close after someone reverted against consensus, and Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed it.

    In January 2015 (16 months later), a new editor disputed the consensus version, saying only one year should be listed. Another editor responded with a link to the RfC, Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year. Had the RfC not been closed by an uninvolved editor, it would have been far more difficult to ensure the consensus is respected. "Read an uninvolved editor's summary of the RfC" is more likely to be heeded than "read this long, unclosed talk page discussion".

    Of course something like this doesn't happen to all "consensus is clear" discussions. But it is impossible to distinguish between the two types because we cannot see into the future. It is impossible to determine whether the consensus will be overlooked or ignored in the future. And it is not worth the time to hazard a guess because as S Marshall noted "Necessary or not, it's no real effort to close them" and as Ncmvocalist wrote, "it would take more effort to discuss whether to close or to discuss why signed comments were deleted".

    Why closing discussions is important

    Scott summarized it very well at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Too many discussions being added:

    Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

    Robert McClenon, one of RfC's dedicated and hard-working closers, explained why formal closure of even seemingly "consensus is clear discussions" is helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Benefits of Formal Closure:

    I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.

    Recently closed RfCs

    1. Talk:Kuwait Airways#RFC: Should a threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation against the airline be included in the article? (closure request):

      The discussion was split 3–2 to include the material in the article, but the closer closed the RfC as allowing the material based on strength of argument. Without an independent closer, the policy-based conclusion would not have been reached. The discussion looks like "no consensus", which means the material is excluded.

    2. Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 5#RFC Victim names (closure request)

      The discussion was contentious and from at a superficial glance looks like "no consensus", which means all of the material is excluded. But the closing editor carefully read the discussion and wrote a nuanced, eloquent summary of the discussion and the applicable policies, allowing part of the material to be included and part to be excluded.

    3. Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: Should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? (closure request)

      The discussion was split 5–3 to say that the glacier is disputed in the inbox. Without an independent closer assessing the strength of the arguments, this could be considered "no consensus". The closer reviewed the discussion and found there to be a consensus based on the strengths of the arguments to say that the glacier is disputed. The closer further noted that there was no consensus about how to word this.

      The close paved the way for a second RfC, Talk:Siachen Glacier#RfC: How should the infobox say that the glacier is disputed ? (closure request). The second RfC achieved a consensus for how to word the dispute in the infobox.

    The RfC close that prompted WhatamIdoing's post here

    WP:ANRFC has worked well for the past four years. If there are problems like inexperienced editors incorrectly closing RfCs, then those can be individually handled.

    I think the RfC close that prompted WhatamIdoing's post is Elvey (talk · contribs)'s close of Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 19#Request for Comment: Country of Origin. An RfC closure review was filed yesterday here. Non-admins have closed contentious RfCs in the past and have done a good job doing so. If there is a problem with this particular non-admin close, then it will be overturned at the closure review.

    Cunard (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

TLDR. The same thing is the reason why ANRFC is pointless; you overwhelm the important things with the trivial. Nyttend (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
As a point of fact, the RFC closing that prompted this was the one in which an editor with a two-month-old account and a grand total of 384 edits tried to issue a "ruling" in a controversial change to a major sourcing guideline. There is nothing about a closing review process that can fix the busted process that led such an editor to believe this was a good idea.
Also, I believe that all of us who frequent the drama boards are tolerably familiar with your belief that flooding ANRFC is a net benefit and that getting a single editor's view of a one-time discussion enshrined forever as The Consensus™ is a good thing. The fact that I disagree with your view does not mean that I'm unaware of your view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Cunard will often request "an experienced admin" vs "an experienced editor". Is there merit to having some categories based on this assessment? Cunard, what's the rationale for asking an admin close an item vice an editor? Alternatively, maybe categories based on Cunard's rough judgment: "likely contentious"/"not likely contentious". Would that poison the well though? --Izno (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing If the problem is that an inexperienced editor closed a RFC, the problem isnt with listing RFC's, but the editor who did the close. I am not placing the blame on the editor though. To my knowledge there is no policy, guideline, or even essay that controls or gives guidance on what qualifies as "experienced", and believe me I have looked. There is a need to spell this out, WP:CLOSE would be a great place for it. Maybe giving a minimum time/edit count to reference if you should be closing as an editor. It wouldnt be perfect because 3 to 6 months editing on a contentious topic to me is a greater teacher than doing a year of spell checking and removing stray commas on seldom edited topics. But at least it would give editors some idea if they should be closing. AlbinoFerret 17:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You and I are looking at the situation from different perspectives. IMO the important problem is not that an inexperienced editor closed an RFC. (That's easily fixed, with little long-term harm beyond possibly driving away an innocent and potentially good new editor.) The important problem is that the request for a closing statement was not visible to the small number of experienced policy experts who should have closed it.
User:Izno, what do you think about putting Cunard's NAC-suitable requests on a completely separate page? WP:AN would transclude only the smaller number of requests that are made by participants or that Cunard believes shouldn't be handled by a NAC. The less complex ones could go on another page. Perhaps admins would be more likely to see the ones that they need to look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You could technically put them all on the same page and only transclude the interesting ones here ({{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Administrators' noticeboard|<includeonly>}} and etc.), but yes, that was my general gist. Alternatively, you can keep them all on the same page and then just add some more subsectioning e.g. == Possibly contentious RFC == and ==Likely not contentious RFC==; everything still shows up here but I think the admins figure out what they need to then. Those are still solutions which may have problems (c.f. my comment earlier about possibly poisoning the well--Cunard brings up an example above that looks non-contentious but really isn't). --Izno (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, my personal opinion is that the latter concept is the better one. In fact, ANRFC was previous "sectioned" until several months ago when somebody decided it was a "brilliant" idea to remove the sections. But, at the least two sections: 'Contentious RfCs' (which would be transcluded here), and then a more general 'Unclosed RfCs' (which wouldn't be) would be a vast improvement. Also, it needs to be clear that non-Admins can "reject" RfCs from the second list if they are not properly formatted RfCs or are otherwise uncloseable, without fear of such judgements being frivilously reverted as a matter of course; also NACs need to have the authority to move entries from the first list to the second one if they determine that an RfC isn't "contentious" enough to require Admin attention... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Whenever sections are introduced, it seems that someone eventually removes them after a few months. Maybe the next time they're restored, there should be a hidden comment saying "Please do not remove these headings even if the section is empty." Sunrise (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall Very sensible idea, I also suggest to allow/recommend that if a NAC sees a RFC that requires an admin in the less contentious area, the NAC can move it into the admin section. AlbinoFerret 23:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Not relevant

User:WhatamIdoing, what is happening is because the WMF is refusing to hire competent people to override bad decisions made by editors and admins. Wikipedia is obviously broken. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Nyttend#RFC — QuackGuru's idea of a bad close is one where the admin assesses consensus and closes a discussion likewise, because "The closer must find out who is right or wrong." Would someone mind instructing QuackGuru on the standard method of decisionmaking here at Wikipedia, with a firm reminder that repeated attempts to have decisions closed because one side is right and the other wrong will result in QuackGuru's twenty-fifth block? Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
According to User:Mrjulesd Wikipedia is not a vote.[24] QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The WMF will continue to refuse to get involved in content decisions, including the content of guidelines such as this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"being ineducable"[edit]

Blocked indef by Bishonen, whihc saved me blocking per WP:NLT. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: This section was mistakenly placed here by me when it should have been located at WP:AN/I. The discussion as far as 05:59, 28 January 2016 has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"being ineducable". My apologies. -- MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal and LilaTretikov: the term ineducable refers to mental disability. Unless you publicly disclaim this assertion with respect to me throughout Wikipedia, all rights are reserved. M Mabelina (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bullying of Female editor by Shootingstar88[edit]

Shootingstar88 has been given a warning that it is inappropriate to speculate about an editor's real life identity beyond what they have voluntarily shared on Wikipedia and attempts to pursue this would be a violation of WP:OUTING policy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am a female editor and a female human. I have been personally attacked by editor Shootingstar88 accusing me of not being a female?? The gender biased personal attack on me is here. [25]. I retaliated to some degree on my talk page, but would never attack another editor in this way. I did believe that Wikipedia is trying to encourage female editors to participate, but this type of attack doesn't help that cause!!Charlotte135 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to prove my gender to any editor too. How can I do this please?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out why it would matter to Shootingstar88 whether you were male or female, but after reading the diff you provided, I see that you have somewhat misrepresented what they said. The nub of their claim was not that you weren't female per se, but that you are a men's rights activist masquerading as a female in order to push a men's rights POV on articles about women, and not get negative feedback for it. That's really quite different from what you reported here. Shootingstar88 is essentially claiming that you are not editing from a neutral point of view and are hiding your bias and philosophical conflict of interest bu pretending to be something you're not. So proving that you are female (which I'm not sure you can do - although someone from the WP:OTRS team can correct me on that if I'm wrong) doesn't really solve the perceived problem of bias and lack of neutrality. I would say you need to address that question, and not the other - and Shootingstar88 actually has some good advice for your there:

When I came here, I had trouble with the other editors too. But I discussed the issues and got over it, because in the end if you cite good studies that reflect the majority consensus in scientific literature then no one can revert your edits. Good research means you have to read a lot of scholarly reviews or replicated primary studies from pubmed or sciencedirect.

I think you should consider that. BMK (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am specifically talking about me being accused falsely of not being a female and extreme gender bias!! Wikipedia talk of how many men are editors compared with women and I am accused of not being female. This is extreme sexism. So, who is the WP:OTRS team? I am desperate now to prove my gender!! Why the hell should i have to though is the point. And here you are Beyond My Ken dismissing this personal attack. What type of sexist culture exists here???