Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts WP:AN WP:ANB For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

(Initiated 16 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 123 days ago on 22 May 2024) – RfC template was removed by a bot a few weeks ago, but this still needs a formal close. I am involved so I'd prefer to see someone else do it, particularly as I believe the discussion ended up endorsing my viewpoint. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 03:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done There wasn't much there to base a closure on. Anomie⚔ 14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 111 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 91 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had I not !voted, I would probably close this with "why in all hell did you think opening an RfC with nine options, many of which are very similar, would be a good way to find consensus?!?". We probably need a guideline advising against such inane choices. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 69 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to submit this. Adding my comment for bumping. - Ïvana (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 31 July 2024) Requesting closure on this discussion which has not had a new comment in a week when excluding its brief archival. The discussion is lengthy and split into multiple sections. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 47 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 40 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	6	14	20
TfD	0	0	1	5	6
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	0	25	25
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

(Initiated 43 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 11 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 8 days ago on 13 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 12 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 12 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 12 days ago on 10 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 291 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 139 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 117 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 115 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 105 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 84 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 27 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 26 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 16 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INVOLVED says

  In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

  Thus the essential nature of "involvement" by Wikipedia's standards is not about an editor's past personal off-Wikipedia history, but primarily about their on-Wikipedia relationship with the editor being sanctioned. Were sfarney's extremely broad definition of "involvement" to be accepted, admins with expert knowledge of, for instance, physics, would not be able to take any action against an editor whose transgressions were in the subject area of physics. That clearly goes against common sense, to remove from administrative action the very administrators who are best able to judge problematic behavior in a particular subject area. This being the case, sfarney's claim that The Wordsmith is "involved" is not valid, and the sanction should be upheld. BMK (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW I concur with The Wordsmith concerning Sfarney's sig, which I have found problematic for a while now, but which I didn't think was worth the effort ro complain about, since I come across it so inoften. Still, it is hard to read. BMK (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The user has clearly been well cognizant of the nature of Scientology article sanctions for some time, and was given ample notice in the past. [2] shows an interest in the topic in May 2015. (" The History of man page states there are recorded Hubbard lectures on space opera, too. I think the lead should be rewritten to remove this innuendo completely. It sounds like the Wiki has an axe to grind about scientology, instead of just telling the facts." Slade Farney).

And a host of warnings from Bishonen as well, culminating in an indefinite topic ban on Rick Alan Ross and "all related pages and content" (note that article is directly related to Scientology in itself). Not to mention [3].

Where a user has been long aware of the nature of the Scientology articles, and has substantially specialized in that general area, and been previously topic banned in a specific related area, they ought not be surprised that sanctions might apply.(Out of 1300 article edits, more than 300 relate to Scientology to a greater or lesser degree, Of 900 article talk page edits, more than 600 are related). The edit histories show no particular interaction with the administrator, The Wordsmith, at issue, so on both hands the appeal is problematic. Collect (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Wordsmith would classify as involved. If you look at Sfarney's talk page you will see discussions between the two. It's clear that Wordsmith was involved in a content dispute and as such should not have been the one to ban. I think we should listen to Wordsmith though where the offer is to rescind the 5.1 sanction, I believe as the imposing admin Wordsmith can do it without any other input. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:The_Wordsmith, I made a mistake and I struck out my comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The sanction was within administrator discression and not unreasonable. The Wordsmith has agreed to strike the Arbcom 5.1 sanction and keep the DS in place. No practical difference as far as the imposed editing restriction goes. Just because Rhe Wordsmith has experise in the area does not make him WP:INVOLVED and he has declined any COI which could make him so.

  Those are really the only issues to address. This is an appeal not a do-over of the AE discussion. Jbh^Talk 19:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Sfarney's last couple of comments above seem to be attempting to re-litigate the matter, which is not what an AE appeal is intended for. It is not another bite of the apple. BMK (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I regretfully agree. The AE page demonstrated the specific actions Sfarney took which resulted in the sanction being placed, and there is no reason to repeat them, or to attempt to ignore them. Regarding the comments he made about boasts, well, hell, I've done kinda the same thing myself above. with my comments about the quality of some of the libraries I haunt. In some cases, such statements can be seen as useful. I really don't see any basis for saying that The Wordsmith has to be counted as involved simply because he has read up on a subject IRL. If we took that position, a lot of our articles here would never be edited. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the comment above by Laval. Is Laval an involved editor in this? Should Laval have been notified for some reason? Is there any reason that Laval's medical condition should hold up a decision about whether Sfarney's appeal should be granted or not? The tone of the comment seems to imply that the answer to all these questions is "yes", but I'm not seeing where Laval is involved in this specific issue in any way, except perhaps as a general supporter of Sfarney. [4] BMK (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Laval's last few comments, I understand better now the editor's position, and suggest that because of their clearly deep partisanship, their comments should pay no part in the determination of whether Sfarney's appeal should be granted - I do not believe that Laval is capable of rendering an unbiased opinion in this matter. I assume that Laval has been notified of the Discretionary Sanctions in play for the Scientology subject area? BMK (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sfarney: You are under the mistaken impression that I am an admin - I am not; never have been, never will be. I am a mere rank-and-file editor. By filing this appeal here, instead of at AE, any uninvolved editor can discuss the question of your appeal - on AE it would have been any univolved admin. I assume you made the choice to come here for a reason - perhaps you thought that admins would be predisposed not to lift another admin's sanction, and that regular editors would be more sympathetic to your plight. That doesn't seem to have happened.
  Further, my assessment of Laval had nothing whatsoever to do with his "agreeing with you" and was based entirely on the words he wrote in his comment.
  I will also say this: you are doing yourself no good at all with your continued comments. In fact, to my eye, you're simply digging yourself into a deeper hole, at the bottom of which won't be a simple topic ban, but likely a block of some sort for disruptive editing. Just my opinion, of course, but that's the way I see it. Were I you, I'd lay off the "odder and odder" bit: you are a supplicant here, requesting relief from a sanction that appears to be approved of by the vast majority of commenters. Snideness isn't going to help you. BMK (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the AE matter is not going to be re-litigated, and you are not going to be able to "turn the tables" and make this about whether Prioryman is partisan or not. That's not the issue in this appeal, it simply does not enter into it. The issue has been plainly laid out and answered: Was the sanction valid? Yes. Was The Wordsmith "involved" by Wikipedia's definition? No. Therefore the appeal should be declined. BMK (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Legal advice"? What the heck are you talking about? BMK (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a reminder to @The Wordsmith: that because this appeal was filed at AN and not at AE, discussion about the appeal is among uninvolved editors not among uninvolved admins. Of course, an uninvolved admin will need to close the appeal, as usual. BMK (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Basketball-related:

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

Baseball related:

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

The following have been speedy deleted:

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devnarayan^[2]