Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 50 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Imane Khelif should get 1RR Arbitration Enforcement

(Initiated 11 days ago on 11 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Can an admin please close the two TBAN proposals which are present in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Reliability_of_GB_News_as_a_source_for_citations

(Initiated 767 days ago on 16 July 2022) Requesting formal closure due to current discussions over the reliability of the subject. CNC (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: - it doesn't look like this was ever a formal RfC, and I'm not really a fan of taking a 2 year old discussion to show the current consensus, given the number of procedural arguements within, and given that discussion is archived as well, I'm extra tempted not to change it (especially as I would be leaning towards a no consensus close on that discussion based on the points raised). Is a fresh RfC a better option here, given the time elapsed and more research into their reliability since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdann52 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor:  Not done Closures are intended to assess current consensus, not consensus from two years ago in an archived thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for both your replies, it's interesting to hear the assessment of no consensus from that discussion given previous/current interpretation of that discussion. It's looks like another RfC is needed after all then. CNC (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not an assesment of no consensus, that seems more like an assesment of no assesment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 112 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 109 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 109 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 80 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)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 61 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 50 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 49 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 48 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Trimpops2 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This closure is terrible. There's no explanation on how the consensus was determined. 93.142.80.133 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 45 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 45 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)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 43 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done no need for such a close ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 38 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 36 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 34 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Does_the_community_still_want_moved_pages_to_be_unreviewed

(Initiated 32 days ago on 21 July 2024)Requesting a formal closure, initiated a while back, last comment 11 days ago. Sohom (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 03:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting C4 (unused maintenance categories)

(Initiated 28 days ago on 25 July 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Al Jazeera

(Initiated 5 days ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPath^talk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note, the second section is snowing harder than the first one. The second section is unanimous based on the time of this comment. starship.paint (RUN) 08:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Part 2 of the RFC has been closed. Thanks to ProcrastinatingReader. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
•  Done by ProcrastinatingReader and Hobit. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	41	41
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	6	50	56
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 10#What should the criteria of inclusion be for the state infobox?

(Initiated 100 days ago on 14 May 2024) Requesting formal closure on this archived discussion from three months ago due to a discussion on a sub-page of the main article. There is a claim that since it was never closed by an uninvolved party that it lacks consensus. As I have since been involved in a related discussion, I would not count as uninvolved under the criteria. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 89 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on this matter has essentially been ongoing since May 17, 2024, when Musk announced that the URL was officially changed from twitter.com to x.com. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it's worse than that. Since Twitter was rebranded to X on July 23, 2023:

• Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#Requested move 24 July 2023
• Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk/Archive 1#Requested move 24 July 2023
• Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#(closed) Requested move 31 July 2023
• Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#Requested move 30 August 2023
• Talk:List of most-followed Twitter accounts#Requested move 14 August 2024 – just closed within the past day.

Clearly the discussions will continue virtually nonstop until Wikipedia finally kills the bird. A lot of moving parts here, though; that complicates the matter.

 Doing... I've put in too many hours on this to stop now, but it will be many more hours before I have a close, if not longer. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 86 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 84 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 74 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 45 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)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

(Initiated 31 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_South_Korean_doctors'_strike#Requested_move_4_August_2024

(Initiated 17 days ago on 4 August 2024) Discussion started 4 August 2024. Last comment 8 August 2024. Except one editor who started edit in July 2024, others support move. Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 11 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8285 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Millennium Dome 2024-08-22 13:15 2024-09-22 13:15 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush Basem Al-Shayeb 2024-08-22 02:14 2024-09-05 02:14 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute Daniel Case Ian Anderson (soccer) 2024-08-21 21:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Anderson (soccer) (3rd nomination) RL0919 Emily A. Holmes 2024-08-21 21:10 2025-02-21 21:10 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Korenevo, Korenevsky District, Kursk Oblast 2024-08-21 20:27 2025-08-21 20:27 edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Template:Fdate 2024-08-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2802 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestinian suicide terrorism 2024-08-21 17:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Draft:Rica Arnejo 2024-08-21 16:28 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Draft:Dsquares 2024-08-21 12:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Pokkiri 2024-08-21 11:53 indefinite move Persistent block evasion Bishonen Draft:Kedarkheda 2024-08-21 03:06 2024-08-28 03:06 move Move warring Johnuniq Israeli support for Hamas 2024-08-21 02:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Pokrovsk, Ukraine 2024-08-20 19:48 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Michael Lisovetsky 2024-08-20 18:38 indefinite create Re-salt Pppery Template:WP Athletics 2024-08-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3616 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Dil Ko Tumse Pyaar Hua 2024-08-20 13:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Udukai 2024-08-20 11:46 2024-09-20 11:46 edit,move repeated hijacking to be an advertisement for something different than the original topic Bearcat Operation Hiram 2024-08-20 10:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish History of the chair 2024-08-20 09:21 2025-02-20 09:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Lectonar Jhanak 2024-08-20 06:14 indefinite move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: please discuss on article talk Johnuniq South India 2024-08-20 04:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IPA Johnuniq Israeli blockade of aid delivery to the Gaza Strip 2024-08-20 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case August 2024 Deir el-Balah attacks 2024-08-20 01:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Third Battle of Khan Yunis 2024-08-20 01:11 indefinite edit,move Daniel Case Mike Lynch (businessman) 2024-08-20 00:59 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP Daniel Case Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators' noticeboard/12 2024-08-20 00:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TheresNoTime Nikki Hiltz 2024-08-19 22:59 indefinite move Misgendering; resumed after prior protection period Firefangledfeathers Template:FoP-USonly 2024-08-19 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2507 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Harardhere 2024-08-19 17:22 2026-08-19 17:22 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Knafeh 2024-08-19 03:58 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: restore previous protection Daniel Case Draft:Inanimate Insanity 2024-08-19 03:28 indefinite create reduce protection level Discospinster Ogaden 2024-08-18 22:00 indefinite edit Long term disruptive editing and sock puppetry. Semi PP not effective. Going back to EC. Ad Orientem Ukrainian conscription crisis 2024-08-18 20:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Draft:Kelly Cooney Cilella 2024-08-18 20:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Freedom of panorama (US only) 2024-08-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2547 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Alumni 2024-08-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict

In a discussion above a number of editors have begun discussing restricting edits to pages related to conflicts between India and Pakistan to users with extended confirmed rights. It's buried in an unblock request from another editor which isn't really related and wouldn't be affected by that restriction, so I'm formalizing the proposal and breaking it out for discussion. I will post notes in relevant places after I post this.

As many of you know, this topic is plagued by sockpuppetry (including ban evasion and likely good-hand-bad-hand abuse) and it's strongly suspected by many editors that groups on both sides of the conflict are recruiting new editors to falsely influence consensus through civil (and sometimes not-so-civil) POV pushing, and the use of brigading tactics. The topic is already under a broader set of Arbitration discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBIPA) which largely fail to address this "bigger picture" problem, except when incidents have already occurred. The conditions here are similar to the editing issues facing gamergate and the Israel-Palestine conflict before similar restrictions were put in place for those topics (see discussions here and here). In those cases the restrictions applied to the arbitration cases but in this instance the proposed restriction would cover a much narrower subset of topics, so I am proposing it as a community general sanction.

Proposed (parts copied from the relevant Israel-Palestine restriction): All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict. Editors who do not meet the extended confirmed threshold may request edits on an article's talk page, subject to discussion and consensus. On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion.

Please discuss below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• My gut reaction is that we already have the authority under the existing DS to apply ECP as needed and that it should be used liberally in this area. I'd be hesitant to bring about a new area that is 100% under ECP because of how difficult the conflict is to define. We could get a situation where all of South Asia is more or less blue locked, which is what we had for a while with the Middle East. It seems easier just to apply ECP on the first instance of disruptive socking/meat/whatever, and log it as an AE action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni is right. All it needs is admins prepared to do it. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• How will that solve this newest drama-fest that popped up an hour ago, over ANI? ∯WBG^converse 16:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The problem with this is that it can act as a reverse honeypot trap - the conflict branches out onto less and less related topics, and thus so do the editing restrictions - topics to do with the individual countries, at a minimum, would see a spike. It's not that I don't see the issue, it's just that I'd rather the splash damage. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cautious support - I admit that 30/500 is no panacea, but it will help. The problem is "brigading" as Ivanvector has pointed out. Each country's editors want the viewpoints favourable to their country to be represented and those favourable to the other country to be eliminated. The former is apparently ok by our WP:NPOV policy (even though there are struggles to get the WP:WEIGHTs up) but the latter can only be achieved by demonising all the editors that stand in the way and the sources and scholars that stand in the way. For that, brigading is needed. If you can gather big enough a brigade you can shout down the other brigade. Brigades are cheap these days. You just go to your favourite internet forum and shout, saying "our country's honour is at stake". People will line up. They may not know X from Y. But that doesn't matter. All they need to know is cut-and-paste. Any mobile phone will do. That is the environment we are in at the moment. A 30/500 protection will at least dampen this. The new recruits will need to stick around for 30 days, which might try their patience a little. But determined nationalists will stick around, and pass the goal posts. Plus we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is itself an internet forum. There are plenty of potential recruits available right here. Those people might have already passed the 30/500 goal post. So the problems won't go away. They might just become a little bit easier. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support as one major and important step in the right direction. Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• This thing already exists. A number of articles about other subjects like castes, geography, and more other subjects under ARBIPA are already ECP for various reasons. GenuineArt (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think Ivanvector is proposing a blanket use of it for the Indo-Pakistani conflict stuff, which certainly is not how it is done for caste or geography articles. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Don't we need an explicit ArbCom decision to authorize preventive ec protection, similarly to ARBPIA?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cautious support. I agree with a lot of what TonyBallioni has said above about the need for caution and the dangers of defining the conflict too broadly. That said; we already have used this particular scope for topic-bans, including last year's mass t-ban, because it is a fairly narrow locus (relative to all of ARBIPA) that still contains a lot of disruption. The issue with the current regime isn't that admins aren't using our discretion to protect pages when necessary; it's that pages that need protection often do not come to our attention. As a result of off-wiki canvassing, a ridiculous number of distinct sockmasters with varied agendas, and increasing awareness of how CUs may be circumvented, it is often not worth an experienced editor's time to investigate a new account and file an SPI. Some of socks are caught anyway (Bbb23 really needs to get a medal for everything that they do) but a lot of others are not, and especially if they are throwaway accounts created for the sake of a single conflict or discussion, may never be. Also, protecting a single page often has the result of driving the nationalist conflict to different pages. The net result is that we have sustained disruption on a number of pages that is too large to be effectively patrolled by experienced editors who have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. In that respect, preventative protection would help considerably. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Pinging @GoldenRing, NeilN, JzG, Bishonen, Sandstein, Abecedare, BU Rob13, and Doug Weller: As all of you have sanctioned editors under ARBIPA in the last year, I think your opinions here would be valuable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Make it so. This will result in less drama and fewer sanctions of inexperienced editors unfamiliar with our ways. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes yes yes. This topic is a mess of editors broadly suspected to be socks or meats but without any firm evidence of the same. This would significantly raise the effort required to make a sock ready to do battle. To answer a couple of objections above:

• @Ymblanter: The community can impose whatever restrictions it likes, given a strong enough consensus.
• @TonyBallioni: While it's true that we can apply ECP to individual pages, this particular topic is disruptive enough that I think it's worth having a preemptive rule. At present, it needs an administrator to come along and apply ECP, while this would allow any EC editor to revert changes by non-EC editors on any article falling under the restriction.
• @Ivanvector: I'd prefer to see language that more closely mirrors the committee's ARBPIA restriction; in particular, I think the committee's "reasonably construed" language is important to avoid some of the problems others have alluded to above; this is narrower than the usual "broadly construed" language. I think the language about preferring enforcement through ECP would also be useful. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact at first I copied the Israel-Palestine General Prohibition verbatim, only replacing "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" with "related to any conflict between India and Pakistan". But that prohibition was originally drafted before extended confirmed protection was a thing (I was involved in its drafting), you can see the original version in the "superseded versions" collapse here. Basically it read as it does now, but the second sentence read "This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, ...." without the bit about EC. Some time after EC became available to admins the phrase about preferring the use of EC was shoehorned in, in typical Arbcom bureaucratic fashion, without fixing the rest of the sentence. In fact there's no reason to enforce that prohibition by any means other than EC protection, but all the old methods are still mentioned. Subsequent revisions also added the instructions for editors not meeting the criteria in bullet form, which I tried to fit into the restriction itself. Then it was too long so I started editing, and by the time I got through that I had basically rewritten the whole thing. But I agree that something like "reasonably construed" could be added back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that discretionary sanctions (WP:AC/DS) already apply to the India-Pakistan topic area, so admins can already use this to apply ECP to individual pages. Whether a broader community sanction is needed I don't know - I'm not familiar enough with the particular dynamics in this topic area. Sandstein 09:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Not only do discretionary sanctions already apply, any page experiencing issues of this nature can be just sent to RFPP where it will get ECP'd if necessary, a sanction is not required to allow ECP to be applied if there's already disruption occurring from new/autoconfirmed editors. Fish+Karate 10:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding is that we are discussing a preemptive protection. Requests for preemptive protection are routinely declined at RFPP, withe the exception of the ARBPIA articles which can be extended-confirmed protection any time, even if there is no ongoing or past disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  While I am someone who doesn't place much stock in preemptive protection, and that includes the ARBPIA articles, I would pay you the princely sum of $1 if you can show me an article pertaining to the India-Pakistan conflict that has never been subject to any disruptive or nationalistic editing. Preemptive is not something that applies here. Fish+Karate 11:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Bhaskar Sadashiv Soman was the Chief of the Naval Staff (India) during the 1965 war. After looking at every edit in its history, I don't believe that it's ever had any nationalistic or other disruptive editing, and the closest thing to an editing dispute in its history is [1], where someone declined a db-copyvio because the infringing text could simply be removed. You didn't specify what kind of dollar...I want a Gold dollar in perfect condition, please :-) Nyttend backup (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Excellent work! I bet it took some hunting, though. You have won 1 Liberian Dollar; it has a value of around US$0.0062. Let me know where to send it. Fish+Karate 14:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually not. I figured that a comparatively minor military figure would be less likely to get disruption (if the other side's never heard of him, they won't know to mangle his article), so I looked up the 1965 war and clicked the names of the various commanders in the infobox until I found one without a significant revision history. (Less revisions = less chance of disruption, since lots of reversions expands the history.) Then, all I had to do was page through the revisions. As for the money, send it to my former employer. Their resources helped me expand related articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support as someone who frequently edits in the topic area. A step in the right direction. The topic area is infested with sock-puppets, and this is certainly going to help. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with TonyBallioni - admins already have the authority to incrementally apply indefinite ECP to the articles that need it. I don't think they should be preemptively protected, but the threshold for protection should be very low (e.g. any reasonable request, even in response to a small number of disruptive edits). If you want preemptive protection, an amendment request should be put forward to Arbcom. MER-C 17:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MER-C: (and @Ymblanter:, since they raised this concern above) We do not need an amendment from ARBCOM, because Ivanvector is proposing community-authorized sanctions that happen to overlap with ARBIPA discretionary sanction. Procedurally, broad community consensus is quite sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  We've just got two complaints today, on this very board, within the scope of the Arbcom case, one of which is about this conflict. That and the considering the general lack of clue in this part of the world tips me over to cautiously support. MER-C 20:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Central Discussion - I suggest that this be added to the Cent discussion list - going off others on the list, it's a broad enough issue (with major potential ramifications) that it warrants it. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done and thanks for the suggestion. Someone may want to tweak my description of the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support Tony is right. We already have the authority to do this. Unfortunately, for the most part we haven't done it. I think there is a certain reluctance on the part of many admins (myself included) to push the ACDS button in all but the most egregious situations. And I also think that reluctance is generally good and healthy. I'm also not a big fan of one size fits all solutions to problems. That said, this really has become an area of pervasive and sometimes organized disruptive editing. IMO it is at least as bad as that which in the past afflicted the more highly trafficked Arab Israeli related articles. So yeah, this probably is something that needs to be done though I regret that necessity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cautious support I get the "reverse honey trap" argument and think there is a strong possibility that it will balloon to cover all South Asia (e.g., Bangladesh used to be part of Pakistan) but allowing sock-puppetry and brigading to rule the day is a worse outcome I feel. One merely means an overly-high level of protection, the other means Wiki relaying POV and potential false information. PS - but also, let's have a time limit at which we review whether this restriction is actually working. There's too many bans/restrictions that just get put in place and left there without anyone checking to see if they're still needed (e.g., is the Arbcom restriction on The Troubles still justified this far out from the Good Friday Agreement?). FOARP (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as long as it is applied relatively narrowly. GAB^gab 22:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support The point of extended confirmed protection is to direct new users to discuss the issue on the talk page. This issue is probably among the top 5 most contentious in Wikipedia, with a 1.5 billion / 150 crore people being upset. People supporting Pakistan claim that Wikipedia is biased for India, and people in India claim that Wikipedia is biased for Pakistan, and I expect we have 100,000 / ek lakh complaints. Directing people to discuss this is our best response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: for mercy on my watchlist. The revert wars and POV-pushing are getting just as toxic on these as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions could be applied as TonyBallioni said, but there's no harm in generating a nice discussion here so admins protecting such pages can link to it. SITH (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The most complicated areas require the most experienced editors. This will free up admin time by reducing the number of PP requests and ANI threads, and it will encourage newer editors to go to the talk page first. Article stability will increase. There will be peace for a time. Levivich 07:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Extended confirmed is reasonable and appropriate here. Benjamin (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Partial oppose/caution
  • Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the conflict. This part I completely concur with and I hope the above discussion will encourage uninvolved admins to use the tools they have already been granted by WP:ARBIPA (and which seems to have wide community support).
  • On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule. Extended-confirmed editors may restore a reverted edit if they have a good-faith reason to do so, and are encouraged to explain in their edit summary; edits restored in this way must not be reverted without discussion. This is the part I am wary of since I forsee that this will result in edit wars, 3RR violations and meta-arguments on whether a page falls within the "India-Pakistan conflict" area or not (for example, does the whole or part of the Navjot Singh Sidhu article fall into that category due to this recent controversy?) Instead of extended-confirmed editors being free to flout 3RR if they have a "good-faith reason" to believe the article/topic/edit falls into the India-Pakistan conflict area, they should request EC protection and admins should respond more promptly and boldly.

And while I have your ears: the "India Pakistan conflict" has been and will probably remain a long-term problem area but over the next few months I expect that articles related to 2019 Indian general election will present an even larger number of, and more urgent, problems requiring admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: That's an excellent point. I'm not even sure why that language was placed in the ARBPIA restriction, since surely the best way to deal with such a situation is to request EC protection citing the relevant sanction, thereby avoiding an edit-war. Ivanvector I'm wondering if you could strike that portion, even now, since most people supporting this have commented generally on the need for preemptive protection, and less on the specifics of the wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a misreading of my intent. What I mean is that if a non-EC editor makes an edit it may be reverted under this restriction, but equally it may be restored by any EC editor in good faith iff they take responsibility for the edit (the "editors may restore" directions at WP:EVADE though that's a bad place for it). At that point it is subject to 3RR or any more limiting revert restriction. If extended-confirmed editors start edit-warring over nitpicked interpretations of this restriction, then proceed with whatever your usual approach is to disruptive reversion. Just generally speaking, if you get two editors arguing over who it is that first crossed the bright line, a good approach is to block them both while directing them to WP:NOTTHEM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I would not like a discriminatory policy like this. As long as there is no EC protection on a page, all editors should have the same privilege to edit. It would not be fair to non-EC editors otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm not sure doing this preemptively is the best of ideas. As TonyBalloni, Abecedare and others point out, it is not always easy to figure out whether an article comes under the conflict and we could easily see this being applied too broadly. For example, if the conflict with Pakistan becomes one of the talking points in the upcoming Indian elections, we could easily end up with a large number of election related articles under ECP and would lose an important opportunity for adding new editors from India. Applying restrictions rather than ECP on individual articles, or on flash point areas like the Kashmir conflict, gives us some level of control while keeping more articles open to new editors. What we really need is a full time ombudsperson to monitor and manage these articles and, since that is hard, this is just a weak oppose. --regentspark (comment) 22:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to get accused of assuming bad faith here, but in my experience this is what actually happens. Yes, hot news topics and especially elections bring new editors to Wikipedia, and that's a good thing most of the time. New editors of course don't have a good idea of how things work here, and make entirely good-faith common mistakes like not providing a reference, editing based on "things they know", innocently edit warring, gentle POV skewing, and you know, stuff we've all seen and probably have had to gently coach a newbie on. The problem when it's a topic like this is that those new editors immediately get bitten by the established editors on one or the other sides of the conflict: their edit is reverted more or less immediately and they get a couple of big scary notices on their talk page about the discretionary sanctions and the potential punishments for not being perfect right out of the gate, or if they do have a good grasp of things they're immediately accused of being someone's sockpuppet. You can't really blame a new editor interested in Wikipedia from giving up on the project in short order when they encounter such behaviour. And yes, that aggressive behaviour is a problem and when we see it we should knock heads, but this is kind of a way to address it broadly. Not a fantastic solution, I know, but it's something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support There are many socks and meatpuppets. This will save the time of good faith editors. However those 500 edits should be on mainspace, not on talk pages or userpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.216.115 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Pages related to the conflict have been under constant attack for a while to the point where ACP isn't enough. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 09:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:NBA Referees

User has continued to edit List of National Basketball Association referees, ignoring 2 WP:PAID user warnings. Links are: List of National Basketball Association referees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and NBA Referees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I notified them of this discussion on their talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that this is in fact a paid editor? I find it very unlikely that the NBA would be so dumb as to pay someone to push a POV under such a blatant username. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the username, I believe it is reasonable to conclude they are likely a referee, who as an employee would be covered by WP:PAID even if the NBA had not explicitly assigned them to update the page. Regardless, failure to respond to the WP:PAID notices (even with an "I'm not paid" response) is a violation of the policy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As the username suggests it is a group, I have blocked the username; given the UPE possibility, I hardblocked. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that they are likely to be a referee; the name sounds a lot more like someone interested in referees than, say, the National Basketball Referees Association. Editors are not required to respond to personal inquiries; the paid-contribution policy requires disclosure, but no one is required to declare that they are not a paid editor. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It is true no one is required to respond to any request or declare that they are not a paid editor- but the username policy is clear that usernames cannot be that of a group and "NBA Referees" at least suggests that the user represents a group. They need to clear that up- which may clear up the paid editing issue. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the name any more suggestive of a group account than the user name "F1fans". The name is a bit more generic than a group would ordinarily pick. The user's edits are not promotional—in fact, the most recent one removed needless praise. So while I wouldn't be shocked if the account were operated by a paid editor, for the moment I don't feel there is a strong argument to conclude this. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, let me be very clear: no more personal attacks. WP:WIAPA demands serious evidence for serious accusations. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that a fan is the same thing as a referee, especially not an elite level referee. Anyone can be a fan. By comparison there are only 71 current NBA referees according to our article. There would be maybe a few hundred more former referees. You can't be an NBA referee unless you're appointed by the NBA. Maybe more to the point, if you call yourself "NBA Referees", it's fairly unclear if you're saying you represent or are associated with them in some way, or are just a fan of them. I mean if this editor was mostly editing random other pages, I'd have no concern, but given their edits have all been to the list page; at a minimum, I think there is easily possible confusion and uncertainty about who they are and whether they represent a group. BTW I'm not sure the fact that they have a blatant username says anything about them being paid. Many organisations (or more accurately the people at whatever level in whatever organisation involved in making the decision, in this case I assume there may be multiple) still have little idea how to engage with wikipedia. Not everyone is trying to sneak stuff in the back door, there are still many which are trying to be semi open and transparent, but hopeless failing to do what we expected. To be fair, in most cases these will confirm when challenged although of course, our talk pages probably still mystify a lot of people. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that a fan is the same thing as a referee; I only meant to say that neither name seems like a name that an organization setting up a shared account would use. isaacl (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Nyttend, and thank you 331dot. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at SPI

Just a note that SPI seems to be very backlogged. Right now there are more than 100 cases in various stages of the process, plus another 70 or so that are closed but not archived. I hate to point this out because I know that our SPI admins and clerks work very hard - and do have lives. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've worked to clerk, handle, and close a handful of them today. I'll jump back into the SPI list once I get a few high priority tasks that are on my plate wrapped up and done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

TfD on protected template

Please can an admin list Template:TheFinalBall for TfD deletion? The template is protected and so I cannot use Twinkle to do so. There's a discussion here which suggests template is not needed, so good to start a proper focused discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 13. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Question re WP:NOSHARING

I recently came across a beautifully worded talk post from an editor who I have worked alongside for a long time.[2] It struck me as very strange, because throughout the time I have previously known him, his English has been very different [3][4][5][6]. It is the difference between a native and non-native speaker, a gap that cannot be bridged in a short period of time. Examples in the first link which I have not seen before from this user include colorful adverbs (e.g. aptly), particular latinate word choices (e.g. subsequently vs. “then/after/next”) and unblemished use of tense.

Is there any way to assess this further with respect to WP:NOSHARING, akin to an WP:SPI?

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Please make sure that you notify the editor in question of this thread, as is required by the red box at the top of this page. I have gone ahead and done this for you. SQL^{Query me!} 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this so quickly. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike's first edit was the creation of New England Role Playing Organization on 20 May 2006. Aside from reverting the removal of content and adding un-original content (e.g. citations and quotations), this looks like his next significant contribution to mainspace, 2 December 2006. After that, his next major contribution was the creation of Insulation monitoring device on 17 December 2006. These are the only edits I've seen in his first year of editing in which he added significant amounts of new content to mainspace. The first edit is rather different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor created a few articles this year. Here are two of them after many edits from the editor, immediately before other editors got involved.[7][8]. 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Papirosn, last edit before someone else (the second diff in the comment just above mine)
• Mount Hope, Jaffa, last edit before someone else
• Arthur Menachem Hantke, last edit before someone else
• Félix-Marie Abel, last edit before someone else (the first diff above)

Do with these what you will. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have also interacted with Shrike for a long time. Onceinawhile is correct that it is quite impossible for Shrike to have written the indicated text without help. Nobody can advance from C-grade English to A-grade overnight. Nableezy raised the same question on Shrike's talk page, which Shrike (whose English level had somehow returned to C-grade) refused to answer: I will not gonna answer You baseless WP:ASPERATIONS is another example of you WP:BATTLE mode.But I will say this I certainly didn't broke any rules. I'm not alleging that Shrike violated a policy, but I do believe an explanation is in order. Zero^talk 05:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Related, go to this version (earlier this year) of Shrike's talk, scroll down to the bottom, and un-hide the collapsed text; you'll see people asking the same question. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to Onceinawhile: The post you cite and link to in your OP was not on a talkpage, it was on this noticeboard (AN) [9]. It seems clear to me that Shrike had someone else word the post -- someone who is very familiar with Wikipedia's ins and outs and jargon. It was a very long and detailed, six-paragraph OP about TheGracefulSlick's transgressions. Shrike's subsequent posts in that same thread reverted to his inadequate English. So something is going on. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging Icewhiz as he may have some idea about this. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• This appears quite speculative to me, and why has this become a problem a month after the fact. Might it be a timely response to this? Also within days of all of this happening – also involving Shrike. For all intents and purposes, the only thing that may be demonstrated is that Shrike had some help writing the post. Proxying? potentially, but Shrike and TGS have overlap in the IP editing area, and for whom would they be proxying? Their personally filing the case is entirely unsurprising, given that they also started the Your unblock conditions thread on TGS' talk page. Proxying, thus, appears unlikely. GizzyCatBella proposes a more likely explanation that [p]ossibly the editor received some assistance in drafting the note in perfect English [...]. Not unusual, or prohibited. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Shrike and I recently collaborated on a DYK. I noticed the line through TGS’s name on a talk page yesterday so traced back to find out why. I hope that is a clear explanation. It is the type of explanation I would like to hear from Shrike. His collaboration with the mystery second editor could be innocuous or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was about to AGF, but then you rounded it out with: or it could also be the tip of something very bad for our encyclopaedia. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. Get evidence for the latter, or go do something else. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I don't quite understand why proxying is unlikely because Shrike was someone who we would have expected to file a case/has legitimate interest. If I were a banned (whether topic or site) or blocked editor or simply someone without active sanction who wanted to evade scrutiny, looking for someone to proxy for me I'd look for several things. One is someone who could be reasonably expected to file a case. I definitely would avoid choosing someone who had never ever been involved in the area ever before since frankly it would raise too many questions. Now I'd also choose someone who I'd believe would be compliant, preferably someone I was friends with to increase the chance of compliance, and someone who could reasonably have written the message I wrote for them. The first two could obviously apply if proxying were involved, there's no way for me to know. The last one clearly didn't happen. But it doesn't seem sufficient evidence in itself since frankly making sure that the person's English level and commenting style is similar enough to yours is probably one of the easiest things to miss. Remember that proxying is frowned upon, even if you had legitimate interest in what is being proxied and may have eventually written your own version of what's being proxied because banned means banned. At a minimum, it's reasonable that editors should disclose if what they're posting was actually written by a banned or blocked editor or even an editor in good standing who doesn't want to be associated with the complaint and they're posting because they agree it's a legitimate complaint. Note that I'm not saying this happened, but rather I see no reason to say it's unlikely from the limited evidence at hand. Personally, if Shrike at simply clarified when queried about it way back that they had help but the person who helped them wasn't blocked or banned, I would AGF on that. The fact they've been so evasive is what causes concern and makes me feel it would be best if they disclose to arbcom or whatever who helped them. (I'm not saying I would support any sanction if they don't but being part of a community means sometimes it's good if you deal with concerns even without any threat of sanction for not doing so.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne - I had forgotten that I had posted here and hadn't bothered to check whether someone had responded to me. In short, per WP:PROXYING, Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Shrike can do both. The discussion resulted in the community ban being reimposed (thus productive), and Shrike had reason to initiate the discussion (thus independent). If you have any evidence that Shrike was proxying for CrazyAces, even if it doesn't fall under proxying for the preceding reason, then post it. Otherwise, there's nothing to be done here. I'm not going to shove an editor under the proverbial bus without evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, by way of explanation: Some folks here do not seem to understand that it appears that Shrike may have been proxying for a banned editor. For those who don't know the whole long story, TheGracefulSlick was endlessly hounded and harassed by CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs) and later by CrazyAces' numerous sockpuppets. If Shrike took the wording of that long involved AN filing from CrazyAces489 or his socks, that would be a breach. As it is, the only other person whom I can think would have the motive, knowledge, English skills, and wherewithal to write such a lengthy and detailed and nuanced and perfect-English filing of TheGracefulSlick's missteps would be Icewhiz, who had also apparently been observing his edits -- but there's no reason that Icewhiz would not have filed his own AN post rather than merely providing text to Shrike (who clearly does not have the ability to write what he posted in that AN filing). Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that the TGS was hounded. In that case, I think it's more imperative that Shrike explain either privately or publicly who helped them with that post. Failing that, I'd be willing to support some sanction. Perhaps a topic ban on bringing on participating in complaints about other editors to AN//I or AE. They may still participate in any discussions about them of course. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging Nableezy, who brought the issue up on Shrike's talkpage last month. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• SHRIKE, THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. Y'all have too much free time. You're trying to rule on something you have no information on whatsoever, in order to enforce rules that are essentially unenforceable and fundamentally wrong. Hey, Shrike! Can I have the password to your email account? I wanna see who you've been chatting with. Oh, and please hand over your phone. François Robere (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing to see here Even if Shrike is copying, verbatim, a banned editor, that's not prohibited under PROXYING. What Shrike is doing (assuming of course that they didn't just ask somebody for English help/spending some time drafting) is taking responsibility for the contents of the post, and they must demonstrate that the changes are productive. Given that the discussion in question lead to the reimposing of an indef on TGS, I think that is prima facie evidence that the post was productive. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I find it highly questionable whether posting something verbatim from an editor who has hounded the editor you're posting about without at least disclosing it came from said editor is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. Frankly if it is, I think wikipedia has completely failed as a community to protect each other. There's absolutely zero reason why an editor in good standing, including Shrike, couldn't have brought a complaint about TGS without involving the socking harasser. There's absolutely no reason why Shrike couldn't have simply said fuck you to CrazyAces489 if it really was them. or at the very least, revealed they were bringing a complain which had been written by CrazyAces489. Because that's how we should treat editors who think it's acceptable to hound their fellow editors. Tell them to fuck off because we can handle stuff without them. TGS may have been a highly problematic editor, but we owned them the basic courtesy of keeping away hounding socks from them, or at the very least, disclosing to them if we were going to ban them based on a case effectively brought by a hounding sock. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually I'll put it more simply. If it is true that Shrike is proxying for a socking hounder, and Shrike wants to take responsibility for that edit, then they are taking responsibility for hounding another editor. We are also free to sanction them for engaging in hounding. There should never be any reason why hounding is acceptable, even if the editor being hounded deserves sanction by independent action unrelated to the hounding. This is not simply a matter of semantics since it's completely understandable an editor may feel angry by the fact that they were sanctioned from a discussion started effectively by a hounder, even if were they to look at it fairly, they would recognise the sanction itself was entirely justified. There is absolutely zero reason the discussion which lead to the sanction had to be so tainted. This isn't a case where the hounder managed to evade scrutiny and post before we caught them but one where if it is true, they were enabled by an editor here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• One final comment on the issue for clarity, since I believe the AE case which was mentioned above has some similarities. If a sock initiates a case and it's closed as coming from a sock, I'm not saying the text has to be thrown out. Actually it may be okay to re-use the case verbatim. In such examples, at least it's disclosed and it's questionable if it's worth re-writing anything if it isn't needed. I consider this fairly different from an example where, unsolicited, an editor who has been hounding another editor to the extent of using socks, sends a case privately or semi-privately to an editor in good standing, and said editor in good standing posts it without disclosing this happened. IMO it should just be completely thrown out, i.e. I'm not even going to bother to read by any editor receiving it. But still, I could accept it if it was disclosed that it came or they believe it came from such an editor. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I already said that I didn't edited on behalf of banned/blocked user [10] when I first was approached by Nableezy and yes I asked for help with my English as I far as I know its not against any policy per Mr rnddude. In my understanding the complain by OW its part of WP:BATTLE behavior because I didn't allow his WP:POV a DYK nomination to be presented as he wanted--Shrike (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW it could be easily checked by CU there was no interaction between me and CrazyAces489 or his socks by email or by other means I authorize such check on my behalf --Shrike (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Comment Shrike: ok, let us accept your word, that you didn't get help of the banned CrazyAces489 or his socks, but you did indeed get help of someone, let us call them X, with your English. Fair enough. My problem is that with, say the sentence that Nableezy quotes below: that sentence reveal an intimate knowledge of not only English, but with Wikipedia matter. My non−Wikipedian native−English speaking friends would simply not have managed to produce such a sentence. My question is then, is the person(s) who helped you with your English a present or former Wikipedian? If so, who? You don't have to tell me, but I really think you should disclose it to some "higher authority" here. Huldra (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There is literally zero chance that the person who wrote this also wrote this. It literally boggles the mind that anybody would believe that somebody who, in a freaking encyclopedia article, wrote such beautiful prose as organization that advocate Palestinian right of return and One-state solution for majority of Jews that means end of Israel as Jewish state also wrote "a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable". Or hell, just count the commas in the AN complaint and the ones in Shrike's response above. Compare the number of run-on sentences. Compare the grammar of "I didn't edited on behalf" and the literally perfect prose of the AN complaint. Now why would somebody have Shrike post a complaint on AN for them? It isnt as though you need to be extended-confirmed, or autoconfirmed even, to post there. The only reason I can fathom for having somebody else post a complaint is if the person who wrote it is prohibited from posting it. As far as the claims of nothing to see here, no, there is. If Shrike made a complaint that was written by and at the direction of a user banned from doing so he has violated WP:BAN. There is, as far as I can tell, no other reason why Shrike would post a complaint that he so clearly did not write. Anybody who believes Shrike actually wrote TheGracefulSlick clearly does not see their commitment, in their unblock request endorsed by the community, as a commitment. The community unblocked based on the statements in the unblock request. Given the circumstances, a community discussion is warranted. Maybe I missed something and this commitment should be seen as voluntary and vacated as a user claim?, please see me at my talk page, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have been looking to sell. nableezy - 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an SPI-equivalent process for NOSHARING?

The original question was whether there is an SPI-equivalent process that could be used to get to the bottom of this. I am assuming from the above that the answer is no, but can anyone confirm? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The process should be expected in the space above. Technically, 'administrator' (or perhaps checkuser) is the process if any action is expected, but here's a fairly good place to find them loitering. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what NOSHARING is meant to be, but if you mean the misuse of an account by multiple people, WP:ROLE I believe is the correct guideline, and if not SPI then right here is the venue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOSHARING is part of the username policy but also contains a prohibition on shared accounts. I would agree that SPI is the best place to deal with shared account issues. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

New OTRS queues

In an early 2017 RfC, the community endorsed the view that private evidence related to abusive paid editing should be submitted privately to relevant people when there are concerns related to privacy or outing. To better allow the functionary team to investigate instances of abusive paid editing where private evidence is a factor, the Arbitration Committee has established the paid-en-wp OTRS queue to receive such private evidence. The email address associated with this queue is paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. The queue will be reviewed by a subset of arbitrators and interested local CheckUsers, who will investigate all reports and take any necessary action.

This queue is not a replacement for existing community processes to address abusive paid editing. In particular, all public evidence related to abusive paid editing should continue to be submitted at the appropriate community noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Private reports that do not contain private evidence or can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes will be redirected accordingly. Reports will also be redirected to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, where appropriate.

Further, the checkuser-en-wp OTRS queue has been established to allow private requests for CheckUser to be sent to the local CheckUser team. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than the functionaries-en list. Similar to the above, all private requests that can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes, such as WP:SPI, will be redirected accordingly.

The Arbitration Committee would like to note that the creation of these queues was endorsed by the 2018 Arbitration Committee, with the announcement delayed into the new year as the queues were organized and created.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New OTRS queues

Mark Dice related blocks

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

---

Mark Dice has posted a YouTube rant encouraging his legion of subscribers to disrupt the talk page of his article demanding we write it the way he wants Ian.thomson has begun blocking them as NOTHERE meatpuppets (see his block log). Wumbolo has challenged these blocks and effectively called for Ian to be desysoped. To provide clarity as to these blocks, I’m asking the community to review them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks this page is subject to the long-term disruption by an alt-right conspiracy theorist with a twitter and YouTube following who has been trying to write his own biography for years. He’s managed to convince Jimmy Wales to try to write it for him twice, and it failed each time, so now he’s moved to devoting a 5 minute YouTube video to getting his followers to force us to do what he wants. We don’t have to tolerate such disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks Meatpuppetry is only slightly less disruptive than regular editors advocating on behalf of meatpuppetry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blocks seem fine to me. I looked in on the article earlier today to see what had happened recently following Jimbo's interference. Saw extra activity but couldn't check YouTube. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't have an opinion on the blocks either way but believed that they should be publicized. I also did not call for Ian to be desysopped for blocks of sleeper accounts. I said that it would be highly controversial if he unilateraly blocked new accounts after talk page protection expired. None of the new accounts were made aware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse, obviously. Since the talk page was semi-protected, it hasn't been new editors who don't know what's going on, it's people who have read Dice's YouTube rant and have old WP account that they've reactivated. As I said at the talkpage, the last four were created in 2006 (first edit for over 10 years), 2011 (first edit for 3.5 years), 2013 (re-started editing end of January after over a year break) and 2017 (first edits for 3 months apart from two edits on English Defence League - which probably tells you something). Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse blocks It was pretty damn obvious and blatant, most were just trolling anyway. Accounts inactive for years suddenly showing up to make snide talk page comments about how unfair Wikipedia is to Mr Dice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Editors above are conflating accounts that were created today and those that were active years ago. I'm not saying that they should necessarily be treated differently, just that they should be examined in context and perspective. wumbolo ^^^ 17:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• What useful content was provided by the new accounts that were blocked? As I said on the talkpage, if someone wants to start a reasonable discussion, that's fine, but all of those account were the usual "Wikipedia is left-wing bias (sic)!!!", "the MSM is fake news!!!1!!" and "I'm not contributing to Wikipedia again!!!". Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• And then there's, the criminal Ian.thomson blocked me on here illegally for political reasons and I have contacted law enforcement and they will be investigating his behavior and when he is indicted for the felony he committed against me he will be extradited to my state to face criminal charges and will likely be sent to prison I was told.[11] —DoRD (talk)​ 17:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Of course they were, because they don't know any better. We have escalating user warnings for a reason. wumbolo ^^^ 17:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Not throwing around abusive threats peppered with legal shenanigans is a thing you're expected to know before you edit here. If it's something you really need to be educated on, just get the hell out. We have no "escalating warnings" for having the maturity of an infant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks and calling for a desysop is clearly not warranted in the face of this canvassing and meatpuppetry. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• A perfect example of which we speak [[12]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• [13] sounds You-tube related with a legal threat thrown in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: That one actually isn't. I did get that impression at first but their gripe is about some unrelated alt-right author. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks - I wrote a comment on Ian.thomson's talk page after wumbolo posted their objection but before I knew this thread was opened. I wrote: I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). I also wrote that I had checked some of the accounts which were just recently reactivated to participate in this and found them to be  Unrelated. Maybe we could be a bit kinder to actual new good-faith accounts that are on the canvassed side of this, but trolls and older accounts that should know better should be indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably goes without saying but when I say "new good-faith accounts" that does not include new accounts dropping legal threats. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse best to batten down the hatches. I'm not sure all the blocks need to be indefs, but blocks of some length are definitely justified. While Dice (a BLP) has concerns that aren't entirely meritless, there's such an astonishing lack of good faith here that nothing can be done to fix them. I watched Dice's 6-minute video and apart from a bunch of "Other pages have stupid details", there's no arguments there. Being an "Amazon best-seller" is meaningless, and his Youtube viewer counts merely make him a legend in his own mind. An absence of information is not a BLP violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment instead of indefing a bunch of occasional contributors why not set the page to 30/500 which will only let more established editors work on it. Pending changes would be another option. The video will be up for years so this problem will continue for years. No one wants to play whack a mole forever. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

30/500 on the article might be fine but I'm hesitant to put that on a talk page for any extended period (maybe a longer period of semi-protection). The video is gonna eventually be buried by his other videos, so while we will get the occasional user who comes in and screaming "shitcock libtards!" they'll just be part of the usual number of trolls and such that these topics attract (not a larger influx of hoi polloi that hasn't found something else to rageturbate to). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the effects are not only there, but on my (and I suspect others) talk page, over at Tea house and god knows where else. This (whilst very mild) is not just limited to the MArk Dice talk page, and I suspect may spread.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse Blocks It's a series of accounts commissioned by a political commentator hoping to disrupt community discussion pertaining to the article about him. They are meatpuppets, and should be (and remain) blocked. Vermont (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  I will note that I do not endorse all of the blocks; constructive editors (broadly speaking) should not be blocked for agreeing with Dice. Only the accounts created for the sole purpose of disrupting the discussion. Vermont (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have no issues with blocking offensive disruption - I'm suggesting a little prevention. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse Blocks I suggested that discretion would have been the better part of valor in blocking Dice, but all of these blocks are grounded in policy. The involvement Ian has had at the page does not make him involved. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

For those who don't feel like digging through the diffs that Barkeep49 has kindly linked to: my edits to the article have been damage control after Dice's previous attempts to call his fans to "fix" the page the way he wants it (which largely consisted of them disruptively blanking stuff), and one instance of adding sources to a BLP about two years ago -- all of those instances so that the article reflected talk page consensus. I would not claim to be uninvolved in the sense of "I don't have an applicable opinion" (an unrealistic ideal for uninvolvement) but everything other than that last instance of adding sources falls under the purely in an administrative role exception of WP:INVOLVED, it's not out of the question to argue that adding RSs to a BLP could as well (although I'm not going to drive that point), and the endorsement here certainly indicates that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not comfortable with this comment that Ian.thomson made on his talk page: "Calling his fans here on Youtube was just a cry for attention. The best that can be done is to avoid giving them another platform and showing them that rallying the base is useless." (emphasis mine) [14] That seems to imply that the blocks were WP:POINTy. wumbolo ^^^ 19:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian says what he feels is the best course of action for us to take, and you think that's pointy? Wow. Seriously, just... wow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a reason this is still open? Near unanimous support for the blocks, and Wumbolo is saying increasingly silly things (for example: WP:POINTy? come on). Suggest the next admin who sees this closes it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Mark Dice AfD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dice (2nd nomination) - this will get ugly very quickly. I considered a WP:SNOW keep close, but I'd almost certainly get some trouble for that. Can admins please make sure civility is maintained with minimal disruption to the encyclopedia? If you're not going to close it quickly, it may need WP:ECP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the unhelpful comments by this IP Special:Contributions/70.119.159.78 Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC) The whole AfD has been closed down Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Rusted AutoParts

• Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Child's Play (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited the entry for Child's Play (2019) and changed the improper term 'name' to 'title.' I left a notice on user Rusted AutoParts page informing him of his error. His response was to delete my comments on his page and immediately revert my edit and insult me in the comment section. I filed a complaint for edit warring in error and posted a comment on the entry talk page asking for resolution. He responded and reverted the article to use the incorrect term. This editor has been combative and I see no reason to deal with him directly at this point. (Sellpink (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

This is abuse of the admin noticeboard. I’ve been nowhere near the concept of being combative nor did I insult you. In regards to my talk page it is my choice of whether something is worth staying or not, I didn’t see your comments as valuable so I removed them. I said in my edit summary that you were being pedantic, which is not an insult by any means. It’s you insisting that my actions were in bad faith and that I reverted you solely because “I didn’t like being corrected”. You reported me for edit warring after reverting you ONCE. I responded to your addition to the article talk page and after 24 hours of no reply to my response I restored what is the common practice. I can’t believe that once more I have to respond to a false report being submitted regarding a situation that didn’t even meet the requirements to be considered an edit war nor one where I demonstrated a hostility towards the editor. My opinion here is the editor is either looking for a needless fight or just fundamentally misunderstands what constitutes warranting administrator intervention. Rusted AutoParts 19:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Would this be considered a form of harrassment? Making repeated false reports? not harrassment. Rusted AutoParts 19:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute that has been elevated to a conduct issue by the actions of Sellpink, who opened this thread accusing Rusted AutoParts of "errors" and "insults" without a single diff. Rusted did not insult you, and your idea that "name" must be "title" is nonsensical. Also, you do not post messages on another editor's userpage but on their talk page. At the same time, I don't think Sellpink's conduct has risen to the level of harassment, and both editors would be advised that edit-warring is not a satisfactory resolution of the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sellpink, Just my opinion, but "name" sounds better in the context than "title". Also the edit summaries sound a bit condecending. Not seeing the "insults" you are talking about. WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Admin comments (e/c with Bbb23, but I spent time typing this and don't want it to be in vain):

1. It doesn't matter whether it's "title" or "name". <-- This is the most important thing to remember.
2. Not harrassment, just cluelessness.
3. I hate it when someone reports someone else for edit warring, when they're doing it to, and have reverted more often. Sorely tempted to block User:Sellpink for edit warring while simultaneously making bad faith reports. Instead, since it doesn't matter what word is used, and since they appear confused, I'm inclined to simply warn them that what they did is wrong, and if it isn't clear that what they did is wrong, they need to re-read WP:Edit warring. Further behavior like this will definitely result in a block.
4. I realize that RAP probably wants to revert to his preferred version now, but won't do it for fear of legitimately being accused of edit warring. It will temporarily stay at "title" unless (a) someone else besides RAP thinks it should be named, and reverts back, or (b) people actually discuss this and come to some kind of consensus on the talk page. But this is OK, because it doesn't matter.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There was contribution by @Andy Dingley:, so I’m holding off to see what a potential discussion says. As well as not wanting to make it an edit war. It’s why I waited 24 hours for a response from Pink, and restored when none was made. Rusted AutoParts 19:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Tempted to block me" for what exactly? I've never once had an issue on this board nor have I ever had to take these steps. I thought Wikipedia was predicated in fact. For films and books the proper term is 'title' and not 'name.' The complaint process here is not a clear one and I did my best to address the situation. I should also point out that "blocks" here are a absolute and utter joke.. I bewing threated with a block because I used the correct term and did my best to correct it. Books and films have titles not "names." (Sellpink (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

@Sellpink: You reported another user for edit warring when you were engaging in the exact same behaviour yourself. You might want to familiarize yourself with the essay named titled WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t even edit warring when they reported me, it was after one singular revert. Rusted AutoParts 22:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018

In August of 2018, I was put under a topic ban. See Incident no. 989 topic ban. I have been active in geographical / historical related articles, as well as in the Arab-Israeli conflict area since joining Wikipedia and have tried to bring balance to articles touching upon this important topic. I wish to reaffirm my commitment to assume good faith and to treat all fellow editors with due respect, and whenever differences surface, I will do my utmost best to approach our differences with civility, looking for consensus to resolve any differences that might arise. No man can claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, as I have consistently tried to improve Wikipedia. In the field of ARBPI I have especially tried to bring balance and neutrality to the way Wikipedia reports on this conflict.Davidbena (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

PC question

I have an IP who is desperate to insert some content on Conversion therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I have been trying to talk them through the sourcing that would be needed for this to meet NPOV, but I suddenly thought: is rejecting a pending change counted as a revert? I assumed not, from the definition of PC, but actually thinking about it there is no real technical difference at the back end, it's only a procedural thing, and it turns out I have no idea one way or the other. Thoughts, please? Have I got this horribly wrong? Guy (Help!) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• To me; it's a revert and pretty obviously.∯WBG^converse 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I think not, but specific to this situation, and a good idea to ask the question in any case. The protection log for this page reads "non-autoconfirmed edits need review, as a minimum" beside the pending changes activation. You've given a valid reason to not accept the edit. The IP is edit-warring to re-add the same material without addressing the valid concern, they're just insisting that they're right. One or the other of you should have gone to the talk page by now, but WP:ONUS suggests that's on them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Following up: not to suggest wrongdoing by either party, I have protected the page for 2 days. If that is not enough time to resolve the issue please let me know; I have the page on my watchlist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding is that it counts as a revert minus the standard exceptions. WP:RPC refers to the options the reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see why not. Someone adds content, and you reject it. If the individual kept adding it and kept adding it, and you kept rejecting it and kept rejecting it, the two of you could be sanctioned for edit-warring unless it were a case of 3RRNO. Better to protect the page; thank you Ivanvector. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Qatar issues Admin needed

Talk:Qatar Charity has several users concerned about whitewashing by single purpose accts, possible socks etc. Can an Admin look into this page. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:MKD

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Hello. Please change the Macedonia with North Macedonia to Template:MKD. Do the same to Template:Country data Macedonia. Some changes maybe needed to other template as Template:Flagicon etc. Xaris333 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit requests for how to request edits to protected templates. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request from User talk:Rickyc123

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

---

Rickyc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked following this discussion at ANI. Although this was a discretionary block by Swarm, there was consensus at the ANI thread to block.

I have copied over their request for unblock and the unblock discussion from their talk.

Unblock request

I realise now what I did at the time was incredibly immature but I believe that now after over a year of not editing. I have learnt my lesson and will not persist in the copying within Wikipedia violations as I can now see how it actually negatively effects Wikipedia. I am genuinely sorry with what I did and would like to redeem myself and help to improve Wikipedia. I could make a new account as I'm going to University this year however I genuinely want to redeem myself and not make a new account based on trying to hide my identity as the past owner of the Rickyc123 account. I am remorseful of what I did and would politely ask if you could please lift this permanent editing ban for life you have on me as I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated. Thank you and sorry for my past violation.

Unblock discussion

Hello. What's different this time from last? What will you do instead?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I wouldn't copy within Wikipedia as I did before and also if you look at all the edits I made apart from my violations, they were constructive. It was only a minority of my edits where I violated the rules although by admission, I shouldn't have even done this in the first place. I am also now willing to accept liability for what I did wrong. ThanksRickyc123 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Rickyc123

Thanks. Awiting swarm-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I suppose this would need to go back to ANI as it was imposed at THIS discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

If unblocked, I believe there must be a TBAN on article creation for 6 months of active editing without further problems.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, so the way I worded everything, this wasn't officially a consensus-based block, but a discretionary one. However, I think there was a fairly strong consensus in support of an indef, and I agree that it should probably go to AN/I AN. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

---

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock per WP:ROPE etc. I'm fine with a TBAN on article creation if desired. Hopefully lesson was learned. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Can we have them explain how copying within Wikipedia works? Copyright blocks are CIR blocks, and we shouldn’t be unblocking per SO until they demonstrate they know what the rules are. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• As one of the disputants in the days of weekly (if not daily) AN* threads regarding external communities demanding that en.WP be the full repository of KayFayBee, Fight stats, descriptions, etc because Wikipedia shows up so much in google searches over the need of the WP community for adhering to standards, I request from Rickyc123 a plan/explanation of how they intend to reconcile their purported desired editing (I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated.) with applicable standards (such as WP:MMANOT). Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  I have informed them of this question and have asked they respond on their talk page. I will be offline and unable to repost responses here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Ok, based on this diff I must have to ask the question more plainly. What is the appropriate ballance between the needs of enthusiasts to have datum that are better serviced from external websites versus the need to keep wikipedia accurate? For example: Fighter XYZZY is in event YARRA. How soon after the conclusion of the fight would be appropriate for the typical case to update a fighter's stats be, expecially in light of WP:RS? Hasteur (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  In light of second reply. I express Decline. The suggestion that updating stats as soon as the fight is over (especially in light of potential disqualifications) suggests that they don't understand the concepts correctly. Hasteur (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the repost, but Rickyc123 has asked for this to be retrieved from the archives to find consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support conditional unblock Apart from the general dislike for wrestling topics here (due to the volume of drama in editing disputes there), I don't see any reason not to unblock. I agree with the conditional block on page creation, appealable after 6 months, that Dlohcierekim suggested earlier. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock - Seems to understand what they did wrong; if they go back to problematic behaviors, it's easy enough to reblock. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock WP:ROPE springs to mind. Also, as per what NorthBySouthBaranof says, if the same problematic editing returns, we can simply block again.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Reversal sought of non-admin CFD closure

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

---

WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia is a mass nomination by me of ~650 categories.

It was closed[15] after only 3 hours by non-admin @MattLongCT on procedural grounds.

At User talk:MattLongCT#CfD_Macedonia I have supported the request by two other experienced editors to revert the closure: @Marcocapelle[16] and @Oculi[17]. However, MattLongCT has declined this request[18].

MattLongCT is a relatively inexperienced editor (with only 2219 edits), who should not have closed this discussion:

1. MattLongCT does not meet WP:NACEXP
2. WP:BADNAC#2 and WP:NACPIT#1; this close was inevitably controversial
3. WP:NAC#Other_deletion_discussions: "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question". I am a regular participant at CFD, and don't recall seeing MattLongCT posting there

Please can an uninvolved admin revert this bad closure by an editor who probably shouldn't be closing any CFDs?

There are currently ~650 categories tagged with a link to the closed discussion, so the closure is likely to be impedng a lot of potential participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• A little more background, the closer MattLongCT makes a wrong judgment when thinking that the CFD discussion is potentially conflicting with a parallel RFC. This morning I explained to him why it is not a problem that the RFC and the CFD discussion are running in parallel but did not get a response back. I do not blame him for making the wrong judgment, but not reverting the closure after three editors questioned the closure is a matter of plain stubbornness. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle, sure, the misjudged closure is the sort of error that can happen. But the problem here is that @MattLongCT shouldn't have been making that judgement in the first place ... and, as you rightly note, is now just being stubborn and digging himself into a hole.

By the time 3 of the most experienced CFD editors are saying this was a bad call, he should recognise that this decision is best left to an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I have to say that while it may have been proceduraly improper, I broadly agree with the close; if there is a broad RfC considering how we are going to deal with this name change, and the RfC has so far failed to deal with the obviously-connected question of categories that use the name, then it just makes sense that the categories question should be added to the RfC, not held in parallel. GoldenRing (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The RFC and the CFD discussion are two streams that are each dependent on the Requested Move of the article. The two streams are not dependent on each other. Since the RM has already been closed, both streams can now have their course. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

While in theory that is true, in practice it makes a whole lot of sense for these obviously-related discussions to happen in the same place. GoldenRing (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing, sorry, but that makes no sense. The RFC is a massive, sprawling multi-section exercise. It makes no sense at all to add a massive category discussion onto that already-overloaded page. (The CFD non and cat listing alone is 85Kb). Adding the cats to the RFC page would make it harder to track the progress of the category discussion, since once page history would cover them all.

There is no discussion at the RFC either of the categories directly, or of any issues which would affect the CFD. The head article has been renamed non-contentiously, add the CFD includes only those categories which use the noun-form.

So what we now have is 650 categories tagged for discussion which has been closed, and which has no alternative venue. That's daft.

If you or @MattLongCT identify an issue with the nominated categories which relates to the topics at the RFC, then you could raise it at the CFD and see if there is a consensus to park the CFD in whole or in part ... but simply closing off the CFD prevents that discussion from taking place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Perhaps you would rather have a separate discussion on how to disambiguate "Macedonia", and a separate discussion on how to describe the nationality of people from North Macedonia, and a separate discussion on how to describe public organisations of the state of North Macedonia, and a separate discussion on which adjective to use for nouns related to North Macedonia, and how to name North Macedonia in historical contexts? No doubt all of these would reduce the sprawl of the RfC and give editors many more opportunities to waste time reiterating the same arguments on what is, fundamentally, the same discussion. All of these have, nonetheless, been collated into one RfC because they are all - blindingly obviously - different aspects of the same question. How we categorise North Macedonia is obviously another aspect of the same question, albeit one which the RfC proposer didn't think of. GoldenRing (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The closer has reverted the close. Carry on. GMG^talk 19:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

GMG, I only closed because BrownHairedGirl said I was starting to appear to be engaging in wilful disruption. That comment hurt a lot. My revision in no way means I am okay with ending the discussion here. I felt incredibly pressured to do so at that point even if I did not feel there was satisfactory consensus to reopen it. :( ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: you continue to entirely miss the point.

Your close should have been reverted because it was of a type which should not be made by a non-admin, viz. that it was controversial. You should not have waited to make your own weighing of consensus of responses to the merits of the closure; the mere fact that it was demonstrably controversial (as you should have foreseen) was sufficient to require its re-opening. That's why I labelled your delaying as disruptive.

Once you had 3 objections from editors vastly more experienced than yourself, that should have been sufficient for you to recognise "oops, I still think this was the right step, but it wasn't suitable for NAC, so revert". It should not have required any pressure on you to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I have no clue why the onus should be on me as the nac-closer to find consensus to procedurally close something currently under discretionary sanctions. There was no consensus to separate out this CfD from the main RfC even though it has the same topic. It feels like there is an arbitrarily higher bar for me as a Non-admin-closers to close this topic than had I been an Admin. My interpretation that I was a lawful closer under the rules for CfD should be just as valid as anyone else's. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, @MattLongCT

1. Discretionary sanctions are a tool open to admins. You are not an admin
2. As one of the architects of the RFC, you were WP:INVOLVED
3. You complain that feels like there is an arbitrarily higher bar for me as a Non-admin-closers to close this topic than had I been an Admin. Exactly! Read read read read read read read WP:NAC: there is very clearly a higher bar for non-admins, as set out at the top of this discussion.
4. Your claim that There was no consensus to separate out this CfD from the main RfC entirely misses the point because
   • There is a long-standing consensus that CFD is the venue where categories are discussed.
   • The CFD carefully avoids the issues being discussed at the RFC

This would be a great time for you to stop digging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I get it. I already know I've made a fool of myself. I'll just go away. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec with notification of re-opening, but I'll post anyway) @GoldenRing, let's look at the issue you raise:

1. nationality of people from North Macedonia
2. how to describe public organisations of the state of North Macedonia
3. which adjective to use for nouns related to North Macedonia
4. how to name North Macedonia in historical contexts?

None of those issues affect the decision to be made at the CFD, which has been specifically designed to exclude all those issues which are still under debate. So the CFD issues are not an aspect of the RFC.

It seems to me that you simply haven't read either the CFD nomination or the list of categories nominated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, as someone who has read both in detail, there is some clear overlap. Category:Works about the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Works about North Macedonia, Category:Prehistory of the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Prehistory of North Macedonia, Category:Geography of the Republic of Macedonia to Category:Geography of North Macedonia, and so many others. Some of that is exactly what we are discussing over there. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT, I'm sorry but that reply also shows little sign of having read either the CFD nom or the RFC. If you think I am mistaken, please identify which parts of the RFC are discussing the change of page titles from "foo Republic of Macedonia" to "foo North Macedonia". So far as I can see, there plenty of discussions about usage in running text, but none about page titles.

And if you had read the CFD, you would see that it is intended to specifically exclude topics which wholly predate the name change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl No need to be sorry. Also, please see: Macedonia (region) being discussed under Disambiguation, State-associated and other public entities (which discusses how we should refer to any related institution to the Government of Macedonia), and "Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" Redirects for some supplemental conversation on geography and whether Northern Macedonia means the same thing as North Macedonia. Also, yes I saw that you had tried to exclusively discuss topics that were already not covered by the RfC. However, the RfC is more broad than you originally gave it credit for. It's that or that you did not succeed in your intentions in excluding categories that predate the name change. I don't know. At the end of the day, this whole thing is not simple and non-controversial in pretty much any area. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @MattLongCT, really really please do read the CFD nom, esp the final para which says If you spot any categories listed above which you think should be left for a future discussion, please strike them or ping me and I will strike them. I am open to suggestions on how to reword that more clearly.

The whole point of the nomination is to proceed with the uncontroversial category names: as I wrote in the nom, only taking only the simplest and most clearcut cases. Again, I welcome suggestions for how to clarify that phrase. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, even if I come up with a hundred plus categories? That's the only reason I did not follow the process since it seemed you figured that these were the most non-controversial ones. I feel like if I did that now, you would think of me as even more intransigent than if I just gave up on this whole affair as was just suggested. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, That is not correct. The result of the section on Non-contentious housekeeping decides whether or not the Move Request should stay or not. I keep trying to explain this. :( ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• That is actually a poor part of the RFC, there is no reason to re-do an RM after the discussion has been closed with overwhelming consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Marcocapelle, there was consensus to include it, so it was included. If you object, then I encourage you to bring it up with all the editors who agreed to put it there. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MattLongCT, per @Marcocapelle, it is surprising to see the RFC examining that. The RM discussion was exceptionally well attended, and the closer noted an overwhelming consensus in support of it. If someone objected to the RM discusion, the appropriate venue to consider re-opening it is WP:MOVEREVIEW, not an RFC. Bluntly, the RFC doesn't get to decide whether the Move Request should stay or not. The reason you keep trying to explain your point without success is that is that you are advocating something which is procedurally wrong.

And in any case, at the time you closed the CFD, that section of the RFC was running 16:1 in support of the RM, which is WP:SNOW territory. So there was absolutely no need for anyone to intervene to prevent a process clash, let alone an urgency which required you as a non-admin to intervene without prior discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is why my original suggestion was to have it over there as a part of that proposal. I still don't see why we should not merge the two discussions if they are both related.

It also was not a surprise as someone who participated in the RfC drafting process. The group endorsed the inclusion of that question. As I noted, the RfC was in the process of being drafted before the move request had been proposed. It was noted in some of the comments on the Move Request that this was the case as well (which was how I found the RfC). You are welcome to hop over there and express your concerns to the several editors who included the question. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you on that point. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As a show of Good Faith, I have reopened the CfD. However, I still feel the need to clear some things up.

The RfC in question was first proposed in 11 February 2019. Several editors (including myself) since then had spent many days discussing how exactly it should look like and what to include. On 18:00 UTC 15 February 2019 we were set to launch. This then happened without much fanfare. In the meantime, yes a move request was successfully gone through. However, the question of whether or not to support the move request was also included in the RfC under Non-contentious housekeeping.

On 01:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Admin BrownHairedGirl (someone whom I greatly admire for their many contributions to this project) wrote the first draft of her proposal to rename Category:Republic of Macedonia to Category:North Macedonia and all of its ~670 subcategories. This was also included on WP:CENT.

I then noticed it on WP:CENT when I went to see if the RfC was added there or not. On 04:51, 16 February 2019‎ I closed the CfD. I then immediatly notified the nomination of this change. I wait some hours for a response, but as it was getting late I went to bed. The only response I had before I went to bed was from MSGJ who sent me a thanks in the thank log (at 05:27 UTC specifically for the curious).

Three and a half hours later, Marcocapelle made his object to my close known. At 11:43am, so did Users Oculi and BrownHairedGirl. A few hours after that, I had posted my response on my talk page. I notified all involved parties (except MSGJ) and thanked them for their patience with me. I included a list of remedies I thought would be most helpful in order of my preference. The last remedy on the list was for me to just simply do as BrownHairedGirl asked and revert my closure. I fully expected that one of these solutions would be workable, and I figured that there would be no further controversy on the matter.

I have come to find we are here. I have no clue why to be honest. I do not understand why there have been no objections to the RfC including a discussion on the "Northern Macedonia" and "Southern Macedonia" Redirects, but there is for this CfD. I think the discussion is important to have, but I do not feel it warrants a completely separate conversation when every single other thing we could think of is included in the RfC.

I would also contend that I am an inexperienced editor all around. However, I am more so experienced in the field of general discussion closings. I can name several times I closed something and an editor objected to my closure. Previously, we were always able to work out a solution to the problem and come to a mutual agreement. Anyone is welcome to review my closing history. If there is something I need to do better, then let me know. I stand behind my procedural closing, but beyond that completely agree with GoldenRing. Thank you all. (edit conflict) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for re-opening the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I really also want to state for the record that I never "declined the request," I just hadn't explicitly come to the decision that I would. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Giving up is not a character flaw on Wikipedia; it's a virtue, and will save you a lot of headache and wasted time. If multiple people take issue with something, then just let it go. It's often a net negative to fight an extended war of attrition and win, rather than to easily lose a winning battle, even if you're right. GMG^talk 20:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  GMG, so I should give up? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sure. I mean, is it really worth all this to have an arguably marginally better procedural process? Let's be honest, there are a few hundred thousand people on this project, and it will work itself out eventually. We had the same issue over at Commons about whether someone should be moving categories and files individually or whether we should have a big procedural vote on a bot that will fix everything very neatly. It's a thing. It'll be worked out. There's no sense in fighting over it. It's a whole big nasty mess based on people doing what's in front of them that will be on average productive at the time. No need to stress over the particulars. GMG^talk 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You will never convince BrownHairedGirl to allow anyone else to handle her precious categories in any way that does not fit her master plan. So yes, since categories are marginally useful to editors and of no consequence to readers it is best to let her run her corner of Wikipedia without interference. For a while she was not aware the country renamed, blocking efforts to make updates, until she was set straight. Eventually her 650 category CfD will get actioned and all will be well. Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Closure of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.

I have queries about the closure of the RfC held here. The closing editor originally closed as "No consensus (whatsoever) emerged in this discussion! And It is closed with prejudice. Even while the participants have, only ever, acted in good faith." (diff) I queried the closing editor at their talk page about their rationale, as did several other editors, which saw the closing editor change their close statement to "...It is closed with aggrieve (The original use of "with prejudice" (as a qualifier) was a poorly thought choice. It was refactored to use "with aggrieve" instead)..." (diff) which sparked further confusion from myself and other editors at the term "with aggrieve". After further discussion with several editors, the closing editor once again changed their closing statement with an overhauled rationale (diff). While I belive no consensus is a reasonable outcome of the RfC, I still believe the line "Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA." in the Naming convention in question contradicts MOS:US and a consensus at the Village pump. My questions are:

• (1) is the closure rationale appropriate in each of the three versions the closing editor has given, particularily given the closing editor's annoyance that a request to close was made in the first place in their first two closing statements and their claim that the RfC was not publicised wide enough for their liking despite the fact it was advertised in the relevant WikiProject and the Village Pump.
• (2) does the editor's closing mean an RfC on the same topic cannot be initiated again? The terms "closed with prejudice" and "closed with aggrieve" would seem to indicate that I or another editor is prevented from bringing up the issue again, but I (and another editor stated the same in discussion) could find the rationale or further detail for this.

I would appreciate some further guidance and clarity on the matter. Thanks -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. I will not clutter this discussion with a response (at this time) as the questions are not directed to me. I am, nevertheless, willing, and standing by in case I am needed for any reason regarding this matter. Thank you. And best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect to John Cline, given the confusion, I think it would be best if this is re-closed by an admin. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am uncertain if this is a typing error alluding to an unquantified level of respect (I am not trying to imply that I am due any respect at all) or if it's a duly noted request that I voluntarily concur with the suggested corrective measure (seeing that the OP did not formally challenge the closure or ask that it be overturned). Before I respond, I'd like to ask Newyorkbrad to clarify his intent. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Typo fixed, sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Remedy 3 in Macedonia is superseded by this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Eastern Europe and Macedonia

Hello, Unceasing vandalism from Omar Toons

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

---

Hello, there is an unceasing vandalism of the Marinid article õn the french Wikipedia. We provided necessary sources. best ~regards 196.117.101.240 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You will have to report this on French Wikipedia. We cannot help you here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

IP block exempt request

Hi guys, sorry to ask here but can I get a quickie IP block exemption for User:Hariata77. Currently working at an Edit-a-thon and running into issues with one of the editors here being unable to edit do to a range block on her IP (I think the university uses a range of IPs distributed at random and some are blocked and others are not; the one she is on is blocked). I tried to go through the steps of requesting an IP block exemption from her account but it seems bugged and I really want to get her editing ASAP. Thanks, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, now done. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend, Thanks mate. Issue fixed now. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Very good. Please notify me if you have any other issues. I'll try to be online for a few more hours (it's 7:45PM here in eastern North America) in case IPs get reassigned midway through your event and someone else gets rangeblocked. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Run a deletion script

Hi, could someone run a script to delete all 88 pages that are linked from User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/archive box? Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, if you have Twinkle, it is the "d-batch" tab. Killiondude (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't run scripts. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-admin Edit Filter Manager request for User:Suffusion of Yellow

Hello all, there is currently an open request for edit filter manager access for Suffusion of Yellow. To comment on this request please use the primary discussion at: Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Edit_filter_manager_right_for_Suffusion_of_Yellow. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 00:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes casting a supervote again

Lourdes (talk · contribs) has cast a supervote in this ANI thread, unblocking Godsy (talk · contribs) after only three days when he was blocked indefinitely by Ivanvector for repeatedly violating an IBan. I did not participate in the ANI thread; however, there was a stronger consensus to retain the block (pending a more convincing appeal by Godsy), than there was to quickly lift it. I count 5 supports for the block staying in place, and 3.5 (GoldenRing was hesitant in his opinion) against. Lourdes stated that there was "broad consensus" for the quick unblock, but that's simply not true; in fact seemingly the reverse. This is not the first time Lourdes has cast a supervote at ANI; she did so in October [19] and was reverted by Bishonen [20]. My sense is that if this is becoming a pattern and Lourdes is casting supervotes and taking administrative actions (or making administrative warnings and/or threats) contrary to consensus, she probably needs to stay away from taking administrative actions at ANI until she learns how to assess, summarize, and abide by WP:CONSENSUS. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• If the consensus here is that I have misread the ANI discussions and that Godsy should remain blocked, then any administrator can and should reverse my administrative action. Lourdes 08:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to describe Lourdes' closure as a supervote. There was definitely a consensus that the indefinite block imposed by Ivanvector was too much, Ivan was ok with this being discussed/ameliorated, and within the discussion I see 4 editors arguing for a week or more (SerialNumber54129, power~enwiki, Dlohcierekim, Levivich), and 4 for less than this or no block at all (GoldenRing, Flooded w/them 100s, Atsme, Tavix). There was a very clear and definite consensus to shorten the block, and all that was left was to argue over degrees. When we're at the point of nitpicking over whether a block should be 4 days or 7 days, we could probably find better things to do. Fish+Karate 09:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Check again, please:

1. Serial Number 54129: Indef, no appeal for at least six months
2. Nil Eine: "an indef is IMO justified"
3. Power~enwiki: at least a week
4. Dlohcierekim: "a week or two .... Their unblock request is most unpromising"
5. Flooded with them hundreds: "It is a violation of the IBAN but not clear/disruptive enough to justify the indefinite block. Reduce the block to 3 days or a week"
6. Levivich: "good block, .... Godsy's February 15 edits were a clear, intentional violation of the iban, and the community should not tolerate long term harassment of one editor by another"; and he gave a very well-reasoned, very extensively researched; very extensively diffed, and multi-point rationale.

As someone who participated in the discussion, I think you are misreading the situation to match your own viewpoint. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I gave no opinion on the ban, and if I had, it would have been to keep it in place until Godsy made it clear he was aware what he'd been doing (stalking LP's edits) was unacceptable and that he wouldn't do it again, for however long that took. I did miss Nil Eine's statement that an indef was justified, but there's still a consensus to reduce the length of the block, and all that remains is quibbles over a couple of days. As someone who once was accused of making two admins quit because I suggested one made a supervote, I am very clear on what does and does not constitute a supervote and I don't think this is one, really. I understand that your opinion on the matter may differ and am OK with that. Fish+Karate 11:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I was surprised when I saw Lourdes had unblocked as it wasn't my reading of the ANI thread, and Godsy's appeal didn't really seem to sufficiently reflect an understanding of the problem with their editing. I'd note also that while IvanVector was fine with their block being overturned with consensus, or with a modification, they seemed to believe it was justified. (In other words, they too come into the 'support indef' category IMO.) Recognising indef is not permanent, a suitable appeal would be another avenue, but again this goes to whether the appeal really indicate an understanding of the problem with their editing. That said, I also don't understand why this wasn't raised with Lourdes first. Yes I know Legacypac said something, but Legacypac is not someone who should be quibbling over this. Frankly though my biggest concern is not whether or not there was consensus and for what action, or whether the appeal was sufficient, but whether enough time was allowed for discussion. While the discussion had been opened for a while, Levivich's analysis was fairly new. I get the feeling the discussion had died down and wasn't going to be resurrected, but I can't be sure. So it seems to me it would have been better to leave discussion for a few more days. This would also better fit in with the 'week' which seemed to be the lowest there was consensus for. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)