Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 2d) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229.
Line 305: Line 305:
:¨The page was deleted by me because it contained copyright violations from the start in 2006 right until the moment of deletion. He asker Sphilbrick a copy of the page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick&diff=prev&oldid=465650092] promising "'''I will rewrite''', but need the categories and lede and links to other articles" (emphasis mine). However, he did not really rewrite it, just slightly modified it (removing most of the first paragraph). Admins can see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Orpheum+Circuit&timestamp=20111216015934&diff=prev here] the diff between the deleted and recreated page. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
:¨The page was deleted by me because it contained copyright violations from the start in 2006 right until the moment of deletion. He asker Sphilbrick a copy of the page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick&diff=prev&oldid=465650092] promising "'''I will rewrite''', but need the categories and lede and links to other articles" (emphasis mine). However, he did not really rewrite it, just slightly modified it (removing most of the first paragraph). Admins can see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Orpheum+Circuit&timestamp=20111216015934&diff=prev here] the diff between the deleted and recreated page. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support fixed ban extension ''' per [[User:Sphilbrick]]. Evidently, he has been making great strides recently. He's motivated and productive, and I'd like to see him channeled into problem-free contributions. Sphilbrick, you mention potential mentoring, and I think that's a great idea. Would you be willing to take that on? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support fixed ban extension ''' per [[User:Sphilbrick]]. Evidently, he has been making great strides recently. He's motivated and productive, and I'd like to see him channeled into problem-free contributions. Sphilbrick, you mention potential mentoring, and I think that's a great idea. Would you be willing to take that on? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
** In short, yes. He and I do not see eye to eye on the inclusions of long quotes in cites, but I think we can resolve that. On other issues, I think we can work together.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;">(Talk)</span>]]</font> 19:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support renewing the ban indefinitely'''; and I wouldn't look askance at a site ban either. RAN is an ''unrepentant'' serial copyright violator, and his continued participation would require ''constant'' monitoring for the foreseeable future. I can think of hundreds of more productive things those efforts could be directed towards. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support renewing the ban indefinitely'''; and I wouldn't look askance at a site ban either. RAN is an ''unrepentant'' serial copyright violator, and his continued participation would require ''constant'' monitoring for the foreseeable future. I can think of hundreds of more productive things those efforts could be directed towards. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Revision as of 19:22, 16 December 2011

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice


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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{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

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 85 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      new closer needed
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
      If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
      Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
      However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
      In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
      I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
      I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
      The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 9 33 0 42
      TfD 0 0 14 0 14
      MfD 0 0 3 0 3
      FfD 0 0 2 0 2
      RfD 0 1 22 0 23
      AfD 0 0 1 0 1

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

      (Initiated 57 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 434 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH21talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.
      • The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
      • The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
      • The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
      • The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.
      So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH21talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Paine Ellsworth: Ah you've convinced me. I was being a bit too cautious and it was slightly counterproductive – sorry to take your time! I'll perform the merger, thanks. — MarkH21talk 00:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No problemo and Happy to Help! and Thank You for your work on Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 81 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

      (Initiated 5 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Wgfinley's conduct on A/E

      User who is submitting this request for enforcement
      asad (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      User against whom enforcement is requested
      Wgfinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      Sanction or remedy to be enforced
      WP:ADMINACCT

      This was originally a request on WP:A/E that has been migrated here because it is not under the scope of A/E apparently.

      WGFinley has seemingly lost sight of his of his duties as an Administrator on Wikipedia. As to why I feel this has happened, I will not speculate it was do to his preference towards a certain POV, unwillingness to admit a mistake or even flat out arrogance, because I quite frankly see that as irrelevant. This all stems from his adjudication of the User:Jiujitsuguy case. In quick summary, Jiujitsuguy violated WP:Consensus (in particular WP:Legality of Israeli settlements), by removing reference to Katzrin being an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights. Jiujitsuguy later self-reverted. Something is important to note here: that although the complaint was originally filed for JJGs removal of a consensus statement, more diffs were added which shows that Jiujitsuguy deliberately abused sources to push a certain POV. This was especially concerning considering JJGs recent expiration of a topic-ban of, which he received largely for misrepresenting sources.

      I am not going to copy the text verbatim, but it is clear to see from JJGs most recent A/E case he distorted sources to push a POV that Mount Hermon is in Israel. Both User:EdJohnston and User:Timotheus Canens both seemed to agree that there was an issue with JJGs sources and were willing to discuss the matter. But WGFinley was not interested at all. WGF was asked multiple times to please address the issue of JJG misrepresenting sources, he either did not, or claimed that he already did. I still, until this very second, have no idea where he purportedly addressed the issues.


      JJG source misrepresentation diffs:

      1. 13 Nov 2011 Claims Mt. Hermon is in Israel by using the Fodor's Travel Guide source and the quote he cites in the ref, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain," but leaves out, "at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." The full quote should read (with the strikethroughs being what JJG omitted), "Mt. Hermon -- famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." (see the source here)
      2. 13 Nov 2011 Uses this source to claim Mt. Hermon is in Israel, although the source clearly writes, "Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights."

      Besides the multiple requests on the A/E thread, WGF was asked on his talk page to explain the issue:

      1. 30 Nov 2011 Asked by User:Malik Shabazz to address JJG misrepresenting sources after prematurely closing the A/E thread without seeing T. Canens latest post calling for a topic-ban
      2. 30 Nov 2011 User:Gatoclass brought to WGF's attention that the issue in A/E was misuse of sources
      3. 1 Dec 2011 Matter brought to attention, again by User:Nableezy with request for an explantion
      4. 1 Dec 2011 Asked by myself to, again, address the issue of misrepresentation of sources

      WGF's confusion of the matter was further illustrated by claiming that JJG had "self-reverted" himself at Mount Hermon, which he never did (see Mount Hermon's history):

      1. 30 Nov 2011

      This was the only other time WGF even brought up JJG and Mount Hermon in the same post. Neither of the diffs refer to him addressing misrepresentation of sources at all, whatsoever:

      1. 30 Nov 2011


      Additional comments

      Lets pretend for a second that we want to accept WGF's position that Nableezy was uncivil and, therefore, WGF wouldn't want to respond to someone who was acting to so "uncivil" towards him. Fine. But what is the excuse for the other three editors who posed the same question? WP:ADMIN clearly states, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." WGF can't just say he has responded to something he didn't even respond to push the issue aside. He should be accountable for his actions, he can't use ambiguity to disguise bad judgement calls he has made as an admin. He seems to have an issue with editors questioning decisions he makes, as is evidenced by the amount of "discussion closed" hats he places on his talk page.

      But what has become even more hard to bear in this whole debate is the fact that some admins are only catching the tail-end of the situation and noticing Nableezy's perceived "incivility", without even understanding the context of the situation. By doing that, some admins seem willing to sacrifice one "uncivil" editor to better the so-called "Project", but not look at the larger issue of POV-pushing and falsification of sources. Being an admin on A/E is not about personal vendettas or tallying up blocks and bans, it is about using tools in a proper way to make the encyclopedia experience more reliable for the average person trying to get information on a topic based on a simple Google search. This admin, in particular, has decided that a more important issue for A/E is the is an editors perceived incivility, but not one editors manipulation of sources that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. I find that extremely distasteful.

      I don't think WGF's adminship should be recalled, but I do think he should not be allowed to adjudicate anything further relating to ARBPIA. He should also be reminded, that he should be required to give a clear response when serious questions (like falsification of sources) are asked to him. -asad (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

      Notified

      Comment by The Devil's Advocate

      Full disclosure, I am currently under a topic ban imposed by WG on a separate subject, though I still think I am quite capable of being objective about his actions. I'm pretty thick-skinned.

      First, I think this might be for ANI specifically and not the noticeboard in general, though asad appears to have just been acting according to an admin's suggestion. Of course, I don't really know. Maybe this is the right place for it.

      Second, I think the inquiry should be broadened a bit since it appears at this point to be little more than calling for a pound of flesh because of a disagreement with WG on one case. While the admin who suggested this area as a more appropriate venue felt there was not much merit, I think that is partly because it is focused on that one case when there are in fact two cases of relevance here. WG's actions in the case against Cptnono appears to be the main cause for concern on the admin's behavior.

      That case has seen WG suggesting Nableezy be banned from AE requests and topic-banned because he believed the case against Cptnono was vexatious and because Nableezy had commented on the AE case mentioned above after it closed. I think part of the problem with that is the way WG went about suggesting it. Specifically, he made the suggestion in the AE case against Cptnono in the area for unvinvolved admins. Given some pretty heated words between him and Nableezy it seems charitable for WG to consider himself an uninvolved editor as it concerns Nableezy's conduct, especially since several of the problems WG cited with Nableezy's conduct were on WG's talk page and directed at WG. I should also direct attention to one of those problems (listed as #3 in a list) WG cites where he misrepresents the situation on his talk page. Another admin started a discussion on WG's talk page and Nableezy later commented on those discussions. WG only specifically warns him twice to take the discussion to AE and the second time Nableezy appears to relent, but WG seemingly implies that Nableezy ignored repeated pleas to only discuss on AE.

      On a final note, I should add that WG's actions on my AE case were questioned along similar lines to those above.

      I really have no opinion on action to be taken, though if WG seems to be out of his depth on more complicated disputes typical of AE perhaps he should be restricted to more technical and obvious areas of administrative purview. Of course, maybe he just needs to be told that carefully reading people's comments so as to understand the dispute is generally expected of an admin when suggesting sanctions. Either way, it seems he may need to be considered an involved admin when it comes to cases regarding Nableezy given the increasingly heated nature of their relationship on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment by MichaelNetzer

      This filing is predicated by disapproval over AE decisions WGF made regarding an editor who spares little discourtesy and rage towards editors and admins who disagree with him. This editor's tone and behavior are often aggressive, disruptive, uncivil and foment a poisonous atmosphere in the editing environment. He and supporters of his POV push in that editing space have mastered the art of trying to silence "opponents", including the art of excessive filing of complaints and filibustering discussions, based on technical issues meant to distract from the aggressive POV pushing behavior, far above what is generally tolerated on WP. This complaint is the last in such a series now intended to silence WGFinley, who has identified the behavioral problem and is proposing a remedy for it at AE. Nothing more. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Going after Nableezy is an unhelpful distraction. Nableezy may be abrasive at times, but that does not mean WG should be elevated to some sort of sainthood for suggesting action against him. There was clearly a heated atmosphere between WG and Nableezy, and it appears to have been specifically between them. He should not be suggesting any action under the guise of being uninvolved when Nableezy has clearly gotten under his skin. My thinking is he should have recognized that his own emotions were too intense and perhaps made a formal request as an involved editor concerning Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      "Abrasive" is a generously kind understatement for Nableezy's tone in the I/P editing space with editors he disagrees with. His behavior is the root of too many issues there. WGF is addressing this root cause that is too often masked behind technical issues. His involvement is only in his capacity as administrator and does not in any way disqualify him to handle issues with Nableezy. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Nableezy has presented five AE cases, I believe, within the past five months or so and two of them lead to sanctions against the reported editors with no action against Nableezy, in at least one case those sanctions were imposed by WG. Another saw several admins supporting sanctions, but was closed because of the opposition from other admins, WG namely. The latest one against Cptnono saw several admins agreeing that the conduct Nableezy reported was a violation or appeared to be a violation. WG's call for banning Nableezy from AE seems incredibly excessive in light of those facts. Given the heated exchanges he has had with Nableezy, him calling for a ban as an "uninvolved" administrator is a very serious problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      WGF's concerns and proposal for ban were based on uncivil behavior alone. But he seems to have settled for no ban so the argument is now mute. The problem of behavior remains and will likely become more empowered in light of the peculiarly forgiving attitude of AE admins towards the problem. Something I haven't seen with any other editor who violates civility to this degree, and suggests severe prejudice. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That isnt true, and while it is unsurprising that you persist in making unsupported disparaging claims against others, it isnt remotely constructive. nableezy - 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The most constructive measure that I see needed to return to some semblance of good collaboration is to convince you to tone down your behavior. You and I have shown it's possible on the map. I'd like to see you try to remain in such a behavioral space more often. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think changing his mind after a flood of admins indicate to him that he is overreacting should really be considered a mark in his favor. That he thought he could act as an uninvolved admin in suggesting a ban of Nableezy from AE despite the obvious tensions between the two of them raises serious concerns. If Nableezy files a future AE report WG thinks is wrong and there isn't a flood of admins to convince WG he is overstepping, maybe he will actually impose a hefty ban on Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Nableezy himself has said that previous bans have helped him curb his 1RR violations. Whatever it takes for the same in collaborative civil conduct would be constructive and welcome. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment by Zero0000

      I do not support any actual sanction against WGFinley. However, I wish to record that several times I have been quite startled by the apparent animosity that WGFinley shows towards Nableezy, very little of which seems to be justified by the circumstances, and by the lack of logic displayed by WGFinley when discussing matters related to Nableezy. The AE process should not only be dispassionate, but should appear dispassionate. That is not the case here. I think WGFinley should voluntarily stay away from AE cases involving Nableezy. Zerotalk 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      WGFINLEY's Response

      This is a complaint about a closed AE case. I stated my opinion in the AE case and engaged in discussion with other uninvolved admins. In the end another admin (not me) deemed there was no consensus for action and thus closed the case.[1] I could go on in detail but I had stated I felt what the editor did was wrong but shouldn't be sanctioned for it. This is the purpose of AE: noninvolved admins reviewing, giving their opinions and engaging in discussion.

      During the course of the case some editors asked me questions on my talk page and I engaged in discussion but ultimately referred back to WP:AE as the proper place for the discussion. Many times on AE a tactic used by different sides is to game via filibustering, in this case it's repeatedly asking the same question (to get involved in the content dispute), getting an explanation (refusing to get involved in analyzing sources and getting involved in the content dispute), not accepting the explanation and then asking again. In this case this user and supporters feel admins should be researching sources on WP:AE, I believe this draws admins into content disputes and respectfully disagree.[2][3][4][5]

      In summary I commented on an AE case and gave my reasons for my opinion, the case was closed without action by another admin. I didn't take any action that requires explanation but it's clear by the volumes on my talk page I didn't ignore the questions, I just didn't provide the answers desired.

      --WGFinley (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment by Nableezy

      WGFinley made several demonstrably false comments and refused to answer questions about them. I have outlined the sequence of events at User:Nableezy/sandbox. The claim that he did not ignore the questions asked of him is absurd, he still hasn't answered several basic questions. I dont expect that this will generate anything in terms of uninvolved commentary or any type of action, and Id suggest that this section be hatted in favor of an RFC/U. nableezy - 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Let me make this clear one final time with no reasonable means of ambiguity: assessing sources, outside of blatant cases (i.e. plagiarism and original research) is a content issue. What the source says, paraphrasing what a source says, how it is cited, whether it is a bonafide secondary source, what meaning the source conveys, whether someone is misrepresenting a source, those are all content issues that are handled through the normal process of editing an article. Admins don't do content disputes, thus, I will not answer your question because it is not for me to decide. --WGFinley (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree there. Misrepresentation of sources is serious misbehaviour that strikes at the heart of collaborative editing anywhere in the encyclopedia, but doubly so in an area under ArbCom sanctions. The two examples cited above are particularly blatant. Kanguole 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are trying to misrepresent this as a content dispute. The issue is your bad judgement calls related to an editor misrepresenting sources. The content itself is not in question here. You seem to be handwaving to draw attention from your unsatisfactory administrator behavior. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Against my better judgment, I'll comment on this briefly. Admins do not resolve good-faith content disputes. The qualifier "good-faith" is important: if no reasonable editor well-versed in our policies and practices would disagree on an issue, there's no good-faith dispute. Thus a complaint about misrepresentation or falsification of sources is a conduct issue, not a content issue. Thus WP:Legality of Israeli settlements has been consistently enforced at AE, because no reasonable editor familiar with our practices would have gone against an established consensus determined in a widely participated RfC without establishing a new consensus first. Similarly, a hypothetical editor who repeatedly seizes on a misprint in a travel guide to argue that George Washington was born in 1722 and not 1732 is not participating in a good-faith content dispute and may be sanctioned for misbehavior, even if no source misrepresentation or falsification is involved: no reasonable editor would use a passing statement in a low-quality source like a travel guide, even if otherwise reliable, to argue a point about George Washington's birthday. In my judgment JJG was doing something exactly analogous to that: to argue a hotly disputed point about Israel's borders using a single sentence in a travel guide as a source is not something a reasonable editor would have done. T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose an admin presumably has the individual right to personally regard misrepresentation of sources as a content dispute, although it's also reasonable to see it as WP:OR which "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". But if that is an admin's personal position, source misrepresentation is outside of their personally defined scope as an admin, there is no reason for them to be looking at AE cases that are based on source misrepresentation. They should leave it to admins who do look at source misrepresentation and sanction editors for it given that is clearly one of the most serious user conduct issue possible in an encyclopedia. Obviously if an admin doesn't regard source misrepresentation as relevant to their activities as an admin, they will never see it as an issue and will never sanction editors at AE who are reported for delibrately misrepresenting sources. It's like a traffic policeman who sees what he knows is a stolen car driving past but doesn't see it as an issue relevant to him because it's not breaking the speed limit. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was trying to come up with a good example to illustrate the absurdity of WGFinley's behavior, but yours ("It's like a traffic policeman who sees what he knows is a stolen car driving past but doesn't see it as an issue relevant to him because it's not breaking the speed limit.") does the job nicely. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Sanction For An Opinion?

      I don't understand how I should be subject to review for having a position on a case that was closed with no consensus. I made it very clear early on my position was based on staying out of content disputes and, secondly, I didn't state there should be no action. On the contrary, I stated, " Perhaps an admonishment to use better care and stick to reliable sources in territorial claim articles is in order?." I didn't close the case with no action, another admin did. So basically I am here on AN for a belief, a belief that that action should be taken, just not the action some folks wanted and was eventually concluded with no consensus? Pretty dangerous precedent. --WGFinley (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yes, it was closed as "Clearly no admin consensus to do anything", due to your refusal to treat the sourcing issue seriously, and the closer then resigned his bit. I'm not saying you're the only reason the encyclopedia and AE have (temporarily I hope) lost a fine admin, but perhaps you should reflect on your contribution to the situation. Kanguole 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Im sorry, but that is one untruth after another. You arent here because you had an opinion, you are here because you a. made a baldly false statement and repeatedly refused to either acknowledge the error or explain the statement, and b. because you claim that lying about the content of sources is a content dispute. I myself would be willing to put this in the past if you would finally answer some very basic questions, starting with why you wrote I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. in this diff when the user did no such thing and no diff even mentioned a ski resort (except as the title of a source). There are 2 or 3 questions after that, but if you could finally answer that one I think we may actually get somewhere. nableezy - 15:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have been other concerns raised here about your conduct with regards to Nableezy in general, not just by me, but by admin Zero. What Nableezy provided above, together with your comments on my AE case, also suggests you have a bad habit of not properly reviewing the more complicated cases on AE before suggesting action. How exactly do you address those concerns?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, though I am an admin I edit in this topic area so I am "involved". However, I send by the remarks I made as an ordinary editor. Zerotalk 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I didn't realize that there are any admins who actually recuse themselves when it's appropriate. I should spend less time in AE. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh please WGFinley, you are making it sound like your free speech rights are under attack here. For the sake of argument, I will give you the second diff (Popular Mechanics) which could be perceived as a "content dispute", but the first diff, there is no way you can call that a content dispute. When an editor cuts and pastes a portion of of a sentence, when the the end of the sentence said, "is actually in Syrian Territory", you are falsifying the source. Full-stop. -asad (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      One more time, I said he should be admonished and instructed as to sources.[6] If you want to take me to Arbcom for saying a user should be admonished as opposed to sanctioned then you do as you see fit. One would think were I so fully off my rocker I would have been easily dismissed and my opinion written off as nonsense. Yet it was closed with no action. --WGFinley (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      You still seem to be actively avoiding answering straight questions such as those by Nableezy just above. un☯mi 03:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment by un☯mi

      Ignoring everything else, I find the idea of source misrepresentation = content dispute, of a sort that AE should ignore, very disappointing. un☯mi 09:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Without commenting on the case at hand, that is correct. Misrepresenting sources is a user conduct issue, sanctionable at AE. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Many Arbcom cases revolve around WP:Tendentious editing. It should be self-evident that AE has the right to sanction such behaviour just as much as it does violations of WP:3RR.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a reminder that if parties wish to ask that an administrator no longer be allowed to enforce AE sanctions (in general or in specific areas) the correct method is to ask the Committee. I'm not going to comment on the specific close here, just a procedural note. SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      What about requesting that a specific Admin not be allowed to adjudicate WP:ARBPIA? I thought the correct place was WP:A/E, but I was told it was not so. -asad (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct, that should go to the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      To remove an administrator from Arbitration Enforcement who says assessing sources, outside of blatant cases (i.e. plagiarism and original research) is a content issue... (and) admin's don't do content disputes has to go to some committee?

      He's basically said he's not competent to determine whether misrepresentation (a type of lying and fraud, often used to skew content and that should be easy to detect) has taken place. Madness.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      After looking at WGFinley's contributions to the AE: In my opinion, this admin's behaviour was outrageous. I have not looked at Nableezy's responses to WGFinley (just noticed that there are many), but in my opinion a lot is excusable in response to WGFinley's extreme IDHT behaviour that can only be explained with bad faith or extreme incompetence. WGFinley should consider themselves lucky if the only result of this is that Arbcom removes them from AE on ARBPIA matters. Hans Adler 01:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to bring this up on the ArbCom mailing list myself, so let's see what other arbs think. SirFozzie (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      If you'd like to look into other administrators that have problems with misrepresentation (i.e., lying) let me know. You can start here: [7] (RFC on User:Ash) showing he misrepresented sources, before he "vanished" and became User:Fae, now an admin and Wikimedia UK board member.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Is it just my impression, or does Arbcom always get a huge heap of work right before Christmas? Hans Adler 08:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment by Cptnono

      I will not comment on the merits since I could not do so without violating a topic ban. Attempting to remove an admin from AE as he is involved in making a decision could set a dangerous precedent. For example, I think that Timotheus Canens has proven that his decisions are lopsided and responds to off Wikipedia communications from one "side" while ignoring the other. I was actually considering starting a discussion on his actions after a very familiar exchange (mentioned on this page). I do not think Wgfinley has come close to that sort of error. It is easy to take away the privilege of cleaning the project when an admin has shown an obvious bias. Wgfinley has not shown that bias. I would ago as far as saying that he has shown restraint when attacked. Gatoclass and Malik have both been honest enough to no longer act as uninvolved administrators at AE. They have been in disputes and it is clear so they acknowledge that (it is appreciated). Timotheus Canens and Wgfinley have not acknowledged any political leanings. So far, Wgfinley has only acknowledged that he sees problematic editing from certain parties, including myself. That is what an admin at AE is supposed to do. I think both admins should consider the behavior of Sandstein and AGK. AGK has actually blocked me and I still think he does it close to right. If Wgfinley wants to take care of business then we should appreciate it as long as it is not biased. Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Just for the record Cptnono, I have never attempted to act as an uninvolved admin in the IP topic area at AE. I have occasionally made a post in the uninvolved admins section - usually only when it is late in the day and I am concerned that my comment might be otherwise overlooked. And I've only ever done that when I'm sure the other admins know of my involved status (which ought to be obvious since I mostly post in the involved section). I have never tried to adjudicate an AE dispute in the topic area. So I hope that clarifies things a bit.
      With regard to your comments about T. Canens, I think he has generally been an excellent adjudicator at AE, and am quite sure his conduct would stand up to scrutiny from the Committee or from the broader community. Regarding WGFinley, while I'm somewhat reluctant to add to the chorus of discontent above, I have made no secret of my dissatisfaction with his narrow interpretation of what issues may be adjudicated at AE. More specifically however, I have been concerned recently by what seems to me an excessive focus by WGF on Nableezy to the exclusion of other factors, to the point that I myself have been considering requesting him to recuse from cases involving Nableezy. In the latest case for example, it appeared to me that WGF was attempting to act as both plaintiff and adjudicator, complaining about Nableezy's "insults" to himself while also attempting to adjudicate the case. It's not entirely clear to me what protocol should be followed in such situations, but I think if I felt someone was behaving in an unacceptably uncivil manner toward me in those circumstances, I would probably want to start my own case against that person and allow uninvolved admins to make the judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Sigh. Cptnono has already twice had a go at T Canens in wider discussions and is WP:FORUMSHOP. He has been fixated on T. Canens because Tim inconveniently sees through the nonense from some of Cptnono's political allies.
      Here we have an attack on Tim for blocking a copyright-violator who was harassing those trying to clear up his mess. The problem for Cptnono? The copyright-violator shares his POV therefore the block must be a bad thing. Result? The block is overwhelmingly endorsed. Here we have a weasly-worded attack at WT:RFAR. Result? Arbs say Tim has not resigned broom under a cloud.
      Cptnono is continuing to harass Tim even after he has redigned the broom. I think it is about time he is hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Are people happy to deal with it here or should I go to AN/I?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Has he resigned under a cloud? It appears he has looked at some of his recent admin actions and perhaps thought a few of them warranted taking a step back? I don't support any boomerang - at least its all out in the open , without off wiki requests for action. My position is that after looking at the users contributions and other users comments - I do not support User:Wgfinley or User:Timotheus Canens continuing to administrate in the hotly disputed Middle east topic sector. Neutrality or at least, a "perception of neutrality" is a requirement of an administrators ongoing ability to action complaints in a topic area and as we have hundreds of administrators available to step up to the mark, there is no need to insist on a disputed administrators continued activity in a disputed area. Youreallycan (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      read my comment closer, Cohen. And if pointing out what admins should and should not do in a topic area while still using civility is a concern for you then I have know idea how to make you feel better about it. There was zero incivility in my comment that was designed to point out ways to make things better. Did he "give up the broom"? I was not aware of that but I do wish him the happiest of editing if he is focusing on that instead of the Israel v Palestine issue at AE. Sorry your page isn't FA anymore, Cohen.Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      and if you misread my initial statement about the actual issue let me know. I gave Tim a heads up on his talk page to be polite. I felt at one time there was ample evidence to get Tim off of AE. He has since modified his behavior. An admin is open to scrutiny. Let Tim fight his own battles and stop crying wolf over a pretty tame comment. If he asks for why I feel he should not be at AE I will let him know. Until then, this isn;t a discussion about Tim. I mentioned him since it was a similar situation. Pointing fingers isn't how things get done and you all should feel a little bad for picking up on the secondary point while ignoring the primary reasoning behind my comment. Like a bunch of bratty kids.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment by BorisG

      Yawn. Most users commenting here are involved in the topic and thus their views can and should be discounted. If you ignore them, not much is left. I will refrain from commenting on substance since I can be considered involved as well. - BorisG (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      A person's comment should only be discounted if he or she is not raising a good point. Just because a person is seen as having a personal reason for a complaint does not mean that complaint is invalid. Were that approach taken everywhere there would really be no point in having a system for reporting violations or perceived violations of policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Urgent RfC regarding SOPA arising out of a talk page discussion

      Resolved
       – Closed. Lights are staying on.  Chzz  ►  12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

      Administrators may wish to know about the village pump proposal to Turn wikipedia off for 24 hours from the next 00:01 PST, ie, Thursday, ie, Tomorrow (for some users). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Note that this exceedingly poorly planned out RfC has been closed. Swarm X 02:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Nothing else was better planned. --FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      No info, just advertising hidden in external links to included references.

      Resolved
       – All links to dinsdoc.com removed from live articles; filed a request to blacklist it.  Chzz  ►  08:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

      I first ran across a disturbing situation here, when checking the 'Root' reference at page bottom, it seemed enlightening. What I received was unsolicited advertising; I did not find any content relative to the reason for looking. What should I do -- leave the source and delete the link? It seems more your problem than mine, since the external links to 'dinsdoc.com' have 106 instances, based on a search in Wikipedia. The several I checked all led to the same bitter advertising end, and no info. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Ew. Probably/possibly the link used to be an online copy of that document. But, yep... I will remove all those links. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have time now, so I'll make a public todo list: there are a few more shown in LinkSearch. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I've fixed almost all of them; I searched on "dinsdoc.com" and located 61 live articles. I've removed links from all those (I think) - I will check it again tomorrow, once the search indexing has caught up. In almost all cases, the link was just a "convenience link" to a published reliable source (mostly, very old books) - so I was able to simply remove the link without it affecting verifiability. My contribs between my first reply and this one will show the edits I made.
      Admins, please consider blacklisting the website.  Chzz  ►  10:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      @Johnuniq all the links showing in that search you gave, now, are not live articles - so I don't necessarily see them as any real problem.  Chzz  ►  10:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Good, however there are three articles left: London Company and Mike Easley and William Gaston. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Now done. Not sure why I missed those. But I will check it again, after indexing...tomorrow, or something. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  11:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      @CasualObserver'48, I'm just curious: what did you mean by, "It seems more your problem than mine"? I mean, I was quite happy to do it but, I'm just an editor, same as you. This isn't actually an admin thing at all (apart from, possibly, adding it to the blacklist).  Chzz  ►  12:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And even that is more a "special person who knows regex" thing. I'm an admin and I wouldn't touch the blacklist with a 10ft pole. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Please excuse the late reply. I had searched considerably for a more appropriate place to make this post, but couldn't find a better one, considering its gravity and my unfamiliarity at such lofty administrative heights. I then checked this post after a bit, saw the rapid positive reply, the start of corrective action along lines had I considered, and felt I had done the right thing, given the circumstances unfamiliar to me. Where would be the best place to post such an instance? It was left there, because I had since realized my own introduction of an error from the previous day, which had to be corrected first; see my contribs for the 15th, it was a busy day. It seemed "more your problem than mine", based on my lack of familiarity and credentials but also my possession of an archaically slow connection, which requires considerable waiting between edit, preview and save. My day grew into apparent yak shaving of two new redirects with contextual links; while noting the problem truly was important, correcting 100+ related links seemed too much actuality involved for this unfamiliar volunteer barber. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you posted it in the right place. Chzz just took exception to the line "It seems more your problem than mine". And I mentioned that I, as an admin, still have no idea how to edit the blacklist. I can post a message to the blacklist request page. I don't think he or I intended to upbraid you or make you feel bad. Protonk (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      CasualObserver'48, sure, no problem at all. I didn't mean anything by my comment, it honestly was curiosity. Thanks for explaining; it's all good. Your posting here worked, so clearly it was a good move :-) There are no hits for "dinsdoc" in any live articles now [8]. Next time, WP:ANI might be better than AN, for a specific issue that needs an admin. WP:HD works well, too, for 'fast response'. Thanks for bringing it up for attention, best,  Chzz  ►  07:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I've logged a request to add it to the blacklist, [9]. The link is no longer in use on any article-space pages [10]. I think this is completed, so I'm marking it resolved.  Chzz  ►  08:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Block adjustment error?

      Hey, can someone check a block for me? I have User_talk:Taivo who was blocked for 48 hours on 14 December - yesterday. An admin later attempted to reduce the block to 24 hours, but those 24 hours have passed and the user is still blocked. The block duration was set to expire " Fri, 15 Dec 2011 09:16:17 GMT", so it's possible that the day and date are conflicting - or that the day trumps the date, which seems counter-intuitive. I don't want to muck about with it until I know what the problem is, in hopes of not screwing it up further. Note also that I'm not questioning the block or the reduction (though I would not have reduced it personally), nor is the user's conduct in question here - just the technical issue of the block. Any insight is welcome. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I can only assume that there is an autoblock or some other IP Block hitting the user. I didn't get the red blocked box when I look at their contributions. Syrthiss (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I clicked "block this user", and the block expiration date was set to "Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:16:17 GMT". I'm guessing the admin mis-typed the block date, and the log takes whatever you type in as a valid date, assuming the date is of the correct format. The software then converted the incorrect date to the correct one (adding 24 hours to make it Friday the 16th).
      Syrthiss, you didn't see that he was blocked since I manually unblocked him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the quick look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Premium Deck Series: Graveborn

      I tried to redirect this article to Magic:_The_Gathering as failing WP:PRODUCT, but its saying it is administrator protected. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Rather than a redirect to the main article, how about a merged article of all 3 Premium Deck Series? I'm looking at the other ones in that "Class" according to the template and all of them are extrordinarily stub like. Hasteur (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Even together, I dont think they really qualify, but 1 worthless stub is better than 3. Question remains : why is it protected? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Premium Deck Series: Graveborn isn't protected and never was. What error message are you seeing? --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably a caching error, where it would a "view source" tab rather than an "edit" tab; used to happen to me quite frequently - not so much anymore. --64.85.220.17 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:V RFC duplicate

      Resolved
       – RFC closed Dreadstar ☥ 23:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Can an admin please close this faulty RFC that is merely attempting to do an end-run gaming of the system by trying to redefine Wikipedia:Consensus and ignoring the results of the just-closed RFC which attempted to remove the very same wording as this one is attempting to do. Clearly an abuse of process with clear consensus to close it. Just to add that this is an out of process RFC that claims to be for the purpose of finding consensus to add material that was actually added and has been present since 2005. It's a faulty RFC to begin with and needs to be shut down now. Dreadstar ☥ 22:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      The closed RfC had 279:149 for a very specific solution (a compromise, actually) to the problem with the current wording. The new RfC is proposing a much more radical solution to the same problem, which makes sense since many of the opposers opposed because they found the consensus version too long or not sufficiently radical. The RfC is not "out of process", it has a pointy formulation that grew out of frustration over 'losing' an RfC with almost 2:1 support. Hans Adler 23:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The new RFC is asking for consensus for text which has enjoyed consensus since 2005, the new RFC is out of process and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus. It's merely a duplicate of the just-closed RFC which attempted to remove the very same wording. That one of the proponents to remove the text admits the RFC is "pointy" is a clear indication of the problem. Yes, it's a WP:POINT violation and a faulty, out-of-process RFC that should be shut down immediately. Dreadstar ☥ 23:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

      In closing the discussion of Richard Arthur Norton's topic ban, rather than imposing an indefinite ban as many argued I suggested a one-month ban that should be revisited at the end of that period. I said that "If Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has shown that he understands the issues and has put effort into dealing with them, then I see no reason why the ban should continue; if not, it can be made indefinite."

      The month is now up (and RAN is busy creating new content). To kick-start the discussion, let me give as balanced an evaluation as possible...

      The month has been rocky. For some time, RAN was not very responsive to queries and discussion on his talk page. Then after repeated near (and some actual) infringements of the terms of his ban, I brought the case back to WP:AN. On the basis of that second discussion, I gave RAN a final warning. And he duly had to be blocked a day or so later.

      On the other side of the ledger, his responsiveness and communication has improved. He is helping to deal with the copyvio problems to be found in the articles that he has created, if somewhat grudgingly and not in a manner that is to everyone's satisfaction.

      In his own assessment, the copyvio problems that his articles present are not particularly significant. This, I think, understates the issue, perhaps quite drastically. But he is making progress, if slowly and perhaps not as thoroughly as one would want.

      I should also say personally that I have tried to give Richard as little grief as possible, as I have no interest in hounding active and productive editors off the project. If anything, I have tried to protect him from some editors who are occasionally tempted to "pile on." But his behavior has, in my view, been too often exasperating. At times, his actions and attitude do not help his cause at all.

      I put the matter to the community. Do we believe that Richard "has shown that he understands the issues and has put effort into dealing with them"? If so, let us put an end to his editing restrictions. If not, I suggest we make his ban indefinite. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      One more thing: in response to a request for clarification, I said that the burden of proof should be on the community rather than Richard. So if there is no consensus in this discussion, the default should be that the ban is not renewed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Please see User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Did you just recreate a page with copyrighted information? If he indeed created a page with copyrighted info right after this topic ban, then I think that he has blown his last chance and we just need to indef block him. Copyright violations are one of the more serious concerns on Wikipedia (less severe than attack pages and so on, but pretty serious nevertheless), and if after all this time and with an ongoing CCI he still doesn't get it, then I don't believe that anything will help. Fram (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The page is clearly labelled © 2006 Arthur Frank Wertheim. All Rights Reserved. - so this is an editor who has added copyvios in the past, has been warned and blocked over it and now is again creating copyvios while drinking in the last chance saloon? What discussion is actually needed? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless I'm missing something big, yes, a full indef ban is in order. User has gleefully violated copyright and other IP rights on a regular basis, showing little to no improvement as to his behaviour, even going at it again (Fram has just brought up a very recent and very relevant infringement issue). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Fram's link is rather persuasive. I will wait for Richard to respond before making an opinion, but on the surface this looks very bad. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the record, the material pointed out by Fram had previously been inserted in the old, now deleted version of the article not by the RAN account but by an IP (I have no idea whether it's RAN's or somebody else), in this edit: [11]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I had high hopes for this action and tried to steer clear of any direct interaction with or direct criticism of Richard so I could just observe how it worked. I've seen Richard becoming marginally more responsive to user inquiries, but he seemed to not "get" some of the restrictions placed upon him during the month, and had to be blocked after repeated violations following warnings. Then the month expires—he begins creating new content without checking that it's OK to do so—and promptly creates an article with a blatant copyright violation (!). This demonstrates that close to nothing was learned, not even caution. I agree with an indefinite ban on creating new content (including redirects, page moves, files, etc., since those have been problemtic in the past too). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permanent site ban. It's goodnight Irene. WP would obviously be better off without him. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support indefinite topic ban the temporary topic ban was a 2nd chance where Richard was deliberately non responsive, and pushed the boundaries in creating articles to somehow test how patient admins would be. Also he seriously underestimates the copyvio problems he created. Whilst he has improved his responsiveness, this was only done after repeated reasonable requests from others. no new articles or redirects. Further boundary testing should be indefinite block.LibStar (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose The Orpheum Circuit page in question is described as a "Media Kit". My understanding is that material provided in such kits is expected to be reproduced in the media - that is the point of the kit. Perhaps this is a factor or mitigation? Anyway, if this material was originally introduced by another editor, RAN does not seem especially culpable and so I oppose a permanent ban for this incident. Warden (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The page was deleted as a copyvio. For that reason I also refused to send him a copy of it. He got a copy of it anyway, and used material from a page deleted as a copyvio to create a new page. Surprise; it is also a copyvio. Doing this is bad under any circumstances, doing this when you are the subject of a CCI and a topic ban against creating material has just finished is worse. Even if you take the position that we can freely reuse "media kit" excerpts (I don't), it still needed attribution as being text copied from that website, not text sourced to that website. If he still doesn't understand proper attribution or the difference between copied text and sourced but rewritten text, then at least the topic ban needs to remain in place. Fram (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The deletion messages for the page in question are:
      08:59, 16 December 2011 CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs) deleted "Orpheum Circuit" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Copyvio from various sources, including other Wikipedia articles and www.vaudevillewars.com/media-kit-excerpts.html)
      14:27, 13 December 2011 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted "Orpheum Circuit" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://scripophily.stores.yahoo.net/orciin19.html Taken from Oldcompany.com. Copyvio present from earliest version of this article until now)
      05:46, 4 June 2011 Vegaswikian (talk | contribs) deleted "Orpheum Circuit" ‎ (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
      I'm not sure what was happening on 4 June - perhaps that's irrelevant. What I notice about the entry for 13 Dec is that the source cited (scripophily) is different from the one subsequently complained about (vaudevillewars). As the vaudevillewars media kit material was not clearly identified as being the source of the trouble on 13 Dec and was not added by RAN in the first place, then he might not know that that piece would be troublesome. Warden (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate that you don't have access to the diffs, but RAN's revival of the page is not a from-scratch recreation: it is a minor edit of the 9 November revision, and its largest piece of prose is the same direct lift of copyrighted content as in the deleted revision. RAN cannot under any circumstances be unaware of the potential for copyright problems on this particular article as he was the original author in 2006, starting the page with a 6kb direct copy of the oldcompany.com page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that it was part of a media kit is irrelevant (the media does not copy and paste it, they used it to summarize what is in the book), it's clearly labeled as copyrighted, it's clearly a copyvio when used here in the way that it has been used. If this was a first time offender, I might be interested in mitigation but for a serial copyright violator coming off a ban? no chance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The media routinely regurgitate PR material of this kind with minimal changes. I wrote an article about the practice: churnalism. Warden (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      We are not clock-punching press workers. More importantly, we are not insulated from action which may be taken against us for copyright infringement by a higher chain of command signing our edits off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      As I understand it, the only people with legal responsibility are those who add content (RAN) and those who use it (the readers). I'm not sure what you mean by sign-off and chain-of-command - please give an example. The only case I'm aware of is the NPG and, in that case, the galley went after the editor, not the "chain-of-command". Warden (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permanent site ban - I'm coming at this cold (to the best of my knowledge I haven't commented on this matter before - someone let me know if I have) but looking at the information here and reading previous threads, the guy is a serial copyviolator who's behaviour has not changed. To prevent further copyvios, he should be banned, not blocked, banned. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Valuable contributor. Extend the ban 6 months. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      So if someone is valuable, they get a pass on copyvios? Even if they seem unable to stop? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      In my view he diesn't like Being Controlledd and is therefore taking the piss slightly. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      By creating a copyright violating page? I wouldn't call that "slightly"... Fram (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • RAN's last comment in the previous discussion was that the instances cites as copyvio were limited in number (eight, to be precise) and in the past. To move on from there by recreating a deleted article using material directly lifted from a copyrighted source pretty much flatly contradicts any assertion that he's learned from this. If we can't trust an editor not to violate our rules on copyright then it's difficult to see how that editor can be left to participate here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indef block him. We don't need someone to copypasta PR material, copyrighted or not. That's hardly a valuable contribution. Thanks, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support extension of topic ban to indef This discussion really has nothing to do with blocks (I'd hope people are reading a little more clearly) ... this is a revisit to the original topic ban discussion. RAN can be a valuable contributor. RAN has been somewhat helpful in fixing his problem articles. Media kits can never be copied verbatim as they are copyrighted, and so this most recent incident shows that they still do not fully understand copyright and the legal ramifications to this project. An indef topic ban can always be removed - there's no good reason to block - unless you're in a punitive mood, AND/OR he willfully re-violates copyright policies now that he's been corrected on the use of media kits (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This discussion has everything to do with blocks. While the OP has suggested some possible courses of action, other people are free to propose different solutions, either immediately or based (as in this case) on further information. You don't have to agree that a block or ban are in order, but please don't try to dismiss the opinions of others as if they have anything to do with reading skills. Fram (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • RAN didn't respect the sanction while it was in place and eventually (after many warnings and clarifications) had to be blocked for violating it. He still doesn't seem to appreciate the scale of the problem with this contributions: the CCI now has 62 of his edits tagged as containing copyright infringement, far more than the 15 he claimed previously. Fram's evidence is extremely disturbing. In light of this the bare minimum acceptable to prevent copyright violations from being introduced is an indefinite extension of the sanction, if not something stronger. Hut 8.5 11:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permanent site ban. I suggest the participants in this discussion read this article, particularly the sections about "red flags", §512 (h) and §512 (i). If we don't ban him now, the WMF will be legally obliged to when they get a takedown notice from a relevant copyright holder. This ban is not only for Wikipedia's own good, but also RAN's. MER-C 12:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article states that "It is clear from the statute and legislative history that an OSP has no duty to monitor its service or affirmatively seek infringing material on its system.". If a copyright holder thinks there's a problem, they send a takedown notice and all we have to do is react to that. All pressure here seems to be from our own amateur detectives, not the actual copyright holders. What are the stats on takedown notices received by Wikipedia? My impression is that the legal issues are being exaggerated. Warden (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Violating the law isn't OK if you don't get caught. Hut 8.5 13:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • People seem far too free with the accusation of copyright violation. Per WP:CRIMINAL, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law.". Copyright violation is especially complex to decide because of concepts such as fair dealing. In the stubby cases that we have here, merger doctrine might be an adequate defense and it would really require a hearing to determine the outcome of each case. Warden (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't wish a court hearing on any Wikipedian. MER-C 14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)What you're saying here is just irrelevant. RAN has repeatedly violated copyright. He has been caught copying material not compatible with our licences on numerous (>60) occasions, either through direct copying or through close paraphrasing (which is equally unacceptable). The idea that we cannot take action against serial copyright violators if a court has not ruled on the matter is ludicrous and the notability guidelines for criminals have no bearing whatsoever. Hut 8.5 14:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • RAN is entitled to the same protections that we give any living person. For you to declare that he has "repeatedly violated copyright" is an improper personal attack verging on a legal threat. What we commonly do in such cases in BLPs is use words such as alleged and so we should be using more tentative language such as "has added content which might risk copyright infringment" or "has created articles which seem too close to their sources". Warden (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • RAN has repeatedly violated copyright. Whether or not he has infringed copyright would have to be determined by a court of law. We aren't a court of law and are only concerned with our own site policies. (ETA: In case what I mean is not clear, I explained it at more length here.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permanent ban unless he comes up with an extremely convincing explanation, in which case a temporary ban might be sufficient. Hans Adler 13:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support fixed extension
      This is a difficult issue.
      I do not support a permanent site ban. On the other hand, (still shaking my head over Orpheum Circuit), it is clear that RAN hasn't fully understood what is acceptable and what is not.
      However, I do see significant progress, and I would prefer some option that lets him contribute.
      Early on, RAN was decidedly unhelpful. I made request, and posed questions, only to receive...nothing.
      That changed. Over the last week or two, everytime I've posted a problem to his talk page, he's responded, and has resolved the issue. Everytime. Recent examples here and here
      If it wasn't for the Orpheum Circuit incident, I'd be lobbying hard for removal of the ban. I still hope, possibly naively, that RAN has simply developed a bad habit I see in many new editors—thinking they can copy material into an editor, and massage it into acceptable wording. I posted some advice advice, that, if taken, might solve that problem. The advice is less than an hour old, so it is far too early to see if it helps.
      My preference would be for a multi-month extensive, and/or some sort of mentorship. There's too much potential good to simply shut the door.--SPhilbrickT 13:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • WTF, Richard?: Do you have a deathwish? Fram's example of Orpheum Circuit troubles me greatly.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can someone provide more detail about the Orpheum Circuit article? I've seen claims that RAN added it originally and others that it was originally by an IP. If he worked from a version that wasn't deleted for copyright claims, what is the basis that he should have known there was a copyright problem with that text? I get the sense that you admins largely agree he must have been aware of the problem, but no one has clearly expressed how you know that. Details please? Hobit (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Richard created the article in 2006. The history is complex because there was a history merge at some point with a page that had originally been a redirect developing simultaneously and eventually being folded together, but I believe this particular copyvio was added to the article by an IP in December 2009. What surprises me here is that Richard knows at this point that Wikipedia content is not public domain. I don't understand why he would add text authored by somebody else, knowing that he cannot use it without attribution. For that reason alone, he should have known there was a copyright problem with the text. :( Either one of two things happened here: (a) he ignored the attribution requirement and knowingly used somebody else's text, or (b) he believed he had authored it himself and did not check the source to see if there were copyright issues before putting it back. Either of these is worrisome to me, under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      ¨The page was deleted by me because it contained copyright violations from the start in 2006 right until the moment of deletion. He asker Sphilbrick a copy of the page[12] promising "I will rewrite, but need the categories and lede and links to other articles" (emphasis mine). However, he did not really rewrite it, just slightly modified it (removing most of the first paragraph). Admins can see here the diff between the deleted and recreated page. Fram (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support fixed ban extension per User:Sphilbrick. Evidently, he has been making great strides recently. He's motivated and productive, and I'd like to see him channeled into problem-free contributions. Sphilbrick, you mention potential mentoring, and I think that's a great idea. Would you be willing to take that on? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In short, yes. He and I do not see eye to eye on the inclusions of long quotes in cites, but I think we can resolve that. On other issues, I think we can work together.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support renewing the ban indefinitely; and I wouldn't look askance at a site ban either. RAN is an unrepentant serial copyright violator, and his continued participation would require constant monitoring for the foreseeable future. I can think of hundreds of more productive things those efforts could be directed towards. — Coren (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's rather disappointing, considering that recently he had become more communicative and cooperative, that he is back editing articles now instead of participating here. Some explanation of what happened and how he plans on avoiding repeat occurrences would be preferable. Fram (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. There are a lot of editors willing to give a lot of 2nd chances, but he has to actually take those opportunities. It does not appear that he is willing to do so, which is unfortunate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support indefinite site ban with possible sole acceptable task of working through his own CCI and rewriting old copyvios, then letting others assess whether the copyvio is fixed. We have a huge copyvio backlog and no capacity to constantly monitor his diffs - that energy should be spent reviewing his old potential copyvio diffs. There is no reason why we should let him continue and waste other volunteers' energy. I was opposed to allowing him to continue content contributions in the first instance. He made his mess, now he should be helping clean it up--not creating new potential messes. This would also have the added benefit of making it 100% clear to him what is acceptable and what isn't. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • End ban on article creation - Richard A. Norton is one of the best content-creators at WP, bar none. In my opinion CCI has wasted a full month chasing their tails trying to demonstrate that he is a serial plagiarist, all the while the backlog of legitimate cases has grown as volunteers wasted time parsing RAN's edits. As far as I can determine from the several times I've checked in on the investigation over the past month, they've found a number of minor party fouls, mostly relating to improper footnoting or use of out-of-copyright, pubic domain sources, and the use of quotational "glossing" in overlong footnotes, but nothing to indicate that Richard is not cognizant of copyright law or that he has committed systemic offenses in violation of it. If one makes 35,000 edits or whatever, there will be a few that don't stand up under a magnifying glass... To hear braying for a "permanent site ban" over one instance of a restored close paraphrase — about which RAN has not spoken here or anywhere else, so far as I know — is WP Drama Board Hysteria at its worst. To my mind there are two committed CCI volunteers, Moonriddengirl and SPhilbrick, who are in the best position to lend advice here, because they actually have invested big time doing investigative work. Both seem to be in "expand the ban on article creation for a fixed period camp," the latter narrowly avoiding advice of the same course of action that I advise here. The fact is that RAN is fully aware of copyright law and is NOT a problem. The more time is wasted microanalyzing his content is more time taken away from the ACTUAL copyright problems at WP. And that's a fact. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      And, just in case you missed it because she didn't use bolding the way some other people are using it against Richard Norton, here's a line from Moonriddengirl above about the "infamous" copyright violation that has people screaming for the right to use their pitchforks on him... "I believe this particular copyvio was added to the article by an IP in December 2009..." Carrite (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh. The copyvio was inserted in 2009. The article was deleted for copyvio twice in 2011. And then RAN, in full consciousness of the existing copyvio claim on the paragraph in question, included it with only the most trivial changes when he reinstated the article last week. This is all to do with an article, by the way, which was wholly copyvio (of RAN's own making) when originally created. The time wasted here is not RAN's; it's the community's, and shame on anyone trying to flip that around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support extension of topic ban - There still appear to be some ongoing issues with RAN's content creation. Some users have commented that he is slowly getting the message and starting to help clean up his prior content creation. As per User BWilkins. Also as per User Hobit after three months we can look at developments and consider a a relaxation.Youreallycan (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Waiting for a response from RAN but leaning toward a 3 month extension of the topic ban. Given Moonriddengirl's answer to my question, I think we continue to have significant problems. But I'd rather we wait until we get a response from RAN (or, say, a few days pass with no response). Hobit (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support indef extension of topic ban or a site ban if consensus prefers that option. With maximum attention being paid to his edits Richard has managed to restore copyrighted material yet again in the Orpheum Circuit case. The most logical explanation is that he thinks the concerns about copyright are overblown. I hope he will correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't seem to care. The fact that he had to be blocked during the month of scrutiny is not a good omen for any future cooperation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support extension of topic ban" for 3 months. (Pending response by RAN). Per User:Sphilbrick, mentoring by some willing and capable editor would be advisable. Edison (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Admin(s) needed to check/monitor/(if possible: participate)

      There's a dispute at Talk:Pakistan studies#Pakistani textbooks controversy which resulted in the page being protected for a short time. It is huge chunk (~10K) of content that belongs to Pakistani textbooks controversy, me and another editor contested it being against WP:SUMMARY and being WP:POV & WP:UNDUE. The opposing editors are only eager to revert and reluctant to discuss the issue inspite of repeated invitations on Talk:Pakistan studies and on their user talk pages (no reply since a week). [13] [14] & [15] [16]. Previously in response one editor only responded with comments on me rather than on the issue while the other is not even talking about the issue being disputed. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=466202561"