Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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 63 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 59 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 49 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 62 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 45 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

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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 9 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

There is a consensus for imposing community sanctions on all pages related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed. The sanctions themselves will be precisely the same as they are for WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based. Although no one addressed the duration, I will make them indefinite like the ARBPIA sanctions. That can, of course, be changed by community consensus. Finally, Arbcom sanctions cannot normally be undone by another administrator but have to be appealed to Arbcom. In a parallel fashion, the sanctions here can also not be done by another administrator unless appealed to WP:AN.

It would be helpful if someone could come up with a notice to place on talk pages of the affected articles, edit notices for any affected articles, and a template for notifying editors. In other words, all the usual stuff associated with Arbcom sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions to manage the sanctions. Some of the sections of the new page need to be worked on (items I mentioned above). If no one else tackles it, I'll try to do so over the course of the weekend, but I'm not great at templates and related things.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

The motion on Syrian civil war articles (see [1]) concludes that a number of Syrian conflict-related articles, which had been 1RR sanctioned under ARBPIA from March until July 2013 (including 3 blockings and 1 warning), in general do not fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes. However, since there is a general agreement that 1RR sanctions are required on relevant Syrian civil war articles due to edit-warring and sock-puppeting, those articles shall continue to fall under ARBPIA restriction for 30 days and in the meanwhile a discussion would be opened at WP:AN (this discussion) in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form; also any notifications and sanctions are meanwhile to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. I herewith propose the community to apply on alternative sanction tool (perhaps "Syrian civil war 1RR tool") on relevant Syrian civil war articles, in order to properly resolve the existing edit-warring problem, prevent confusion of editors and administrators regarding if and when the sanctions are relevant, and in a way to reduce automatic association of Syrian conflict with the generally unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case summary

This request comes as a result of motion (see [2]), passed regarding Syrian civil war articles on 21 July, following an Arbcom request for amendment and clarification (see [3]). The issue was also previously discussed at Talk:Syrian civil war and recommended for Arbcom solution by an involved administrator (see [here]).

As an initiator of the original request for amendment and clarification, i would like to bring to community's attention the dilemma of problematic application of ARBPIA restriction on Syrian civil war articles, though acknowledging that 1RR restriction for some (or possibly all) Syrian civil war related articles is most probably required. As concluded by the Arbcom motion on July 21, there is no general relation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the expanded conflict between Israel and Arab League (ARBPIA sanctions) to the ongoing Syrian conflict, except perhaps some separate incidents. In addition:

• the several limited incidents (without fatalities) on Israeli-Syrian border during Quneitra Governorate fighting between rebels and government are a WP:UNDUE reason to extend 1RR over entire Syrian civil war topic area; moreover Syrian Ba'athist government is no longer a part of the Arab League, while its seat is supposed to be given to Syrian opposition, which is so far neutral to Israel.
• the use 1RR tool at Syrian civil war articles prior to the above described motion had not even distantly related in any way to the Israel-Palestine topic (see sanctioned cases [4], [5]). Some editors also pointed out that application of ARBPIA tool, while referring only to certain aspects of Syrian conflict, creates a great deal of confusion for both editors and administrators when and where 1RR application is relevant.
• the incidents of air or missile attacks, allegedly performed by Israel against Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian Ba'athist targets in Syria, may fall under the Iran-Israel proxy conflict and most probably not the generally preceding and different conflict between Israel and the Arab League.

It is hence required that ARBPIA sanctions would be replaced by other relevant sanctions tool on Syrian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please put further comments and opinions here.

• Proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The Syrian civil war is far from an Arab-Israeli conflict. Not even close. Currently, only the Syria article, the Syrian civil war article and its military infobox template are under ARBPIA restrictions. Most of the edit-warring in the Syria conflict topic has been fought over the military infobox and also the what the legitimate flag of Syria should be. Other articles related to the Syrian civil war are not under any sanctions, and it should stay that way. These other articles do not frequently experience edit wars. I support replacing ARBPIA with something more relevant, but oppose placing any more articles than the 3 I mentioned under 1RR restrictions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the on-wiki conflict over the real-life conflict, I see no reason to get rid of the sanctions. Yes, it shouldn't be under ARBPIA restrictions, but maintaining the 1RR etc probation is helpful. Let's change nothing except for the reason behind the restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Nyttend: this is an area of considerable controversy among Wikipedia editors, and the 1RR restrictions are necessary in this subject area in their own right. As such, they should be maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As an editor that works in military history space in an (at the very least) equally contentious area (the Balkans in WWII), I thoroughly agree with Nyttend on this. Where 1RR has been applied under ARBMAC (for example), it has tended to reduce the amount of edit-warring and other nonsense. It encourages real contributors onto the talk page where these matters should be discussed, and deters trolls and other ne'er-do-well's. My point is that ARBMAC was originally only for Macedonia, but has now been applied to all Balkans-related articles, broadly defined. That, in my opinion, is a good thing, as it focuses editors on contributing, instead of edit-warring over minutiae. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not only do I completely agree with Nyttend, but I actually think the Syrian civil war should be placed under discretionary sanctions on its own merits. Do you know what will happen if there's nothing in place to prevent POV-pushing? There will be two distinctive groups trying to reshape the main article and all other related pages based on their perception of the confict:

1. Pro-Assad editors of every sort, whether they be patriotic Shiite Muslims or far-left conspiracy theorists. They will try to paint the dictator in an unduly positive light by mitigating the negative coverage of his regime, all the while emphasizing any and all incidents attributed to either the Free Syrian Army or the al-Nusra Front to make it seem as if the entire rebellion is an Islamist insurgency backed by Western governments.
2. Anti-Assad editors who reject the very notion that significant atrocities have also been committed by the rebels (particularly the al-Nusra Front), and will work to sweep any mention of terrorism against the regime under the rug.

There is general consensus among independent observers that both sides have committed war crimes, but that the Assad regime's offences far eclipse those of the rebels. Nevertheless, we must avoid giving undue weight to either side. It needs to be made clear that Assad loyalists are behind most of the abuses, but their opponents have also staged attacks against security and civilian targets. The last time I visited the article, this was already achieved. Allowing either of the aforementioned groups free reign over pages related to the civil war will jeopardize our efforts to cover the topic in an impartial manner. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fist, I'm opposed to shoehorning conduct into a policy that doesn't fit. Outside the Isreal related articles, its clearly outside ARBPIA, and the sanctions do not apply. As a practical matter, by the time we reach consensus on that, we could have already reached consensus on sanctions generally. The ARBPIA sanction regime is particularly aggressive, in that, in addition to the imposition of discretionary sanctions, it applies a blanket 1rr rule to the entire topic area, . I think standard community imposed discretionary sanctions would be more appropriate, which could of course involve revert restrictions on certain articles if required. Monty₈₄₅ 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I support ongoing 1RR and discretionary sanctions as a community sanction in Syria-related articles, for the forseeable future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

I would like to ask a closure for this amendment request, since involved parties have already expressed opinions and the 30 day-period of temporal sanctions (resulted by motion on July 21 [6]) is about to finish.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary sanctions are due to be in tact until 20 August, an administrator is requested to close this case.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Future timestamp: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meanwhile the article 2013 Ghouta attacks was completely blocked for non-admin editors due to edit-warring [7]. I would like to repeat my request to finalize this amendment request and determine a constructive policy for Syrian civil war topic articles.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2

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

Could an admin please remove the DYK hook to Domenico Rancadore fromt he main page? It focuses on a negative aspect of a living individual, in clear contravention of the DYK rules. This was mentioned at WP:BLPN and Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, but evidently not in time to stop it being added to the main page. StAnselm (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see User:Fram has done this. StAnselm (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hadn't seen this section yet. The BLP issues need to be further discussed before (and if) this can return to the main page. Not only shouldn't we have negative BLP DYKs, but we shouldn't accuse criminals of even worse things than what they are convicted for anyway. Fram (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input from more people at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons, both about the general aspects and about specific issues, are always welcome. Fram (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the warning that appears when trying to edit Mirrors (Justin Timberlake song) is a standard wording. It seems a little bitey to me, although I see the history of poorly sourced additions by IPs. Andrew³²⁷ 20:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Kww for his input, as he created the warning template. 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we have a history of problems with a website, such a warning is appropriate. We need to prevent good-faith editors from using it, and such a big warning is impossible to overlook. Moreover, because the warning specifically says that adding the website will be considered vandalism, it ensures that people won't add the website unless they want to vandalise or unless they don't care — either way, someone adding the website has both the mens rea and the actus reus, so sanctions are justified. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard in the sense that it's the same edit notice that I put in all articles that are plagued by additions of that bogus chart (it's this notice for those that want to look at it). I don't see why you think it's particularly bitey. The warning about vandalism is addressed only for those that proceed to insert the false position after being warned. The chart is a major source of confusion because of its similarity in naming to a reliable chart. I've even added the Portuguese translation so that the people that are most likely to be adding it out of innocent confusion are warned.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Billboard Brasil and tell it to give you nothing but template links; except for the first three, all the entries are editnotices of this sort. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that due to one of the many bugs (or at least missing features) in VisualEditor, such edit notices are not shown to users using VE! Fram (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, strange. At first it didn't appear, now it does. I'll have to check this further... Please disregard my above post for the time being. Fram (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't crazy, Fram. It only started to work in VE on August 15.—Kww(talk) 13:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One advantage of buggy software; there is more to improve! Fram (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Tyus Jones, which was CSDed three times in 2012. I assume it is the same subject. I'd be interested in knowing if I left anything important from the original versions of the page out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the mindless litany of every scraped knee he's gotten since he was twelve, no, not really. I thought there was a general consensus that high school sports didn't qualify people for articles.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] You left out a ton, but inadvertently. The first two editions are identical (the second time, it was created with the db-bio template copied from the first time!), but the third is radically different, 38KB and equipped with eighty-two references. Making a request at WP:REFUND or in this thread is probably your best route. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or blanking the article so it's eligible for CSD:U1. Just sayin'.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with 82 references should have passed WP:GNG. I am assuming versions 1 & 2 were garbage. Can someone userfy version 3 so I can see what was there before. High school athletes can be WP:N. I have had WP:GAs for both Jabari Parker and Jahlil Okafor while they were juniors in high school.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 3 was a copy of Jahlil Okafor, which (I assume) the author was going to use as a template to create Tyus Jones. But then they blanked the page. So Version 3 has nothing about [Tyus Jones]] in it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume something was messed up about each of the priors if they were CSDed. My question is was there anything meritorious? I love taking credit for great work and will do great work on this subject, but I want to make sure I am not ignoring any prior editors that should be credited for any encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the previous versions of the page to the article history, so you can look through them to see if there's anything useful. I didn't restore the version that contained the copy of the article on Jahlil Okafor. Restoring the old versions does not mean I take a position on whether this passes the GNG. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current history is nonsensical. shouldn't the deletion blanking edits appear. It seems odd for an edit to show (2,749 bytes) (+2,749)‎ when the prior edit shows that the page had a larger amount of content than 2749. That deleted page is probably a copyvio as written if I had to take a guess. Some of the flavor of that content will make it into the current article. However, since the deleted page had no WP:ICs, it is difficult to incorporate anything now until I can track down the proper sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "The current history is nonsensical" is just your way of saying "Thank you, Floquenbeam". So, you're welcome. And there's no such thing as a "deletion blanking edit". It doesn't look like a copyvio to me, but if you discover it is, let someone know and the old versions can be re-deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your effort. Yes "Thank you, Floquenbeam". but shouldn't the diffs match up so that a (2,749 bytes) (+2,749) diff follows a point in the edit history where the page was blank. What I mean is could you restore the following two diffs to the edit history:

20:51, 29 January 2012 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Tyus Jones (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

20:50, 29 January 2012 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Tyus Jones (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, those aren't diffs, they're log entries. They don't show up in the page history, they show up in the deletion log. I can't re-add them because they aren't deleted versions of the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., but if I am not mistaken prior admins have been able to restore histories that preserved the clarity of each creation and recreation. It currently seems muddled. I have seen many page histories with edits taking the page size down to 0 before a recreation. Am I asking you for something mysterious. If so, is it possible to redelete the problematic history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, nothing is deleted except Version 3, the copy of Jahlil Okafor. Nothing more can be undeleted as far as the early creations go. Our only options are to leave things as they are or to re-delete the history, but I'd advise against that because it's not problematic. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Deleting is bad, but the history now is not making sense without anything between the deleted version and the recreated version. I have never had this problem before in a recreated page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please provide a link to a recreated page that's not had this problem. Without seeing one, I can't understand how better to help you, especially since I can't previously remember someone finding fault with this kind of disjointed page history. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger and Nyttend: The byte count differences in the history were a bit weird because MediaWiki calculates the differences in bytes incorrectly after revisions have been undeleted or imported – this problem is covered under bug 36976. Re-deleting then undeleting the page resets the byte count differences, which I did in this case – I moved it to a /Temp page to make sure I cleanly restored the page. The reason why I don't advocate this method more widely (besides the fact that the byte count differences are pretty trivial IMO) is that it also resets an article's page ID, which is used to order the "what links here list"; this doesn't really matter in this case. The delete/undelete method will also not completely solve the byte difference problem in all cases, especially where very old revisions or page imports are involved. Graham87 07:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, you might think that anything with 82 references should pass GNG, but there's always the possibility of WP:BOMBARDMENT having taken place (as it did at NASRAC, which had 23 footnotes at the time of deletion...every one of which went to the club's own website, usually as a link to the root domain). Caveat emptor! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So...I totally missed the fact that Version 3 was about a different guy. I noticed that someone A10-tagged it, but I didn't see why. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham87 has attempted to sort things out to resolve the byte counts. It is good that the byte count changes are correct. However, that action makes one issue cleaner and totally messes up another. Now the T:AH indicates three CSDs but the page history indicates no CSDs. What was needed was some type of edit between the CSD deletions and the recreations that match the T:AH. Typically the edit summary would be very similar to the one that Graham87 used (moved page Tyus Jones/Temp to Tyus Jones over a redirect without leaving a redirect: revert). Is there a way to insert the zeroing page move edits between the CSDs and the recreations so that the page history is not so discrepant from the T:AH.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but all I have to say is ... whaaaaat? I have not modified the actual page history (besides my page moves). Graham87 07:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the byte counts of the newly created versions should indicate that they're newly created (as they did before)? I can't do anything about that ... well, I can, but I won't, because it would mess things up even more. Graham87 07:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No what I am saying is very simple. Look at the talk page. It indicates 3 CSDs. Now, look at the article page history. It indicates that there were no CSDs. Why? because between the versions that were deleted and the the versions that were recreated there are no edits. In this case, the only really problematic one is between my first edit and the prior edit that got deleted. Can you move this into whatever temp space you work in and put some sort of marker edit between these two edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not in the business of falsifying page histories by making up edits out of thin air. The logs make things perfectly clear. Graham87 07:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I look back at my creations of CSDed things, I am now seeing that it is fairly unusual to have the prior history restored at all. Since a lot of the prior version was a copyvio of this page why don't we just delete all the prior history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Graham87 08:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: unusual to have prior history restored: indeed, and not required either (as you don't build on what was already deleted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, perhaps you could ask for admin status at one of these wikis? That would give you a chance to try out history merges etc., and should make it easier to understand what goes on when admins delete and restore pages on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Manning#Manning_incident:_sanctions.2Factions_against_parties.3F

I raise this complaint regarding administrator Nick-D over his handling of the disputes over the Battle of Kursk article. I believe the actions of this otherwise sound administrator were inconsistent and were the result of manipulation on the part of a rather elusive and argumentative editor currently editing by the name of EyeTruth. Though the actions of Nick D may appear as favoritism, I believe they were actually done in good conscience and represent an honest mistake.

The administrator became involved following a conversation on the administrator’s talk page between editor EyeTruth who had a lengthy history of contention and edit warring on the page. I was one of a number of editors that opposed a change in the wording to the article. I was not a party to the conversation on the administrators talk page, nor did I receive a knock regarding it.

Editor EyeTruth has been persistently arguing for a change in the wording of the page to include the term "blitzkrieg" in reference to describing the German plans for the battle. This had been contested by a number of editors over the past three months, and had resulted in warnings and blocks being administered (see collapsable below). Nick D came in on request of user EyeTruth as an administrator to help resolve the dispute. Soon after Nick's involvement a discussion was started on the talk page to resolve this issue. While the discussion was underway editor EyeTruth inserted the term again here on 17 August at 17:45. This disrupted the ongoing discussion by short-cutting it. No action was taken by Nick-D against EyeTruth for changing the page.

EyeTruth then immediately went to Nick D's talk page, saying:

Hi Nick, please can you keep a close watch on how things will unfold from here on. I've done what I believe is the best solution to this. I've given both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others simply make no mention of the term in their description (instead of saying that others do not consider it a blitzkrieg, which so far there are no sources explicitly supporting such claims). Also I kept it as brief as possible so as to not disrupt the flow of the text. Check it out. Please stay alert because I'm sure if the dispute continues past this point, it will generate an unnecessary keyboard-war, but I really hope not. EyeTruth (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Twenty minutes later I returned the phrasing to as it was before, with admonition to EyeTruth “You were asked by the administrator not to change the article until the weekend had passed. You are not in position to decide what is or is not equal weight. EyeTruth, you need to participate in the talk page and await a consensus.” It should be pointed out that two other well experienced, sober editors, Sturmvogel 66 and Binksternet, had reverted earlier attempts by EyeTruth to insert his preferred phrasing (see collapsible below).

Shortly after this, Nick D issued a block against myself here, not just from the article in question, but from all of Wikipedia. I responded with an explanatory statement on my talk page, which was the only option available to me, but no response was offered from Nick-D, which is his right.

An hour later administrator Nick-D blocked the article’s page from any further editing for the duration of one week here.

Given the above, it seems curious that no block was placed upon editor EyeTruth when he inserted the contentious material on 20 August at 06:03. It would seem inconsistent to then block editor Gunbirddriver for simply returning the wording to the consensus opinion, especially in light of the fact that an ongoing discussion was underway on the talk page which had promise for reaching a conclusion that was workable for both sides. What role did EyeTruth’s comments on Nick D's talk page play, seen here at 07:34:

“Ok, Gunbirddriver has reverted it. His edit summary is the most striking thing about this action. The way he bends words is very scary.”

Is such influence appropriate? His comments on the talk page are responded to within thirty minutes with this response by Nick D: here:

Blocked, and I've fully protected the article for a week to provide time to hash out a solution to this matter.

Is it right for editors to be essentially requesting blocks from administrators on their talk page? If the administrator felt it necessary to fully protect the article for a week, why was it also necessary to first block editor Gunbirddriver, an otherwise steady and reasonable contributor?

As to the talk page discussions, the tone on the talk page had been marred by harsh language from EyeTruth for some time, and I believe the discussion would have been well served if Nick-D had noted the contentious manner in which EyeTruth was conducting himself and encouraged him to keep a civil tone. The repeated calling me out as delusional, a liar and as an editor attempting to insert original research into the article needed to be restrained (see collapsible discussion below). Here is a sample of some of the fair:

It is only in your delusion.

followed by

I never called you delusional; instead, that particular claim of yours is the delusion. Aren't you tired of flashing the "I've-been-insulted-card"?

"Trying to insult you"? You're funny. Insulting you, or any other person, is not worth my time. I feel this kind of discussion belongs in a forum. I WILL NOT REPLY AFTER THIS!

This particular phrasing with all caps was repeated over and over again on the talk page.

A sample exchange:

Phrases like "Hahaha", "LOL" and "OMFG" are completely inappropriate and they need to stop. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmn, interesting opinion. OK, this is now way too hypocritical. How about "hmmmn" and "BTW" and "hehehe". Oh wait, how about "cowboy"? Hahahaha! I won't even bother wasting anymore words on this one lol. EyeTruth (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Or this on the Wkipedia Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents

Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do.

Or here:

I finally took a much closer look at what you did in this article. THE END: a more compact article. THE MEANS: merciless butchery. Reading the lead, I saw an outstanding job but as I went down...! I think we need to bring in other editors on these recent cleanup of yours to save us both an unnecessarily deadlock. You're refusing to comprehend simple explanation and at the same time insisting on the credibility of your original research. EyeTruth (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think this sounds like he is not in full possession of his senses. Why would I be out to contend every step taken by EyeTruth? My editing amounts to merciless butchery? I have made over two hundred edits to the page.

Throughout EyeTruth has displayed an array of deceptive and manipulative practices. On the administrators' talk pages he is very servile and feigns ignorance, when in reality he is a very experienced editor and is well versed in wikipedia administrative policies. He has moved warnings and blocks off his talk page over to his archive section seen here on 5 July and here on 20 August.

He has also been threatening:

User:Gunbirddriver, you can heed my advice on the article's talkpage or be blocked. And this won't be a block based on biased, false information, like you did. It will be real and stick to your account for good. So heed my advice and the advice of many other editors and admin. EyeTruth (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor has an extensive past history editing on Wikipedia that we are unaware of because he has hidden his identity by creating a new user name. He has misled and manipulated two administrators through deceptive practices. He has removed content of warnings to an archive record, feigned ignorance, and perpetrated lies of omission and half-truths, while routinely mis-characterizating the positions of others, and their motives for taking their positions (see Collapsible space):

I have strong reason to suspect that User:EyeTruth is former User:Blablaaa. User:Blablaaa received a block of indefinite duration in August of 2010. User:EyeTruth began editing about seven months ago and has a rather limited track record of working upon Wikipedia. Despite this apparent lack of experience, both editors are extremely well versed in more advanced editing techniques, and are well experienced in the Wikipedia administrative processes of attempting to resolve conflicts and its methods for dealing with disruptive behavior. Both editors are aggressive in argument and assume bad faith on the part of their dissenters. Both editors are willing to pour a tremendous amount of time and energy into their arguments. Both are not native English speakers, though EyeTruth shows significantly expanded use of the language over Blablaaa. Most striking is the history of highly contentious arguments both editors have been involved in over seemingly minor points. In undertaking these arguments both editors tend to insult the intelligence and integrity of the editors they are in argument with, frequently make accusations of lying, improper citations and original research, and they both undertake convoluted arguments that not infrequently assert contradictory positions. Both make use of internet acronyms such as lol, OMG, :¬), @, will place sections of text in green to highlight a section, and in their comments will use bold and all caps frequently when attempting to drive a point home. Both have a fair amount of knowledge in military history, and both will sometimes take peculiar positions which though reflect some truth, tend to distort the record in some manner. Both lean heavily on David Glantz as a secondary source of information and insist upon what they would consider to be proper citations for any entry made. Both have received unequivocal support from User:Caden. Both have a tendency to forum shop until they achieve their desired outcome. Both were involved with the articles of Battle of Kursk and Battle of Prokhorovka. In addition to making edits on the English Wiki page, User:Blablaaa made edits to the Deutsch Wiki page on the Battle of Kursk article. There is no corresponding German page for the Battle of Prokhorovka. User:EyeTruth has stated that he has been speaking English since the age of three. User:Blablaaa had edited under a number of other identities prior to the series of blocks that constrained his editing in 2010. User:Blablaaa announced he was leaving Wikipedia in late 2010.

As to administrator Nick-D, I believe he was taken advantage of and ill used by User:EyeTruth. In the past I have taken note of his work and admired it. I think he is a fine administrator of sound judgment, and I have no issue whatsoever either working with or taking direction from him.

I apologize for the length of this statement. I have notified both individuals. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=EyeTruth&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2F3RRArchive&fulltext=Search

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_95#General_Question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blablaaa

Before, I suspected you enjoyed trolling, but now you've proved it for real. This is too fukin funny XD. EyeTruth (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin that will look at this report should please consult with other admins that have been involved with this issue. Gunbirddriver has a solid history of reporting very warped version of this dispute. The above report is so twisted, it almost amount to a lie. The admins that have dealt with this before are: User:EdJohnston, User:Mark Arsten, User:BBb23 and User:Nick-D. EyeTruth (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia: Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute. Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). Well, Gunbirddriver continued edit warring as usual and thus was blocked, so he has come back with a vengeance. His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me. Please talk to the other admins that have been involved, or dig into all the links he posted and look through their respective contexts. EyeTruth (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's going to bother. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess to not having read all of the above lengthy post in detail, but I'd like to address a couple of points on my actions:

1. I warned EyeTruth after he made this edit on 16 August: [16]. I didn't think that a block was appropriate as the edit added material and was made in good faith as part of a strategy in which EyeTruth was inviting Gunbirddriver to edit and add to this material - it struck me as being an honest mistake rather than deliberate edit warring. EyeTruth's subsequent editing was better as it included attempts to acknowledge both sides of the dispute, and so wasn't edit warring given that it represented a shift in their earlier approach. The article history [17] shows fairly productive too-and-fro editing between EyeTruth and Gunbirddriver over the next few days, so there was no reason to block anyone or (I thought) fully protect the article. I blocked Gunbirddriver as their edit on 20 August [18] removed material which was under discussion on the talk page (where it had a reasonable amount of support), and seemed to have been a bad faith recurrence of the edit warring (especially given the misleading edit summary - I had suggested that both editors walk away from the article for a while several days before). I then fully protected the article to prevent any further edit warring - in retrospect I should have done this several days earlier, but I'm always reluctant to fully protect high-profile articles.
2. I was the main admin involved in responding to Blablaaa (talk · contribs) and I don't see any similarities between them and EyeTruth.

I'm not sure why this post has been made now - I instituted the block and protection over a week ago, and have deliberately taken a 'hands off' approach to the discussion on the talk page, which seems to now be well on track to resolving the content dispute - I've commented a few times to suggest ways to resolve the dispute, and I think that the resultant discussion is going well. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything was going so bloody well. GBD the non usage of blitzkrieg argument is still viable. The vote is 6 to 3 with over a week to go. I must say I feel some responsibility for proposing the vote, I did not realise you could not contribute at the time. It took 48 hrs to sink in that your silence was enforced. I really apologise for that. But. They are not the same person! Its bloody obvious. Look at the style of language, the radically different approaches. This baaabaa or whatever is not the same person. Ive looked at the language, style of argumentation, even the attempt to reach consensus is radically different. I sense you are pissed off because the recent block stopped you from contributing for a few days. Dont let it blind you. Please drop the stick. Drop it now. Its not too late. And EyeTruth, do not retaliate. I have tried to be a bridge in my modest way in the short period ive worked with you two. You may not have even noticed. I dont care. I have respect for you both as good eds. its only WP :) Irondome (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The block stopped him from contributing for just a day and that was before the poll was even conceived. I do respect GDB's point of view. Irondome, you probably have noticed that I fully understand you guys' perspective on this issue, and even agree to its factualness to an extent, but I'm just working with WP's idea of notability. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Why dont we reset the vote, so you GBD can submit your own propsals? Its doable. And I am sure EyeTruth would agree. Wouldnt you Eyetruth? Thats a good way of proving you are not baabaa or whatever BTW, behaviourally. Lets just strike all this through. Hopefully not many eds have seen this yet, so we will all be saved from a show-up. can we do that Nick? Lets just get out this place. Cheers Irondome (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naah. There is nothing to retaliate. There is also no need to reset the vote. This dispute has unnecessarily gone on for way too long. Adding another month to it is not palatable, at all. EyeTruth (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of the administrators, pursuant to the unanimous determination of the three-administrator panel convened to close the Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning move request, the initial move of the article to "Chelsea Manning" has been reverted, returning the article to the original title, "Bradley Manning". This move is without prejudice to a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" being initiated no less than thirty days from the date of this determination, and without prejudice to immediate proposals to move the page to a compromise title such as "Private Manning" or "Bradley (Chelsea) Manning". This closure is likely to lead to further controversy, and the situation should be carefully monitored. bd2412 T 04:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to remove "Chelsea" have already begun, as has an edit war over including the name "Chelsea" in the lede sentence. This was the utterly predictable result of a close that amounted to !vote counting and which failed (IMO) to actually deal with the policy questions that were involved in the discussion. BD2412 is correct that more controversy is ahead. EdChem (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the outcome is not what I would have preferred, ultimately whatever happened a lot of people were not going to be happy and it was going to continue to lead to disputes so thanks to the 3 admins involved for their time and willingness to deal with such a contentious and long discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say that this is something that PC2 was made for, except for the fact that administrators have been warring in there as well, at times. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• BD2412, I'm curious about your order, in the finding, that a new proposal to move the page to "Chelsea Manning" may not be initiated less than thirty days from the date of this determination. Is it usual for closers of move discussions to make such orders? Sorry, I've only followed a couple of these (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Santorum (neologism) and I don't recall such an order being attached to those - though I may have forgotten. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been done before and is generally accepted amongst the community as a drama-preventative measure. But it's not based in policy or authority.--v/r - TP 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the advice of three admins, and fair warning they (and others) might well look at something earlier as disruptive. Although part of the closing rationale is incomprehensible (namely "Competing examples were provided of some reliable sources changing their usage, while some retained their previous usage. The change that did occur was not sufficient to persuade the majority of editors, including some who indicated that their minds could be changed by sufficient evidence of changed usage." How did they reach that conclusion since the Associated Press and New York Times did not announce until the 27th?) But regardless, it was reasoned if not flawless work. If anyone wants them to clarify, under ADMINACT, those admins will, no doubt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have just answered this on my talk page, where I have suggested that the specific moratorium imposed is common sense, and done for good reasons. Revisiting this issue after a relatively short period was contemplated by a number of editors who supported reverting the title. In this case, a thirty day moratorium is as much for the benefit of those who would like to see the page moved back to "Chelsea Manning" as it is for anyone else. Undoubtedly, many would like to immediately turn around and propose the move again, but such an attempt may prove to be disastrous for the proposer, as emotions from the previous discussion are still running raw. In thirty days, there is more likely to be substantial evidence with which the proposers can build a WP:COMMONNAME case sufficient to achieve a clear consensus in favor of the proposed move. There is also an opportunity in that time to seek adjustments to the relevant policies in order to clarify the appropriateness of a title change under these circumstances. Note also that if the panel had not included that thirty day provision, it is entirely possible that a move request made after that period of time would have been dismissed by detractors as being too soon. With the thirty day provision, it is clear that a new proposal brought at that point is permissible. bd2412 T 01:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Who were the three closing admins? NE Ent 12:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BOZ and User:Kww.--v/r - TP 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admin Edit request Per the "admin accountability" thing the names of the panel should be on Talk:Bradley Manning/August 2013 move request. NE Ent 13:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have asked the other involved admins to sign the decision. User:Kww has done so, on the subpage. I'm sure User:BOZ will, when he next logs on. bd2412 T 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously I agree with the outcome, the consensus of the RM participants was measured correctly, and emotive arguments were rightly rejected. One thing that may be a concern going forward though are the attempts to undercut and subvert that decision as much as possible. The article is now titled "Bradley Manning", but we can't have the lead reflect that, can't have the infobox reflect that (currently it sits at a compromise of "Chelsea (Bradley) Manning", though even that is under fire by Josh Gorand at the moment. Ther eis also the issue of my move request at Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage. I really don't see the sense in having disparate article titles, but so far the RM is seeing several appeal to emotion types of arguments, the type that were explicitly rejected by point 6 of the big RM close. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh isn't a concern, really. If he was really the policy enforcer that he claims, he'd have attempted to move it back to Chelsea citing WP:BLP at this point and would've earned himself a block. So we can just ignore him. The rest of the article can reflect Chelsea. The discussion was about the article's title.--v/r - TP 14:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously brought my administrative actions on this article for review in this forum. My reaction is that there was no consensus that my actions were incorrect. Since that time, I've been trying very hard to move the involved editors to discuss the policy issues. At the same time I've been removing BLP violations from the talk page itself. Those removals have met the most resistance because many editors - wrongly in my view - believe that the issues can't be discussed without repeating the BLP-violating allegations. I have tried to keep my actions as consistent as possible, including most recently removing User:Jimbo Wales's addition to the talk page.

If there is a clear consensus, particularly from other administrators, that some or all of my administrative actions have been unjustifiable, I will abide by that consensus. If anyone thinks I'm enjoying this, they're dead wrong. It's a royal pain in the ass. However, unless and until that happens, I will continue to act administratively as I see fit.

I'm bringing it up again mainly because of the spill-over into so many other places on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The allegations are all over every Indian newspaper and (300) police are actively looking to question the person being charged. For a parallel case I suggest you look at the history of the Rolf Harris article, where mentions of the allegations were there long before he was formally charged. It is completely not a WP:BLP violation [19] and that you stealthy removed my edits without even informing me is rather annoying. There is absolutely nothing in the BLP policy against mentioning these accusations and proposing text around them.

What's even worse is that you haven't tried to justify anywhere why it's a BLP violation, but are rather repeating a mantra that it is. A quick google search should show any reasonable person that covering this is not a BLP violation: [20]. This is an incident, it should be at ANI. Jimbo Wales addition to the talk page was to list some reliable sources: [21] yet this was also removed as a BLP violation by Bbb23. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than move the discussion to ANI, I've left a small comment there to attract people over so this can be resolved quickly (considering the time sensitive nature of the coverage). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also like to note as far as I can tell, Bbb23 has been making changes to the article over about 7 days, and then looked the article in place and reverted to his preferred version. I think its preferable if an admin who locks an article is not one who has been editing said article ... IRWolfie- (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IRWolfie on this one (but obviously I would). I have attempted to further the conversation there by posting exact quotes without editorialization from a variety of reliable sources, along with information to explain the nature of the sources - these are simple factual quotes from the largest non-tabloid newspapers and television networks in India about allegations that are clearly of encyclopedic interest. There is zero policy rationale for censoring discussion of what the article should say about these allegations, and furthermore Bbb23 has not even remotely attempted to justify his actions. I hope others will revert because I'd rather not do it myself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never seen such a bunch of ill-founded accusations by experienced editors since I've become an admin. Twice I've taken this issue here for review. And twice there's been no consensus that my administrative actions have been inappropriate. As for the allegation that I haven't justified my actions, that's pathetic. I've done so over and over again. Editors may not agree, but I certainly haven't just stated conclusions without support for them. To accuse me of stealth is absurd. I have many faults, but sneakiness is not one of them. I've been as up front as I know how to be and as consistent as I know how to be. And now I have Jimbo telling me I know nothing about BLP and User:Crisco 1492 accusing me of edit warring. Ridiculous and offensive. If that's the way it's going to be - with virtually no attention to proper procedure - then I'm not going to continue trying to protect the article or the talk page, even if some think that's what should be done. As I said before, I'm not enjoying this one little bit. So, I intend to unlock the article and cease any involvement in the article or talk page. Knock yourselves out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you call your (at least) five reverts then, if not edit warring, particularly if consensus (a policy) is against you? That discussion is going to ANI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, would like an explanation for exactly how you thought that removing my exact quotes from reliable sources was in any way consistent with policy. It is incumbent on you as an administrator that you be able to justify and explain your actions with reference to policy. This will be difficult, since this was merely aggressive and completely and totally unsupported by policy in every respect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the policy which is creating confusion, not Bbb23: In addition to what I have told in Jimbo Wales' talk page, WP:BLPCRIME has a set of instructions on BLP crime, and right after that at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply it is told, that BLP are applicable in talk page too. It is misleading. Since it means, one needs to follow the same guidelines in the talk page too which were instructed for article space. It should be clearly written that: editors may post reliable sources in talk page to discuss on the issue. But, the aim of posting such references should be attempt to improve the article and not to make fun of the subject or to defame him. Any irrelevant and unnecessary comment or references will be removed (so and so). --Tito☸Dutta 00:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no confusion in policy. WP:BLPCRIME does not say, or even suggest, that discussion of exact quotes from reliable sources can be removed from talk pages. Bbb23 has indicated that he lost his cool and asks to be left alone for a while to calm down. That's what I recommend. If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do agree that there is no such indication or suggestion, and I am one of the editors who were debating with Bbb23 over this. But, please note, when we were saying the same thing last week (BBb23 came here to have his admin acts reviewed by others), we did not get a single support, actually editors endorsed Bbb23's acts. This is surprising. --Tito☸Dutta 00:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are here now where not the sources there last week. An admin should recognise when something has moved on. That no consensus you cite is just exactly the same people as are commenting here now. I'm not sure what you think that is meant to show, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jimbo Wales: Well, disagreeing with Jimbo isn't cause for desysopping. Threatening to have an admin's bit removed because he removed some of your comments from a talk page comes off poorly, to be honest. I'm not defending Bbb23's actions in this case, but it's clearly a good-faith dispute in which he's trying to err on the side of BLP compliance--that's not at all cause for de-adminning. Every admin makes mistakes, so calling for desysopping over one dispute is inappropriate. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jimbo Wales: Do you really believe that removing the sysop bit from Bbb23 will change anything? This is one of the attitudes that make people believe that being a sysop is some kind of trophy or high position rather than a responsibility. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While there does seem to be consensus now that posting those quotes is fine, it seems that Bbb23was trying to uphold BLP policy. That is one of our most serious policies, and it is a major exception to the 3RR; possible error in upholding BLP in one case should not be grounds for desysopping, particularly since Bbb has now disengaged from the article. We do not want to institute a chilling effect on admins enforcing BLP. LadyofShalott 01:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anything can have chilling effect on majority of admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's perfectly possible to read our BLP policy in a way that makes the removal of Jimbo's comments from the talk page acceptable, even proper. If anyone thinks that Bbb was too heavy-handed, you may say so, but calling for an apology and his head on a platter is too much. Protecting BLPs and upholding the spirit and the letter of the relevant policy is one of the most important duties an admin can take up, and many of us are not prepared to go as far as necessary, or as far as they think is right. In the meantime, he has pulled away from the article, so a block would be just punitive. And we don't, of course, do punitive blocks. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Drmies. Andreas JN466 06:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'm not looking for an apology. I'm looking for a recognition that what he did was incorrect and is not in BLP, so that this silent deleting of BLP conforming talk page comments doesn't repeat itself. As an aside, what BLPCRIME says is that 1. Innocent until proven guilty 2. If the person is unknown consider not mentioning it. Nowhere does it justify removing links to high quality sources about a famous person who is the subject of lots of media attention, nor neutrally written text on the talk page which are based on said reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be looking for an apology, but Jimbo is, and presumably that's what Drmies was referring to: "If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed".[22] Calling for an apology for a good faith disagreement between admins about how to read an (on this point) not very clear policy is pathetic. Please cool down, Jimbo. Well, calling for "apologies-or-else" is pathetic at all times IMO (see WP:CGTW point 16), but particularly in such a case. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. Disagreeing with Jimbo is not grounds for sanctions, not is Exploding Wales a recognized method of desysopping. I don't personally think the material removed violates BLP, but I can see how BLP could be interpreted that way. If we err, it should be on the side of caution. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 10:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put the apologies stuff to one side and focus on the specific issue, which is to stop this repeating itself at some future juncture with a different article due to this misinterpretation of BLP. To move forward, that requires a recognition that this was in fact an overzealous action, and that it shouldn't be repeated. Also, good faith contributions from editors should never be silently deleted, no matter the circumstances. If there is an inadvertent BLP violation it should be deleted and then the person should be informed with precise reasons for why (and by this I mean beyond per WP:BLP or something). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have followed the article since August 23, and it did contain a lot of egregious nonsense with pile-on BLP-violating links to accusations posted on the article and its talk page. The subject of the article is now facing legal processes so it is possible to work on BLP-compliant additions to the article. It is most unfortunate that those arriving late have not understood its background. The best way to guarantee future BLP violations in a wide range of articles is to abuse an admin who has been doing the thankless work of cleaning out the stable. Bbb23 deserves thanks, not this pointless drama. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it did contain egregious stuff back in the 23rd when bbb23 first started editing the article, but that doesn't excuse deleting BLP conforming material a week later from the talk pages. If the cleanup strays into silently removing good faith edits which are not BLP issues then there is a serious problem. He stopped the coverage of a major controversy in an article during a period where approximately 80k people where looking for factual concise information on the topic and disrupted any attempt at talking about the issue. He edited the article multiple times, and then locked in his favourite version so that the very widely covered allegations etc had no coverage at all. Then Bbb23 censored every attempt to discuss the issue and refused and continues to refuse to justify his actions. This overzealousness should never be commended. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfie, surely you know that a BLP violation is a BLP violation no matter where it is placed--article space, talk page, it doesn't matter. If an admin thinks something is a BLP violation they have the moral duty to remove it; User:Jimbo Wales could not disagree with this, I think. Now, it seems clear to me that you have a bone to pick with Bbb; I don't know why, I don't know what you two have been doing recently, but I do know that talk such as "'he' locked in his favourite version" is just tendentious language, pure rhetoric, and while I understand why you're doing it--you want Bbb censured--you know as well as I do, and I think everyone with a calm mind knows it too, that it's just hatespeak for "he protected a version he believed to be BLP-compliant". BTW, I don't see where Bbb refuses anything, though I do see that maybe you are the one who is here to right some wrong.

User:Johnuniq, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I'm baffled that Jimbo Wales would take position here, and that he would take the position he did. Admins have a shitty job already; we don't often enough have the pleasure of simply blocking someone for the hell of it (this one's for you, User:Eric Corbett, because I love you and I'd make you admin in a heartbeat), and when we do act and take a position, a controversial one, you get shat on by the dramah regulars (and by the boss!) or are otherwise prevented from taking real action. Crisco, my friend, you know how that feels--see User_talk:Drmies#Images.

Now, I have a few words of my well-known fatherly advice to share with Bbb, in the privacy of his talk page, but fo shizzle, get off his back. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I have no bone to pick with Bbb23 and I think his actions are generally good as far as I am aware of them. I can't think of any negative interaction we have had. " BTW, I don't see where Bbb refuses anything", Bbb23 was asked in several places to provide a policy based reason but did not do so (saying per WP:BLP is not a policy based reason) [23][24]. Nowhere was it clarified why edits were viewed as BLP violations. The onus is on admins to explain and justify their actions when asked. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin here. After a brief look at the history of this issue, I think your actions may have been an error. However, I'm something of a BLP hardliner (I had a part in the summary deletions of unsourced BLPs a few years back) so I'm a strong believer in the idea that if we err, we should err on the side of protecting the BLP subjects. So I think you may have done the wrong thing for the right reasons. Also, re:above, I second the notion that disagreeing with the Godking is not grounds for desysopping. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 09:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Bbb23 was quite wrong in gauging the whole situation. From the fact that numerous IPs, new users took efforts to come to talk pages and put edit requests to get the news bit inside the article, one should have reconsidered their stance and given a second thought about it all. Something that was found so important by so many new editors could very well be a big issue off-wiki. Majority, if not all, editors were requesting to write that the subject was accused of a crime and not that he was a criminal and these numbers spoke of how the situation fell under WP:WELLKNOWN. I understand that Bbb23's stance for being away from the radiations of Indian media was fair enough at the start but that should have changed. Now apologizing or desysoping is hardly a curative measure but learning to listen from fellow editors would be good enough for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You know, Wikipedia's rules and the administrators who enforce them should be so tight and organized by now that there shouldn't even be debate over what just happened here. The fact that they aren't shows that not only is Jimbo's legacy with WP is as an incompetent leader, but that WP's administration has never been able to get its act together to make its decisions and actions in cases like this so consistent that arguments are over before they even begin. WP is broken, and there is no fixing it. If WP's rules were enforced consistently, then Jimbo would have known what he can and can't do. If WP's administration was consistent and competent in its actions, then the rules and consequences for breaking them would be clear. You all lose. Cla68 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, enforcing BLP is important. But it's a very big hammer, and it's incumbent upon the wielder of it to get it right. BLP does not override consensus, it just allows for preliminary enforcement while consensus is still being gauged. It doesn't allow continued enforcement if consensus does form and it's against that. Rather, BLP, like all our other policies, is determined and enforced by consensus. I don't care that it's Jimbo. When any long-term, good-faith editor disagrees with the summary actions you're taking under BLP, or especially when many do, it's time to step back and take a close look at whether you have consensus to do that. Bbb is finally doing that, but that should've been done without this blowup. I'm not saying that Bbb did it here, but BLP is far too often used as a "trump card" in legitimate content disputes where well-sourced material is available. We ought to sanction misuse of BLP as harshly as violations of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, the period of admins not being willing to enforce BLP begins because they will be too afraid of whether or not them being wrong will make them lose their bit. One by one, we will lose admins who care about BLP, and be left with those who are too worried about their adminship. Makes total sense. Not. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reviewing the article and talk history, there was a valid argument by several that the critcism section was over weighted. I don't know what led Bbb23 to start participating in the article, but early on he was removing unreferenced accusations made by a few registered and nonregistered editors...this is in keeping with BLP[25]. Reliable sources were later added by editors including Jimbo which Bbb23 continued to remove. At some point, the BLP enforcement actions became too severe and not based in policy. I noticed in two cases where Jimbo added reliable sources to the talkpage, Bbb23 removed them within minutes, which indicates to me that Bbb23 didn't even bother to click the links to determine the veracity of the sources. Bbb23 may have simply gotten into a pattern of BLP enforcement where he continued to believe that the specific details of the accusations were BLP violations. A somewhat similar situation happened on an article on my watchlist...several editors were adding information to an article that wasn't referenced due to recentism and I removed it based on a lack of references. But within 24 hours I was able to independently confirm the information so I added it back myself and cited it. Jimbo isn't perfect, but I trust that if he's adding referenced material to a talkpage it deserves some scrutiny before it is immediately removed repeatedly.--MONGO 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any announcements or documentation related to the sudden appearance of article feedback settings on the protection form? It appears to add an extra log action (something like "Changed visibility of the article feedback tool on "Some article" ([Visibility=Disable for all users] (indefinite))" or "Changed visibility of the article feedback tool on "Some article" ‎[articlefeedbackv5=aft-noone] (indefinite)") when protecting a page. From what I can tell, it looks like "disabled" is already the status quo, so it seems a little confusing to have a log entry for that when nothing has actually been changed. (I've never had much use for article feedback, so it's possible that my understanding of the situation is incorrect.) --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5#Imposing article protection causes an unnecessary log event regarding AFT. The problem is (a) there is an unnecessary log event each time an admin protects an article, (b) there is an unwanted random change of the visibility of AFT. If the visibility of AFT is already on, the admin might unknowingly turn it off. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an "enable feedback" link in the toolbox links and on the article feedback subpage. This appears to be removed on most occasions when a page has been protected (or unprotected), usually (but not always) with an additional log entry. Peter James (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to inform the readers of this noticeboard that there is an on-going RfC on WP:VPP#Advertising userboxes on categories which the userbox adds the user to. that I think you all may be interested in. Technical 13 (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No admin tools or privileges needed, but probably more admins than nonadmins know how to help me. The proposal about the article incubator has been closed, so it should be removed from {{cent}} — I can do that, but I don't have time to figure out the archiving. Could someone do both removal and archiving? Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct procedure if a discussion is being swayed by off-wiki means? At Talk:Paris#Changing_the_photo_at_the_start_of_article, the !vote after being slightly against changing the infobox photo has suddenly gained another 5 !votes for it, explained by Talk:Paris#.27Parachute.27_revisionists..--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've poked in that page the odd time, and it might be helpful if someone with a lot of patience were to help mediate the overall dispute. There definitely are factions pushing for control of various aspects of the article, which certainly is unfair to Dr. Blofeld's efforts to bring it to GA status. Resolute 23:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need for patience, really - This complaint isn't about the article content itself, but the WP:MEAT tactic used to 'force' certain POV's; it doesn't matter whose POV's they are. There is no call to discuss article content at all. THEPROMENADER 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] . All non editors, most with new accounts all turn up within a few hours to try to sway an argument. Isn't that sort of organized canvassing of non editors to try to sway an argument on wikipedia considered disruptive and blockable anyway? Not that those "votes" have an ounce of credibility anyway, but it is very concerning that Der Statistiker has no respect for other editors and seems intent on pushing his opinions whatever the cost. And yes, I've heard little but whining and sniping about my edits to the article which passed it as a GA. At one point they were proposing to revert back to the April version, which if you compare it to now it sums up what I've had to deal with.. I think if Der Statistiker continues to cause disruption and making derogatory remarks then a topic ban from Paris related articles might be the best thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Following comment moved from separate section below. — Scott • talk 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A long and heated discussion over which picture to use to represent Paris has taken place. Some want to show famous Parisian sights, others want to show skyscrapers outside the city. Both arguments have merits. Unfortunately the discussion has turned ugly. Minato ku suggested that those who don't share his opinion want to show a city where "everybody is white" [31]. Completely beside the point, and a thinly disguised attempt at calling other users racists. Then, when the consensus seemed to go against his preferences for skyscrapers, the same user decided to go on a WP:MEAT-campaign. At the website skyscrapercity.com (hardly a neutral place), the user repeatedly encouraged members to go to English Wikipedia to comment and vote in favor of Minato Ku's preferred picture [32], [33], [34]. He even went on to instruct them how they should modify their profiles to appear more credible [35], [36].
His meatpuppetry did have the desired effects, a number of new users turned up, their only edits consisted of being in favor of Minato Ku's desired photo change [37], [38], [39], [40].Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned above, Wikipedia:An#Off-wiki_canvassing. Might want to merge the sections so that all the discussion is in the same place... Ansh666 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Scott • talk 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this archived? (Perhaps the 'done' in the message above triggered the bot) THEPROMENADER 04:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is set to archive 2 days after the last comment. The only thing that changes that is a fake date stamp to manually delay archiving. Monty₈₄₅ 04:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or {{subst:DNAU}}. Be sure to remove it once the thread is closed so it can be archived. I have added it above. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks - will do. THEPROMENADER 08:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A 'two-cents' second thought about this episode: Minato ku has been making (a few) edits to Paris-based articles since 2007, so should have known better than to rouse the off-wiki campaign as he did, but one question is bothering me: How is it that his first edit since a year and a half is a vote for the 'La Défense' image on the Paris talk page? It seems evident that someone involved in that debate before the vote 'put out the call' to draw that contributor here, so I (for one) would feel badly if he alone took the fall if he was not alone in organizing the drive. If this is the case, it would be kind (to Minato ku and all contributors involved in this) if that 'someone' came forward. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd put good money on it being one particular editor, who opposes any Dr. Blofield-initiated edit with an apparent disregard for whether it's an improvement or not, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to CampusReform, FemTechNet is coordinating an online course with 15 participating universities, part of which is called "Storming Wikipedia" and involves writing "feminist perspective" into Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure how accurate it is, nor do I have a course syllabus that can prove what the blog post says, but it may be wise to keep an eye on gender-related articles to watch out for meat puppets. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 09:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd hop on over to WT:WikiProject Feminism, you'd see that several veteran editors in the wikiproject are helping coordinate this project. By most accounts, it seems to be a good-faith effort at getting broader coverage of feminism-related events, and to bring well-sourced feminist scholarship to Wikipedia. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all it is then I have no problems with it. We just need to be careful to maintain NPOV and wary of off-wiki collaboration. From the linked article it smelled a lot like a meat puppet campaign; I'm relieved that it is not and that experienced editors are supervising. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 09:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]