Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

 Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard#RFC about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and FRINGE

(Initiated 80 days ago on 2 February 2025) Discussion's been open for a month and mostly stagnant, rfc tag was just archived by legobot.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... DocZach (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}, I have closed the discussion and wrote a summary of the arguments and the overall conclusion. DocZach (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Unarchiving/relisting here as the close was overturned as a WP:BADNAC by an WP:INVOLVED editor per this close review Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• After the mountain of bullshit I got from The Telegraph RFC close, I'm not touching this close with a ten foot barge pole, but I'll opine here that this is a very nasty trap for the inexperienced closer. The discussion isn't hosted on WP:RSN, which I think means that even though there's consensus that this outlet is advancing a fringe narrative, nevertheless the outcome shouldn't be the effective deprecation of a source.

This wants a triumvirate close, made by people who have high bullshit tolerance and asbestos talk pages.—S Marshall T/C 13:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

1) There was already a RSN discussion which found It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here[1] - so SEGM is effectively deprecated already

2) I don't think this is a "very nasty trap", there's something like 3-1 consensus this organization is notable entirely on the basis of its FRINGE advocacy. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Slight terminology glitch: GenerallyUNRELiable, not Deprecated, which would involve an edit filter and a bot, though I'm sure Marhsall also meant GUNREL.
I also disagree that such discussions must also be discussed at RSN as Fringe already deals with very similar topics (and its noticeboard might in fact be better at dealing with such topics), and there a lessons to be learnt a prospective closer can absorb from the Telegraph close review. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The lesson is that when S Marshall makes a close that there's no consensus about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues and WP:RSP should say so, it triggers a revert, a counter-revert, a formal overturning of the first revert, a close review, a revert of the close review close, a counter-revert, and a formal overturning of the close review close, totalling more than 150,000 words of argument; then nobody touching it for two months until Sandstein re-closes the first discussion to say there's no consensus about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues, and now RSP says so -- leading to S Marshall's original close being fully reinstated with slightly different wording and other people's signatures.

This stuff is so incredibly toxic that it's not to be touched by any one editor.—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

100% co-sign. Not touching this. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

As the person who opened that close review, my issue with that close has always been the very wording (which involves reasoning) that was changed, and I've said so from the start of the review. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, anyone can see that the RfC declared SEGM as "fringe", and I'm saying this as someone who !voted it not to be fringe.

However, literally nobody has discussed the implications of SEGM being fringe. That is why it's a "nasty trap": it's basically impossible to do an actual close when there's so much substantial disagreement over what being a "fringe organization" means, so this'll probably float here for the next few months until someone closes with the two words "it's fringe", and for the next few months there will be talk page arguments where people debate what that RfC outcome actually entails.

If I were closing this (which I can't, because I'm WP:INVOLVED), I would call SEGM fringe, then tell everyone to start a new discussion to write WP:FRINGEORG or something else. Since I can't close this, I'd recommend to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist to consider creating a WP:FRINGEORG policy, since in the 2-3 months this RfC will stew waiting for a closer it'll be possible to resolve most of the substantive disagreements that occurred at that RfC. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chess Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Guilt by association seems to me discussion plenty. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Chess for saying that so well.—S Marshall T/C 07:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke/Archive 10#RfC on Infobox Image

(Initiated 76 days ago on 7 February 2025) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote was two days ago and before that was 19th of February. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217#Should other groups be able to use 2FA by default?

(Initiated 71 days ago on 11 February 2025) JJP_Master (she/they) 01:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities

(Initiated 66 days ago on 17 February 2025) This was listed here, closed, taken to AN as a bad NAC and re-opened by the closernoticeboard&oldid=1278648147#Improper WP:NAC at FTN, and automatically archived from this boardrequests/Archive 39#WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities. Aaron Liu originally listed it here with the comment "Fizzled out, round in circles, consensus seems clear" which I find sums it up well apart from "consensus seems clear" downplays just how overwhelmingly clear it is. Reposting it as it still needs closure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm considering closing this, but don't want to blunder into an area I haven't interacted with before. Could somebody please explain what the function of the fringe theories noticeboard is, and what impact an unqualified "yes" consensus could be expected to have? I'm trying to wrap my head around the couple of procedural opposes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I think after the previous closure I'd prefer trying to get an admin in, but: WP:FTN is mainly for editors to point out when someone is trying to make edits pushing "fringe theories", i.e. theories that are clearly outside the mainstream. Or at least that's what easily 90% of topics are about.

The point of a "yes" consensus here is to have something to point to when someone tries to make edits pushing certain types of anti-trans misinformation, such as that trans identity is a mental illness.

There's a bunch of active RFCs on similar topics on that noticeboard right now because a) someone tried to revisit the status of a certain organization (SEGM) as widely considered WP:FRINGE and b) during that discussion someone pointed out that what it means for an organization to be WP:FRINGE wasn't well defined and maybe it would be better to try to nail down what actual theories were WP:FRINGE instead. Loki (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR: it means it is a fringe theory covered by the Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll second that I think it's better for an admin to close, but also want to note that wrt an area I haven't interacted with before: you did perform an overturned NAC on the Telegraph on trans topics RFC, where the Telegraph's pathologization of trans people was heavily discussed.talk:Compassionate727#Telegraph RFC Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

By "area" I think he meant the Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe one of the main disputes underlying this discussion is what the impact of an unqualified "yes" consensus should be. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Trump derangement syndrome#RfC: Should a 2021 peer-reviewed research study be mentioned in the article?

(Initiated 56 days ago on 26 February 2025) Sat around long enough and no new activity in a while. PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes#RFC on Number of Visas

(Initiated 44 days ago on 10 March 2025) RFC tag expired. Last comment was a few days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 07:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on Unite the Right Comments

(Initiated 44 days ago on 11 March 2025) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Tag expired eight days after last !vote. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205#Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, religious stories, and folklore?

(Initiated 42 days ago on 13 March 2025) RFC tag has expired an no comments for 9 days. TarnishedPath^talk 09:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: the discussion is now archived, but a proper closure is still needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on the Political Practice and Rhetoric section

(Initiated 41 days ago on 14 March 2025) RfC tag expired two weeks after last !vote. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: RoutesOnline.com

(Initiated 40 days ago on 15 March 2025) RFC tag has been removed and no new comments in the last two weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

(Initiated 36 days ago on 19 March 2025) RFC on a ARBPIA related organisation -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson#RfC: Should Zeynep Tufekci's comments be removed from Reactions?

(Initiated 15 days ago on 9 April 2025) Discussion is getting quite out of hand but consensus seems clear. I'd say this is an easy close in terms of outcome, but do your homework on your justification before calling it WP:SNOW or something. guninvalid (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	2	2
TfD	0	0	5	8	13
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	0	0	7	5	12
RfD	0	0	0	89	89
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 5#Category:Deer and moose in popular culture

(Initiated 29 days ago on 26 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 1#Category:Wikipedians who own aquariums containing all of the fish they have been slapped with

(Initiated 23 days ago on 1 April 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Burzenland#Requested move 5 February 2025

(Initiated 78 days ago on 5 February 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 00:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal

(Initiated 76 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Iranian revolution#Requested move 18 February 2025

(Initiated 65 days ago on 18 February 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 00:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#Big Five game

(Initiated 65 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#Tour of Flanders (men's race)

(Initiated 64 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#1925 tri-state tornado

(Initiated 62 days ago on 20 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

(Initiated 42 days ago on 12 March 2025) A discussion on if and how to include reports that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considered a laboratory accident in China as the cause of the pandemic. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

(Initiated 40 days ago on 15 March 2025) As one of the main editors involved in this discussion, which has seen no activity in 12 days, I am requesting an uninvolved party to review and close this discussion so this can be formally settled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Stepanakert#Requested move 16 March 2025

(Initiated 39 days ago on 16 March 2025) No new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk: 1925 tri-state tornado#Requested move 19 March 2025

(Initiated 35 days ago on 19 March 2025) Ongoing for a full lunar cycle, needs closure. 66.210.235.227 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 March 2025) Overall discussion started on the 20th, but a refresh to consolidate discussion and vote was made a bit later. Involved editor, but seems as though the Option A here has emerged as the narrow consensus here. No new discussion in last 3 days. Still need non-involved editor/admin to assess separately and close here though. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I should probably note now that any uninvolved that assess this come to a consensus not just based off the option choices, seeing as in the time since I posted this it’s gotten close vote wise. Right now, looking at the broader picture, there appears to be broad consensus taking shape to keep a date range in the title. (and if you’re trying to be specific, as I’m typing this, the date range choices combined are leading over the simple titles). I say this just so we don’t end up with a contested closure like the one that befell the Tri-State tornado page above it seems. Hope that helps! MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Concensus seems to have shifted to E/NC based on a vote yesterday. — E_F⁵ 14:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually no. The date range options (A B and C) combined outweigh the non-date range votes (D and E) combined by a lot (12-9). Saying it shifted to E would probably be improper consensus as the majority so far want to keep the date range and would pretty likely get contested like the Tri-State. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, you can't close something as "ABC". It's either "A", "B", or "C". This isn't the place for further arguments on this anyways. — E_F⁵ 15:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I participated in this discussion, but will try to give a list of votes not clumped together in an unbiased way.
A - 6
B - 3
C - 3
D - 3
E - 7 (see below)
It's clear that there isn't consensus. On Mario's point of the clumped votes, I counted one user who supported the date ranges but didn't give a letter-based vote (@Tornado Tracker2:) and one user (can you ping IPs?) who opposed A through C but never voted in support of not having a date range. I also counted one user who opposed the refresh as a whole (@Fram:), but I'm not going to interpret their comment one way or another as that would be biased. Pinging both users because you obviously don't want to misinterpret a vote. — E_F⁵ 18:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

But there is broader consensus to keep the date range. And out of the options that have those, A leads them. This isn’t biased, this is simply evaluating the options to see where consensus is. As stated before, choosing E would be biased bc there are more votes that call for a date range then for that single option alone. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, A and E both have six votes, meaning that both are on the same level. If this discussion was just about a date range or not, why did you give five different options, just to later clump them together as some sort of WP:SUPERVOTE? As stated, I counted one IP who opposed A-C, and that comment is easy to find. — E_F⁵ 18:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There were 5 options because several other people suggested them in the earlier parts of the discussion. But as the vote continued I realized they were getting very close and was concerned that an improper consensus would be formed that would actually not represent what the majority of users voted for, in this case keeping a date range on the title. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

...so you were concerned that consensus would shift and as such decided to clump them together to avoid the "refresh" closing the way you hoped? Last comment here, but that's exactly what I thought the refresh was trying to eliminate. — E_F⁵ 18:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are twisting my words here. I became concerned that it would close with a result that was not representative of the vote at large (more people want to keep the date range vs no), and would be contested by users afterward, seeing that E was a title that somewhat WP:UNDUE in nature given the main weather event (the tornado outbreak) that was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At this point the discussion has shifted from the inclusion of the California tornado or not to trying to do away with the date range. I saw what happened with the whole Tri-State move saga, which is what I want to avoid. I did a refresh to consolidate discussion because people kept bringing up more options in subsequent talk sections and I was not wanting to have this all over the place. At this point it’s gotten so contentious I wonder if it’d just be better to close it as no consensus seeing where we’re at and just start a new RM for moving it to be "Tornado outbreak and dust storm of March 1x–1x, 2025" or something seeing how that is the primary issue right now. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, not to mention the non-neutral wording of the refresh, which states things like Brouggt up by some but opposed by some as well because even though it tries to associate the dust storm and fires and blizzard with it, I feel that gives them WP:UNDUE weight given how much more deadly and destructive the tornado outbreak was as well as that being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. and a vague title brought up by some that I feel is too broad. I mean, you used your personal opinion in the opening statement and as such compromised consensus. This is not how RMs (or whatever the heck you'd call this mess) are supposed to open. — E_F⁵ 15:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I said before it’d be better to close this as no consensus and start a new one instead because of how long and contentious this is. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I already gave my !vote before the irregular "refresh" partway through the RfC, but you can add me to the count for "E" (with "D" second choice: A, B and C don't even match the actual contents of the page, which just lists tornadoes of the 14th and 15th!). I don't think involved people are supposed to pre-indicate consensus anyway, that's a conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the voter, but since we are here anyway I left my comment as well. Fram (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll stop commenting. — E_F⁵ 18:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 March 2025) As the OP of this one I made the decision to withdrawl given a broader RfC was opened on the date ranges and basically rendered this specific move discussion moot. Requesting a closure with the discussion withdrawn here. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Trump#Requested move 25 March_2025

(Initiated 30 days ago on 24 March 2025), Looks like it is long overdue to be closed. I would greatly appreciate someone taking a look. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

close by editor GN22. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Revert as WP:BADNAC by Pppery[2]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Denali#Copying_moratorium_from_Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico

(Initiated 19 days ago on 4 April 2025) Latest comment 4 days ago, 34 comments, 11 people in discussion. Closure would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Closure Review Request at MOS page

About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of these are easier than others.

I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.

The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.

If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles).[3][4][5][6] —sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Is anything happening with this request? Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs, but I'd like to contribute to the centralized discussion if there is one, or start a new one if there's nothing active. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• It might help to get a list of the RMs that are still pending... Also... perhaps a list of any recently closed RMs. The results should be discussed in any future RFC. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  As far as I know, these are the current or recent RMs:

  • Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
  • Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr.
  • Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.
  • Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr.

  If there are others anyone knows about, feel free to add. Dohn joe (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'd ask that the 'Martin Luther King Jr.' page be returned to 'Martin Luther King, Jr.' That page and many other MLK pages were decommatized without an RM or discussion, even though it is obviously 'controversial'. I put a note up on the MLK talk page, asking that the comma be returned pending a time someone might want to start an RM to remove it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:52 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

These comma removals should not be controversial, since the MOS says that the omission of the comma is preferred. However, it appears that junior commas are inherently controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Those comma removals should not be controversial, but they are because the wording you settled on in the MOS was not explicit in deprecating the commas as had been proposed in the RfC and editors who don't like it are using this as a basis to discount MOS. —sroc 💬 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What I closed was to leave the wording as it was. If the consensus was to omit the "preferred" clause and forbid the comma, then my closing was incorrect. If the implication is that I should have used a supervote to close without consensus and remove the "preferred" clause, then that isn't my understanding of how closure works. What is the consensus at this noticeboard, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Your closure did not reflect consensus. The proposal was for the following wording at WP:JR:

Do not place a comma before "Jr.", "Sr.", or Roman numeral designation. Examples: Sammy Davis Jr., John F. Kennedy Jr., Otis D. Wright II.

This was supported by Atsme, Dicklyon, FactStraight, Herostratus, Tony1, and yours truly based on a list of reasons enumerated here. Collect and Randy Kryn supported the status quo ante, which allowed an exception for the subject's preferences. DrKiernan said: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way. ... So, neither or both should be acceptable." Aside from the proposal being supported by 6–3, none of those with a contrary view addressed the various reasons for the proposal. The consensus was clearly to adopt the proposal.

DrKiernan later unilaterally, without any further discussion or support, changed the wording of WP:JR to:

It is unnecessary to place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation. ...

This was the wording in place when you closed the RfC stating: "The MOS page already states that the comma is not needed, so that the MOS page can be left as it is." However, this wording was not supported by consensus in the RfC.

If you now accept that this closure was incorrect, then you should reverse the closure or revise the closure to reflect consensus from the RfC (i.e., to adopt the wording originally proposed). Otherwise, perhaps this needs to be raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead. —sroc 💬 02:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I will review the closure. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the issue should be raised on WP:ANI. The procedures on closure state that closures should be reviewed at WP:AN, which is here. If there is consensus that my closure was incorrect, then it can be opened and reclosed. Alternatively, my closure can be re-opened here, and an administrative re-closure requested here. I made this request here, nearly a month ago, because this and not ANI is said to be where closures should be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I only suggested AN/I because the edit screen has this notice: {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}}. —sroc 💬 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The situation of the two Martin Luther Kings (Jr. and Sr.) shows the problem and why the language should allow both forms. Dr. King is known and famous, and that widespread recognition of his name includes the comma. It is used in governmental honoring, on all his books, etc. Not to argue the case here (and I've asked several times for the Martin Luther King, Jr. article be returned to its proper name because the move which moved it was made as 'uncontroversial', common sense to know that it might be controversial, so can an admin please put it back to the previous name? Thanks). A hard and fast rule, one certainly not decided on by the community but by the small amount of people who inhabit MOS pages, and even that discussion seems inconclusive. Maybe let it be "argued out" at the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, which should be a good forum for an extended discussion of this. Suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 17:48 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The MOS exists for a reason. It sets guidelines for the style adopted by Wikipedia. If the community consensus is not to include commas before Jr. and Sr., then this should apply regardless of individuals' preference; we follow Wikipedia's style, not the style of individual subjects.

The problem is well illustrated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library which have apocryphal titles using mismatched commas: all style guides advise that, if a comma appears in a name before Jr. or Sr., another comma must appear after as well; the fact that some individuals or bodies flout this rule of English pronunciation is no reason for this encyclopedia to follow in their folly. This is another reason to omit the commas altogether and avoid repeated arguments over proper pronunciation over and over again on article talk pages. —sroc 💬 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Propose reopening the discussion – Whatever way this closure review goes, the MoS changes instituted by this process will always be on extremely shaky ground. According to our policy on consensus, "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community". I would say that not enough participation was solicited for such a massive change, and that even if it was, the subsequent errors in assessing the consensus that did develop (in favour of removing the comma) completely destroyed the potential stabilising factors that this RfC needed. I support the change, but was not aware of the RfC at the time, despite having various MoS pages on my watchlist. That's an indication that what we really need to do is reopen the RfC, widely advertise it in appropriate places, and generate a firm consensus that cannot be challenged across many pages, as is happening now. RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Closure of Closure Review

This closure review request has been open for nearly a month and has gotten nowhere. Is it time to close it as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this review has gone stale is no justification to support "no consensus" following your controversial closure of the RfC with a conclusion that did not reflect the discussed consensus, effectively overruling the consensus. We urgently need resolution of this issue.

It should be noted that this controversy has now been used to block page move requests supported by the RfC discussion:

• Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library § Move discussion in progress)

• Barack Obama, Sr. → Barack Obama Sr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

• Martin Luther King, Sr. → Martin Luther King Sr.

(Open: see Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

—sroc 💬 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the consensus here? Regardless of whether I made a mistake in closure, I think that something should be done rather than leaving this issue open for more than a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've presented a possible option in my latest comment above. Randy Kryn 17:54 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

Blaming the closer for not following the exact dynamics of what happened is not a good scheme. The problem is that some editors who were not involved in the discussion don't like how it came out. Might as well just start another RFC to see if they want to overturn what the MOS has said since 2009, or the recent tweak to it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or did the recent 'tweak' remove the option of keeping the comma? Tweaks which limit actions are not little changes, but major moves, and those are the ones which should have much wider participation than just the few regulars who now create (and often restrict, such as this comma decision) the MOS guidelines. There are so many pages and so many walls of text that the vast majority of editors won't know when something important is being changed. Even people reading those pages aren't following everything, and like the recent back-history I looked up about how the "rule" about upper and lower case titles came into being, sometimes a major change is in the middle of the wall of text and not seen by many editors. The problem with MOS is too much of it in the hands of too few editors, with people who know how it works putting in their own favorite site-wide changes which then create controversy (as with this Jr. and Sr. thing, should be on a article-by-article basis. Dr. King has always been comma-Jr., and changing it is literally changing his name). Randy Kryn 5:23 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Even back in the 60s, the comma was sometimes omitted, even in Ebony magazine. Do you think they were trying to change Dr. King's name? Seems like a stretch. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It removed the exception of keeping it at the preference of the subject, since there was no reason for that exception and no way to determine it. And it removed Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of that; his name had had the comma inserted at random; most of his albums and many of his biographies, including one by his daughter, omit the comma, so the random claim of his preference was specious. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

DrKiernan: "It's too trivial for most people to care either way." Randy Kryn: "... something important is being changed." Mmm, right. It is annoying when people who are dedicated to language and style issues agree on what guidance MOS should provide (based on style guides written by experienced language experts) and those who aren't invested in it lobby to ignore MOS when it impacts a topic they have some interest in (preferring what they're used to over what's right). —sroc 💬 06:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr. must have asked that the comma not be used on his albums. The difference is that Martin Luther King, Jr. used the comma on all his books, so he thought of it as part of his name. I guess this is a generational thing, that the new generations will look at the comma in the name as 'old style'. But should Dr. King remain as 'old style' as he was known in his lifetime and how the U.S. government refers to him at his Memorial and the day named in his honor? Yes, I personally "see" it as part of his name, and seeing his name without a comma looks odd. Again, that could be generational. But it is historically accurate. How far from historically accuracy should Wikipedia go? If the only difference is a comma, then I'd suggest keeping the comma for sake of accuracy. Randy Kryn 6:29 4 April, 2015 (UTC)

Dr King's style or his publisher's style? And what difference does that make? As a matter of style, we are free to choose whichever style we prefer for Wikipedia, as documented in our MOS. Wikipedia routinely changes quoted text for typographic conformity with our MOS irrespective of others' preferences (Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations §§ Typographic conformity). In any case, this was all covered in the RfC. The issue here is that the RfC was closed incorrectly. This is not the forum to re-hash the arguments all over again. —sroc 💬 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Gossip on signpost

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

---

Please see In the media. The signpost has posted negative information about principals in a company involved a local property dispute. While sourced locally, there's no evidence of significant national, encyclopedic coverage. WP:BLPGOSSIP requires "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." (emphasis mine) Prior discussion at corresponding talk. NE Ent 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is one of the more spurious things I've seen. This topic got national coverage, has extensive articles in reliable sources, and relates to long-running paid advocacy problems on the English Wikipedia (see also Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• This is a bit rash, honestly. I would have been glad to chat with you further to address your concerns. If this was just a minor local story I pulled from the back pages of a local newspaper, I would have relegated it to "In brief". But it's an absolutely huge story in Austin, it has received national attention since February, the human interest angle has made it go viral on social media, and national media attention has repeatedly highlighted the Wikipedia connection. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Sourcing is fine, the connection to Wikipedia is a little tenuous, but it's real enough. The article doesn't violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd say that the complaint is unwarranted and requires no action. Perhaps the complainant might want to spend their time doing something productive to help build the encyclopedia instead of looking high and low for things to bitch about. BMK (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ent, if you had done your homework before coming here, ten seconds of Googlefoo would have revealed: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Shall I continue? Please don't waste valuable time in my day with spurious complaints. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't personally see why this story was included, but people are clearly agreeing that this is not a policy violation. If you don't want to see this kind of thing in the Signpost, try to convince the writers that it's not something worth paying attention to. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

NE Ent

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

---

Since Johnuniq addresses NE Ent's actions, I'm adding a subheader and excluding this bit from what I closed up above. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks NE Ent for raising this because it reminds me that there are two things I've been wanting to say. First, Signpost has been getting better and better, and the April 1 edition was fantastic! It is a long time since I've seen entertaining April 1 commentary—congratulations to all involved! Second, NE Ent has been getting worse and worse, and the unhelpful commentary wastes resources and often enables trouble makers. Please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Just want to chime in here and say wow, this was an incredible article in the Signpost and I hope we see more like it. I can't quite wrap my mind around NE Ent's objection. Did he read a different article in a parallel Wiki-verse? Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Meh. Why continue the dramaz? support full close of a minor incident. — Ched :  ?  06:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban for User:MaranoFan

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

---

Posting this to "bump" this ANI thread that was archived prematurely. All information can be found there. WP:CBAN says these matters are preferred at AN anyway.

MaranoFan will likely not be able to comment, at least not initially; s/he is on a script-enforced wikibreak (that s/he started immediately following the ANI report) that expires on April 10. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this inhibit the topic ban discussion? AcidSnow (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it should. The user chose to vanish instead of responding to criticism and addressing problematic behaviors in a constructive way, so one would assume s/he's fine with us carrying on this discussion without him/her. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! AcidSnow (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This enforced WikiBreak, as far as I can tell, may actually be designed to allow the user to have the discussion when (s)he has more time available to answer our claims. I think that for periods of up to a month, we should wait for the user to be around if we have reason to think that the user would be more likely to at that point. I would also like to point out that the end of the enforced Wikibreak is the end of Passover. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support a 6 month topic ban for files, that may be lifted only if MaranoFan demonstrates a thorough, clear understanding of the problems that have brought them to this ANI in addition to being mentored by an experienced editor (preferably a willing administrator) for the six month period. MaranoFan has a definite problem working with other editors and following guidelines and policies. None of us are perfect, but I think a quick once-over of the history of MFs edits, edit wars, talk-page postings (on others' userspace as well as his own), and various other questionable actions (listed above by Chasewc91) gives a complete picture: something needs to be done about his attitude and approach. At the time this was originally filed, he had just come off a month-long block and was almost immediately back here at AN/I. That's the sign of something more than the usual "doesn't understand Wikipedia", in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support 6-month ban for files. Concur with Winkelvi. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above. After looking over the case noted above, this user either is incapable of understanding basic principles of uploading files at Wikipedia; willfully ignores those principles, or is trying to be actively disruptive. In any event, they need to stop uploading files. --Jayron32 01:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per statements above. AcidSnow (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bump to prevent archiving. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Autopatrolled right request

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

---

Please will someone give User:Alakzi, who is a valuable content contributor and template editor, 'Autopatrolled' status? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Done by User:Ched. I think you're supposed to request this at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Requesting adjustment to an ANI discussion closure

Two weeks ago, Drmies closed an ANI discussion, now archived here. Reading through the discussion, you can see the !voting was for a normal WP:TBAN topic ban, not anything more narrow. Alexbrn's initial wording did say "blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles" but every other !vote was for TBAN, and then Alexbrn also demonstrated his !vote was for a normal indef TBAN in his follow-up comment at the bottom of the thread, regarding Sugarcube: 'Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too.' However, Drmies posted in the close at ANI that the editor is "indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages," and "from Circumcision-related articles and their talk pages, broadly construed" at the editor's User Talk.

I didn't think much of it at the time, figuring "it's only a problem if it's a problem," but since then Tumadoireacht has made two edits in the area of the topic ban, here and here, continuing the same behavior but doing it at User Talk pages. A normal TBAN close would not have allowed these edits but the more narrow wording used in the close does.

I brought this to Drmies' attention via email and he agreed with an adjustment to the close. He said he didn't have the time at the moment to dig into it himself, and suggested I bring it to AN where he didn't expect it would be a problem, so I'm bringing it here for discussion and action. The specific action I'm requesting is for an adjustment to the closure language to that of a normal TBAN.

Thanks... Zad68 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is my mistake for being too specific in my wording (and not thinking/remembering that disruption can decamp to User Talk pages). My intent was that a normal topic ban should apply to put a stop to the disruption. I would support the adjustment. Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm a tad occupied with Verlaine at the moment, trying to follow the beat of his joyous drums. Zad did indeed ask me about this and I have no objection to some further scrutiny of the discussion and the preciseness of my close: if I read a "broadness" into the comments that wasn't there, by all means let's get it right. Thanks Zad, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit rich. Pound of Flesh territory. If another editor welcomes discourse on his or her own talk page it is really of no concern to the likes of Zad and Alexbrn. What exactly is it that these lads fear so greatly ? Discussion anywhere ? Challenge ? / Being contradicted ? A balanced and inclusive article ? Is the subtext a push to have a premature Featured Article status sought for the very flawed Circumcision article ?

Perhaps I should expect a writ from Zad if I discuss genital cutting in my living room or the local pub ? I will pursue with vigour an appeal if an attempt is made to alter what was already a bit of a railroading . Drmies speaks of "disruption" which means "unplanned, negative deviation from the expected delivery" What expected delivery and expectation exists here. Please remind yourselves

Also is Zad in contravention of WP policy in not informing me of this discussion/attempt to gild the lily  ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Tumadoireacht's contribution here is in itself a pretty good indication of why an adjustment would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not to mention that a pound's worth of foreskin is massive. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn often reminds me of Greta Garbo. So taciturn. So enigmatic. Foreskins sell by acreage rather than weight Drmies, ( http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/30/Foreskin/) but the pound referred to above was not money but weight. Since Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice -"A pound of flesh" is a figurative way of referring to a harsh demand or spiteful penalty.

Oh dear - wait - Is this a circumcision related article or talk page ?

May I even speak here in my own defence ? We cannot mention the sale of foreskins cut off by circumcision in the circumcision article (or indeed any of the ways cutters dispose of them including godparents or grandparents eating them) due to the enigmatic brotherhood embargo here represented by two of its luminaries. ( Expect the others shortly if it looks at all possible that I will not be made to walk the plank again) So I am relieved you brought up price Drmies. Do you think maybe the place for mentioning price is the article itself though ? What price freedom ? Still Alexbrn is correct - an "adjustment would be helpful" - just not the one that Zad is clamouring for.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the original discussion is archived here. The request is to adjust the wording of the close to match the community TBAN found in it. Zad68 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again Zad is misrepresenting events - there were 8 votes to support the TOPIC ban that Alexbrn proposed ( for me and and 5 votes opposing it.) which he worded thusly:

"In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles

Then, near the end of the discussion, long after all votes but the fifth one opposing the ban had been cast , Alexbrn reacted to a comment seeking the banning of Zad and Doc James ( for alleged Non NPOV partisan editing motivated by religious affiliation ) by newly seeking a TBAN on the editor who made the comment. Naturally Doc James agreed, and there followed a short discussion on the motivation for Doc James pushing for a severe penalty with one editor asking whether Doc was "responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes" . How this gets itransmogrified into "Everyone agrees" to a wider ban is a stretch.

Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages or is there some other agenda afoot here ? To borrow Alexbrn's original phrase "It would be good" to know !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages, the answer is Yes, that is the normal result of the typical "topic ban" on Wikipedia, the topic can't be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with the WP:TBAN policy page. What's happened is that the community supported a WP:TBAN, but the wording provided to you wasn't clear enough. The request here is to provide you clear wording that is in line with the TBAN. Zad68 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes a topic ban widely construed was the result and just needs to be stated. This editor can and should work on something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No it was not. A specific proposal was put forward (" blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles") and voted upon as originally worded. If you wish to pursue a website wide topic ban lads then you must make a new proposal, not an amendment proposal and let folk consider it, discuss it, and reach a consensus on whether it is needed.

Now If I am not writing on Circumcision page or its talk page or any of the other 20 or so genital alteration/ mutiliation pages and yet you still want to hound out any discussion on my or other editor's personal talk pages, your motivations for doing so may come in to question and your hounding may boomerang. There is a great deal of discussion of COI at present - if the group of editors who are harassing editors at Circumcision who do not comply with an unbalanced positive presentation of Circumcision do in fact all belong to one ethnic group for whom Circumcision is sacred then it behoves them to declare this conflict of interest. Just as it would behove the Circumcision article to mention that the W.H.O. chief expert on Circumcision who is pushing it as a HIV prevention tool in Africa is also the inventor of and has a consequent commercial interest in, the three main tools used to lop off foreskins in clinical settings. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You are either very naive or very stubborn, or both.

Would you like to know what invariably happens when topic-banned editors come here to defend their right to keep arguing their case, supported by a long spiel reiterating their passionate belief that they are bringing The Truth™ and should thus be allowed wide latitude to continue disrupting the project?

I ask because you may be about to find out the hard way. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion

Hi

Quite a backlog here again, currently sitting at 191. Amortias (T)(C) 00:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Some userpages

See User:Ghulam Hassan Askari and it's history and User:Chourbut Marchha and it's edits--Musamies (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Musamies, you need to notify these two users that you've brought their case to AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the system, are there some reasy form that I can use or can I write some text with link--Musamies (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Up at the top of this page, in a big red box... it's {{subst:AN-notice}}, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of some user subpages

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

---

Could an admin go to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Biblioworm/ and delete all the italicized pages? These are redirects that I no longer need. Thanks, --Biblioworm 16:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

All deleted now. Davewild (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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

General remark

I took some time off last summer and on returning to edit at the end of 2014, I'm struck by decreasing presence of admins on ANI and AE. I think there used to be a larger pool of admins who frequented these forums and closed disputes and now there are just a handful of admins wading into these conflicts...maybe it's because some regular noticeboard admins have retired. I can understand admins who want to focus on other areas of the project or choose to avoid the drama boards. But now that I'm learning the ropes of clerking with the AC, I frequent AE and see some cases that probably should have been closed last week.

I know there are constant appeals for admins to handle backlogs of work so there is a need for more admins in many areas of the project. This could all be none of my business, I just was wondering if there was some explanation that came to mind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If theres no need for further admin intervention you can close them as a non-admin. I frequently do so on ANI where actions have been carried out but they havent been closed, their misplaced or obviously nonsense. its a drop i the ocean but every little helps. Amortias (T)(C) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Block first, ask questions later?

What's the procedure when a community banned editor is suspecting of running a sock? Do we block first and then ask questions, or raise the SPI first? Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If it passes the duck test it appears to be block first and add it to the spi case. Amortias (T)(C) 20:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question was community banned User:Tobias Conradi. The suspicion was raised at WT:TWP that User:TrackGauge is a sock of TC. Name of sock and area of article edited strongly support the suspicion. Therefore I've blocked and added that name to TCs SPI. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to get consensus to remove from blacklist

Please see my proposal below which I proposed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It marked to be declined by lone admin even when I am giving so much reasons and surety. It is being declined because it needs consensus from regular contributors so please give your consensus. I assure you that the links will not be added again and wikipedia will not be hurt. Please read the proposal below:

Hi, I am posting this proposal here after discussion with administrator Beetstra [15] so that wikipedia community can have their consensus to remove this site from the black list.

In 2012 my friend (owning borntosell.com) hired someone for online marketing and that person decided to spam wikipedia with their website. It was nothing that could not have been handled by blocking those 3 accounts and the single IP that were spamming but an admin decided to put the website in the blacklist right away. Which is ok but now they have stopped editing wikipedia since 2013 (1.5 years) to prove that they want to abide by the rules. The warning given to them was after adding the site to blacklist and they did not know wikipedia rules about which links were eligible, which is no excuse, but also not fair enough to get blacklisted. It is not an excuse but now they are ready to prove it by wikipedia norms by first stopping like you do in WP:Standard Offer for blocked users. I request that this website be removed from the wikipedia blacklist in exchange for the promise that they will not add it again and keep check on any PR working for them that they do not add links to wikipedia for online marketing. Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope says people should be given a chance and if they do it again, you can add back so is it possible to remove it and see that they are keeping their promise.

Wikipedia does not need their links and they do not want to add as well, the main reasons for the request to get removed from the black list are that some other companies and websites copy and use wikipedia's blacklist as their own which is hurting their website ranking and also their newsletter which goes to spam folder of their subscribers even though it is not spam. They just asked me to explain to you as I regularly read wikipedia. I want to explain that they only want to disappear from your blacklist and they will stop getting involved with link spam. Kindly give your input and make consensus to remove this site from blacklist.

--Riven999 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on the history of this URL and the lack of reasoning by the single-purpose account, I would not be willing to remove it from the blacklist at this time. They may be willing to not spam Wikipedia, but many non-wiki projects depend on this blacklist. Nakon 06:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am giving sufficient reasoning that not spamming wikipedia since 2013 is sufficient proof that they are willing to stop and prove by stopping first. It was a mistake. No wikipedia or any other projects will be spammed if it is removed from the blacklist. The main purpose is that their normal newsletter is being sent to spam folder even when people willingly subscribe to it. The proposal is to just get off the blacklist. Other sites that copy blacklist are not doing properly I had discussed with Beetstra.I think the request is reasonable. If seen spamming again add back quickly if you want. Your wikipedia policies allow this lenience in WP:Standard Offer and Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope. It is my request to regular contributors to give input so that administrator's objection is no more. I do not want to impose my decision and do not want any single admin to do this as well. Please see if it is something that can be allowed. I can assure that they have learnt the lesson from the blacklist's effect and do not want to engage into this by with asking any one to spam again.--Riven999 (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

We should remove it, at least temporarily. Blacklisting the link prevents us from adding it to Born to Sell, which isn't a good situation. We can always restore it to the blacklist when we've put it on the article; I can't imagine why we'd want to use it anywhere else on the project. This is why I wish we had a whitelist page...Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is useful only on that one article, so the solution is to whitelist the About page. That's what we normally do in such cases. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remember that we had a whitelist. But MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist looks like it's a way to whitelist an entire link: is it possible to permit a link to be added to one specific Wikipedia page while preventing the same link from being added to all other Wikipedia pages? Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, unless something has changed. That's why I normally go for the About page. Reminds me: does anyone know if you can edit filter on links? People keep proposing Natural News as a source for quack claims - it never passes, we should save them the trouble. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Born to Sell even notable? Nyttend has just helpfully removed its spammy content, but most of the references provided have been media releases or similar. The two remaining references are pretty brief, and appear to also be promo-style mentions of this company. Given that there appears to be an attempt to advertise the firm here, I don't think any of its website should be whitelisted. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed entirely a story from Barron's, because the article text was a copyvio. This source could be used quickly to mention how the website's interface works, although again, it's just a brief mention. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Whitelisting can indeed be used to selectively allow a single link from an otherwise blacklisted site. If Born to Sell survives AfD, a link to the company's "about" page could be whitelisted for that site. borntosell.com isn't a reliable source and isn't of use to Wikipedia as such, and we don't remove sites from the blacklist just because it's hurting their search ranking elsewhere, especially when the request is from a single purpose account who is now forum shopping when they didn't like the answer(s) they got at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#borntosell.com. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tracking an IP-only vandal

In my experienced long-term vandals will tend to edit from a named account, get blocked, and then edit from IPs or socks accounts - in which case they are tagged as being linked to the 'original' account using {{Sockpuppet}} and/or {{IPsock}} But what about when they remain IP-only, e.g. 177.59.105.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others listed here? - what is the best method of tracking this individual? GiantSnowman 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)