Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

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

Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages

Certified pages

General
Use of administrator privileges

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Now archived at Template talk:Citation/Archive 7#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done The categories have already been de-populated (even before the RfC started, it appears), and redirects to the new category already implemented, which is consistent with the consensus there, albeit participation was low. A formal close does not seem necessary here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing this discussion, I JethroBT. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:

  1. Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
  2. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
  3. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
  4. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
  6. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
  8. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)
  9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
  10. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
  11. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
  12. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
  13. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
  14. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
  15. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
  16. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
  17. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
  18. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
  19. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about archive.is links (2 July 2014)

Here are discussions with the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC closer:

  1. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
  2. User talk:Hobit#Question re: Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
  3. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
  4. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools#RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?[edit]

Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this? The RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard[edit]

Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)[edit]

Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt) 2. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates? (initiated 30 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically? (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipediocracy doxxing[edit]

This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12[edit]

Even though this from over a month ago, there are still a couple of discussions here that haven't been closed yet. JDDJS (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI "Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed"[edit]

This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Premature request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content?[edit]

This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at WP:SPS and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven editors have logged their responses to this RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts? (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. This RfC timed out with all participants in agreement about what it meant. Please use any energy on the RfC for which closure was requested. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance of political commentary in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fields Medal#Table format[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal#Table format (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Fields Medal#RFC (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the lede contain the following phrase:

He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?

Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Middle name in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLP's[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLP's (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio? (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC (initiated 2 September 2014) and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record? (initiated 8 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:OpenOffice.org#RfC on the topic (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?

A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?

Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Renewable energy sources#RfC: Is it possible to remove biomass & biofuel from the template without damaging the credibility of wikipedia?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Renewable energy sources#RfC: Is it possible to remove biomass & biofuel from the template without damaging the credibility of wikipedia? (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian War#RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bosnian War#RfC: Factual accuracy and use of war-related terms (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Split, Croatia#Name[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Split, Croatia#Name (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section Name." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#RfC: Modern country names vs. their 1912 equivalents[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic#RfC: Modern country names vs. their 1912 equivalents (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE" (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pectinidae#RfC: Splitting and joining Scallop & Pectinidae[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pectinidae#RfC: Splitting and joining Scallop & Pectinidae (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Constant folding#RfC: Mention string literal concatenation (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should there be a mention of string literal concatenation (SLC) on the constant folding (CF) article or not? Concretely, proposed edit (diff):

...

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)#RfC:Is use of the .7B.7Bstory.7D.7D template appropriate for a plot summary of a fictional film?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Girl Next Door (2004 film)#RfC:Is use of the .7B.7Bstory.7D.7D template appropriate for a plot summary of a fictional film? (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources#RfC, IMDB on the Project Page[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources#RfC, IMDB on the Project Page (initiated 4 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:WZTV#WP:NOTDIR[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:WZTV#WP:NOTDIR (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Loughner section RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie#Loughner section RfC (initiated 20 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television#RFC: Format and Genre parameters[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RFC: Format and Genre parameters (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Request for comments (initiated 17 August 2014):

Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014#RfC: Should Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour be red or blue?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish presidential election, 2014#RfC: Should Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour be red or blue? (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant? (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:

Current Text: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."

I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:

Proposal: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guideline for terminology on immigrants[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Guideline for terminology on immigrants (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Get Rid of PROD[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Get Rid of PROD (initiated 3 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#RfC: Notability of YouTubers[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#RfC: Notability of YouTubers (initiated 28 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#What is this page?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#What is this page? (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Major change: Journalism -> Original reporting (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/30 SW[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/30 SW (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014‎.

The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress (initiated 22 August 2014)?

The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 (initiated 28 July 2014)?

The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vibhabakshi[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vibhabakshi (initiated 14 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neme81/sandbox (2nd nomination)[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neme81/sandbox (2nd nomination) (initiated 11 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edward1967/turas (2nd nomination)[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Edward1967/turas (2nd nomination) (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiGoals (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Used to and didn't use to[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Used to and didn't use to (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tommynewsnetwork/sandbox[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tommynewsnetwork/sandbox (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royal New Zealand Ballet[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Royal New Zealand Ballet (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol (initiated 5 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cleduc/Pligg[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cleduc/Pligg (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nerdypunkkid/Dan Nainan (initiated 31 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:2829VC/Peter Chapple (initiated 22 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Digital movie cameras and Category:Camcorder films? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Villages in Hama merge and rename of Category:Subdistricts of Hama? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Phases of the Moon[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Phases of the Moon? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14#Category:Literature by (X) women[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14#Category:Literature by (X) women? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20#Category:Fish of Great Britain[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20#Category:Fish of Great Britain? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block appeal for CSDarrow[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block appeal for CSDarrow (initiated 18 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification (initiated 13 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review[edit]

Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on the user's contributions, the user has a spent a lot of time at IPhone 6. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Operation_Polo#Requested_move_2[edit]

Any uninvolved user can close this. Consensus seems pretty clear to me, but I am the OP. If someone can just indicate the consensus, I can do the cleanup. Kingsindian (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Slovakia relations[edit]

Has gone over 7 days. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification[edit]

I – SMcCandlish – was banned for three months from directly making page moves, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish: "SMcCandlish is banned from making page moves for 3 months. They may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth, but not move pages." That ban is over in about a month. In the interim, I ask that its wording be clarified, and WP:Editing restrictions be updated with the clarification. The wording is over-broad, and needs to be narrowed to apply only topages about which some controversy could conceivably arise. In particular, it should not apply to pages within my own userspace, nor to recent pages (in any namespace) of which I am the sole editor (or sole substantive editor; no one cares about a tweak by a bot, or someone's off-hand typo fix). The ban's excessively broad wording is impeding my ability to develop templates and do other routine work on new stuff that no one has any interest in until it's no longer in draft/alpha form. While I would love to assume in good faith that no one would notice or make trouble about an obviously non-controversial move of one of my own pages, someone has already filed one WP:POINTy, vexatious, rejected ANI case against me for even daring to use WP:RM, so I'm not taking any chances.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see revised request.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support allowing the moving of pages created within userspace to other titles within userspace, or from userspace to mainspace. Oppose allowing "recent pages (in any namespace) of which I am the sole editor (or sole substantive editor; no one cares about a tweak by a bot, or someone's off-hand typo fix)". We do, in fact, care about attempting to weaken a ban through Wikilawyering. The fact of the matter is that (as should be obvious by the fact you were move-banned) any move by you is controversial, as a result of your own actions. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly oppose: I'm not thrilled with SMC's manner in the above request for a reduction in sanction. It reflects much the same disruptive attitude that led to the current sanction. SMC: Assuming good faith, the problem that led to your pagemove ban resulted from repeated mistakes on your part in considering certain pagemoves to be uncontroversial. I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that your understanding has changed, preferably through a track record of success at RM (which I would be happy to evaluate if you have a list of RMs). That said, you are quite correct that you should be allowed to move pages within your own userspace. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (see below)
    • Based on SMC's statement below, and his compilation of statistics, I'm in favor of giving him another shot along the lines of his revised request below. And of course, when the original ban expires, any new limitation would expire as well. My prior concern about SMC's manner might more be an issue of the medium in which we practice; being assertive can come off as being aggressive, being humorous can come off as being disrespectful, and the like. As such, I would encourage SMC to review his interactions; I got the impression from the ANI thread where the ban was instituted that there might be a problem like this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm definitely assertive, and I get a lot done as a consequence. A secondary consequence, alas, is that everyone with a personality conflict with me tends to dogpile me emotively at ANI and other process pages, and tend to canvas each other to do so [1], as well as engage in shameless personal attacks all against me all over Wikipedia, which never, ever have any consequences for them for some reason, not matter how baldfaced they are. I also lean toward being wry in disputes (though I try to avoid outright sarcasm and often revert myself to self-moderate when I go there). Not being transparently serious and deferent in every interaction has it's costs, I suppose. But in 9+ years of moderating myself, I think this is as good as it gets; I'm not likely to be different next week or next year. I don't think the fact that I can be abrasive sometimes really justifies the vitriolic treatment I get at AN/ANI/AE almost every time (not that there's many times, but they sure are memorable, rather like being thrashed by a mob). Many now indef-blocked, perpetually disruptive, system-gaming WP:CIVILPOV pushers and other forms of editwarrior, who were clearly WP:NOTHERE to do anything useful, have been treated with far more respect and good faith than I usually get in such proceedings, until they were indef'ed, usually regretfully and after enormous amounts of deferential giving of the benefit of the doubt, which I never get (nor do any other MOS/AT regulars; there's a clear "wikiprojects should do whatever they want autonomously", anti-consistency bias growing in ANI and especially in AE, reflecting increased real-world factional interest in POV-pushing WP's content. Reglardless of the "wikipolitics": The noticeboards are not supposed to be popularity contests, but I'm hard-pressed to see the difference these days.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a little considered about this: The wording is over-broad, and needs to be narrowed to apply only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise. I think this statement might be at odds with an understanding of why this editor received a ban. They're asking to be allowed to self-judge what's potentially "controversial" and what's not, when that's the exact thing the community agreed this editor was't so hot at. I would expect them to judge any of their own future actions as justified and reasonable. That seems to be how they got in trouble in the first place. As far as the wording being "over-broad" I think both closing admins, @Protonk: and @DangerousPanda:, commented that they were erring on the safer side. Were they asked to clarify the boundaries of their closing on this issue?__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • they didn't consult me but I don't think that's a big deal. They're free to consider the restriction overly broad and ask the community for input on that front. As was pointed out on my talk page and in a number of emails I am merely an empty vessel for the community's displeasure. ;) Protonk (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Protonk, there were two admins with differing views on what the remedy should say and why, one who had reverted the other, so it seemed less WP:PARENT side-taking to just ask WP:AN for neutral administrative input than to ask one of those two admins in particular to modify it. No slight was intended.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to edit the restriction as proposed because it abuts against the actual locus of controversy, namely that many editors decided SMcCandlish had trouble distinguishing which moves were controversial and which were not. Changing the restriction to "apply only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise" would invite the same problem that caused the ban discussion in the first place. I'm not saying that SMcCandlish's actions will be as problematic, but I don't feel the need to push us back to the same place. I don't have a problem with allowing moves in other namespaces, but I'm also not convinced that there is a strong reason to do so. I'm prepared to be convinced on that front, however. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly support. We ought not fuss about you moving pages in your userspace, and if you're the only substantive editor for a page, it's not as if people are going to raise controversy if you're not currently banned. We ought to apply the G7 speedy deletion criterion's wording for pages you've created: if we'd accept your request for a G7 deletion for a page, you should be able to move it. The vague bit about pages that aren't controversial would be a bad idea, simply because it's so broad. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Normally, Nyttend, I'd concur with your reasoning that if we'd accept a G7 it'd be fine. But the difference between a G7 and a pagemove is that a G7 has an admin evaluation before the action is undertaken. Here, there has to be a reliance on SMC to appropriately evaluate, in effect, whether G7 applies, and to do so with no oversight. I'm not too crazy about that idea given the surrounding circumstances for this pagemove ban. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Well in that case, Mendaliv, at least you could support allowing him to move a page that only he had edited, or that only he and a bot had edited. I would expect SMC to know how to determine whether an account is bot-flagged, and if I'm wrong, he can be taught in a couple of minutes. It's not a judgement call; this kind of decision, itself, is something that a bot could easily make with complete reliability. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
        • That's a fair enough point. I can support that. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – at least narrow the ban to article space to make it unambiguous and not overly restrictive. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - leave it as it is. BMK (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support page moves from or within his own user space. He should be able to move pages freely in his own user space regardless of restrictions. It is similarly uncontroversial to move pages from his user space to other name spaces. For other moves, he can seek consensus or ask for assistance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both clarifications. Sensible really, none of the controversial moves that led to the ban were to articles in either of these categories (own userspace or sole substantive contributor) so I see no reason why this would cause any problems. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Revised request: I ask that, before the move ban expires in four weeks anyway, the remedy be clarified to exempt moves within my userspace, moves (e.g. of drafts) from my userspace to another namespace, and moves in any namespace of pages of which I am the sole substantive author (i.e., other than bots, AWB runs or other automation, or trivial edits like typo fixes), on the same basis as G7. I wasn't expecting to be taken as proposing specific wording (which I've since struck) such that "appl[ies] only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise" would be in the revised remedy. I was just describing two specific cases, and then spelled them out after "In particular...": my userspace, and draft stuff I'm working on that no else knows or cares about. I think this should address essentially identical concerns by The Bushranger, Mendaliv, Elaqueate and Protonk.

    As may not have been clearly conveyed to everyone by my initial request, the point to being able to move non-userspace pages I've created but no one else has substantively edited, is that I already asked for assistance once (noncontroversial or "speedy" RM is a just a request for an admin to move something for you, that just happens to be filed at WP:RM instead of done with G6 template {{db-move}}), and I was tendentiously hauled in front of ANI again, where the complainant didn't get boomerang sanctioned or even slightly criticized, despite the patent vexatiousness of the endeavor. There is no reason to expect that my using any other method of asking an admin to move something for me (e.g. via a regular G6 or G7) won't have precisely the same WP:DRAMA result, unless this remedy is adjusted, or I just abandon what I'm working on for a month in cases where it needs moving around. Abandoned work usually doesn't get picked back up again, or I wouldn't care otherwise. A month isn't very long, but it's long enough to move on to something else and leave stymied work incomplete.

    Since Mendaliv asked: Unless I've missed one, every single RM I've filed, since the original ANI, has gone the way I suggested, both regular and speedy ones. I've gathered a big pile of stats for you. I would bet that most of the RMs I've commented in, filed by others, have as well (this has actually been true for years) but it's not something I would keep track of (the stats just gathered show about a 95% accuracy rate lately, with regard to how I !vote and how RMs close). It's also likely that most if not all of the very moves at issue in the original ANI will actually be sustained by consensus, because they were in fact based on policy and precedent, even if making them en masse without discussion was a poor idea; Update: Not only have they lasted over two months with no issues arising, comments so far at the mass RM to move them back to status quo ante have unanimously mostly opposed doing so. None of that's really relevant because I'm not asking for a clarification that allows me free rein to exercise judgement about what might be controversial.

    Some of the above comments' approach, treating me like some kind of dangerous wikicriminal, are a bit over-the-top. In 9+ years of editing here, I have but one other short-term topic ban (made by a deeply involved admin I chose not to appeal against, just to avoid the drama which probably would have taken longer than the month the ban was for). I think a little perspective and more good faith is called for. The accusations of wikilawyering, system-gaming, a disruptive attitude, and untrustworthiness to make any kind of move at all, are all particularly inappropriate and unsubstantiated, no matter how unpopular I am with some people.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:ROPE support. The ban expires in 4 weeks. Loosen it now and give him some rope. Either hes improved, and this will allow a more gradual re-entry into the area, or he hasn't in which case we may see issues arise while the ban is still in-force and it is easier to extend. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess. If I were someone chomping at the bit to go do something disruptive and "hang myself", I wouldn't have waited until the ban was almost over, and then asked for extremely narrow clarifications that leave me no wiggle-room to do anything disruptive. It's not even a re-entry into anything, as it wouldn't affect my [non-]ability to move real articles; it's just a technical clarification so I don't get pilloried in yet another WP:WIKILAWYERing re-ANI exercise just for shuffling my own drafts and template sandboxes around. If I were begging for wiggle room to do something questionable, I wouldn't be using full RM process for page moves that I could have listed as "speedy" non-controversial RMs (see my RM activity in the last 24 hours, e.g. Talk:Blue Grey#Requested moves), even though WP:ANI concluded against the second of Justlettersandnumbers's second ANI request, an accusation that I was abusing that process, and explicitly permitted me to use it; I'm clearly considering the fact that an objection was raised at all to be good enough reason to go the long route at least for now, across the board). WP:ROPE? Seriously? I'm a long-term, constructive contributor, with no blocks at all.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If "they may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth", putting up move requests is far from gaming the system — he's doing what's explicitly permitted by the ban! Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Putting up massive move requests of 6 to 20 articles at a time, all on the talk page of one of those articles (perhaps with notice on other pages, but certainly no notificatin that he has 10 or 15 simultaneous requests pending all across wikipedia is definitely gaming the system. Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Blatant assumption of bad faith, backed up by nothing at all. Montanabw needs to read WP:RM and Template:Rm; the documentation for doing multi-page move nominations specifically says to do them this way. If someone would like to change that process, please take that up at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves as a proposal. It has nothing to do with me or this AN discussion. Montanabw does not have any special right to personal notification of moves of articles that the editor has no connection to, and the entire point of WP:RM is that it serves as a venue for publishing proposed move discussions in a centralized location; individual editors are almost never notified of RMs, and RMs are usually not cross-linked unless there's a special connection between them, because it can come off as canvassing. Note also that Montanabw supports someone else's much more "massive" multi-page RM, put up on one article's talk page at Talk:Teeswater sheep, but which proposes moves that would reverse ones I made, making their argument here self-contradictory.

    This editor habitually engages in personal attacks against me, despite prior productive collaboration a few years ago (and directly against the position of Montanabw's new wikifriend, and my current biggest detractor, Justlettersandnumbers [2] – anyone else feel this is all about interpersonal drama? Note Montanabw's characterization of well-reasoned policy disputes between me and Jlan as a "spat", into which Montanbw has chosen a side for the exact opposite of Wikipedia-helpful reason. This is not a good sign.).

    The latest such attack was made after being asked to engage in formal WP:Dispute resolution. The bizarre post came in a subthread of the RM at Talk:Teeswater sheep about needing to stop engaging in personal attacks no less [3]. That one included an unsupported accusation of "bullying", and an open admission by Montanabw of engaging in WP:GANG behavior to engage in WP:HARASSMENT to make a WP:POINT ("I am basically siding with people who hold a view opposite from my own preference on titles ... because you are bullying them..."), and continued with further unsupported accusations of WP:TE, among other more generalized personalized negativity, which Montanabw tries to psychologically project as Wikipedia-wide hatred of me, one message after accusing me of attacks and projection, and linking to the same Kiger Mustang discussion mentioned below, in which I make no attacks). This rant concludes with recognition that I probably feel "picked on", followed by shameless victim blaming, in which it's okay for Montanabw to engage in the picking-on, as long as putting me in my place is the goal. Montanabw really does hold the opposite view on titles as the one being espoused against me here (i.e., holds the same view I do); see this mutual discussion about that agreement, confirmation of it elsewhere to that effect, and both our participation in the recent-ish Talk:Mustang#Requested move (July 2014).

    It's unclear how this doesn't constitute WP:GAMING the system, another thing Montanabw has accused me of repeatedly, including right here. What was that about projection again? Anyway, I have a lot more diffs showing Montanabw's weird, abusive behavior toward me, but perhaps this is enough to put a stop to it. I've been hoping, despite the evidence piling up, that dispute resolution may be forthcoming, but now that I look further, I see it has been explicitly rejected [4], in a way that sadly fails to realize that the explicit purpose of DR is to settle personal disputes between editors. I'm not sure what Montanabw thought it would be for. The tone of it seems to be a declaration of war, basically, as well as of superiority. Just one more example in a very long string of such antics (yes, I have a lot more diffs.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I see no sign that SMcCandlish truly understands the disruptive nature of what he was banned for and continues defending his actions as he did in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive849#SMcCandlish_page_move_ban:_request_for_clarification; and he indeed is still attacking and casting aspersions on others as he has done above in this very request. Dreadstar 03:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • What attacks? Diffs please. Also, how many times do I need to repeat that I acknowledge it was disruptive before you'll consider that I understood that? Isn't once enough?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    In response to your question about attacks and aspersions committed by you in this very section, I complied this list on a temporary subpage so as to not clutter up this AN request. As far as your acknowledgement of the disruption you caused, I'm not seeing anything like that in your initial request above. I remain unconvinced. Dreadstar 18:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    None of these constitute attacks at all. You seem to think that one must never defend oneself from accusations. According to you, it constitutes a personal attack to even observe that an assumption of bad faith is an assumption of bad faith, or to complain of a personal attack or other abuse and actual provide a diff that demonstrates it, or to ask AN for input on whether your perception of a user conduct issue is accurate, or to express one's feelings about the subjective experience of ANI process without criticizing anyhone in particular. I don't think anyone else shares your views in this regard, and it's certainly not what WP:NPA says. Not sure what else to tell you. PS, re: "I'm not seeing anything like that in your initial request above" – Did you miss the original ANI, and the negotiated close that was aborted by the early closure? I was quite clear in it. The purpose of the current request is a technical amendment, about moving my own pages; further apologetics regarding the issues raised in the original ANI case didn't seem relevant. I'm not appealing my move ban, or trying to "convince" anyone of anything. It's a simple clarification. I do of course, again, reaffirm my understanding of the controversial nature of the moves at question in that first ANI request. But this AN request has already been hijacked for all sorts of character assassination against me that has nothing to do with the AN and me moving pages in my userspace or which no one else knows or cares about.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, no, you're free to defend yourself, but attacking and casting aspersions on others (not necessarily an individual, but broad attacks on groups, as you have clearly engaged in), is unnecessary to defend yourself with - especially when you're attempting to get your ban reversed or ended early, this just goes to show your own lack of recognition of the disruption you cause. And yes, I saw the original ANI request you made, but in a second attempt to modify your ban, you made absolutely no comment recognizing the disruption you caused - so yes, you needed to say it more than once. And repeating it now, while attacking me is inappropriate. I don't think you've learned anything from your ban and the comments of others - and once again, in your very post above you attack others: "this....AN request has already been hijacked for all sorts of character assassination against me.."; this isn't about them, it's about you, your request and your behavior. No, I don't think you get it at all, and I believe this is why others mention WP:ROPE - you don't get it and will continue disrupting after your ban is over. Dreadstar 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (no admin) - keep things simple, wait a month. For things you need to be moved make a wishlist in user space, - we might come, look and help. - it's not the only overly broad topic ban there is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – His request to merely be able to perform moves within his own userspace, moves from his userspace to another namespace, and moves of pages where he is the sole substantive author, seems uncontroversial enough to gain my support. Mojoworker (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Moving an article from namespace into mainspace if an invitation to engage in massive WP:FORKing. A clear example of his intent to do things like this is here. Allowing him leeway where he is the creator of a fork or arguing if he is a "substantive" contributor will just be opening up a another round of tl;dr debate. Take a look at his contribs list and the examples I have listed above. Montanabw(talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you mean WP:CFORK. But, I'm unconvinced – you can easily fork without doing any moves at all and if he really wanted to develop in his user space, he could just cut and paste to a new article in mainspace. Mojoworker (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Opening a discussion, then an RfC for more input when that discussion doesn't come to consensus, is not evidenciary in any way at all of POV-forking. So, yet another zero-evidence attack by Montanabw. Yes, let's look at Talk:Kiger Mustang. We see me raising a scope issue, and Montanabw playing the WP:IDHT game, demanding sources for what is already sourced, refusing to read or respond to anything of substance, perpetuating personalized tensions, accusing me of WP:DEADHORSE beating, and generally engaging in a WP:FILIBUSTER pattern to prevent discussion; I've worked around this by opening an RfC so the community can discuss it whether Montanabw wants us to or not, and whether anyone wants my own further input or not. But nowhere is there me engaging in a "vicious personal attack", an indefensible claim Montanabw made here about that discussion.

Elsewhere, Montanabw recently muses, in finishing up another multifaceted, unsupportable attack on me, "I am wondering if it [sic] time to discuss how to stop this endless drama." [5] The answer to that question is obviously "yes", but I submit that it's not in the way that Montanabw is thinking. This is just the tip of the diff iceberg. Montanabw has already explicitly rejected voluntary dispute resolution, leaving not too many avenues left, none of them pleasant. I've asked by Montanbw and Jlan again to engage in DR.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How you deal with people who disagree with you, SMC, is not filling me with confidence that this is going to work out. It's not particularly civil. And, frankly, she has you dead to rights on the tl;dr criticism. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
How should I, then, deal with someone who shamelessly attacks me again and again and again, even in administrative noticeboards, even after multiple warnings? We have a policy against that. We don't have a policy against writing longer posts than average, last I looked. False equivalence, Mendaliv. This is pretty typical though. I cannot actually remember a single time in the last 2 years when an ARBATC issue came up in which a double-standard wasn't applied, to chastise the AT and MOS regulars, while allowing their detractors, especially if they claimed to represent a wikiproject, to escape even the mildest criticism, and to exercise effective immunity from WP behavioral policies.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
How about by realizing that constructive criticism is not an "attack", particularly when it is an objective explanation of your apparent behavior? Montanabw(talk) 00:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If your criticism was constructive, sure. But it's been simply antagonizing, and sharply increasing in response to you having more and recent editorial conflicts with me (i.e., strongly indicative of a strategy to "win" arguments by procedurally muzzling me). Otherwise we wouldn't be engaged a dispute of this sort. It's instructive to go over our interactions from last year and earlier, and note how much more collegial they were even when we disagreed. That was when you were unhappy with Jlan and thought me an ally against him (not sure Jlan would be happy with those diffs). I suggested dispute resolution the other day for a reason; we actually have a history of being able to cooperate. Even a month and a half ago they were much better. Constructive criticism? How about stop picking "us vs. them" sides. I have no interest in playing any factional games "against" other editors. Notice how RMs I open, and !votes I post in RMs, with regard to various animal breed articles are based in policy arguments, while your and Jlan's RM activities are almost entirely couched in terms of ad hominem arguments about what I personally did or said? I know I'm not the only one who thinks that's really weird and inappropriate; others have already commented[6] on it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems a reasonable enough request. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support revised request. Seems reasonable enough. But I'm close to indifferent, given the relatively short amount of time between now and when the ban expires on its own. Also, can we stop fucking using WP:ROPE in discussions like this? I think it's a little disgusting that the principle "you can't break the wiki" has been transmogrified into "well, this guy's an asshole, let's cut him a little slack and see if he'll do something crazy enough to be obviously blockable" Protonk (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    Why have policies, guidelines, RFC's, and ArBCom at all if one can't 'break the wiki'? Why have admins? Let the fastest gun in the west rule! Law of the jungle! Yeah!  :) Dreadstar 04:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support When someone is able to prove themselves we can let go. Anything else is a punishment.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Mark, have you noticed, however, that SMC has not "proved" anything other than his need for a LONGER and tighter restriction? Montanabw(talk) 00:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    [7][8][9] – Montanbw doesn't seem to be keeping up with the fact that her and Jlan's accusations are being consistently rejected, for over a month now.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support clarification/Oppose loosening I've had conflicts with SmC before, so I'm not unbiased, but there is absolutely no harm in rendering the wording of SmC's ban less vague. Explicitly state that it doesn't apply to SmC's own user space, and clarify its other terms but do not change them. Let it time out. As for WP:ROPE, it's WP:POINT. If you think SmC's going to do something disruptive, then don't loosen the ban. That's more important than hoping that SmC or anyone will get in more trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support revised proposal - userspace/(mostly)sole author seems reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support WTF should anyone care where he moves pages that are within his own userspace? It was ridiculous kind of prohibition in the first instance. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I have blocked User:Academiava4 as an obvious sock puppet, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wipeouting. I am posting here for review because I have made two edits to the related article, which is Premakeerthi de Alwis. I wasn't intending to get involved as an admin on this article, but the sock is so obvious I didn't see any point in waiting for the SPI team to deal with it. Feedback is welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering User:Academiava, User:Academiava2, and User:Academiava3 were linked... I'd say we have a rubber duckie on our hands. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Special:Listusers is your friend. It showed me that Academiava5 and Academiava6 had been created just today, so I've Template:Sockblocked them too. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nyttend. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And User:Academiava7. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 09:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've blacklisted the username to see if that helps. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I forgot that it was an option. #7 was registered after I had blocked everyone else; when blocking #5 and #6, I checked and saw that #7 hadn't yet been created. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Help required from more experienced hands[edit]

I seem to have blundered or been the victim of a glitch or most probably a bit of both... in closing an RM I seem to have moved Great Comet to great comet twice, not once as intended, in each case deleting the article at the target and its history, and so the second move moved the resulting redirect from the first move over the article, losing both the article and its history. Or that's what I think happened, looking at the article histories. Not good.

I need advice from old hands... Any suggestions as to how to recover from this (apart from be more careful next time)? Andrewa (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Check the page history and restore the revisions :) I've restored the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you. Andrewa (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Trivial question[edit]

The title of this topic is supposed to grab everyone's attention.

An editor complained that I had marked as minor a revert (with an edit summary) that I made. They said it implied vandalism. I had actually not marked the undo of the three edits as minor. Unbeknownst to me, the software had done so thanks to a very old script I installed, I believe before I became an admin.

Regardless of why it was marked as minor, my view is that any revert with an explanation does not imply anything more than whatever the edit summary says. The mere fact that it's marked as minor is, uh, of minor importance. (WP:MINOR appears to support the complaining editor's view, but I don't think it takes into account a revert with a summary.)

Now, I can stop using this technique (I'd uninstall the script), but I don't want to just because one editor didn't like it.

Comments should be pretty easy, so there's no excuse for not responding.Face-smile.svg And pursuant to the intructions at the top of the page, I've notified all minor users at Wikipedia of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, to my understanding an edit marked as minor is supposed to be an edit reasonably expected not to require notice, comment, or review by other editors; things like typos, minor tweaks, and non-substantive edits. Much in the same way that using rollback, which leaves no edit summary, implies the edits rolled back were vandalism (or something similar not requiring comment), marking an edit as minor does much the same. You did leave an edit summary, which mitigates that to some extent, though. At its core, it's a really technical policy point, even more so than technical misuse of rollback, since just so many people use the minor edit setting in a manner inconsistent with WP:MINOR. I don't consider it a big thing, though I wouldn't do it intentionally. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As editors may choose to omit minor edits from view in their watchlists, it's desirable to not mark an edit as minor if the nature of its changes is non-trivial in nature or is not reverting vandalism. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It matters because of the watchlist issue. I used to mark edits minor by default, but got sufficient complaints that I stopped, and now rarely mark them as minor even manually, because too many people have differing idea about what is minor.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I hadn't thought of the watchlist issue. I really do like the script implementation otherwise, so it will be hard to give it up. Perhaps I'll contact the writer of the script and see if they can add a parameter that will do everything it already does except mark it as minor.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Move War at Scottish independence referendum[edit]

There was a move war at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. The editor who started the move war has been blocked, but admin eyes on the article might be appropriate with respect to other sorts of warring. (It is already semi-protected against vandalism.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Given your edit warrior was a sockpuppet, and I found a few more sleepers in the drawer, indef move protected that article. Courcelles 05:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information[edit]

Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information is heavily backlogged - as I type this, it contains 4721 images. I'm not an image copyright expert, otherwise I'd start on it right away. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, looking at the contents of the category, some of them just need to be tagged as no permission, and the uploader notified, all of which can be done easily enough using Twinkle or a similar tool. I'll find some time tomorrow and make a start. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus to change some interface messages[edit]

Hi, there was consensus at the Village Pump on a now archived discussion to re-word some interface messages. Could this be done? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's not really consensus, is it. You probably needed a proper RFC for that. Besides, interface messages cannot typically be changed by admins. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)