Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Not enough input to close properly. I notified WP:USA for additional participants. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:48, 23 August 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)

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:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? 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:Creation Museum#accreditation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#Resolved? indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it "Longest RfC discussion ever"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic" (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Second was Symbol declined.svg Closed  by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 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)

Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal[edit]

This discussion seemed routine at first, but a couple of late comments make it less than obvious that this should be a routine close. I.E., The first seven respondents all gave support, but the last two articulated only partial support for specific reasons that may need consideration. Discussion was opened a full week ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)#Merge redundant guideline material[edit]

Unopposed (if low-participation) cleanup proposal has run for three months. Way long enough for objections to have been raised. While a non-admin could close this, is probably better if done administratively, due to these being (nominal) guidelines subject to frequent contentious tooth-gnashing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RfC on merging guidance on naming conventions. Yaris678 (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Oathkeeper#Proposal[edit]

Requesting a formal close. I believe consensus on this is fairly clear-cut, but given the controversial long-term nature of the overall discussion it's probably best to have an uninvolved editor handle the assessment just to keep everything on the up and up. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article) (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:33, 27 August 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)

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)

RfC on Talk:Treats![edit]

Looking for an admin to close this. It's run for 30 days and is definitely ready for closing KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Somaly Mam#RfC: see-also link to Greg Mortenson[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Somaly Mam#RfC: see-also link to Greg Mortenson (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC Talk:Of Human Feelings#Last sentence in Critical reception (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#RfC: Is the effect of Joran van der Sloot's murder of Stephany Flores relevant?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway#RfC: Is the effect of Joran van der Sloot's murder of Stephany Flores relevant? (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)#RfC: Should Fred Hiatt's quotes in this article be given special prominence over quotes from Rubin's critics?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)#RfC: Should Fred Hiatt's quotes in this article be given special prominence over quotes from Rubin's critics? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Economy of Pakistan#RfC: What should be the poverty threshold?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Economy of Pakistan#RfC: What should be the poverty threshold? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities#Size again[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities#Size again (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pariah state#RfC: Is the List section original research?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pariah state#RfC: Is the List section original research? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Article title – Request for Comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Galicia (Eastern Europe)#Article title – Request for Comments (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Merge text from one section of Global Warming Controversy[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Merge text from one section of Global Warming Controversy (initiated 17 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Request for comment (initiated 20 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Arranged marriage#RFC – Lede, timeframe, use of historical terms[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Arranged marriage#RFC – Lede, timeframe, use of historical terms (initiated 25 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879? (initiated 27 July 2014)? See the related discussion Talk:War of the Pacific#Request to close the discussion where Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) wrote:

This RfC looks a bit contentious, so it should probably be closed by an uninvolved editor before any edit requests are carried out. (Edit requests are only for edits that already have consensus.) If it doesn't look like there will be any more discussion in the RfC, I would list it for closure at WP:ANRFC (although it seems to be a bit backlogged at the moment). Also, Keysanger, Darkness Shines has a point about the walls-o'-text; you'll probably find that you can persuade more people if you keep your posts shorter. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:West End Avenue#RfC: Merger with Eleventh Avenue (Manhattan)?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West End Avenue#RfC: Merger with Eleventh Avenue (Manhattan)? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:West End Avenue#Merger with 11th Avenue (Manhattan) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Edge#The Edge should be capital "T" or lower-case "t" in running prose?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:The Edge#The Edge should be capital "T" or lower-case "t" in running prose? (initiated 26 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese#RfC: How to display the characters[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese/Chinese#RfC: How to display the characters (initiated 27 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this template display simplified Chinese characters first or traditional Chinese characters first?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#RfC: recast vs reboot?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#RfC: recast vs reboot? (initiated 28 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Flatlist or comma separated lists?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Flatlist or comma separated lists? (initiated 31 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2013 IRS controversy#"we need to be cautious about what we say in emails"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2013 IRS controversy#"we need to be cautious about what we say in emails" (initiated 10 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2013 IRS controversy#RFC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#RFC on official names versus common names[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada#RFC on official names versus common names (initiated 21 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should WP:PPAP continue to require the usage of official names rather than common names as the titles for Canadian political parties?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie#RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie#RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article? (initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" (initiated 28 July 2014)? Please consider Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ralph Drollinger#RfC: How much emphasis to place on Capitol Ministries?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ralph Drollinger#RfC: How much emphasis to place on Capitol Ministries? (initiated 2 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

This article has been subject to disputed editing over how much space to devote to Capitol Ministries – see this revision vs the current. We need to gain consensus on how much detail to include, so all comments invited. I won't structure this yet as I have no idea..am only trying to admin this.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Category:People associated with the Tea Party movement? Please consider Talk:Donald Trump#"people associated with the Tea Party movement" in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by User:Fayenatic london. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus#RfC: Should the term "Jesus of Galilee" be included in the lead?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#RfC: Should the term "Jesus of Galilee" be included in the lead? (initiated 25 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sunrise (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:LeBron James#Should the List of 40-plus point games by LeBron James be included in the "see also" section, or should it not?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:LeBron James#Should the List of 40-plus point games by LeBron James be included in the "see also" section, or should it not? (initiated 20 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Question about WP:NACD[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Question about WP:NACD (initiated 4 August 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC: Should non-admins reopen deletion discussions after an NAC? (initiated 6 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity (initiated 29 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Add something about never using headlines as sources?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Add something about never using headlines as sources? (initiated 29 July 2014)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#RfC, where the proposal is:

Are headlines for newspaper articles ever usable as a reliable source for any claim where the headline claim is not found in the body of the newspaper article?

Should this content guideline state:

Newspaper headlines are not a reliable source and should not be used

Please consider Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 43#RfC – are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se? (initiated 12 June 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism#WikiProject Autism banners on biographical article talk pages[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism#WikiProject Autism banners on biographical article talk pages (initiated 1 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Persondata template be removed from articles?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Persondata template be removed from articles? (initiated 20 July 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 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)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#Should the MediaWiki software be modified to include an option for specialized (such as blacklist / whitelist) blocks?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#Should the MediaWiki software be modified to include an option for specialized (such as blacklist / whitelist) blocks? (initiated 24 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the wording of CSD A7 be changed?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the wording of CSD A7 be changed? (initiated 7 August 2014)? The last comment was made 13 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the R3 criterion (Implausible typos) be broadened?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Should the R3 criterion (Implausible typos) be broadened? (initiated 8 August 2014)? Other than one comment made 22 August 2014 and and another made 29 August 2014, there has been little participation since 19 August 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concision razor (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Surnames by culture[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Surnames by culture? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Years by topic[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Years by topic? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Categories by year[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Categories by year? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:Dates in music[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:Dates in music? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#2014 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (initiated 16 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#Oriya language[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 August#Oriya language (initiated 28 August 2014)? Although the discussion has not gone on for seven days, participants have called for a speedy close as wrong venue. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:VPP#Change the name of reviewers to "Pending changes reviewer"[edit]

Could an admin impliment WP:VPP#Change the name of reviewers to "Pending changes reviewer" please? The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Implimentation notes are included at [1] - please note nothing is needed on the dev side, and all needs to be implimented locally. Please let me know if you need guidence on this. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:War of the Pacific#RfC: Which are the relevant facts for the LEDE regarding the 14 February 1879?. The RfC has run for close to a month now, and consensus seems clear enough to me. Please let me know if you need guidence on this.--Keysanger (Talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review[edit]

The deletion discussion, the fourth of its kind on this issue, is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 14#IPhone 6. Although I feel that there is no hurry to close most deletion discussions, I do feel that this particular discussion is a special case. Not only is this the fourth discussion on this topic, and the third in less than 5 months, but this is a "redirect" deletion discussion, which means that every time someone nominates this redirect for deletion, it disrupts the redirect by placing a template on the page, so that the redirect cannot do its required job. Obviously, the first three discussions ended with the redirect being kept. The last discussion before this current one lasted a month and a half. This latest discussion has been opened for over a week. Nothing new seems to have been presented, and there is a clear majority of users who feel that the redirect should be kept. The user who nominated the redirect this past time has less than 200 edits, and most of those are dedicated to getting this redirect deleted. The user has even threatened to continue nominating this redirect for deletion a fifth time if he/she does not get his/her way (notice in that last edit that he/she struck out my previous comment without explanation. The user has even said that he/she will continue to resist even if its the tenth time. You will also notice in the previous discussion that that user tends to shout and will have ZERO TOLERANCE of this redirect.

I not sure how anyone else sees this, but it is clear to me that this user is very disruptive and has vowed to stop at nothing to get his/her way. I'm just looking for closure on this so we can move on with more productive work.--JOJ Hutton 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: Closed. I don't normally close RfDs so let me know if I broke anything. No comment (yet) on the disruption allegations above. Did you let the editor in question know you brought them up on AN? Protonk (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the close. About informing the other editor, I was only really concerned about the close and this wasn't a discussion about the editor in question. I only really mentioned that users edits as a basis for the close and wasn't reporting that user. Anyway, thanks again for the close of that discussion. If reports are correct (which they always are on iPhones), that redirect will an article in a few weeks anyway. But until then, its nice to know that the redirect will serve its function until then.--JOJ Hutton 01:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. They haven't edited in 3 days and they were blocked a few hours ago for a period of 31 hours? @Orangemike, can you give some color on this? Protonk (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, clearly I wasn't watching the chronology closely enough. Proton, do you think I should assume that this person has suddenly seen the light? Or alternatively, do you think I should have just permablocked them? Because frankly, I was leaning that way, but was trying not to live up to my rep as a bitey admin. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I was literally just confused and figured I was missing something. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, at this point I'm open for suggestions, and you're a pretty savvy guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd say unblock them and leave a note that you got the dates wrong. They seem pretty shouty on the subject, but I don't know if a longer block (which would, paradoxically, make more sense here) is warranted. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a topic-ban needed?[edit]

If the editor says that he will continue to propose redirects for deletion even after they have repeatedly been kept, is a topic-ban needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, what's needed here is a block, and probably a lengthy one, as he has explicitly stated he intends to continue pointy nominations because he refuses to listen to the community. "I want that page to be deleted"; "It's time for you to support the deletion party and it's the only way to prevent the 5th discussion" - complete with striking out an opposing editor's comment. AGF is not a suicide pact - the blocking should continue until clue improves.- The Bushranger One ping only 12:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Well my goal was not to get anyone, including this account, blocked. I was only trying to list a pattern of behavior by this editor that would lead to the discussion being closed. I was actually surprised that there was a block implemented. Especially when there hadn't been activity from that account in nearly three days. (I'm also surprised that there hasn't been any activity from that account in three, now four days.) So I support the unblock, at least for now. But since a pattern of behavior has now been established, its up to that user to decide what to do next. This won't be a redirect very long anyway since its most likely going to be a full fledged article in two weeks from today, so there is little to fret about.--JOJ Hutton 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban This is someone who doesn't appear to be here to make Wikipedia better, they appear to be mostly interested in winning the game they've created for themselves in their head. I'm willing to remove the locus of the distraction for this user to see if they develop into a productive editor in other areas; WP:ROPE and all. If this doesn't work, we can always block later. --Jayron32 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban Per User:Jayron32. Keep them away from the topic of iPhones, and perhaps they'll be a non-disruptive. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article)[edit]

I'm seeking the second opinion of an uninvolved admin (not involved in this topic area) on the removal of an author from the Further Reading section of the BJP article. Thanks!

An RFC has been started because an user was insisting of removing a book by Koenraad Elst ("BJP vis-a-vis Hindu resurgence) from the Further reading section of the BJP article.

The RFC ended with 3 votes in favor of keep and 2 votes for removal.

Now an admin has closed the RFC as "delete".

The only user in the discussion who was impartial (no history of editing in this topic area) voted for keep. All others, including the admin, have edited the topic area previously. Therefore I'm looking for the opinion of an impartial editor. Because the discussions are scattered over several pages, it is likely that the closing admin has not read all the arguments. The discussions are at:

1. RFC This talk page
2. talk page,
3. External_links/Noticeboard
4. Koenraad_Elst_in_further_reading
5. RFC_Closure_at_Bharatiya_Janata_Party
6. Discussion
7. Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party/Archive_2#Koenraad_Elst_and_LK_Advani_book

--Calypsomusic (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Have yo asked the closing admin about this first? Remember, we don't hold !votes, we hold policy-based discussions, and if indeed that admin was unaware of the linked discussions, then by all means let them know - but not with the accusatory tone above the panda ₯’ 10:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue is being discussed on the admin's talkpage since a few days without result. I didn't want it to sound accusatory, all I'm asking is a second opinion by an uninvolved admin, and that the closing admin reads all the previous discussions (because it is spread over many pages, this was likely not the case).--Calypsomusic (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
So, if after the closing admin has read it all, explained their final position one way or another, then come here - no admin should second guess while a discussion is still ongoing (you're STILL making accusations with "this was likely not the case"). the panda ₯’ 10:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely understandable if one has not read all the previous discussion when entering the discussion at the end, as they were spread over several pages. I don't reproach that to him. But all I see are general comments about WP:BURDEN (it is not about verifiability) and WP:ELPOV (it is not about an External Link). There is simply no policy that says that an on-topic and notable book can be removed from the Further reading section. Also, wikipedia has many other books by controversial authors in Further reading sections (Robert Spencer, and others). So I am merely asking for a second opinion from an uninvolved admin in this topic area. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Having glanced at all the discussions, I concur that community decision is to NOT include that book in the "further reading" section. the panda ₯’ 11:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very quick. Can you also explain your decision based on wikipedia policy? --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just left a snarky comment at WT:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship#Removal of book by Koenraad Elst from Further reading section. Arguing about a book in "further reading" is not productive. Further, it is up to anyone proposing an addition to justify the proposal based on policies—a policy is not needed to remove unwanted text. Look at it another way—how many books do you think exist on the BJP topic? A thousand? Should each be added? Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I accept that. Although I am not convinced that the consensus was for "delete" when the majority of votes was keep. And arguing based on policy - there is no policy about Further reading - maybe one should be written. Thanks again for looking at this, I accept it since there are now two uninvolved editors (Panda and John) arguing for "delete" and only one uninvolved editor arguing for keep. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not each of the thousands books should be added, but with this argument every book could be removed. This one is notable, adds value because the pov is missing now in the section and is by an expert on the topic. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not an admin and I am regularly involved with Indic stuff. Elst's reputation as an "expert" is tarnished somewhat by his extreme POV. You might have more of a case if, for example, we regularly included the works of David Irving in FR sections of articles relating to Nazism and, in particular, the Holocaust. (I've no idea if we do or do not). Since consensus is indeed not a vote, it looks to me like the RfC closure was ok. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
He is quite controversial, yes, but no need to invoke Godwin's law - Elst is also very pro-Jewish in his writings. However, this particular book is not one of his controversial ones, I would say. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a peculiar interpretation of Godwin's Law: the academic status of Irving and of Elst are very similar and if you can demonstrate that we give Irving's generally discredited ideas the oxygen of publicity across a range of articles other than his own biography then you might have a decent point. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's a case of Godwin's Law. You could have compared Elst to any other controversial author who is not tainted by nazism, like maybe Robert Spencer. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked over that discussion and would note that as described in the close, all or nearly all of the arguments in favor of inclusion were based on misunderstandings of Wikipedia policies - the arguments based on notability of the author, the one that WP:FRINGE only applies to references, the one based on "all views should be presented," etc. Sunrise (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody argued that FRINGE only applies to references. Notability and "all views" are valid points. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have only recently become aware of this discussion, which has been apparently going on in the talk pages of BJP for some time. I think it would have been appropriated to post an announcement on WP:IN, which is monitored by most editors of India-related topics. I understand the point that the proponents of the book's inclusion haven't made a proper case. I don't think I can make a case either, since I haven't read the book. But a few general points: (1) I understand the "Further Reading" section as listing items that we, as the editors of Wikipedia, recommend for further reading, without necessarily endorsing their views. (2) Koenraad Elst has done a PhD on Hindu revivalism from a respectable University. Despite the fact that he hasn't been academically active, he is able to tell us about the ideology in an academically acceptable language. (3) While Elst is rightly regarded as a "fringe" writer in academic circles as well as in news media, he is certainly not a fringe writer within the Hindu nationalist movements. Given that the BJP has been voted to power by millions of Indians, many of whom presumably sign up to Hindu nationalism, we the wider public have an obligation to understand what it is that they believe in. Elst is certainly a good source to understand those views. For all these reasons, I believe we should not give the appearance of excluding or censoring Elst out. I recommend that the RFC be reopened, and the supporters of the source be invited to make a stronger case. Uday Reddy (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful input Uday Reddy. --AmritasyaPutra 12:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the bulk of my arguments can be seen at all those links, and other people have covered them here, so I will not rehash. What I do want to mention, however, is that the RfC was begun while the dispute was going on over inclusion; that is, the version prior to the dispute, which IMO determines the consensus version, did not contain the book. Therefore, I feel that even if the RfC were simply closed "No consensus," the result vis-a-vis the book should be the same. And even if there is some dispute over whether this close was correct (I don't think there is any dispute; it was correct) by no stretch of imagination can the RfC have been closed "consensus to include." Therefore, the entire debate here has no implications on the content dispute itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that it is not the single case of censorship which is worrying, if it would just be this isolated case I would not have worried and perhaps even agreed with it, but the fact that there is a pattern where Hindu or pro-Hindu views are censored on wikipedia. Here is an example of this pattern on wikipedia (taken from a wiki talkpage):
Survey

I am conducting a survey to understand if Koenraad Elst could be cited as a valid non biased source for the 2002 Gujarat violence,Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi articles.My personal opinion is that he represents Hindutva ideology and hence quotes from him will creep in bias in these articles.Since it is a Socio-religious issue.I will appreciate views from users of all religious - non religious followings.
Can we include Koenraad Elst's comments as a valid NPOV factual/news source?
Please highlight with your comments on why we should and why we should not? Concise and responding to these questions.I will only allow the first para of your responses hare.

  • Answer here. ~~~~
  • Big..No..No ..He is not a first hand information source for Gujarat..while Aid Agencies,News agencies,HR organisations,Police,Government comments will have weight

--Calypsomusic (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC close review please?[edit]

ENDORSED:

There is a clear consensus that the closer interpreted the consensus correctly. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

On Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results. Was my close in error?—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse It was a sensible compromise. The real issue is that one editor is clearly unwilling to accept anything except their own opinion. Number 57 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not an error The close was logical, since the discussion had been already settled. The closing proposal made was, at the least, enough of its own to become worth of some debate. Impru20 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the close, as an uninvolved close reviewer. The closer's conclusion should be a partial win - partial win. One editor disagrees. I see no need to re-open the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry: if you're saying that an RfC close should always be a partial win then I respectfully disagree. Sometimes the encyclopaedia needs a decision rather than a compromise! But in this case I was faced with a binary RfC (this or that) where the options weren't mutually exclusive, so I felt the optimal outcome was a win for both sides. Thanks for endorsing the close, though.—S Marshall T/C 08:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No. I wasn't saying that there should always be a partial win. Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong. However, a partial win - partial win is even better, so good work by the closer. A decision is usually needed, and in this case, it was both a decision and a compromise, even better than just a decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Looks fine to me. A quite sensible compromise that accurately interprets consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I really should have been notified about this discussion opening, since I have been referred to in it. As for Number 57's comments about myself, that is hardly fair. I suggest you actually look again at what I have said on that talk page. I am not against making a change, I am merely saying we need to be consistent in the way we make that change to the article and for there to be a firm proposal, there is now one and I like it but only providedit is implemented for the whole article, we shouldn't just make a change from today or whenever. If you guys are prepared to put as much effort into making the change to the article as you have for arguing for it, then I'm fully in favour. Surely you can see why it wouldn't be right (and indeed inconsistent with your own arguments) to suddenly start adding the detail from a certain date, instead of for the whole article. Owl In The House (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, the close seems reasonable to me. You're never going to make everyone happy, but it appears to be a fair reading of the comments made. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Not an error. It was appropriate to close that discussion, indeed it should have been closed earlier and a new section started instead. Eventually that was done. That said that discussion is still ongoing with actions outstanding. Owl In The House (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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


FYI, Reflinks is down again[edit]

@Dispenser:, WP:REFLINKS is down once again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet, media viewer and the visual editor keep chugging along. Funny how the stuff we want never works and the stuff we don't want never goes away. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Define "We" Neatsfoot (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I could define it as the absence of approval for those things, but I'll just define it in terms of "I". I have all but stopped clicking on images because of media viewer, and just today, the mandatory use of the visual editor on the Greek wiki, resulted in an unintentional Google translate extension pasting English instead of Greek as my edit, getting me into trouble. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Search WP:VPT to see a couple of discussions. There is a strong conflict and a resolution may not occur soon. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
See also Jimbo's talk page; there's more than one section about it there. JMP EAX (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Reply -So does this mean that we will have linkrot, and no more reflinks for the foreseeable future? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but Media Viewer will allow you to look at a large image and do nothing else and Visual Editor will allow editors to vandalize more easily. So you should be happy. Who needs links anyway? Just be quiet and stare at the image on your screen. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Renata Przemyk / User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi[edit]

i have problem with user User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, on page Renata Przemyk he add copyvio, althrough as evidence he used Wikipedia mirrors, and mtv.com page that directly states that the source of their biography is Wikipedia, i mentioned this on edit summary and on his discussion page, but there is no responce, thank you for your help in advance 66.102.129.154 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I note there was more than one site mentioned. And I asked you to take it to talk! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
as i written you used Wiki mirrors and mtv.com, besides you did not asked me anything, you undo my edits with sources and accused me of vandalism, also, i did not add biography in a first place 66.102.129.154 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for not sitting here ready to reply you. Don't you read edit summaries? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There has been no attempt to discuss on the article talk page (which is empty). User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It is better to discuss edits by an unregistered editor on the article talk page than the user talk page, because IP addresses sometimes change dynamically. IP: Discuss on the article talk page before coming here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Check. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

IP: I see no attempt on your part to discuss these edits except by coming here. Read the boomerang essay before posting to a noticeboard. You (the IP, original poster) don't appear to have raised any issue that isn't a content dispute, and content disputes should not come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

for second time i heave problem with User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, he undo my edits on Anna Maria Jopek, i i did provided sources for information alread written in article, i did use good sources Interia.pl, ZPAV, OLiS, Universal Music, and still this user destroys my work 66.102.129.154 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bro, I think you're paranoid. What about that other guy? Was that your sock? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
those are your edits 1, 2, and i'm not your bro 66.102.129.154 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify here that the other IP involved in this spat, 2A00:D880:3:2:0:0:F60B:1FB7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was a sock of an unrelated banned user, who has a habit of just randomly jumping into other people's revert wars for no particular reason, so everybody please just ignore those reverts and counter-reverts sparked by it. No opinion so far on the underlying dispute between Fortuna and the 66.* IP. Fut.Perf. 19:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I was confused by that fella too. Kept citing Germaniac. No dispute w/ IP as long as he cites his additions. Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Recommend a Block[edit]

Once again, 66.102.129.154 doesn't discuss anything on the article talk page. Also, 66.102.129.154 doesn't use edit summaries. It should be no surprise that FIM is reverting his unexplained edits. I suggest a 24-hour block of the OP/IP for disruptive editing of this noticeboard and of the Polish singer articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Robert. He is effectively trying to force an edit war methinks. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
whats is actually the problem with my edits ?, in articles are discographies with chart positions and certifications, i did use wikitable to sort that informations, and i did add more sources which are reviewed with articles on Wikipedia, my edits are very simple, just because coding seems big it isn't hard to check those edits, tell me what justify removing updated discography, chart postions and certification on this aritcle, and this, why i should discuss about my edits in point when somone removes sourced information, isn't that vandalism ? 66.102.129.154 (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
one more thing, i can't add english sources while they don't exist, if you have problem with that remove articles about all Polish, Japanese etc. singers, which are only recognizable only in their home countries 66.102.129.154 (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Byzantine Bulgarian Wars 970-1018[edit]

There's a move war going on in the article. See also the discussion, please. It's possible that the two new editors are sock puppets or a tag team. José Luiz talk 20:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

CU has come up positive for both socks. They just got indeffed and the SPI is closed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article - Henry Self[edit]

Could a kindly admin let me know what was in the article Henry Self, which was speedily deleted in 2010 as "A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content"? The deleting admin is no longer an admin and so cannot provide this (and is anyway retired from editing). I think we should have an article about him (had a significant career in the civil service, including getting hold of the P51 Mustang for us in the war) and it could be helpful to me as I gather notes in preparation to know what was written previously. DuncanHill (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Sir Albert (Henry) Self (1890-1975) was a Britsh goverment worker. He was also responsable for the creation of the P-51 Mustang. He was also in the Ministry of Civil Aviation as the Deputy Chairman." That's it. BencherliteTalk 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Bencherlite: - nothing of use there but good to be sure. Am currently digesting my notes and hope to create a rather less useless article soon. DuncanHill (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, it's pretty poor that it was deleted as A3 (or speedily deleted at all). Sometimes makes you wonder how much stuff like that slips through the cracks. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that A3 deletion should be reverted. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it as a good A3 candidate, but I'm not going to undelete it at the moment — I'd have to redelete it immediately under A7. There are lots of deputies and chairmen thereof in the various UK ministries, and because the North American P-51 Mustang was a US airplane, the claim about him being responsible for it is reasonably ignored. We need something more here in order to have an article; unless DuncanHill or someone else writes a proper article, this ought not to be undeleted. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The P51 was built specifically in response to a spec drawn up by Self's mission (as you can see by reading the P51 article - the Americans weren't producing anything good enough before then). He had a shedload of other positions, including chairman of the Electricity Council. DuncanHill (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I read it before leaving that comment. My point is that this isn't something generally believable, and you really shouldn't have to read another article before assessing something's eligibility for A7. If you don't know anything about the aircraft, you can still know that aircraft don't have single creators, so again you're going to think it a huge exaggeration or a hoax entirely. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's that unbelievable actually. (By the way - it's good form to either link or explain a term like A7 at first use, we really shouldn't have to search to know what you are on about). Anyway, it wasn't me asking for or suggesting undeletion, I just wanted to know if there was anything that could be useful to me in writing an article. DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Clacton by-election, 2014[edit]

I have been having a problem with an editor who has repeatedly removed a standard piece of an articles format. For UK by-election articles, there is a standard layout that follows a template. Unfortunately, the person who created the article didn't follow the template layout and wording. I have made additions and changes so that the layout meets the standard layout. This involved adding a blank infobox, a candidates box and changes to the opening paragraph. Unfortunately, one editor User:Arms & Hearts, took it upon themselves to delete the candidate box in an edit titled "cleanup, rm inference of a "hint"". While there were some constructive points in that edit, I reverted it as it is not so easy to copy and paste a formatted table from the edit history screen into an article. I explained to the User on their talk page that I didn't have a problem with the bulk of his/her edit but that removing standard pieces of an article layout is not acceptable therefore I would revert it. The editor in question has repeatedly undone this and ignored my clear reasoning for using the undo facility, if it were so simple to copy and paste, I would. This has now passed the three reverts rule, so I thought it best to report it here and let the editor in question also know. Owl In The House (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you actually seem to be the problem here – you have clearly broken 3RR on this article by reverting two separate editors four times within the past 24 hours ([2][3][4][5]), and should be blocked. You might also want to see WP:OWN and WP:BOOMERANG. Number 57 11:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I am not the one removing content and I have explained that I am happy for the individuals edit to stand and that I was only using the undo facility for formatting reasons. Whereas the other editor has deliberately used the undo facility to revert an edit that removes material. You have got that the wrong way round. Besides given other ongoing discussions and your choosing to disagree with me (and at times misrepresent my actions and positions on here) I don't think you're an appropriate editor to pick this one up. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
That's why I haven't blocked you myself. The fact that you are trying to justify breaking 3RR (and also failing to admit that it is two separate editors who you have reverted) is not a positive move. Number 57 12:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you point us to a place where this default layout is discussed? If you can, we need to consider this an exception — standardisation is highly important, and when you explain that an article's been taken away from such a standard, it's a problem with the person who intentionally and knowingly takes the article away from that standard. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes I can, every single by-election since the 2010 General Election has had a candidate box in the run up to the by-election. You will see from looking through this [[6]] that every single article follows a standard layout and that if you look at the edit history of every single article that while ever the by-election is ongoing, ie prior to there being a results table, there is a candidates table. That is the problem here, that is what has been removed from this article and that is why I restored it. It is also worth noting that I tried to direct the editor in question to the talk page and that I said to them there changes to the text were fine but the removal of standard layout and sourced content wasn't. I said to the editor in question that I was only using the undo facility because it isn't easy for formatting reasons to copy a table from the edit history and then paste it. I was very clear about that, I was consciously trying to prevent an edit war, whereas the editor in question thought it appropriate to put this in the edit log: "because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child" - his words, not mine. It was clear that he hit undo in order to annoy me and to play games, he knew perfectly well that there was no dispute over his changes to the text and that he could replace them manually but he chose to react in that way and to deliberately remove content that shouldn't have been removed. Anyway I feel myself getting aggravated by this situation now because I am being misrepresented and so is the situation. Thank you Nyttend for coming to look at this. Owl In The House (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Look at this diff; are you talking about the little box at the bottom of Candidates? I've chosen five random post-2010 by-election articles and examined an immediately-before-election revision of each (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), and the only standardised thing I can find is that little box. It's one thing for other namespaces, but when we're trying to standardise articles, we definitely need to have some sort of page discussing the standards so anyone can see them. If you expect administrators to act on your complaint, you need to show us that someone's intentionally going against a standard, and if there's nothing better than "go dig up the histories of the pages listed at this article", there's no standard. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I am indeed talking about that little box at the bottom of the candidates section. Yes, there is a good reason why the edit histories of those earlier articles will look different, its because things were only standardised in 2012, it was found that the articles were all higgledie piggledie so a standard layout came about the layout is as follows:
Infobox (mostly left blank until after election but includes a constituency map)
Opening Paragraph - use of/style of language is largely standardised
Background
Candidates (including candidate box at bottom of section - box is removed once result is revealed)
Result (only applicable after the election has taken place)
Polling (not relevant for all articles, especially the earlier ones)
Previous Result - copied over from constituency article
See Also (this is a standardised list of similar articles - with other specific related articles as well eg a previous byelection)
Notes (references)

You are better looking at slightly more recent articles (post standardisation) and you will see some real consistency, here are some versions of byelection articles immidiately before the election: Newark, Wythenshawe, South Shields, Mid Ulster, Eastleigh, I could go back further down the list, I know this consistency goes back as far as about Corby as that is roughly when things were standardised. You'll probably notice that the map doesn't appear in all of the pre-election versions, that is largely because of copying over infoboxes and deleting their content and editors not bothering to add the map until the result comes out but in reality the map of the constituency isn't going to change as a result of the by-election and it's relevance to the article isn't affected by the result.

Anyway, I hope this helps and paints a clearer picture of the standard format we have been following on by-election articles for the last few years and have in turn largely backdated to 2010. In any case it can be in no doubt that it has been standard practice to have a candidate box for quite some time and this is part of a standardised layout for by-elections, therefore it's removal isn't really appropriate. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem is that this "standard format" should really be documented in a project guideline as casual editors and those who are not "we" know that a consensus exists. It would have been easier to point User:Arms & Hearts at that consensus or raise it on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You know what, perhaps you're right, it would certainly save any of this in the future. It's clear that there is a standard format and what that is, maybe it should be formally documented, where do you suggest? I do take point. Thanks for your input. Owl In The House (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be overlooking why the box was being removed by the two other editors - it's because there is currently only one confirmed candidate (and possibly actually none), and they deemed the box useless at this point. The rationale given by @Bondegezou: in this revert is perfectly reasonable. There is no justification whatsoever for Own in the House breaking 3RR here. Number 57 15:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a point that has been picked upon on the Clacton talk page but Bondegezou hasn't replied/got round to replying. As I have pointed out on the talk page there are two parties who officially have candidates for the seat, UKIP's NEC have confirmed Carswell and Labour have a PPC and have not in anyway stated or implied that anyone else will stand instead. It is true to say that there is a lot of hearsay, rumour, suggestion etc but nothing in terms of hard facts. Indeed the hard facts that can be reliably sourced suggest that there are 2 candidates at present and one former PPC who seems rather annoyed. Bondegezou's rationale would be correct if it didn't rely on hearsay, there are 2 party's who have selected a candidate for this seat, that is a clear fact. I repeat I was merely restoring the article to it's original/standard format and directing people in dispute to the talk page, no one else can say the same but there is another individual who was deliberatly edit warring (when I actively tried to avoid doing so - see here) and that person is User:Arms & Hearts. Owl In The House (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You are still trying to justify breaking 3RR. What you should be doing is apologising and saying you won't be doing it again. Number 57 16:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, Owl in the House continues to claim that they were perfectly justified in reverting four times on the article, as the edits they were reverting were "unjust". It might be worth someone else reminding them of the rules. Thanks, Number 57 15:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The denials that 3RR was broken continue. Number 57 16:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This is beyond ridiculous, Number 57 is being incredibly selective and seem to be deliberately trying to wind me up. I am not the one who was edit warring here, indeed it is provable that I did everything I could to prevent an edit war but Number 57 chooses to ignore the evidence. Anyway I have cut and paste the section Number 57 started on my talk page, it's better that everything is in one place, especially when an editor is trying to be selective in the arguments they make. Owl In The House (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I look forward to another admin reviewing your behaviour. Number 57 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

From Owl In The House's talk page[edit]

I was considering writing this comment to you last night, and having seen your comments at Talk:Clacton by-election, 2014 made earlier this morning, the need is even more apparent.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and needs a positive atmosphere to help foster this. However, the attitude in which you approach editing Wikipedia is currently rather the opposite. Almost every comment you make on a talk page (and some of your edit summaries) seem designed to annoy other people. Your attitude is highly condescending and patronising, and all you are doing is winding people up. Collaboration inevitably involves compromise, but you putting everyones's backs up means that no-one is going to be willing to compromise with you. In the long run, this is going to result in you getting into an increasing number of edit wars (you have already broken WP:3RR at Clacton by-election, 2014).

You really need to change the way you interact with other people on here, otherwise you are not going to find it easy going. Number 57 12:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but it is not me who has broken the 3RR rule as I was not the one removing content. Furthermore my reaction is entirely in reaction to the mood other editors put me in, I do not have run ins with every editor on here. I do however get irate when being ignored, though I do so within the rules. Furthermore I do not take kindly to people effectively putting words in my mouth, in misunderstanding the point I have been making in various discussions. This is apparent on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, I can't suggest enough that I was not against some form of change out right, I am just against endless discussion provoked by (what others concur to have been) politically motivated edits by disruptive editors. Now I am not accusing any of the people active in present discussions of that (so please do not say I am), I am merely pointing out how this issue came about several months ago. There was nothing wrong with the main format and therefore no need to change it. However, if a sensible proposal of something better came along then I would look at it fairly, as it happens what was eventually proposed seems quite agreeable to me but only if implemented consistently. I do not want to come across as aggressive etc, I just want this issue resolved and not to be silenced and dismissed in the way I have been. Owl In The House (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you have quite clearly broken 3RR - it doesn't matter whether content was removed or not - you reverted other editors' edits four times within 24 hours. And if you don't want to be dismissed, try not being so dismissive to others. Number 57 12:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You are being selective in your interpretation of the rules, what about always reverting back to the baseline (original) when an issue is in dispute. It is very clearly stated within the edit history that User:Arms & Hearts was undoing edits out of spite (using wikipedia to play a game - wind another editor up). He did not engage in the talk page when I asked him to and he even said this in the edit log: "because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child" - his words, not mine. Reverting such an edit is not unjust. Thank you Owl In The House (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not being selective in my interpretation the rules. The only exception to 3RR in cases like this is reverting vandalism (see WP:3RRNO). An edit being "unjust" is not in any way a valid reason for violating 3RR. Number 57 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Removing sourced material that is part of an article's standard layout is vandalism. Furthermore when the editor in question signs off their changes in the revision history as "because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child)" (his words not mine) kind of makes it plain that the edit was deliberately disruptive and that the intention was not to improve the article, it was specifically to wind me up. You have ignored this fact 3times now and therefore you are being selective. It's not like I didn't try and engage with the editor on their talk page and direct them to the articles talk page as well. Yes you are definitely being selective here. Owl In The House (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You still don't get it. WP:3RRNO very clearly states that the vandalism clause refers to "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." I do not want to hear any more excuses - this is not page blanking or adding offensive languages. Just accept that you broke the rules and learn from it. Not accepting that you were wrong only increases the likelihood that you will be blocked. Number 57 16:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You've done it again, you have completely ignored the editor in question's use of bad language, you are continuing to be selective. Technically I made more then 3 reverts of the same edit but that does not mean I broke the 3RR rule, you have said so yourself and have even sited examples, incidentally which also apply to this case. If you want to be uber technical, I broke one rule to uphold another which as MilborneOne has pointed out is not in breach of Wiki policy. May I remind you that it is well documented that I did what I could to avoid an edit war, by talking to the user on his/her talk page, I was actively engaging trying to remove the need to undo his edits (another fact you deliberately ignore. You really are getting yourself worked up here (as I was yesterday....pot calling the kettle black rings to mind). Anyway, the issue has been resolved and Arms & Hearts has stopped edit warring and deliberately being disruptive. Owl In The House (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Proof Owl In The House tried to avoid an edit war by engaging[edit]

Below is a section copied from Arms & Hearts's talk page. It shows Owl In The House (myself) trying to tell the editor in question not to edit war, it shows that I tried to engage by saying that the only thing wrong with the edit was that they removed sourced material that is part of the article's standard format. As you can see they repeatedly ignored my attempts to engage with them and continued to revert the edit and in the end swore on the edit log, making it clear that their edit was an act of spite (not for the betterment of the article). The facts speak for themselves. I'd be grateful if Number 57 could get off my case and his attempts to defame me are ignored. Thank you Owl In The House (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Arms & Hearts's talk page[edit]

Hello, I have reverted an edit you made to the Clacton by-election, 2014 article as you have removed a standard piece of layout for UK by-election articles, namely the candidates table. Please refrain from edits that will cause the article to deviate from the standard format for UK byelections, we need to remain consistent. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have again reverted your edit, please do not remove standard pieces of the by-election article format. I was about to rerevert the good changes that you had made. It is not easy to put a table back into an article without using the undo facility as it is to redo your changes manually. I will redo your edit but please do not remove that table again, if you do it will constitute an edit war, this would be a breach of Wiki policy. I am not saying your edit is rubbish, it is merely a case that you shouldn't be removing that table and that for formatting reasons it is not easy to restore the table manually. Thank you. Owl In The House (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Clacton by-election, 2014.
Your conduct over this issue and indeed the comments you have made in the edit log of the article are completely unacceptable:
____________________Copied from the edit log of Clacton by-election, 2014 (top)___________________________
because clearly it's oh so difficult to revert edits you disagree with while retaining parts of them that you agree with. let's see if you manage it this time or if you're going to keep behaving like a petulant fucking child)
____________________Copied from the edit log of Clacton by-election, 2014 (top)___________________________
Wikipedia is not a playground and such games should not be played when making edits. I gave you a very clear and specific reason as to why I had to use the undo facility, I also stated I didn't have a problem with the rest of your edit (in the most part). The only changes I have made are for formatting reasons. You are in breach of several Wikipedia Policies including: Wikipedia:Content removal, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch (Wikipedia:Offensive material). I will put this incident on the edit warring noticeboard, consider this your final warning.
I repeat it is not so simple to manually replace a box or table with specific formatting once said table has been removed from the article, that is the only reason I used the undo facility, if it was so easy to copy and paste, I would have done that. It is simply unacceptable for whatever reason to remove a standard piece of the article format, every single by-election article has had a candidate box just as soon as more then one candidate has been announced. I repeat I have no problem with your edits to the text.
However again I must stress that "United Kingdom Independence Party" must not be used on Wikipedia, it is "UKIP", "UK Independence Party" or informally within text as "Ukip". Firstly, "United Kingdom Independence Party" isn't even the party's official name, secondly it has previously caused formatting issues when it comes to tables etc, so on Wikipedia we stick to 2 clear names. I realise it wasn't you that typed "United Kingdom Independence Party" but it was you who undid an edit which replaced it, this is why I am explaining this to you.
I don't want to fall out with you, I don't want to to revert or hold back your constructive editing of Wikipedia but it simply unacceptable to conduct yourself in this way.
Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have logged this incident on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I hope no further action is required. Let's try and move on from this constructively. Owl In The House (talk) 09:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

I was mentioned in the discussion above. I felt the edit I made was reasonable at the time, but I have since found a citation confirming Young as the by-election candidate (and have added it to the article), so I am OK with the candidate table that is currently in the article. I was unaware of the subsequent edit war until now. Personally, I see no need to rush to a candidate table when only a small number of candidates are known. We have had problems with by-election articles before of all sorts of people claiming they will be candidates, but failing to get themselves properly nominated; so I'm happy to leave candidate tables until nearer the election date.

Owl In The House, might I politely suggest that you take this as an opportunity to think about your editing behaviour. You have had a rather forceful approach of late, with several articles around the Clacton election and at Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#RfC:_Should_the_Green_Party.2C_along_with_other_parties_be_included_in_the_table_of_polling_results (and following sections). If I may, I would suggest WP:OWN and WP:3RR are valuable reading to take to heart. Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I realise Bondegezou that your edit was entirely in good faith and down to incomplete information. I have no disagreement with you, thank you for accepting the restored version. I do agree with you on the instance of unconfirmed candidates, Goggins in Wythenshawe was a clear example. It seems clear that people should only be entered into the candidate box when their party confirms them as an official candidate. As far as Independents go, well I think that would be a judgement call but generally I'd say wait until the statement of persons nominated is published or when it is clear that an independent has enough funds to cover the deposit.
On the matter of myself, I realise that at times I can be a bit firm and irritable, this is largely in reaction to the inconsistent nature and attitudes to changes made by various editors and also that those IP editors who have come to Wikipedia with an overtly political agenda have been allowed to consume so much time and that there have been efforts to appease them. Whereas in the past when disruptive editors from different political persuasions have caused disruptions there has been a zero tolerance approach, this is inconsistent. I have found myself in the position where I have had to be the one who polices this behaviour, whereas in the past that would be more evenly shared, it just seems editors are prepared to turn a blind eye if it suits them. It's infuriating, I do my best to keep my political views out of editing, I'm not saying others don't actively do that but it has gone conveniently quiet at times. Anyway, I don't want to be so forceful but it is entirely in reaction to recent events on here. Owl In The House (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

MfD backlog[edit]

There is long backlog at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. It would be nice if the admins take their mop and close them. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!:@TLSuda: Armbrust The Homunculus 21:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I did 2-3. I'll happily do more (if there are any left) when I get to a point when I have more time (most likely tomorrow night). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case has been suspended for sixty days and to be subsequently closed. In the intervening period, the case may be re-activated either at the request of the committee or if fresh issues arise following a successful request at ARCA. The motion notes the following:

  • Eloquence (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator on the English Wikipedia while an arbitration case was pending and may only regain administrative rights on their personal non-work account via a successful request for adminship. This does not prevent them from holding staff administrative rights on a designated work account.
  • From 15 September 2014, the WMF will require require staff to segregate their work and non-work activities into separate work and non-work accounts respectively, with work accounts containing the identifier '(WMF)' in the account name.
  • The WMF aims to improve working practices. This includes a new software implementation protocol which provides for incremental roll-outs of upgrades and new features.

For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 00:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

UTRS[edit]

I don't know whether the usual UTRS admin crowd are on holiday or not (I only just got back from a break myself), but the UTRS queue is looking horrifically long at the moment. If you're an admin with some experience of the unblock process and you'd be up for helping out, today would be a good day to sign up and get stuck in. Yunshui  12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tried to sign up about two weeks ago. Never heard back from anyone. *shrugs* ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)