Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study

Hello all!

We bring together the forces of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and Sciences Po Paris to conduct a large-scale research project on the microfoundations and dynamics of online interactions and behavior. To this end, we invite internet users with many different profiles to fill out a survey on LimeSurvey which combines decision making involving money with substantive questions about attitudes and practices. As a part of our research agenda, we would like to achieve the highest answer rate possible among Wikipedia contributors.

For this purpose, we presented our research goals and methods to the WMF which agreed to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians (to make sure, please check out the list of research projects which have the Foundation’s recognition or contact Steven Walling). We planned to invite Wikipedians to participate in this broad study by posting individual invitations on the users’ talk pages through an automated procedure.
So this message is both to let the community of admins know about what we intend to do (as our aim is surely neither to bother people nor to disrupt the editing process of Wikipedia!) and to ask for some clarifications and advices about some particular aspects of our invitation protocol, namely:

1. Is there a risk that our account could be blocked while we are in the process of sending our invitations to participate and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
2. Is there a risk that the external link to the study that we will include in our invitation messages could be blocked and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
   

At the end of the study, research outputs will be made available under an open access license and we intend to share them at a Wikimania conference. If they wish to do so, participants from Wikipedia have the possibility to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation.
We remain at your entire disposal for any further question or precision about this research project (if you like, please consider that you can also reach us by e-mail at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr).

Looking forward to hearing from you,
Many thanks,

The Harvard / Sciences Po research team. SalimJah (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi SalimJah, I'm from the Wikipedia Bot Approvals Group. The correct place to get approval for mass message delivery using an automated process is WP:BRFA. Alternatively, you can look at getting a bot which already has broad approval for message delivery, such as User:MessageDeliveryBot, to do the job for you. Getting an approval like this reduces the risk of the bot or link getting blocked, if you use a bot without approval it will be blocked as soon as possible, for violating the bot policy. However, users often object to mass messaging which they have not specifically opted in for, as many consider it spam. An alternative would be to use a watchlist notice, or one of the other three site notices explained at the top of this page. Using this method would completely remove the risk of the link being blacklisted or the bot being blocked, as it would not be editing repeatedly. Hope that helps, feel free to contact me or any other BAG ember if you have further questions. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you please provide more details about how you will be contacting people? (ie, the exact text of the message and which groups of editors you will be sending it to). As this is a WMF-endorsed study I don't see any generic problems, but you obviously need to make sure that your approach is appropriate (and posting this message here is a great way to start things off). One problem I see with your current approach is that posting access codes in publicly-viewable user talk pages will mean that these codes a) won't be private and b) are very likely to be used by people other than the intended editor in some cases. This will obviously impact on the quality of your data and may cause some privacy problems. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kingpin13 and Nick-D for your precious input and advices!

We are currently in the process of technically validating a bot that will have two specific purposes: (a) posting our invitation to participate in the talk page of several thousands of Wikipedia registered users (according to the number of Wikipedia participants that we will be able to fund) and (b) retrieving automatically participants' agreement to participate (we intend to ask participants to confirm their agreement to participate on their talk page as an answer to our invitation before they actually participate). I hope that this solves the privacy problem mentioned by Nick-D. Then, the text of the invitation will be almost the same as in our research description page on meta (i.e. a brief description of the goal of the study and how to participate in it). This research project is a large scale one that aims at understanding the dynamics of online interactions and behavior. So we intend to send our invitations to participate to all kinds of Wikipedia contributors, not restricting ourselves to one particular profile or group.

About the issue of having our bot or account blocked while we are in the process of sending the invitations, I thought of asking Steven Walling to leave a note on my talk page in order to "whitelist" me and link to our research project page on meta. Would this prevent efficiently the risk of being blocked while sending the invitations? Do we still have to go through the whole bot validation process if we do that? I must confess that we would like to move fast and open the survey for Wikipedians to participate as soon as possible.

Thanks again for your helpful guidance! SalimJah (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The text at m:Dynamics of Online Interactions and Behavior is around 3700 bytes (after deleting the misguided <br /> html). My guess (I am not an admin) is that anyone delivering that page to thousands of users would be blocked (or is there some benefit to the encyclopedia that I have overlooked?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you consider the evocation of thousands of orange banners a benefit. No talkpage spam, please. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

I second that, I'm sure interested people and pretty much everybody reads this board anyway, amongespecially admins. At most, if one really wants to reach thousand of admins, a feature in the Signpost (if its editor think it's a good idea) might be a less intrusive way of reaching out to a wider audience without spamming templates to everybody. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear all, thanks for sharing your concerns with us. Our research project aims at making a significant contribution to the field of human interaction systems design in order to inform the design and organization of online social spaces (if you like, please visit the webpage dedicated to this research project). We expect that current and future Wikimedia community projects could benefit a lot from the insight of such research, which is precisely why we will make it available under and open access licence and intend to share it at a Wikimania conference. Another benefit to the community is that all Wikipedia participants are given the opportunity to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation (each participant can earn as much as $50 upon completion of the survey).

From our side, we consider it important to get Wikipedia users to answer our survey, as the Wikipedia project has grown to achieve a prominent status on the internet. For validity concerns, we do not want to invite only admins to participate. We would like to be able to invite all types of Wikipedia contributors equally, ranging from the admin to the contributor who has just registered his Wikipedia account. So one reason why we finally opted for the talk page option is that this is the most widely shared discussion medium across all types of Wikipedia contributors and the only one available for recently registered users. We totally understand that this may appear intrusive to some. We are trying to figure out the best way to make our recruitment process valid and return our results to the community while not disrupting its editing process. Posting an invitation to participate in a research project on the user talk pages has already been done before. In response to this trend (and maybe because some researchers may sometimes not invest a sufficient amount of time trying to understand and abide by community guidelines and principles in their recruitment processes), the Wikimedia Research Committee and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group are currently trying to come up with a formal procedure and define best practices for researchers willing to recruit subjects from Wikimedia projects. While this is still work in progress, we totally committed ourselves to respecting them all and are happy to do so. Regards, SalimJah (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well unless someone has a way that can achieve the same result as asking lots of editors directly (watchlist notice wouldn't), I think we (/BRFA) should approve either a new bot or an existing bot to deliver this one-off request. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd suggest an existing bot, as that would also bring an experienced bot op into the discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RM closure requested

The move discussion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states has gone stale. A heavily involved editor attempted to close debate, but I undid this, as it was a violation of WP:RM/CI. However, I do believe that this discussion has run its course. As such, I kindly request that an admin put this debate properly to rest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And while I am here, I would also like to request that an admin merge the page histories of Talk:Székely and Talk:Székelys, as these histories have become rather messed up as a result of overzealous cut-and-paste moves. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And while you are doing this I also request undoing a salted controversial move of Template:Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar, and warn Martintg not to do this again. I believe that he was already warned not to salt controversial moves and deserve a harsher sanction, but I am too busy to search through history of his talk page. (Igny (talk))

I thought it was a requirement to categorise redirects per WP:RCAT. If I misread that guideline then please explain the guideline to me in plain english so I don't err again. Also please clean up this categorisation [1] too if neccesary. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Community ban request: User:Δδ (91.155.234.89)

Related threads: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive682#User 91.155.234.89 making allegations of 'criminal deeds'

Read the thread linked above, which describes the behavior of this user in a nutshell. In the few days since then, 91.155.234.89 has had his block upped to a month (for threats to evade block and personal attacks comparing users to Neo-Nazis on its talk page), had his talk page both semi'd and revoked, and five times evaded his block with these socks, in the following order:

• Δδ (talk · contribs) (Hence the name of the thread)
• BackInDisguise (talk · contribs)
• RelevantQuestions (talk · contribs)
• StopCharacterAssassination (talk · contribs)
• StopCharacterAssault (talk · contribs)

Since it seems overwhelmingly obvious this user isn't going to go away short of the nuclear option, I am suggesting we community-ban this user. None of the edits he's made under his socks have been constructive, and Relevant's, Assassination's, and Assault's edits have all been attacks on users who I believe opposed them in the underlying content dispute prior to the block on the IP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. We may also want to mail the CUs to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock on the underlying IPs (don't know if it's possible?)>. 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. He often repeats his responses when making an unblock request. I'm not convinced of possible reform. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This user is seriously disturbed. The socks keep on coming (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 91.155.234.89 contains the ones I know of), so a rangeblock would be most welcome. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – The user is abusing open proxies, so obviously rangeblocks are not possible. –MuZemike 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There seem to be strong grounds to suspect that the user may be Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde herself. Since the problem seems to have started with the article, and her notability is somewhat questionable, I wonder whether deleting it might solve the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment On the bright side, every time they show up again the proxy they use gets blocked for a minimum of a year because it's a proxy. This dope only appears to have three or four targets; why not honeypot him? It'll be that many fewer proxies for others to use... HalfShadow 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Proxy abusers are, unfortunately, some of the worst. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This user is also causing a huge disruption on Finnish Wikipedia around the Finnish version of the article there. (Translated page)- LuckyLouie (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Should someone let them know what's going on here? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  Anyone here fluent in Finnish? Certainly'd make things easier for everyone. HalfShadow 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  KFP (talk · contribs) does; I poked him.  Chzz  ►  10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  To summarize: What this same user seems to be largely doing on fi.wp is extensive edit warring to include questionably sourced statements to the article fi:Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, as well as various quite hostile responses to people who've reverted the edits. Some of it may be due to a genuine misunderstanding of WP's principles and guidelines, though. The IP was previously blocked there for a few days for edit warring but not currently. --KFP (contact | edits) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I briefly stuck my nose in that mess, including trying to explain our policies, and am debating whether to draw more ire by doing so again or tiptoe away . . . but I think someone needs to point out that there is a BLP issue here. There's even a long paragraph supposedly by the subject of the article sitting on the talkpage: [2]. --Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reopening case, since it's been hanging for a few days now

Again, please put an end to this RfC here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a glance. The thing about the never-ending genre wars is that most persons not participating in them find them to be a pointless waste of time. This one appears to have been going on for years and would probably not be stopped by this RFC anyway. In any event RFCs usually last up to thirty days or whenever a consensus becomes clear. No consensus is clear to me at this time so I would say it should stay open in the hope that there will be broader participation in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two editors in support of the addition, vs. one editor (the nominator) that opposes it. There are sources calling Bon Jovi "pop rock", but not a single source stating that they are not (a few not mentioning the subject matter, which in the nominator's opinion constitute proof of sorts). Seems like a consensus to me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete my CSS Files

Hello Admins, can you delete the CSS-Files User:Labant/chick.css, User:Labant/monobook.css, User:Labant/modern.css, User:Labant/cologneblue.css, User:Labant/myskin.css, User:Labant/nostalgia.css, User:Labant/simple.css, User:Labant/standard.css? I need this files no longer. Thanks --Labant (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 08:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban: Wikindia24x7

Resolved

 – Wikindia24x7 (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia under any identity. Will inform user and log ban at Wikipedia:List of banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikindia24x7 (talk · contribs) is a long-time problem user who has engaged in sockpuppeting, copyright violations, and systematic hoaxes. He has had several blocks but strangely was allowed back every time until now. After more of his hoax activity came to light recently through the detective work of Bobrayner (talk · contribs), I have increased his current three-month block (imposed by SpacemanSpiff in February) to an indef one, and I now propose to make this a formal community ban.

Wikindia24x7 has been active under this account since July 2009, and under several other accounts earlier. Among the problem activities we know of so far are:

• several confirmed sock accounts active since June 2008 (Anas999 (talk · contribs)) and May 2009 (VikasJain (talk · contribs)) and for block evasion during Wikindia's first long block in January 2010, discovered and blocked in February 2010.
• A further sock, Rizwan123 (talk · contribs), created recently to evade the current three-month block
• Extended hoax activity promoting the town of Khurai and the city of Indore, India, with fake attractions, for instance:
  • File:Khurai Mahakali Temple.jpg: using a copyvio photograph [3] of a temple in Delhi, photoshopping it to change the colours of the towers, and then claiming it was a temple in Khurai.
  • File:City Centre Indore .jpg, a copyvio photograph of a building in Bangalore, claimed to be a building in Indore
  • File:Khurai Civil Court.jpg, a copyvio photograph of a building in Lahore, claimed to be a building in Khurai
• Creation of multiple articles on non-notable train connections and railroads in India, some of them probably also hoaxes (promoting normal train connections as if they were special named intercity services)
  • using crudely photoshopped images of train signage to fit his hoax train connections (several items currently listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 20)
• Creation of hoax articles on non-notable private airfields, presented as if they were actual airports, with fake ICAO codes (currently discussed at User talk:Bobrayner)
• Multiple other copyvio images (e.g. File:City Bus Indore.jpg from [4])

All these activities were conducted persistently over several years, with several accounts, and despite multiple blocks and warnings.

Let's close the lid on this one and throw away the key. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Hoaxes and copyvios? Not to mention the crappy Photoshop work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Ouch. Yeah, a ban is definitely warranted given the evidence presented here. With how long these problems have persisted, there's little to no hope for reform. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still investigating (there's a long checklist) but further problems include:

• Duplicate articles on train services (typically there would be an article on the "A-B Express", and a separate article with copypasted text called the "B-A Express").
• Large number of unsourced / minimally sourced articles of very variable notability, often with hastily copypasted content (the fastest way for me to find them is by searching for an odd sentence with a typo which is repeated in most of them).
• After being warned about creating many unreferenced articles, it seems they started creating articles with any old URL, presumably hoping that it would pass a cursory inspection (which obviously worked for a while). A Youtube channel, or www.indore.com, is little use for verifying the details of a train service. A minority of articles had good sourcing.
• Apart from the copyvio images mentioned above, at least one instance of combined copyvio & deliberate deception in article text; note how this resembles this, except with the numbers changed...
• Looking at article histories, I think there might be one or two socks more out there, in addition to the ones found by Fut.Perf.

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, I created Category:Train services in India; it now contains about half the affected articles.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The only reason I didn't impose an indefinite block earlier is because it was easier for me to clean up when the accounts were known. The particular user's contribs have been flagged at WT:INB more than a couple of times but unfortunately it hasn't attracted any attention. Now that there're probably more eyes looking at this set, it might be a good idea to ban and get rid of these contributions forever. —SpacemanSpiff 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support When you have so many images of fake places put for deletion and have failed to defend yourself on numerous violations, that's when you know you're no longer of any use to the project. If the editor in question is from Indore, that's also another case of COI IMHO. Get him out of here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This thread got archived without a former closure. Can somebody please do the honours and call a consensus on this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Libyan uprising/civil war/conflict page again

Hey folks, could an uninvolved administrator please close the RM at Talk:2011 Libyan uprising#Requested move? It's been open for 10 days now, and the "natives" are starting to get restless. I closed the last one as "no consensus", and I've expressed a preference for "Libyan conflict", so I'm reticent to do anything more. If I were to close it again I'd probably say "no consensus" again though, mostly due to the confusion about which name to change it to. Note however that with events continuing as they are, I don't foresee any decision now as being permanent, regardless.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Caste Articles

I happened upon an article about a Sri Lankan caste called Govigama. Long, well written article, but very few citations. I tagged it, left a message on article talk, and was about to move on when I decided to check the similar articles at Category:Sinhalese castes. It has 24 articles, all of them pretty well written, but containing almost no citations. They all look like blatant original research.

I started tagging them, and realized they aren't the regular articles where different anons add unreferenced content. It's like someone wrote all of these with a very specific agenda. I'm not too familiar with the topic, but the Govigama article for example looks clearly biased. The main Caste system (Sri Lanka) article has had a multitude of tags since last year, so the subject is clearly disputed.

Should I just tag the rest of them and leave them? I don't really want to, because it looks like all of those articles are merely one persons take on a subject, that is at the very least pretty ambiguous.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, you should fix them (rewrite or just remove the unsourced stuff). But I'm wondering if, the parentheticals like "(EZ V.293, EZ I.246, 53 fn 7 etc.)" or "(Codrington.27)" are references? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"EZ" evidently refers to "Epigraphia Zeylanica (EZ) Colombo Museum, Sri Lanka", listed under "References". There's an entry called Codrington there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, this may sound radical, but you could try engaging with the editor who added the info. That person may be able to point you to the source, and proper citations can then be added. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to go through all those articles and try and fix them.

"Codrington" refers to this book, which is perfectly fine to use as a source. I'm not saying the articles are 100% wrong. Just that it's likely they have a certain bias, which would obviously be bad. And up to the original editor to cite?

I left a note on the talk of the editor who seems to have written all of these in 2006, User_talk:Wikramadithya. He hasn't been active since 5/09 so I don't know if he's still around. His name was familiar so I took a look at his talk/contribs. I've prod'ed some of his articles in the past and listed one at AFD. I don't know why I didn't catch these back then.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetical citations scattered throughout these articles are legitimate WP:Inline citations, absolutely equal to any <ref> tag, despite being presented in plain black text and regular size type. Since the articles began with PAREN, the couple of WP:Footnotes should probably be converted to the original style, per WP:CITEVAR.

"A certain bias" is not really the same thing as "original research". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban

I have an "indefinite topic ban" for what was believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. It has been 8 months now, I believe that time served is more than sufficient. Wondering if this can now be lifted? [[5]] --Duchamps_comb MFA 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You weren't banned for 3RR or incivility, you were banned for inserting original research, synthesis and outright fabrication into a BLP, as well as edit warring. Relevant links are here and here. This user has requested the topic ban be lifted twice before, both times using the argument that they haven't committed 3RR violations or incivility: [6] [7] I can't see any reason to lift it at this time. Hut 8.5 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair I was working on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories If you look at the log you will see how I have been treated. There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given an indefinite.

The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist.

I believe I have shown that I can walk away from all Obama articles for 8 months now and follow the wiki rules. Is imposing an heavy handed topic ban forever really necessary? Is making me an example? Is giving me a more harsh ban? How long do I have to pay for a simple mistake of thinking worldnetdaily.com was proper source? --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Iaaasi

Having discovered that User:Iaaasi has gone back to his old ways and is socking again, I've instituted a anonblock on 79.117.96.0/20. Feel free to loosen it if it causes problems, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of non-abusive IP editing from there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Close an AN/I thread?

Could an uninvolved admin pop over to AN/I and take a look at this thread? I was a participant, so I'm not unbiased, but I think action should be taken or the thread closed, one way or the other. It seems to have been left hanging. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nolander Thread at ANI

Would some on mind moving the Nolander thread to Sub-page? Its causing my pretty up to date browser to slow to trickle when loading the page. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

thanx The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan

Would an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan with the agreed upon closing statement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan#Closing statement?. Please also note in the closing statement Fetchcomms (talk · contribs)' volunteering to act as a mentor. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)