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

Requesting brave admin to close contentious RfC

We could use an uninvolved admin to close a contentious RfC at September 11 attacks about whether there's consensus to re-add a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories to the article. The discussion is in two places. It begins here[1] and then resumes in a new thread here.[2] I know we don't need an admin to close an RfC but considering how contentious the issue is, I think it's best that an admin do it. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a closeable RfC here. There's no {{rfctag}} and (at least in the second part) no real structure, just the usual pointless tangled thread of people not listening to each other and digressing at length. There's also no obvious consensus. I recommend starting over with a standard RfC tag and some structure to help find consensus.  Sandstein  21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: there is something resembling structured discussion here, but it hasn't run for 30 days yet. Maybe put an RfC tag on that, improve the header to make it more understable to people who are new to the discussion, and wait 30 days?  Sandstein  21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a {rfctag} but a bot removed it after the RfC expired.[3] I'm sorry about the tangled web of text. Like I said, the issue is contentious. I'd rather not open another RfC because that would make it our third one on the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realized that this page get archived every 2 days. I am re-adding this because the RfC hasn't been closed yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of the more easily read discussion at Talk:September 11 attacks#Moving on to a general consensus, I'm inclined to close the RfC with a consensus for option 1, but it may be better to wait until opinions stop being added, so as not to cut an active discussion short.  Sandstein  06:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that option 1 is clearly what the general consensus is at this time. I don't see that anything will change because of the amount of people involed thus far. Moxy (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we have an admin (or experienced editor) close this RfC? Option 1 has already been implemented about a week ago and there's been no further edit-warring or even objections against option 1 since then. The main opponent of option 1 has seemed to have accepted that consensus has not gone his way. This RfC isn't as contentious as it was when I first posted this. Can someone please close it? I'm heavily involved so I don't want to do it myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins needed for info-en OTRS queue

The info-en OTRS queue has been chronically backlogged for the last few months. A lot of the former admins that kept an eye on the queue have left, leaving a void. Admins with a focus on BLP article are the most needed but any can help, the permissions and general help queues are also suffering from a lack of attention. You can sign up at meta:OTRS/volunteering. Brandon (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, please do. This is an urgent problem. In my personal experience (as User:Moonriddengirl), what you most need to be able to do there is patiently explain to people how Wikipedia works. Sometimes I edit articles directly based on OTRS tickets, but often I just have to tell people how to handle things themselves...or why what they want done can't be done. A useful skill, in my opinion, is the ability to overlook irritation and focus on the heart of the issue. The people who write OTRS have often had bad experiences trying to resolve problems themselves. Sometimes, just talking to them like human beings can help them feel more positively about their experiences here, even if they don't get everything they want. It's really important work, and we need more people helping out with it. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We have tickets going all the way to May, April, and before. It's dreadful that our private customer service is worse than our public one. Many issues can be solved with a simple (often boilerplate :P) explanation or a quick edit. I third Brandon's request. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Having had the dubious honour of being turned down twice when I've volunteered for this in the past, I would like to suggest that you make it clearer on the meta page what you are actually looking for. Assuming (as I do, hopefully correctly!) that I was not personally disliked by the people making the decision at the time of applying, I had, and still have, every belief that from what I read I would have been able to help out in a useful/non-damaging way. As you clearly didn't believe that was the case I think you should make it far clearer what standards you use to decide who to accept into the mysterious elite group of admins that get 'OTRS permission'. Peter 21:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The decision is made by the OTRS admins. I'm afraid that all I know about what they're looking for is what is written on that page. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the info-en team technically, but I haven't contributed much lately. I'll try to do some more but one does sort of burn out after explaining for the zillionth time that no we will not do a link exchange with you and no we will not restore your deleted spam article. It might help if the boilerplate responses were more wiki-like instantly editable; some I think are rather poor and require too much manual improvement.  Sandstein  19:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are the easy ones. :D The boilerplate responses are not instantly editable, but you probably know that they are editable at the OTRS wiki? Changes (if agreed upon) are usually implemented pretty quickly. :) (I've also created one kind of "template" of my own, a modified "sofixit", on my OTRS wiki userpage which I can just paste in.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Somewhat off-topic comment) Your sofixit template is great, it cobbles together the pertinent points of several separate templates. I've spent an inordinate amount of time doing this as well, perhaps we could add it to the main template page? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it. :) I put it on the OTRS Wiki Cafe, since I'm not sure how to propose a new boilerplate. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Response:Portal space, create Response:en-foobar page and use {{ Response header |title = foobar |id = |lang = en |status = created }} text {{ Response footer }} and we'll review with a poke at the admin requests page. Keegan (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Signed up. Happy to help. --causa sui (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Ignoring the fact that I'm not an admin, I would join up (and thought of applying for permissions-en a while ago), but I refuse to self identify. From my conversations, I know that's a hangup for other people as well. The easiest way to self identify is to scan a driver's license in, but that would mean giving strangers my full name, home address, and other personal information that I don't trust in the hands of others. It's one thing to give that information to a company providing me a service, in which case legal protections come into play, but it's another thing when I'm a volunteer and the WMF has made it very clear that they are under no obligation to have my back or look out for my interests if my work here creates the potential for harm to my reputation or my person. The WMF claims that they don't store the information, that only one person looks at it, and then it's deleted, but that dosen't make giving the information out any less comfortable. Self identification as a requirement for OTRS access will cause OTRS consistent personnel issues. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • When I signed up, one only had to be willing to self-identify, not actually identify at that time. But I'm not sure if that policy has changed due to the sort-of-recent discussion over a new ID policy (also, what's the status on that, anyone?). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Today's events will make it even harder for OTRS/WMF to convince people to self identify. Perhaps something else needs to be done in place of self identification? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
    • At this time the policy remains that users are willing to but not required upon volunteering to supply identification should the need arise. Users are expected to supply the OTRS admins, upon acceptance, their real names. This will not appear publicly. OTRS agents answer with their real names or pseudonymous. We do not notate if the name used is true or not. Keegan (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Err... that's not how the OTRS volunteering page reads at all. Also, did I just read you say 'You have to give us your real name, but we don't care if it's real or not?' That seems... odd. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You have to give the OTRS admins your real name, but the name that appears when you are browsing the ticket interface or replying to queries may be a realistic-sounding pseudonym. NW (Talk) 05:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
          • And do the OTRS admins save the real name somewhere or just look at it and toss it? I don't find the idea of a great list of accounts with their real names attached to be particularly appealing. I can understand the need for accountability, but privacy is a bigger issue for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• I can confirm that the WMF does not currently require identification for OTRS agents. You must be willing to identify on demand, but we are not currently requesting that. If you do identify voluntarily (as some do) and say that it's for OTRS, I will offer you the choice of having me identify you in the usual fashion (the information goes to a secure box, it is reviewed, and then destroyed, saving you the trouble of identifying later) or having me destroy the ID unseen. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?
5. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Santorum article undergoing massive rewrite, requesting more lax edit rules temporarily

Editor and administrator SarekOfVulcan earlier today dropped a congenial reminder on my page about the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article and how I had come up against the strictly interpreted 3RR rule. My request here is really just a pre-emptive request that admins look carefully at the tone of editing for the time being, more than the strict number of edits with regard to this specific article.

As reported in the Signpost, this article has gotten a massive amount of attention lately, and overall I would say that most of us are working to improve this article.

Edits per month to the noted article. A very clear spike is visible starting last month.

Simply going by a strict 3RR would most likely interfere with natural give and take and flow. Also most editors are frequently checking in at the Talk page and discussing edits in line with a vibrant Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. So all in all, I think we have a good flow going and I would hate to see it ruined by a zealous admin enforcing process for sake of process. To be clear, I'm not saying that edit warring be ignored, or that 3RR be ignored, just an understanding that LOTS of edits are occuring and people are moving forward and improving the article, and judicious enforcement will most likely work best for now. -- Avanu (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Haha, is that what the page is called now? Which dysfunctional committee came up with that? Worst article title evah. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not to mention that the page has the funniest talk page evah. I don't agree, though, that loosening the rules would be helpful. In fact, a 1RR rule might encourage actual content discussion on the talk page, and make it less likely that some web crawler or another would pick up anything especially awkward. It might slow things down a bit, but everything doesn't have to be fixed by tomorrow. PhGustaf (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Pretty sure it wasn't a "committee" that came up with the title, but meh. Not really gonna worry about it. — Ched :  ?  09:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• Couldn't you keep Santorum where it is, and have Campaign for "Santorum" Neologism as a separate article? The former would describe the word, the latter would describe the campaign to have the word accepted. You could also have a Controversy Over the "Santorum" Neologism article - self-explanatory, with coverage of the coverage of the controversy - and of course a separate "Santorum" Neologism in Popular Culture page that lists its appearances in popular culture. Perhaps also an article about the politician himself. You know, a few years from now this will amount to a couple of short sentences buried away in a couple of articles. "In YEAR, as a protest against the senator's policies, Y attempted to dominate Google's search rankings with an obscene redefinition of the senator's surname - loosely given as QUOTE. This was extensively covered in the media BBC NYT GUARDIAN". There, solved that problem for you, next problem. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That would make sense, Ashley. But this is Wikipedia :) -- Avanu (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not. We do not need more articles on this topic. Santorum-Googlebomb/neologism/campaign/whatever-it-is-called-today is already a possibly unnecessary fork of Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. Fences&Windows 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it isn't actually a word, no, an article on such would be pointless. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there has been enough wikilawyering and other endruns around consensus on this article in the past couple of weeks. Oppose any relaxing of our normal rules on this or any other article as a matter of principle. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

That so-called "word" is a built-in BLP violation. At most, it belongs only on the page of the guy who invented it (assuming he's even notable enough to exist on wikipedia). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP doesn't say we can't say anything bad about anyone, it only says that what we say has to be sourced. As long as there are sources for it, there is no BLP violation.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

BB - I totally agree! It is a BLP vio. It needs to be yanked right out of the 'pedia!

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Dean returning to edit: editing restrictions

Context: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#User:Jeff_dean_and_possible_return_to_edit

There's been enough consensus for Jeff Dean to return to editing. He's chosen the following username:

• User:Jeffrey M Dean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Based on the discussion above (which got archived a little faster than I hoped it would), I'll be acting as what I call the "coordinating administrator". In other words, I'll be watching his contributions regularly and watching his talk page to see if any problems arise. The following are very loose editing restrictions based on areas of concern:

• Absolutely no additional accounts.
• Avoid COI: no links or references to content or websites authored by Jeff Dean, no original research to circumvent this.
• Follow the spirit of WP:CIVIL.
• Avoid any ownership behavior over content and images. (past example)

I'd like the input of administrators and the rest of the community; my apologies for not getting to this before the thread was archived. tedder (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

ditto. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A definite . Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Endorse. However the user page full of links to his personal website might not be the best way to return to editing.   Will Beback  talk  03:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Why is there no notice of this discussion on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jeff dean which I checked before starting a sockpuppet investigation at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff dean? That is what I checked first. Suspend or delete the investigation as appropriate. In my opinion, and agreeing with Will Beback, there is already too much self promotion in his user and user talk pages. I'll AGF but even a single transgression should mean another immediate indefinite block. ww2censor (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I had blocked this account per an SPI case, but I've unblocked now that I see what's going on. Sorry about that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic Banned User:Prunesqualer

I was recently going through my watchlist when I came across a revert Prunesqualer (talk · contribs) performed, I had not seen this user engaged with the article before so decided to look at their talk page. I noted the user was topic banned from anything to do with the Israeli-Palestianian conflict. I noticed a number of YouTube links on the users talk page and found them to be rather odd with headings that implied users should click on the link, I myself did not view any of the YouTube videos. I removed the links and replaced them with a standard warning instructing User:Prunesqualer that they were not allowed [4]. The user contacted me about why I removed them and I answered the user on my talk page, at first I suggested if they wished to keep/use the links they should create a user sub-page and clearly state what the links are and what videos they displayed. I received an email on the 25th of June (Australian time) from User:Prunesqualer the user stated the following

"Hi ZooPro

I am currently on an indefinite ban from editing in the Arab/Israeli field, and have been recently made aware that this ban even extends to talk pages (hence this e mail). Since most of the videos linked to are connected to that field, your advised course of action is no longer an option, so I will leave my page as is (until such time as the great and the good see fit to allow me back into the field). Anyway thanks for your time-

Prunesqualer".

I of course was rather alarmed as by the users own admission they have seem to have breached the topic ban. I have come here to report this incident and to ask for admin assistance as to what the best course of action is. Kind regards ZooPro 13:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a concerted effort to breach the topic ban. Would suggest that as long as Prunescaler confirms that they are now aware that the ban includes talk pages and agrees to stay clear, then we don't need to act unless there are further breaches. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ZooPro 23:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion lead sentence - straw poll consensus

Article: Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A straw poll was recently conducted on abortion, after a quick tally of a simple majority, several editors believe it's an enforceable consensus that changes the lead sentence from "death" to "viable":

• Jmh649 (talk · contribs) diff
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs) diff
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) diff

Other users are involved with this:

• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)
• JJL (talk · contribs)
• Michael C Price (talk · contribs)
• DMSBel (talk · contribs)

I believe this is incorrect as it asserts Wikipedia is a democracy, that can override well established consensus and a hard won compromise. - RoyBoy 22:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not meant to be binding for the rest of time: sometimes consensus changes. Well-established consensuses occasionally need to be re-established. I'm not sure this needs administrator assistance, but I've offered my opinion and invite other experienced users to do the same. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So am I to understand a simple majority can alter any consensus? - RoyBoy 23:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reality has shown that yes, they can. That's wikipedia for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussing content dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's pro-abortion weasel-wording, and is also redundant. "Viable" essentially means "born". Hence, "killing the unborn before they're born". Yeh, that's useful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Viable/viability is medical, scientific terminology. Anti-women supporters are often confused by it. And this is not the appropiate venue for this discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I'm very aware of what "viable" means. Define what "anti-women supporters" means. As a phrase, it doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC) (non-admin note) In any case, this is a content dispute on a page already under constant admin eye. I see nothing to do here. Bugs, if you have problems with the content, bring them up (with sources) on the article's talk page. Ranting here serves no purpose. PhGustaf (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC) It's a bit like a lawyer issuing a dire warning to his client that if he dies without having made out a will, then he will die intestate! Oh, the horror! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Bugs, old wikibuddy, I was just saying that your comments here, clever though they might be, are unhelpful. PhGustaf (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Helpful to me, at least, to try and figure out what the issue is. And I'm still wondering what "anti-women supporter" is supposed to mean, as "anti" and "supporter" seem to be opposites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Long ago I was in charge of tech support for a small, long-vanished, company, and almost got to publish a journal called "The Technical Supporter". You would have enjoyed the logo I designed. But that's off-topic here; we're supposed to be talking about compliance with policy, and content has nothing to do with it. PhGustaf (talk) Is there a policy concerning a small group essentially taking ownership of an article for whatever purpose, e.g. to impose a particular PC wording? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Whatever is happening, pace admin-worthy abuse, should be resolved on the article's talk page. And dismissing an argument as "PC" is, to repeat myself, not helpful. PhGustaf (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Fine. Now tell me, what does "anti-women supporter" translate to, in English? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC) It's been challenging getting those who were involved in building a consensus in 2005-06 to engage the new sources that overwhelmingly favor 'viability' and consider a possible change in wording. The straw poll was meant to show, and did show, that the majority of editors now posting there favor a change, in an attempt to end what some (myself included) perceived as stonewalling to prevent a discussion. This feels like just another tactic in the long attempt to prevent discussion that might eliminate the word 'death' from the first sentence. JJL (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC) There is NO new information. None. The extensive archives prove that the consensus that has been in place since 2006 factored in every single point now being made. This is a rehash of the same old arguments that never win consensus support. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, this is what I was referring to. JJL (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) You have approached the talk page falsely assuming that you were offering new ideas that were not already considered in 2006. And you also approached the talk page closed to learning anything about abortion. There is WP:MEDRS for every single word in the 2006 lede. None of the material that has been discussed recently refutes content in the 2006 lede (this 2006 lede continues to be verified by multiple WP:MEDRS and other WP:RS). None of the recently discussed sources actually contains new information. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC) This is still a content issue, and doesn't belong here absent specifically documented policy violations. Which should be at AN/I anyway. 71 should note that many editors take grouses from IP SPA canvassers quite lightly. PhGustaf (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I agree with PhGustaf that this doesn't belong here. Open a Request for Comment for the proposed change and let the discussion flow for at least a week (up to 30 days if there are ongoing comments). Then you can come to this noticeboard looking for someone to close the RfC. If there is edit-warring or other editor misbehavior in the meantime, take to WP:ANI. Neither there nor here is a place to have a debate about the merits of the wording itself. --RL0919 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I invite further comments on Wikipedia being a democracy, rather than pot shots on a content dispute I've spent years on. Thanks. - RoyBoy 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in the material that was hatted: open a Request for Comment. There is no administrator action needed here, and this is not the place for general "comments on Wikipedia being a democracy". If the regular talk page participants can't reach a consensus (and a narrow majority in a straw poll is not a consensus), or if you think the editors participating on the talk page aren't representative of the wider community, then either way the best approach is the same: get a wider selection of editors to comment. That's what RfCs do. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm back!

No doubt that this is an auspicious and long-awaited return. Please, hold off on the applause until I finish my speech. After a recent family illness which necessitated my full and immediate attention, I've come to rejoin your loving embrace, Wikipedians. I have arrived at an inopportune time for the committee - and I'll be holding off on the advanced tools for a little while until I get back into the spirit of things - but I will now be replying to my email messages. Slowly. All 3,000 of them. It's good to be back. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, you've been missed. Hope the family situation is now better; sorry to note that you've returned to a challenge but it looks like you know that.--SPhilbrickT 23:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

*clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*

I also hope the family illness resolved positively. Those are always a test.

Now back to work! 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend and abuse of administrator priviledges

Hello. I am writing to inform of the actions of an administrator, Nyttend, and his actions on the pages Template:Cobb County, Georgia and Buford Highway International Community. I am a resident of Atlanta, and an editor specializing in improving pages associated with Atlanta and its environs, especially through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/Atlanta task force. I focus mostly on geography, yet I have run into problems with this editor when it comes to the status of East Cobb, Georgia as an unincorporated community in Cobb County, Georgia. It can be confusing, as East Cobb's name is derived from its location in the eastern part of Cobb County. But, as I have documented on the community's page, it is actually the name of a defined community. If you notice, the multiple references I have included all refer to the community as East Cobb, with both words capitalized, as a proper place. If it was only a region, the references would refer to it as east Cobb. The community is considering becoming a city, and the city would be styles as "East Cobb, Georgia." However, Nyttend refuses to allow it on the template because it is not listed in the register of Populated place's compiled by the U.S. government.

This is very unfair. Even if consensus says that East Cobb cannot be included because it is not contained in the register, an exception should be made. It simply has an awkward name. In addition, the register of populated places is always changing and being updated; thus, it cannot be inclusive of all unincorporated communities. In any case, Nyttend has strongarmed the whole process and refuses to debate it. Other Atlanta editors have weighed in on behalf of the community's legitimacy, but Nyttend continues to dictate. Now, he is labeling me as a vandal in order to prevent me from making my case for East Cobb's inclusion on the template.

In regards to Buford Highway International Community, Nyttend has moved the page and protected the page to prevent any more edits. The international community is not synonomous with Georgia State Route 13, yet he keeps redirecting it to that page. Again, he did not engage anyone on the talk page before he made his decision, and prevented it from being challenged by protecting it.

I do not know how else to fix this. I feel this is an abuse of power that is simply skirted by the editor avoiding 3 reverts. --Mmann1988 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of stuff you just know vs what can be verified. Mmann1, I "just know" much of what you "just know" about these topics. As a matter of fact I live in the Buford Highway International Community though I've never heard it called that before and according to google, neither has anybody else. (23 hits most to WP mirrors). A better name for that article might have been Buford highway corridor but you would need reliable sources that discuss my "home" as a distinct community (this is a good website but probably not a reliable source). Ditto for "East Cobb" "West Cobb" etc. You need sources that describe them as distinct communities, not just directions on a map. Just having them capitalized is not going to cut it. As a side note this was pointy and completely uncalled for. Nytend, your description of "Mmann1" as an SPA might not be completely fair. You should consider that he's just interested in topics related to Atlanta.

BTW Wikia has an Atlanta Wiki that hasn't seen much activity for a while. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmann1988 originally posted this at User talk:Redux, failing to observe that he hadn't edited or performed any logged actions in two years. Everything after this sentence and before my first signature is copied from that talk page. Mmann is essentially an SPA who's constantly been fighting for these two articles, along with making frivolous AFDs. Besides Mmann and a meatpuppet, the only user involved in this issue is Student7, who has also tried without success to stop Mmann, who continues to revert claiming (as you see in the second paragraph above) that s/he is permitted to make a unilateral exception to consensus. Contrary to what these two editors have said, the sources on the latter article make it plain that this is a content fork, so I've protected in an attempt to enforce that policy. I've become quite sick of these two users, who have violated tons of policies and only continue to claim that they're entitled to ignore them whenever they feel like it. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Please change the final sentence of the original comment to "...feel like it and expect me to observe their exceptions religiously." I can't remember where I've seen it, but I know that it's often said that cries of "administrator abuse" are generally correct in that they're cases of abusing administrators; this is no different. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not an abuse of administrator privileges. The proper place to deal with content disputes is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. There should be some precedent elsewhere in other populated place articles in regard to naming an area that isn't part of an incorporated area. I don't know what that would mean for Georgia, though. In New York, for example, Administrative divisions of New York points out that every part of a county is divided into towns, and then there are villages that are usually subdivisions of a town but that can straddle towns. On the other hand, across the St. Croix River from where I live, Political subdivisions of Wisconsin says that there are counties, and that cities and villages are autonomous incorporated areas that can span one or more counties. Any part of a county that isn't incorporated is part of a township. Minnesota is similar, except that there's no such thing as a village any more, and some sparsely populated county areas in the north part of the state aren't even organized as townships. Now, if someone wrote Administrative divisions of Georgia (U.S. state), that might provide a clue, but there's no article on that. In any case, this sort of thing isn't an administrative manner unless someone is misusing administrator privileges. Instead of going to the admin noticeboard, try an RFC, or ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) how to name things. Or, if all else fails, sit down for lunch at the Big Chicken in Marietta and talk it out. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not neutral, having taken a position before in this matter. It seems like a content dispute. This is a metropolitan area that is tending to all run together. Chewing off part and saying it is "West Cobb" or "North Cobb" seemed arbitrary to me. Most people there regard such adjectives as "directional," having nothing to do with "places" per se.

Summing up for this page, it seems like a content disagreement. Student7 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It may have started as a content disagreement, but Nyttend's actions have taken it far beyond that. He has refused to compromise. It is one template out of thousands across the U.S., yet he refuses to let it go. Elkman, he is not even from Georgia, so how would he know anything of East Cobb or geographical divisions in that state? All of the page sources refer to East Cobb as a proper place (WITH BOTH WORDS CAPITALIZED), yet Nyttend refuses to acknowledge this. The same cannot be said for references to "North Cobb" or "West Cobb" or any other directional name in Metro Atlanta, so that argument, made by Student7, is moot. Nyttend has engaged in what is an abuse of administrator privileges; he purposely avoids editing 3 times to avoid an edit war, and he doesn't listen to what any other editors have to say. The same can be said for his actions in protecting Buford Highway International Community to prevent it from being a separate article.

Furthermore, it is OK for an administrator to refer to another editor as a "meat puppet"?

Lastly, I am not convinced that Student7 and Nyttend are in fact two different people; IP check, anyone?--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to look at my RFA and see the names and links in the "oppose" section as a response. Observers, note this as yet another example of Mmann simply turning my words on their head and saying that I'm doing what I accuse him/her of doing, without a shred of evidence. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think best practice would have been for Nyttend to request an uninvolved admin protect the page rather then doing it personally, that said, it was not an abuse of administrator privileges as the protection was justified. Mmann1988 needs to let the issue die and try to come up with a consensus to make the changes rather then make it personal. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Protection was justified" doesn't excuse an involved admin protecting the page to his preferred version after engaging in the dispute, whether he was right or wrong. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend is not a red link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 13 is a 50-mile-long highway, yet only 3-4 miles of it retains a status as an international community. Through this stretch, it has been designated by DeKalb County as an "international corridor community." Here is a source--see page 15 (notice the name of the source is "Atlanta neighborhood guide", and it includes the neighborhood known as "Buford Highway"): http://clatl.com/neighborhood_guide/CL_neighborhoodGuide1.pdf --Mmann1988 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not a meat puppet. Nyttend, should simply look at my list of hundreds of contributions to articles about Metro Atlanta. I have shown through multiple references that both Buford Highway Corridor and East Cobb are unincoporated communities. Nyttend refuses to provide any criterion for what defines an unincorporated community that these two places do not possess. I believe Nyttend is not credible (a) for not substantiating his point of view on content and (b) throwing around insults such as "meat puppet".Keizers (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit of a judgment call on Nyttend's part, I think. The difference between protecting against vandalism and unsourced edits on the one hand, and using your admin tools for your own benefit in a content dispute is slight and may be in the eye of the beholder. That being said, Nyttend is just asking for it if he edits through full protection while the article has that status. The article should not be edited again, especially by Nyttend, until full protection is removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Very old rangeblocks

It appears that we have about 800 rangeblocks currently. All of the rangeblocks from 2005 and 2006 are indefs that will never expire and most from 2007 are too. A quick count of the ranges shows that it's several million IP addresses in total, which is much more than I thought. Many of these are blocked as open proxies. Zzuuzz mentioned recently that many of the blocked proxies are most likely not proxies any longer. Our blocking policy also says that open proxies usually shouldn't be indeffed without careful thought. I'm wondering if some of the admins that set these blocks may have forgotten about them. Does anybody think it would be worth while to review some of the really old ones? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Let us know when you are finished. :) Prodego ^talk 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, but I agree. Indef blocking a range is usually a dumb thing to do, since even the most static IPs change after a few years. With single IPs that have been heavily abused it doesn't hurt us to keep them indef blocked until it prevents a good user from editing, but ranges, some of which with upwards of 1,000 IPs? No thanks. I am more than willing to help evaluate the IPs for proxies as well by doing port checks and testing them out (mwahahahah... er...) Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that what prompted this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As a toolserver Admin at ACC I support. The re-evaluation of potentially millions of IP's could save our processes a lot of time and help new users receive their accounts quicker. All request for new accounts submitted to account creations that have a range block, is usually required to be deferred to a CheckUser for clearance, checked for known vandals and sockpuppet IP's ranges, before the account can be created. This could take up to a couple days to clear. If stagnate range blocks could be removed, no doubt this would speed up these processes at ACC. Mlpearc powwow 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a full count and it's even more than I thought. This is a table with the ranges, the size of each range, the count of how many in that range and the totals.

Range	Size of range	Count	Total
/16	65,536	63	4,128,768
/17	32,768	34	1,114,112
/18	16,384	52	851,968
/19	8,192	81	663,552
/20	4,096	89	364,544
/21	2,048	42	86,016
/22	1,024	41	41,984
/23	512	35	17,920
/24	256	199	50,944
/25	128	23	2,944
/26	64	20	1,280
/27	32	34	1,088
/28	16	32	512
/29	8	44	352
/30	4	5	20
/31	2	3	6
Totals		797	7,326,010

I have to say I like the idea of running port scans on 7.3 million computers. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have I ever mentioned how port scans are not an accurate method of checking for open proxies? My comment mentioned above was specifically about the individual IPs in CAT:OP, many of which are not even blocked, many are no longer open, around a third are known to be in dynamic ranges. Probably the best way to initially deal with those is with a bot checking whether they are blocked, and whether they are in dynamic ranges. The range blocks are a different kettle of fish, and I agree that they should be reviewed. However as someone who uses the proxies occasionally to confirm them, I can confirm that many of the older range blocks are still valid. Seeing a block notice from Freakofnurture or Ryūlóng is not uncommon, in fact Ryūlóng's blocks are notably still common. I wouldn't do anything rash to unblock them. Range blocks are best dealt with the same way they are blocked - check who they belong to and whether a sample are used for hosting. If they belong to a hosting company they are often fair game for a continuing block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are also most often placed in response to abusive sockpuppetry, often by checkusers. In many of these cases there won't be any publicly viewable reason for why a range was blocked; the reason is instead checkuser data linking a bunch of accounts to a single range. When reviewing these, the blocking admin should always be consulted before taking any action, and failing that, at least one checkuser. (Edit dated 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC): Ok, I hadn't actually looked at the list yet, and so somewhat stand corrected. A lot more of these than I'd expected are directed towards proxies and Scientology ranges. My bad. Either way, my advice still holds; if you're looking at something and it looks perfectly fine to you, still have someone take a look to confirm that.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the CoS IPs and ranges already be tagged as such? –MuZemike 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the bulk of my rangeblocks in the above listed page are based on the fact that an IP being dealt with at the time was being utilized by a either a long-term abusive editor and the WHOIS on the IP revealed that the range belonged to a web host rather than an internet service provider. If the range is no longer owned by this web host, then it should be unblocked. But it clearly helps keep these unwanted editors at bay because this individual somehow bounced off of a Beijing rail station wifi signal.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just unblocked the AOL rangeblocks as they are no longer open proxy, since AOL has given us XFF headers since 2007. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I volunteer to go through and check the existing long term and indefinite blocks, to see if WHOIS tells us anything useful about them and whom they are registered to currently. It will be slow going right now since I am at work, but I can definitely check a lot of them when I return home. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Alison C. for stepping up, now all that is needed is a/some CheckUser(s) to team up with. Mlpearc powwow 14:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] I see that a lot of these are web hosting / dedicated server / VPS ranges; do we have an official policy on blocking these. Maybe this is high time to come up with an official policy; I know that I often ssh through my VPSes to circumvent censorware at public terminals and I assume that several users and maybe anons do the same. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 16:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we move this to it's own project page ? I f this is whats normally done. I'm kinda new to noticeboards Mlpearc powwow 00:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's only done when we want to quell useful input ;) Alison, the policy at WP:PROXY is fairly clear about these hosting ranges: "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked". They generally get blocked after they've been abused, but some providers also have a considerable reputation for hosting open proxies and spewing out crap. If you find any questionable open proxy range blocks you can list them at WP:OP for review. I wouldn't bother with the recent ones, and the ones I've blocked I'll be happy to review myself when I get back from wikibreak next month, if you like. These types of blocks are usually self-clearing, if admins patrolling CAT:UNBLOCK get them reviewed when they turn up. Almost all the requests I've seen have been from people using avoidable anonymising proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave the hosting range blocks since they're dealt with at RFU, a category which I'm not really familiar with. 204.232.90.150 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Signing after login ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Individual blocks

This section will be updated as I review more blocks, anyone else is welcome to post blocks here too ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• 4.247.128.128/25 Blocked as CoS IP, but rDNS suggests it's dialup addreses in tampa. Notified blocking admin ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• 12.146.202.16/28 Blocked as CoS IP, but WHOIS shows nothing more specific than the AT&T 12.0.0.0/8 block. rDNS fails with SERVFAIL. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  12.149.223.160/28

  12.153.64.80/28

• 64.60.234.160/29 blocked as CoS, but WHOIS shows "R S Vasan MD R-S-VASAN-MD (NET-64-60-234-160-1) 64.60.234.160 - 64.60.234.167" an oncologist in California. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't take the WHOIS information all that seriously; often they give only very narrow or limited information. For CoS rangeblocks, please have a checkuser verify each of them. Those that are webhosts or VPS ranges, please do not unblock without a checkuser to verify; these are almost invariably used by banned editors and other sockmasters. Don't undo checkuser blocks, please refer them back to the checkuser who applied them or to an active checkuser if the blocking CU has retired; consultation with the checkuser before unblocking is standard practice. Risker (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Okay,I wasnt going to mess with blocks without notifying the blocking admin first anyway.I forgot to do this with AOL range blocks; I'll go back and do this now, mea culpa. And no way was I going to mess with checkuser blocks. 204.232.90.150 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Signing after login ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 15:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The AOL ones are probably just fine, I don't think any of them were checkuser blocks, and they dated back to the days before AOL provided XFF headers. I forgot to say the most important thing: Thanks, Alison C., for pitching in on this task. Your work to limit the number that have to be reviewed by checkusers is really helpful. Risker (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Echoing Risker, thanks for reviewing the rangeblocks, Alison. I've been looking through some of them myself and have found that many are still hosting sites and the like. When I run across one that isn't, I'll bring it up. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Arghness. I'm busier than I thought I would be this weekend, so I might not get to review these until Sunday night or Monday. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OH come on, real life gets in the way yet again.... *rends garments* Okay, this weekend at latest >.> ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 00:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting through them slowly but doggedly in the little free time that I Have, this weekend has been absolutely crazy for me. Also see the below, section, we should codify a policy for blocking hosting ranges ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 03:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy on blocking hosting ranges

There appears to be no concrete policy on blocking hosting ranges, Standard practise appears to be block them long term with a note to that effect, I have no issues with this, it's just not written down anywhere. So I propose an addendum to WP:BLOCK or WP:IPBLOCK that says something like:

IP ranges belong to a hosting company can be blocked long term (up to 5 years) if abused. A note to this effect should be in the block reason so legitimate users can request a leniency of the block (allow logged in users to edit), or ipblock-exempt permissions on their account.

comments below:

• I support this adendum, seeing as I proposed it ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 03:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Search WP:LTA before unblocking an IP, example: Special:Search/203.56.233.122+prefix:Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse (finding an entry does not mean the IP cannot be unblocked of course, but it might give an indication of possible side effects). Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla closed

An arbitration request regarding User:Nabla has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following motion has been enacted:

(A) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms its, and the community's, expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.

(B) Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Arbitration Committee joins in disapproving of this behavior, but accepts Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.

(C) Nabla is aware from the ANI discussion and this request for arbitration that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective administrator has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an administrator, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies, and we recommend that he focus initially on less controversial administrator tasks. To an extent, these recommendations apply to any administrator who returns after a long period of inactivity.

(D) Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined. Passed 13-1 with 1 abstention on June 27, 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firefox_7

Resolved

Could someone close this AfD please? It's a day late. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone will get to it in due time; please be patient. --Rschen7754 07:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have closed it as merge all three to History of Firefox. Dcoetzee 08:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for evaluating the arguments. Not an easy close. Thankfully people have gone wiser with time and there's no article for, say, Fedora 15. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_79_(UK_series)

Could an admin possibly revdel the reference link that I removed from this article? It's a link to what amounts to an illegal download site, and we just can't have it laying around the history.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the old reference being used abusively? There's no harm in having it in the history; if we revdeled every single instance of a bad link we'd be busy admins indeed. What is unique about this bad link that makes it so that it cannot stay in the history? --Jayron32 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that point, and in addition this link was added to the article early in its history. To eliminate it we would have to revdel almost every edit. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags

Does Kumioko (talk · contribs) have (or need) approval to add WikiProject United States tags to hundreds of articles at a time? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add the related question "Is it really conducive to a project's value to the encyclopedia to cast such a wide net?" It looks as if Kumioko is marking each and every article that's in any way related to the United States as being under the project's purview, which would result in a huge number of articles being the responsibility of the project, many, many more than could reasonably be dealt with by a WikiProject. I would think it would be better for WikiProject United States to deal only with those articles which are specificly important to the entire country, and leave other articles to be dealt with by more tightly focused WikiProjects. The model here would be the relationship between WikiProject New York City and WikiProject New York (state). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Kumioko is an active member of the WPUS project. In the end, it should be up to the project what criteria they want to use for tagging their articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not questioning the right of the members of the project to decide what the project's scope is, I was questioning the wisdom of their decision (or their apparent decision, as indicated by Kumioko's actions). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there have been internal disagreements about the project's scope in the past; see especially, most of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States/Archive_6. As an FYI, Kumioko's AWB access was recently restored after being removed for cause; partially related to WikiProject tagging without adequate consensus. I have not reviewed this situation in detail so cannot comment on whether this is a regression to past problematic tagging. However, as the administrator who both removed and then restored his access, I will say in advance (as I will probably not have an opportunity to review this thread again) that I do not object if an administrator feels his AWB access should be removed again following this discussion. –xeno^talk 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested unprotection for Yaprak

Resolved

hi!

i hope one of the admins may allocate time for my request. i'm currently working on Turkish given names. i want to create Yaprak. but it is deletted in 2007 and protected. it was -i think- first created about a journal. i want to create it as a Turkish given name. i will be glad if one of admins unprotect it. thank you in advance. --Polysynaptic (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)