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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

(Initiated 14 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 132 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 130 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 129 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't mess up the bot, but I struck the two discussions that are already done, to make it clearer that only one discussion still needs to be closed (albeit the big one). TIA to anyone taking it on. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If by "the bot", you mean ClueBot III, which carries out the archiving, you will only "mess up the bot" if you use a level 2 heading, or edit below a line that says "above this line". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 101 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 81 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 66 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 66 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 57 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

(Initiated 54 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

(Initiated 49 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

(Initiated 46 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 37 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

(Initiated 36 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 33 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

(Initiated 33 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

(Initiated 33 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 30 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

(Initiated 26 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	13	73	86
TfD	0	1	1	4	6
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	43	40	83
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

(Initiated 62 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

(Initiated 61 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_9#All-Star_Batman_and_Robin

(Initiated 51 days ago on 22 July 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

(Initiated 32 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

(Initiated 24 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Counterfeit_consumer_good#Proposed split

(Initiated 495 days ago on 5 May 2023) The last comment was posted 8 months ago, and the nominator never specified which sections to split off. - Waterard, ^{not water. talk - contribs} 01:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:SPLITCLOSE. There is unanimous consent to split. I would ping the other editors who were involved in the discussion and see what they had in mind before performing the split. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

(Initiated 280 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 129 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 107 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 105 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 95 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 73 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 66 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

(Initiated 31 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

(Initiated 26 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

(Initiated 21 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 17 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for sanction removal

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

---

Normally editors do not need to make requests before making edits, and as a copy editor and content creator, the sanctions which I am under are having severe consequences limiting my ability to make contributions to Wikipedia. The origin of the sanctions were what I thought of as a perfectly reasonable request to spell thinks correctly, and remove any guideline limitations that indicated that Wikipedia should make up spellings instead of using what reliable sources use. Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed. I have fastidiously adhered to the sanctions for six months, resulting in the loss of many edits that no one would ever complain about not being made, due to those sanctions. I therefore humbly request that the sanctions all be removed so that I can go on with making contributions. Apteva (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me paraphrase, and then please tell me if I understood you rightly. "Please remove all bans and other sanctions that currently apply to me, because..."? Or do you mean something else? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Here are the sanctions: Restricted to one account and "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." Both are preventing necessary edits. I am working with a keyboard that is missing a key, when it comes to making edits. It is never appropriate to topic ban someone because you disagree with a proposal they make. We do not topic ban because of the position someone takes, only if they are unable to make positive contributions to the subject. Apteva (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, I think it would be useful to your appeal if you would comment more specifically about your impressions regarding the complaints about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva, and then User:Seraphimblade's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Admin attention to an RFC/U, please, User:Gatoclass's close at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134#Dicklyon, Spartaz's close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#Dicklyon, and why your block within the past two months was made more restrictive by User:Black Kite and then by User:Beeblebrox. What is different now? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What is different is I know enough to shut up and edit. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you still seem to be justifying and rationalizing your previous actions. Describing the situation that led to previous sanctions "a perfectly reasonable request" raises red flags that you actually intend to continue the same behavior. Blocks and bans are prophylactic, and this indicates that yours may still be necessary. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance. The behavior was pursuing the issue ad nauseum. While I am willing to defend the practice, I am not willing to annoy anyone myself. Which would any of us prefer, an encyclopedia which is correct, or one that is incorrect because various editors are bullied against pointing out errors? I am not interested in the drama. I can point out errors, but beyond that it is out of my control. The funny thing about Mexican American War is that over 90% of reliable sources use "Mexican War", rendering the entire discussion of punctuation moot. Apteva (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As you clearly demonstrate in this very thread, you have not learned to "shut up and edit." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) An appeal against a sanction generally links to the discussion where the sanction was imposed. It is also advisable to not say "I was correct" (a perfectly reasonable request to spell things correctly) in the appeal because unless the intention is to re-argue the whole case, an appeal should work on the premise that the community was not incompetent. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[double EC] Only commenting on the "restricted to one account" bit. Looks like the issue with your Delphi234 account was that you were judged to be using it improperly, apparently circumventing previous sanctions or something like that. There's nothing better than a declared alternative account for legitimate uses "security", "maintenance", and "testing and training"; if the Delphi userpage contained a prominent link to your Apteva userpage and vice versa, you obviously wouldn't be using it improperly, and if people thought you'd remove it and start socking again, you could demonstrate good faith by asking that the userpage be fully protected — you can't edit your own userpage when it's fully protected, so people would be able to see that you weren't planning to obscure the connection betweenthte accounts. I see no reason to prohibit that specific use, but I have no comment on further one-account restrictions or on the restrictions unrelated to sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue with my primary account has never been with improperly using alternate accounts, but was to monitor my observance of the topic ban, and was never necessary, as I would never normally make any of that sort of edit from that account anyway. I have never socked. Ever. Using an alternative account appropriately is not socking. Socking is completely different. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I wish to return to appropriately doing so. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per block log. --Rschen7754 04:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The last block was for complaining about incivility. Is that wrong? It was clearly an inappropriate block because it was solely punitive and not preventative at all. I had already agreed not to use ANI/AE to complain abut incivility. Apteva (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except, you seemed to be using frivolous civility complaints as a weapon against opponents of your views on the MOS. This BATTLEGROUND approach to the subject has generated a lot of disruption and your failure to realize the problem with that is why you were blocked. I do not adhere to the idea that an editor needs to admit wrongdoing to be freed of editing restrictions, but I do think requesting a lifting of all your sanctions just a few weeks after coming off a long block for your treatment of opponents in the underlying dispute is a bit premature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is important to allow all points of view and I have never targeted anyone who has a view either in agreement with me or opposed to me. I am not here to be treated with incivility, and it is only incivility that I have objected to, not someone's point of view. On that everyone is welcome to state their point of view, and consensus prevails. I am bringing the appeal now because I want no doubt about commenting at the RM discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, which I probably could anyway, but with the sanctions removed I would not have to wonder. And no, I am not the IP who did comment. Apteva (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I detest to see a legitimate editor under sanctions and was initially inclined to support, but changed the mind on discovering of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798 #Dicklyon about two-months old. Although there are some problems with the guy mentioned, one should never attack a fellow editor on a noticeboard with a wall of text consisting almost entirely of irrelevant linguistic stuff and external links instead of diffs and [[]]s. Sanctions shall remain until the editor in question learned more constructive ways of defending himself and his point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Already have. As mentioned, I am waiting for the civility enforcement RfC to make a recommendation and will adhere to whatever it says. I am planning on helping move the RfC forward but have not had the time to do so yet. It has not had any edits since February, as I recall. Apteva (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4] —Neotarf (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I confess that I have not made a particular study of this, but it's my impression that although Apteva has insisted that it is necessary for him to use an alternate identity to edit certain articles or subjects, he has never made it clear exactly why that is, simply asserting it as a fact, without acceptable explanation. I cannot see why this would be, especially if the secondary ID is linked to his main ID (as sockpuppetry policy requires). I'm afraid that my AGF has been streteched, thinned out, and broken by Apteva's behavior, and I can no longer believe much of what he says. For these reasons, I oppose removing the sanctions on his editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That is him or her, he or she, his or her, thank you. Alternate accounts are not required to be linked and can not be linked where privacy issues are concerned and they are not linked. You are blocking my primary account, which makes no sense. Block this account and there are many articles that I would not be able to edit. Neither block benefits Wikipedia. I have at all times maintained a high level of integrity and am a valuable contributor. I adhere to all guidelines and policies. If any one has a problem with my edits, I have a talk page and welcome criticism. Statements such as "I can no longer believe much of what [they say]" are patently ludicrous, and have zero credence. Point to one diff out of 10,000 edits that was not in good faith, and that was an example of not being believable. For example, I was not unblocked because an admin did not believe me when I said that I was not going to bring ANI actions for civility. Well I am unblocked now, and have I? No. Would I if I had been unblocked? No. This lack of faith is completely, 100% undeserved. One of our rules is to ignore all rules, and one of my options is to simply ignore the sanctions but I have not done that and that is a measure of my integrity. It should be patently obvious that I can not maintain privacy and explain why I am doing that and how, because I could only do so by giving up that very privacy that I am protecting. I edit solely under the condition of anonymity. Apteva (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm all for removing sanctions from users who've shown that they're no longer necessary. However, considering that in your very request to lift sanctions you've repeated the same problematic views that got you topic-banned in the first place, I'm not sure this would be a great idea. Furthermore, your comment that "Yes I was vociferous in my request, but I would ask anyone who sees an error in Wikipedia to be twice as vociferous if needed" actually contradicts the WP:ICANTHEARYOU portion of the disruptive editing guideline:

  In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

  Could you please answer the following questions: 1) Do you understand why your continued advocacy of your positions on dashes, etc., was considered disruptive? 2) If your sanctions are lifted, do you plan on returning to said advocacy? 3) Could you please give some examples of dash-modifying edits you'd like to make?

I'll say right here that I don't see myself supporting a lifting of the sanctions, but I could possibly support allowing you to make uncontroversial changes to dashes in articles... but that depends on your answer to the third question. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes, even though it was not. Airports and comets are not spelled with dashes, only hyphens. I can propose that, but decisions are made by consensus.
2. No, I am considering that there is a moratorium on dashes and hyphens until next year. I am hopeful that Wikipedia will start spelling things the way everyone else does, and that does not seem to be too much to ask.
3. Often people use hyphens, dashes, and minus signs incorrectly, and as a matter of discussing proposed name changes and as a matter of copy-editing it is helpful to correct errors when they are seen. It is horribly draconian to not be able to make simple corrections. During the moratorium I will not be proposing name changes, but should be expected to contribute input to any that have been proposed.

Sorry, I should've been more clear in my third question: Could you please show some sample edits that you'd make? Five to ten should suffice. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing a minus sign to a dash or hyphen, removing spaces around an mdash, adding or removing spaces around ndashes, changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges, such as 1819–1922. None are controversial. I do a lot of RCP so I see everything imaginable. We allow minus signs for negative numbers, but I would never change any to or from that, as that is not important, but when a minus sign is used for a dash or a hyphen that is significant and does need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Apteva has made it clear enough that they believe they are smarter than everyone else, constantly lecturing others even when it is abundantly clear consensus does favor their position. No valid reason is given for ifting these sanctions. The supposed privacy concern is nonsense since it is known what the pother account is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The valid reason is to allow valuable edits that might not otherwise be made for some time, if ever. I have been watching one error that I would have fixed and it still has not been fixed. There are many others. I have never used intelligence as a criteria for editing, and recognize that all of us do our best to contribute. It is often possible to learn private details about editors but that falls into the category of outing and is not permitted. We simply do not tell editors not to fix things. The bottom line is there are no positive benefits from the sanctions and serious consequences, almost all of them unintended. Removing them would clearly benefit the project. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no outing concern here, that is a lie. I don't recall the name of your other account off the top of my head but I recall it being specifically mentioned, by you I might add in previous discussions of these sanctions. Your apparent compulsive need to argue endlessly with everyone is plain for anyone to see and does you no credit. This is part of why you have been having such trouble and it's sad that your ego apparently makes you unable to see that you are your own worst enemy. If you could just get over yourself and shut up about the sanctions for a while (and maybe consider the possibility that you have been wrong once or twice in your time here) you probably could get them lifted. As long as you continue to act like this you will continue moving further, not closer, from unrestricted editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So, it took me about one minute to find this. There we go. Your other account is User:Delphi234, and it is blocked per the near unanimous conensus in this discussion] some six months ago. So, you can just cut the crap about there being a privacy issue at play here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apteva is both interested and involved in the project. I knew nothing about Apteva a couple months ago, and I thought an enforcement boomerang would be too much. The follow on trip to ANI suggests a continuing problem. Since then I've seen not only continued good but also continued trouble. Recently there were issues at Talk:Go (game)#Move? (see edit history). Apteva has clear and consistent views and vigorously defends them, but those views don't always align with the community. Despite Apteva's claims, I doubt Apteva understands the reasons why the restrictions were imposed: it is not the belief but rather the behavior. He has raised the understanding and unreasonable restriction arguments before, but they have not flown. (See Bwilkins decline at User_talk:Apteva/Archive_7#Next steps; Bwilkins doubts Apteva's prior claims to understanding.) I want things to go right for Apteva, but there needs more uneventful history. Glrx (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, that is he or she, please. So the result is I continue editing with one hand tied behind my back and can not contribute as much as Wikipedia needs? What is the point of that? Who benefits from that? No one. Who suffers? Everyone reading Wikipedia, and readers out number editors by 1000:1. The edit that I am watching is on a page that is viewed 3500 times a day, 100,000 times a month. As the months tick away, that is one, two, three, four, five, six hundred thousand times that viewers have been presented with erroneous information. Is that what everyone here really wants? For that to continue for another six months? Does anyone really understand how ludicrous this is? Apteva (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, unless you specify what gender you prefer to be addressed as, it's up to the other editor what form to use in a situation where gender isn't known. Your attempt to force other editors to bend to your preferences is typical of your attitude and your behavior throughout Wikipedia, and is indicative of the root cause of your sanctions. You clearly have no plan to change your behavior one whit which is why your sanctions should not be lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. as a fellow grammar nazi, on the basis of uncorrected spelling errors in Apteva's request.--R.S. Peale (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That spelling error was introduced deliberately as an example of a spelling error. Apteva (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Amend the sanctions as follows:

Apteva is topic banned for six months from proposing or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation in article titles. All other sanctions are vacated.

What this would do is give me my keyboard back and I would not bring up or discuss moving Mexican American War or other such titles for the balance of the sanctions. By making it a definite time, it is trivial in six months to extend it if needed, but it would not require bringing the same appeal here again if no problems occurred. It would limit the false information from being seen a million times, limiting it to only 635,000 times (add 3,500 for each day it takes to implement this sanction amendment). Since the sanctions have already been in effect for six months, it is effectively a one year sanction. Apteva (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question Solar power and wind power both fall under the realm of renewable energy. Delphi editted wind and Apteva editted solar, which seems to be the cause for the topic overlap that the single-account restriction was based on. Is it possible, if the sanction is lifted, to create an alternate account that edits strictly renewable energy topics and then use Apteva or Delphi to edit everything else on the 'pedia? Ishdarian 00:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the single account restriction was to see if I was violating the topic ban, and solely for that reason. It is not needed, and has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. Apteva (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unreasonable to believe that the banning of a single editor, no matter how productive he is, has "severe consequences to the encyclopedia", and that fact the you honestly don't seem to understand this is part of the reason why your sanctions haven't a chance in a million of being removed as a result of this thread. It is also the reason why I doubt you will follow my prescription below, as you seem to be incapable of seeing your place in the big scheme of things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Humility. Look into it. There have not been "severe consequences" anywhere but in your imagination. You have failed again and again to provide a logical reason why you need separate accounts for editing certain topics, and you did not keep the two accounts you had properly seperated. That is why you were limited to one account, and your inability to comprehend the problem and insistence that it was not needed and wrong are indicitave of the other issues you have had as an editor here. We're all wrong sometimes, it's the abikity to learn from ones mistakes that helps us grow, on WP and in real life. If instead you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for them, there can be no growth. But if you already believe you are infallible I guess that isn't a very compelling point. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All of us are equally important to the project. Without us it would not exist. I certainly recognize my faults and always encourage anyone to point out anything they see me do that is inappropriate, on my talk page so that I can be aware of what was done, and take corrective action. Sure I have a healthy ego, but there is no crime in that as long as I keep it to myself, and do not use it to belittle anyone. I obviously recognize that I could be wrong on absolutely everything. That is why we discuss things, so that we can learn what is right and what is wrong. Apteva (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, you make some hard to believe statements. You say above that the restriction to one account has severe consequences to the encyclopedia. What are the severe consequences? Why can you not make the edits you need to make to avert those consequences from your Apteva account? You also say that readers are suffering from you not being able to make an edit on an article that is viewed 100,000 times a month. What is the problem with this article that readers are suffering? GB fan 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal 3

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

---

Apteva's previous restrictions are to remain in force indefinitely. Apteva is further topic banned from proposing the removal of those sanctions for a period of six months from the day this discussion is closed, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that. Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block. If the ban is repeatedly violated each block will be sharply escalated from the previous one. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It is abundantly clear at this point that Apteva will continue to attempt to circumvent the strong consensus that placed and still supports their topic bans so long as we indulge them, so let's not indulge this foolishness any further. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose- I dislike this business of systematically depriving people of all their avenues of appeal, just for appealing. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If the appeals (this is not the first one by the way) had ever presented logical, compelling reasons to lift the sanctions I would agree with you. They have not, so this is all just a waste of time and energy. ArCom regularly places such restrictions as an alternative to just indef blocking users who make nuisance appeals like this one, just trying their luck over and over without showing any improvement or even an understanding of why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the first and only appeal to the community (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, which none of the commenters here seem to have noticed). All closes can be appealed to the closing editor and to ARB. This was (in January), so this is the first and only repeal request (and it has been closed as unsuccessful, so comments that it should or should not be continued are all moot). Apteva (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The Editor appears to not realise what the issue was which led to the original block. This measure will leave a sufficient amount of time such that the editor can get some perspective on the issue before filing another request. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support essentially per Beeblebrox's multiple comments, even if some are more strongly worded than I would have put it. Apteva demonstrates even in this appeal the type of problematic interaction style that is the root of previous sanctions and blocks. There seems to be a lack of self-awareness about how the style comes across to others. When Apteva disagrees with someone, it's not a difference of opinion in Apteva's mind; it's that Apetva is right and the other person is wrong, and that's that. True to form, he/she reverts an admin in order to unclose the discussion and notes that no opinions in the above discussion were "factually based". Apteva is...persistent. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That is soooo typical of the hard-headed foolishness I have come to expect from Apteva. I'm beginning to be more inclined to initiate a ban discussion, you can't work with someone who is incapable of admitting they ever have been or ever could be mistaken... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This editor's constant harping on his sanctions (instead of simply editing constructively and responsibly and allowing the removal of his sanction to come about naturally) is disruptive. As someone mentioned above, he's his own worst enemy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The focus needs to be on how we can work on improving Wikipedia, not on how we can keep someone from contributing. This proposal is moot because I am already restricted to appealing the sanctions once every six months (from 11:43 January 6 UTC, so the first appeal could have been done almost two weeks ago). However, as the sanctions are not needed, and are hurting Wikipedia, it would be better for everyone to set an expiration date instead of everyone having to go through the same exercise again in January. Apteva (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As an observation, we have probably millions of occasional editors (having done one edit), and right now about 3200 to 3500 every month who make over 100 edits, myself one of those. What can I do to become an editor just like every other, with no restrictions, just like everyone else? Apteva (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit constructively and humbly, stop being convinced that you're always right and everyone else is wrong and that you are somehow necessary for the survival of Wikipedia, stop arguing with everyone about everything, admit when you're wrong, work toward compromise instead of getting your own way and stop trying to get your sanctions lifted. (paradoxically, this is probably the best way to get your sanctions removed). In other words, go about your business, don't worry about the subjects you've been sanctioned for, contribute productively to the encycylopedia, and understand what WP:CONSENSUS really means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. But bear in mind that I have created over 100 articles, and helped bring multiple articles to GA status (and helped with FA ones). Sure some times things get done by someone else, but sometimes that is not the case. I have as I said been monitoring an error that I would fix in 2 seconds if I could, that now has been viewed 635,000 times without being corrected. Anyone else could correct it, but no one has. Anyone could click on the reference supplied and said hey that is not what the article says and fixed it, but no one has. Why is that? Apteva (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You say "Done", but your very answer is in direct contradiction to my advice. Don't you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a collaborative project the contributions of all of us are equally valuable. No contributor can be said to be more valuable than another, because without all of us the encyclopedia would not exist. I have been restricting myself to the areas that I can work on, for six months now with no deviation. I just want the restrictions to end, or at least have a definite time when the sanctions will go away. Apteva (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And that, right there, is the fundamental error in your thinking. Some contributors are inherently more valuable than others. Specifically, contributors who work collegially with others and seek to find consensus are infinitely more valuable to this project than even the most productive who act like they are right and everyone else is wrong, and refuse to abide by collaborative editing process. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Remind me to create an infobox saying this editor is one that is infinitely more valuable than others. Or one that says, this editor is the 700th most valuable editor, and is infinitely more valuable than the 5000th most valuable editor, who in turn is infinitely more valuable than the 50000th most valuable editor who made one edit that no one else noticed and helped the readability of one of our articles. No, in a collaborative project, we do not assign value to our participants, and treat everyone with equal respect, whether they are Jimbo or an IP editor makes no difference whatsoever. Yes some people contribute more than others, and some are more difficult to deal with than others, but that never affects the respect that they deserve. No one is paid here, and it is only by our good will that any of us make even one edit. By thinking that some of us are "infinitely more valuable than others" strongly discourages anyone from wanting to participate at all. Only by recognizing that all of us are equal, from the IP editor who makes one edit, to the 100,000 and million edit contributors, all of us completely and entirely equal, do we encourage participation and welcome editors. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support @Apteva: There is no requirement to stop believing that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, but you must stop talking about it. It is a disgrace that so much time and energy has been squandered in arguing over Apteva's two accounts and Apteva's views on article titles. Just stop. If making another appeal in six months, please outline how changing the restrictions would benefit the encyclopedia (for example, how would discussing dashes help). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As stated before, this proposal is moot because it does not add anything to the sanctions that are already in place. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have just as much of a right to that requirement as everyone else. But anyone thinking that an error that could have, and would have, been corrected in January, and has since been seen 635,000 times is acceptable because the only editor who knows about the error has too much integrity to create an alternative account, and fix it in 2 seconds really needs to re-examine why we are here. Six months from now, if it is still there, it will have been viewed over a million times. No where is it acceptable to allow known errors to be viewed that many times. Apteva (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I keep wondering if at some point you will notice that literally nobody has your back on any of these issues and nobody agrees with your reasoning. I mean, the above comment is just a load of nonsense in every single aspect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apteva, if the error you keep referring to relates to whether a mark of punctuation should be a hyphen or an en-dash or a minus sign or the like, you should permanently ignore it; whether or not it is an error, it is infinitely less important than you think it is. If the error is substantive, as you suggest above, and it is not related to a topic from which you are topic-banned, the only reasonable course is for you to fix the error before you post anything else on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This gaming of the system has gone on long enough. If this user needs to be forced to accept their restrictions due to their behaviour then so be it. If this user had merely waited out the appeal period and edited constructively then this would not even be happening, but they didn't and here we are! PantherLeapord (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support what? All of the sanctions that are proposed are already in effect. There is absolutely nothing the proposal would change. I have in fact waited out the appeal period and edited constructively. I will in fact wait out the next appeal period and edit constructively, and the next, if necessary. Apteva (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • In case you are not aware, the above reads like a promise to do whatever is necessary to resume the old arguments as soon as possible, no matter how long it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Apteva may not have thought this through: should his allowed appeal after 6 months be as non-substantive as the current one was, the community can easily extend the appeal period to 1 year or longer, and should that pattern continue to be repeated, it's likely that a total site ban would follow. The Wikipedia community does not have infinite patience, and there comes a time where even those with far more ability to WP:AGF than I have can no longer tell the difference between unintended disruption and deliberate trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand that Apteva's attitude is not the best, however, he wishes to do what he thinks is best for the project. Looking over his actions leading up to the topic ban and account restriction, I am fully in agreement that the topic ban on dashes et al should remain in place. The one account restriction puzzles me; maybe I'm just not seeing what everyone else saw/sees. I found one instance from 2008 in which Apteva/Delphi234 overlapped and caused an issue, which was compounded by the fact that, when questioned by other editors, Apteva did not confirm that the two accounts were the same person. However, this was 2008. I was unable to locate any issues with two accounts since then. In an email I received from Apteva, he states that he uses two accounts for privacy reasons, and that's okay as long as the accounts aren't used for malicious purposes. I think that Apteva should be allowed to operate his present two accounts with the understanding that any sanctions earned on one account also apply to the other and that the two accounts should be given a wide berth in their edits. Reblocks are cheap, so if he misbehaves with one account or the other, he can be blocked on both and end it at that. Maybe a little bit of rope could do the entire project good? Ishdarian 00:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Should this be accepted I can assure everyone it will not be abused in the slightest. I have no interest in this appeal being nothing but a clean, no blocks, no issues, "I recommend removal of sanctions" the next time this comes up, so I really implore everyone who has any issue with my editing, even the slightest, to bring it up immediately when it occurs with me on my talk page so that I can take corrective action. What attracted me to Wikipedia five or six years ago or whenever it was, was to take pity on anyone who was reading misinformation, and correcting it. I have not been able to find my first edit, but I think it was correcting a date or time in an article. I still fix things I see that are incorrect, but have branched out to more content creation, and article quality improvement (moving every article towards FA). Apteva (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Ishidarian: Apteva has claimed privacy issues for a long time, but has never adequately explained what he means - and he's been asked to many times. He's already had a considerable amount of AGF and "rope" extended to him, which is how we've ended up in the current situation. I'm afraid that, given his behavior in this very discussion, his assurances are not at all believable to me.

      Then, of course, there's the matter of his WP:CANVASSing for your comment here via e-mail. This is not new behavior on his part, as can be seen here and here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

      • Thank you. I just want to make the clarification that he did not request I make a comment; I asked a question in the Prop 2 above and he responded to my question a bit more in-depth via email. I was satisfied with the answer and that's what brought me here to comment. Ishdarian 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• In case there is some doubt that this proposal is necessary, here is a review of the appeals so far (and I might have missed some):
  • Appeal to Arbcom 12 January 2013, result: unanimously declined
  • Appeal 29 January 2013, result: declined by JamesBWatson
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined
  • Appeal at AE 15 May 2013, result: declined
  • Appeal 23 May 2013, result: declined by SirFozzie
  • Appeal 24 May 2013, result: declined by Bwilkins
  • Offwiki appeal to Beeblebrox, result: declined with email block added to the existing block
  • Appeal 16 July 2013, result: declined twice (closed by Kingofhearts but reverted by Apteva, then closed again by Future Perfect at Sunrise)
  • Appeal 17 July 2013, result: Apteva reverted the close him/herself
  • Appeal 18 July 2013, result: declined. At some point this needs to stop. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per Reyk, and specifically the single-account restriction. The tendentious punctuating and refusal to drop a wooden device have led Apteva into a corner they cannot easily extricate themselves. Full wiki-break might help. Narrowing the appeal options will only make him more frantic. Unless there is evidence of him using socks abusively, I don't see why this restriction is necessary. Frankly, I don't see how anything short of a full ban/block (for a definite period) with Apteva voluntarily agreeing not to appeal during that time is going to make a difference, here. And Apteva will undoubtedly perceive these (or any) sanctions as punitive, rather than preventative. (Which only exacerbates the problem) --R.S. Peale (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though I wish I didn't have to. I think Apteva means well, but that only goes so far. Apteva, I've encouraged you before to think hard about why it is that a series of increasingly escalating sanctions have been applied to you. And no, it's not that everyone else is a fool, nor that we're all out to get you. It is squarely because of the way in which you have behaved. We've all lost some of the arguments we've gotten into here, and there comes a time at which to accept that consensus has not gone your way and move on. The fact that you haven't done that, and continue to argue this issue rather than moving on to others, gives me no confidence in lifting the topic ban. Drop the issue for a year or two, completely, edit productively in other areas and interact positively with other editors, and then we might consider modifying or lifting the ban. If you keep this up, you are perilously close to exhausting the community's patience entirely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Once again, supporting what? All of the sanctions are already indef. The appeal has already been closed as unsuccessful. Someone may have thought that the sanctions have an expiration date, but they do not. I was first able to appeal the sanctions on July 6 at 11:43 UTC. I waited about another 10 days and only appealed because of an RM that did not really conflict with the topic ban but I wanted the topic ban to go away so that there would be no question. All this support nonsense and proposal three is nothing but gravedancing. Apteva (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The current proposal calls for your topic ban to be appealable 6 months from when this discussion is closed. In addition, any violation of the topic ban will be met by escalating blocks. That's what this proposal changes, and it's not "gravedancing", because your own behavior brought about the proposal. If you want to have any chance of this proposal not being enacted, you must shut up and stop commenting here. Every comment you make is just another nail in your coffin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • What they said PantherLeapord (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Since when are blocks not sharply escalated? Since when is six months different from six months? All of the above is pompous rhetoric that changes nothing. What is this, Lord of the Flies? Just out of curiosity, in the last couple of days I made a list of articles that someone else can correct, because I can not. Gabriel Orozco, Prefaxis Menen, Cohors IV Delmatarum, Edward Snowden, Sérgio Leite, Rate of climb (last year it was estimated that 40% of articles misuse punctuation, but that is probably a lot closer to 4%, but out of 4 million that is still a big number of articles to correct). Multiply 3/day times six months and I will likely run across another 500 articles that I can not correct. Who benefits from that? No one. Just for giggles I will check back to see if anyone reading this thread or anyone else for that matter corrects those articles. Or are we solely here to see who we can sanction, and not to build an encyclopedia? Apteva (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a misuse of punctuation only if we bow to your preferred MOS the choice between dashes, en-dashes and hyphens are not spelling or punctuation errors they are style choices. Wikipedia is an electronic document that evolves to fit the preferences of the editors who write it. If as a community we choose to use a different style of punctuation because it best fits writing from keyboards and the community’s artistic choices, even if it becomes a one of a kind style unique to Wikipedia. It has been repeatedly shown that the community does not want to use your outdated formal style that you learned as a kid, you will have to learn to live with that before you restrictions can be lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So change the MOS to say that, and everyone will be happy. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So, you are saying that if you made these edits, you would be violating your topic ban. Is that right? Well, let me explain something to you: Your topic ban prevents you from making such edits because you were far too willing to make a big deal out of inconsequential edits that 'do not actually improve the articles at all. That is rather the point of this whole thing. Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles. So no, probably these non-problems that so horrify you will not be corrected becausre they are not actually important to 99.99% of our editors or readers. Your inability to accept or even comprehend this simple point is exactly why you are so restricted. We are all sick to death of your constant pathetic whining about it and so these additional restrictions, which you wrongly imagine do not change anything, are being proposed. Alternately, you could just pledge to shut the hell up about it until January 20, 2014 at a minimum, with the same conditions, i.e. blocks, should you violate your pledge. I don't honestly expect you to do that, I expect more nonsense, but I'd love it if you surprised us all by just accepting the consensus on these issues and moving on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

B, you go too far in saying "Nobody, outside of a very few MOS obsessive-compulsive types, gives a damn about the distinction between a dash, a hyphen, an mdash, or whatever other obscure punctuation nitpicking it is you wish to engage in on these articles." Actually, quite a few wikipedians routinely work to make articles more consistent with the recommendations of the MOS, as it makes the encyclopedia more precise, readable, and professional looking. It's OK that you don't care. As for Apteva, the problem is not that he cares about or works on style, but that he has a history of tendentiously working against the recommendations of the MOS, and is generally unwilling to listen to others, understand, compromise, or tolerate opinions different from his own. It's not an MOS problem, but an Apteva problem. Anyone can fix hyphens in number ranges, or title case in headings; we won't miss his help; and if they don't get fixed any time soon, it's because it's not that big a deal. Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that not 99.99% but certainly close to 98% could not care a hoot about correcting those six articles, or can even tell that there are errors in them, and quite frankly, I would write the MOS to say that if punctuation is used consistently in an article, it is not wrong no matter how it is used, provided it mirrors a reliable source, and should not be corrected just to correct it (and yes I wrote an essay that said exactly that, until it was f'd up by "correcting it"), but that is not what the MOS says, it says those six articles have errors and should be corrected. Why I am sanctioned is not because I want to or do not want to correct those six articles, but because I want Wikipedia to spell things the same way others do, and not using cockemamy ideas about how punctuation should be used in titles when no one other than 2% of the world uses those cockemamy rules. Get with it Wikipedia. Spell things the way the rest of the world does or forever make us look like pompous idiots. Follow policies when choosing titles, not guidelines. It is not rocket science, but plain old common sense. Go visit the Reno-Tahoe Open and guess what punctuation they use? Not the punctuation our article uses. Read about it in any reliable source and what punctuation do they use? Not the punctuation we use. Why is that? Are we just that stupid, that we do not know how to use punctuation properly? And I am being sanctioned for that???? What has the world come to? I have absolutely no problem with saying absolutely nothing about the subject between now and January, as is already required by the sanctions currently imposed. It is not that sanction that is hurting Wikipedia as much as the sanction on one account. Probably 98% of the world is not going to know or care that we are misspelling Reno-Tahoe Open, which is why a moratorium was proposed for 2013 on discussing or making such changes, which is perfectly acceptable to me, but everyone does care if factual errors occur in important articles, like saying the moon is made of blue cheese (okay that one someone else would probably notice and fix, and that one even I could fix). Apteva (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware the our MOS calls anything an "error", or says things "need to be fixed". It provides guidance for moving articles toward a consistent preferred style, not judgements about the styles that others choose. And aren't you violating your sanctions again by using this venue to argue for treating the dash/hyphen distinction as a spelling error? Or did that one expire before you took up this nutty campaign again? Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The MOS is not an essay, which can be ignored at will, but is a guideline, something that all editors should attempt to follow. As a guideline, it will always have exceptions, and those do not need to be nor can they be listed. Some of it though, gives very bad advice, and apparently got that way simply by topic banning half a dozen editors who disagreed with the rubbish that others wanted to include. Apteva (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the MOS would be perfect if only we let you, the most important person on this entire project, wrongly accused and topic banned, to remount your white steed and charge once more back into battle to slay the evil hyphen-breathing dragon... You really are a lost cause. See you at the inevitable future discussion of banning you entirely... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, it it essential in a collaborative project to treat all contributors with equal respect, and not view one as more important than another, without exception. I certainly do not think that I am any more important than anyone else here. I see problems, I fix them. When others disagree, I discuss that proposed change, and a decision is made by reaching a consensus on the topic. It makes absolutely no difference who made the proposal that was finally accepted. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk. Anyone can see that from your behavior in these this very discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support It's obvious about Apteva's comments here and snippy comments across the project related to this well-deserved original restriction that Apteva just needs to stop whinging, and get to work. If they really believe they are a net-positive, then start to prove it. A good six months of such proof will go a long way to rebuilding the community trust. Both the topic ban AND this restriction that will allow them to get to work without worrying about appeals will therefore be good for them AND the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support re Bwilkins. This is an opportunity for the community to not have to deal with an editor who just plain doesn't get it, but could potentially be a net-positive to the project if they can just get over themselves. It's also an opportunity for Apteva to stop worrying about these meta-matters and figure out how to simply be a productive editor. (S)he has six months without having to worry about convincing anyone or researching policy vaguery. Just keep their nose clean and show that they can avoid being a pain that others are forced to deal with, and maybe their actions can speak more elloquently than their words. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - this editor continues to protest valid sanctions without every actually stating why the sanctions should be removed, and continues to waste everybody's time. GiantSnowman 13:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The sanctions have the unintended consequence of my not being able to make thousands of corrections and additions that I notice. Sure someone else will notice them, but will they click edit and make them? We just rolled out the VE as a method of desperately trying to recruit more editors. We have been, since 2007, regularly losing 6.2% of our editors every year, at the same time that the number of Internet users has been growing. We are currently stable at about 3,200 active editors, total. One of them posted half a dozen articles above that our MOS says should be corrected. In the intervening three days no one has bothered to fix those articles, and I have a new list of 16 more that I have come across and could not but would have fixed, had the sanctions not been in place. Is that not reason enough? Is is acceptable for an article to say that someone is 173 cm tall when they are actually 156 cm? Who benefits from us publishing errors like that, which I know about, and can not fix because of the sanctions. The reason to remove the sanctions, and that is not even on the table now, is because they are hurting Wikipedia. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Apteva: - this is the last I will say on the matter, but the fact you feel the need to respond to every, single, bloody post is a perfect example of why your editing/attitude is not ideal. Not fully disruptive (yet) but certainly heading there. GiantSnowman 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6-month wait between appeals. The appeals should be one-and-done — only appeal in only one forum, no while-we-are-on-this-other-subject-let-me-bring-up-my-unjust-sanctions-in-the-hope-you-will-remove-them, no reverting an appeal close, and no appealing the result of the appeal. It might be appropriate to specify where the appeal should be made. Hesitant re sharply escalated blocks; I'd let the blocking admin choose (the next block could easily be 2 or 3 months); the previous one-month block was more for stick-wielding rather than the MOS ban. Sadly, things are headed south. I suggest that Apteva try to make all relevant points in a single post to a discussion thread and never make more than 3 posts to a thread. Such an approach would not unduly restrict content but would diminish the appearance overzealous prosecution. Glrx (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is SOP to revert a snow close that the proposer wants to go a full seven days. It is ludicrous to close the two sections of the appeal and leave this one open. Apteva (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Come on, people. What is this, steamroll unpopular editors? --BDD (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No it's stop the constant whining and making a specatacle of oneself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The imperviousness to what other editors are telling him is an interesting phenomena. This reminds me of the drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support It is always of concern when someone seems to feel they are so valuable to the project that they are practically indispensable and that exceptions should be made for their behaviour. There are too many of these situations flaring up, and they should all be dealt with swiftly so we can get back to editing. Taroaldo ✉ 09:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - one of the worst WP:IDHT offenders here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support The lack of insight into their behaviour is remarkable and doesn't show any evidence of, or prospect for, improving. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, yes. I'm really starting to question whether Apteva is even suited for this type of website. Wikipedia requires a high degree of competence — that is to say, you need to be willing to accept discipline in the original sense of the term. Apteva just doesn't get it, and we've all been trying to hammer the point home, but it's flown past his head. I don't know what else we can do at this point. I'm sorry, but we can't allow dramatic discussions over small, horizontal lines anymore. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And having them wrong is better than refusing to discuss them? This is an encyclopedia, and is supposed to at least try to get things right. Apteva (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Apteva; I am seriously considering putting in a proposal to extend your topic ban to all administrative noticeboards following a site block for at least one week after reading the above. It is clear that you do not understand why you were put under the initial topic ban in the first place and you are refusing to even attempt to comprehend how your behaviour has been disruptive as of late. As was said above unless you want to end up in even more hot water then SHUT UP as you are only digging yourself deeper into the hole with you current attitude here! PantherLeapord (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for close

Bump. I think this deserves a formal close. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Just looking at the headcount, without even considering the strength of arguments, we've got 16 supports for the proposal and 3 opposes(one of them "weak"), which puts support for the proposal at 84%. I think that establishes a consensus, but one way or the other the proposal should be closed. Can we please have a bold admin here to do so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already been posted at ANRFC for closure; I just didn't want it to get auto-archived after 48 hours of inactivity before that happened. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to comment here at least once a day to prevent the archival before closure. PantherLeapord (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving has been delayed for 30 days. Delete the delaying first line when the thread is closed, or if anyone gets bored with seeing it open. Apteva (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"Any violation of this topic ban in any area of Wikipedia will lead to a block." This is asking for problems because to make them work, topic bans need to be broadly construed. This means that Apteva discussing with another editor on his/her talk page about appealing may lead to a block. It's better to specify the venues where Apteva can appeal every six months and say that any appeal at those venues that comes too soon will be immediately removed with zero tolerance on any repeat violations of this restriction. Sanctions that go too far can lead to ridiculous effects (take e.g. William's restriction on not being allowed to edit postings of others, when this was also applied to his own talk page we saw a very silly dispute there). Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The point of this topic ban is to get them working on the encyclopedia rather than wikilawyering over and over again as they have done before. If it is not this broad then they WILL keep wasting our time on appeals that have no chance of removing sanctions. PantherLeapord (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but can't we just say that we'll ignore anything Apteva has to say on this matter unless done formally within the rules set out for this? Otherwise we become like frustrated parents of a crybaby. The solution is to ignore the crying, not to react to it (so, we would end up watching every move Apteva makes and having huge discussions about wheter or not what he/she said falls within the topic ban or not, and how long he/she should be blocked etc. etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not Apteva's parents. If Apteva decides to edit constructively, no problem, and the ban can eventually be lifted. If (s)he does not, or continues to try to stay in the debate after being told clearly to stay away, the topic ban provides a means to deal with that. I hope it is the former that will happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Antiprism files

Hi everyone, I hope this is the right place for such a request. I'm currently going through local uploads on eo:, trying to find copyvios, Commons duplicates, etc., and came across some that are claimed to be copied from this Wikipedia, but I've found that these particular versions have never been copied to Commons. Could an admin please provide original license, author and source info for these files in the versions that are on eo:? It's not 100% clear to me why they are claimed to be PD.

• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7-2.png / File:Antiprism 7-2.png
• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7-3.png / File:Antiprism 7-3.png
• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7-4.png / File:Antiprism 7-4.png
• eo:Dosiero:Antiprism 7.png / File:Antiprism 7.png
• eo:Dosiero:Bitruncated cubic honeycomb2.png / File:Bitruncated cubic honeycomb2.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkweasel94 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• eo:Dosiero:Hexagonal truncated trapezohedron.png. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! darkweasel94 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding the following: eo:Dosiero:Circumcircle.angles.png / File:Circumcircle.angles.png. darkweasel94 (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you speaking about? Files at eo: are duplicates of files that reside in Wikimedia Commons for a long time. And this is {{PD-shape}}. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not exact duplicates; I'd like some kind of confirmation what license those previous versions were released under, and who created them, because that's not well documented at eo:. It seems they were once here on en:, but some of them aren't PD now on Commons. BTW, here's another set I just found: eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 6.png, eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 7.png, eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 8.png, eo:Dosiero:Cross graph 9.png (see interwiki links for versions that were here). Admin help with looking at those deleted description pages would be greatly appreciated. darkweasel94 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• File:Antiprism 7-2.png: {{Great Stella}}
• File:Antiprism 7-3.png: {{Great Stella}}
• File:Antiprism 7-4.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Antiprism 7.png: {{Great Stella}}
• File:Bitruncated cubic honeycomb2.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Hexagonal truncated trapezohedron.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Circumcircle.angles.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Michael Hardy (deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 8#File:Circumcircle.angles.png
• File:Cross graph 6.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Cross graph 7.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Cross graph 8.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen
• File:Cross graph 9.png: {{PD-self}} by User:Tomruen -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

CSD:G13 Announcement

There is a request pending for an Automated CSD:G13 nominating bot. Once the bot has been approved it will crawl through old AfC submissions and nominate those that not been edited more than 182.5 days (1/2 year or 6 months) ago. The bot will nominate no more than 100 submissions at a time and try not to have more than 150 articles up for G13 nomination at a time (by counting how many nominations are at the start of it's run, taking that away from 150, and providing a escape). This serves as notice to the admin community that the G13 rationale is going to be exercised for a large set of pages that are ripe for nomination. Hasteur (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to say that it might happen, as I see there is enough questioning that we should not treat it as a foregone conclusion. I continue to be amazed that after years of ignoring this problem we're suddenly in such a hurry. There are much worse backlogs, ones that take actual serious work to deal with, such as copyright problems. I tend to feel a little guilty everytime I do something that would keep me from working on them. . DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. It seems unwise to invest a lot of time in this project when we are chronically short of administrators. This is a low priority task compared to some of the other backlogs. The total number of declined AFC submissions is 78,836. -- Diannaa (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• @DGG and Diannaa: There is a shortage of administrators? Perhaps it is time for the current administration to get together and pick a few more editors that they think would make good use of the administrative tools. I think too much emphasis has been placed on "perfect candidates" that have never had any noticeable conflict on WP. It seems that the current nomination/RfA process is nothing little more than a high school popularity contest. If more than 30% people who pay attention to RfA don't like you, it makes little difference how well responsibly you will use the tools. As far as whether or not this bot is a good idea goes, I see it like this... The bot will be creating a dynamic backlog of up to 150 CSD nominations for G13 at a time out of a pool of near 80,000... Depending on how often this bot runs and checks, this quite frankly seems like too low of a setting to me. If the bot runs once an hour, and there are active administrators keeping up with it, it would take 800 hours (33.334 days) to clear the entire log, however, we don't have enough active administrators working on cleaning this up, and I have my doubts that this bot will run more than four times a day. At that rate, it will take approximately 54.76 years to clean out the current 80,000 article backlog. What I think needs to happen, is the bot needs to be an adminbot that deletes "blank" submissions, submissions that can be validated as any other CSD criterion (like G12 that the reviewer might have missed by scanning for URLs on the page and comparing the page to those URLs and marking/deleting if it is more than 75% likely to be a copy-vio), and finally it should be allowed to tag 100 per run, creating a queue of no more than 500. I will mention this on the bot request page as well. Technical 13 (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I might have trouble wording this so bear with me. The problem is, if we have a maximum queue of 150 G13 nominations, this is included in our regular speedy deletions, which has a cutoff of 200 100 before it is considered to be in a state of backlog. This means that the speedy deletion queue will be in a constant state of backlog, because there's nearly always 60 or more speedy deletions waiting to be examined. This puts your admins on a treadmill of make-work, as they will (knowing typical Wikipedian behaviour) feel compelled to work on that backlog until it is cleared. And as soon as an admin clears the backlog, the bot will add up to 150 more of these ultra low priority deletions to the queue. This is not a good use of scarce admin time. Getting a bot to delete submissions that are totally blank is a good idea. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the community agreed prior to the full creation of the G13 rationale that a bot should be created to nominate the stale submissions. The AfC space is being scraped by illegitimate wiki mirrors making us the source of a great mass of poorly formatted content on the internet. I endorse Technical 13's statement that while it's possible that other CSD criterion might fit, I'm trying to pick this one specific low hanging fruit from the tree. If there was a desire for another task/bot to crawl through the AfC submissions to look for G12 infractions and nominate them, that's doable, but outside of the scope of G13's mandate. Other CSD:G rationalles may exist, but are difficult for a bot to evaluate based on discretion and human intelect. G13 nominations have to look at only one piece of evidence to determine if G13 is valid Was the last edit before the nomination more than 6 months ago?. For the bot I'm coding, I use an approximation of 6 months to be days so that there's only a difference in the number (by a 8th of a day) every 4 years. Hasteur (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. I did not take part in the discussions regarding the creation of the G13 rationale so I was not aware the content was (or could be) scraped. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I personally am trying to go through the list of G13 eligibles (I've even created a maintenance category and put in the appropriate edit requests to have the Template:AFC submission/declined automatically add everything declined and untouched for six months to the category) and either tag for G13 or if I think there is "any" possible chance of revival of the draft I've been using the AFCH's "Clean submission" function to make an edit to the draft and reset the six month timer in essence. I'm hoping that this will make the queue of G13 submissions not unbearable (they should be pretty clear cut deletions), however, unlike the bot, I have little interest in keeping track of how many nominations there are and will likely have the queue over 250-500 at any one time depending on how many admins are actually pushing the mop behind me to clean them up. I hope this little note is useful, as it will be why the bot "probably" won't be running much until the backlog is gone. :) Happy editing (and happy days for a few months for you deletionist types ;)) Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• If we could get a no-index tag added to these pages I think that would keep them from being scraped? Or would that just keep them from showing up in Google searches? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Or instead of a no-index tag, couldn't we have a bot blank such pages (all of them, not just 150 pages at a time), to prevent the scrapping of content by "illegitimate wiki mirrors"? With a link to the history and instructions for newbies who want to restore it and work on it some more? If we do that, I'm not sure why they need to be deleted at all, but at least there'd be no rush, and CSD wouldn't be overwhelmed with - in the grand scheme of things - less important CDS's. Although I get the impression I'm too late to suggest something like this... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Diannaa and Floquenbeam:The problem is the Illegitimate mirrors are ignoring the no-index tag and crawling every last piece of data they can get out of the front end. Taking a look, I would wager that there's also support for grabbing the previous version (or would shortly have the support developed). If we were to blank the articles, then they would fall under G7. Google obeys the no-index tag. I call these illegitimate mirrors due to the fact that they choose to deliberately ignore the no-index tag. Example: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Damen Laroy Johnson vs. [5]). G13's already been on the books, support for it is in twinkle, users are using the rationale, and editors who loose their "submission" are able to get it back under specific criteria (which has already been used multiple times). The horse has already left the barn several months ago and all that's left is to open the barn doors fully so we can get the tractor in to remove the rest of the manure. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I'd actually wager they wouldn't grab the previous version, so perhaps there's money to be made by one of us. But if it's too late to talk about other options, I'll leave talk of bot throttling speeds and permanent backlogs to you folks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
        • (Non-administrator comment) The rejected AfC drafts are, I think, included in the "All pages with complete edit history" dumps. A dump of just the contents of Articles for Creation would be less cumbersome. Is anyone willing to make one before the shift to full Geocities mode? I tried Special:Export but it appears to have a limit of 5,000 pages. —rybec 23:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• G13 Userbox for editors and admins alike! below should help keep track of how close the bot is to the 150 threshold. If the number on the right side if the box is red, the bot shouldn't be running... Technical 13 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

The motion on Syrian civil war articles (see [6]) concludes that a number of Syrian conflict-related articles, which had been 1RR sanctioned under ARBPIA from March until July 2013 (including 3 blockings and 1 warning), in general do not fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes. However, since there is a general agreement that 1RR sanctions are required on relevant Syrian civil war articles due to edit-warring and sock-puppeting, those articles shall continue to fall under ARBPIA restriction for 30 days and in the meanwhile a discussion would be opened at WP:AN (this discussion) in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form; also any notifications and sanctions are meanwhile to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. I herewith propose the community to apply on alternative sanction tool (perhaps "Syrian civil war 1RR tool") on relevant Syrian civil war articles, in order to properly resolve the existing edit-warring problem, prevent confusion of editors and administrators regarding if and when the sanctions are relevant, and in a way to reduce automatic association of Syrian conflict with the generally unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Case summary

This request comes as a result of motion (see [7]), passed regarding Syrian civil war articles on 21 July, following an Arbcom request for amendment and clarification (see [8]). The issue was also previously discussed at Talk:Syrian civil war and recommended for Arbcom solution by an involved administrator (see [here]).

As an initiator of the original request for amendment and clarification, i would like to bring to community's attention the dilemma of problematic application of ARBPIA restriction on Syrian civil war articles, though acknowledging that 1RR restriction for some (or possibly all) Syrian civil war related articles is most probably required. As concluded by the Arbcom motion on July 21, there is no general relation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the expanded conflict between Israel and Arab League (ARBPIA sanctions) to the ongoing Syrian conflict, except perhaps some separate incidents. In addition:

• the several limited incidents (without fatalities) on Israeli-Syrian border during Quneitra Governorate fighting between rebels and government are a WP:UNDUE reason to extend 1RR over entire Syrian civil war topic area; moreover Syrian Ba'athist government is no longer a part of the Arab League, while its seat is supposed to be given to Syrian opposition, which is so far neutral to Israel.
• the use 1RR tool at Syrian civil war articles prior to the above described motion had not even distantly related in any way to the Israel-Palestine topic (see sanctioned cases [9], [10]). Some editors also pointed out that application of ARBPIA tool, while referring only to certain aspects of Syrian conflict, creates a great deal of confusion for both editors and administrators when and where 1RR application is relevant.
• the incidents of air or missile attacks, allegedly performed by Israel against Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian Ba'athist targets in Syria, may fall under the Iran-Israel proxy conflict and most probably not the generally preceding and different conflict between Israel and the Arab League.

It is hence required that ARBPIA sanctions would be replaced by other relevant sanctions tool on Syrian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put further comments and opinions here.

• Proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Syrian civil war is far from an Arab-Israeli conflict. Not even close. Currently, only the Syria article, the Syrian civil war article and its military infobox template are under ARBPIA restrictions. Most of the edit-warring in the Syria conflict topic has been fought over the military infobox and also the what the legitimate flag of Syria should be. Other articles related to the Syrian civil war are not under any sanctions, and it should stay that way. These other articles do not frequently experience edit wars. I support replacing ARBPIA with something more relevant, but oppose placing any more articles than the 3 I mentioned under 1RR restrictions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Given the on-wiki conflict over the real-life conflict, I see no reason to get rid of the sanctions. Yes, it shouldn't be under ARBPIA restrictions, but maintaining the 1RR etc probation is helpful. Let's change nothing except for the reason behind the restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Nyttend: this is an area of considerable controversy among Wikipedia editors, and the 1RR restrictions are necessary in this subject area in their own right. As such, they should be maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an editor that works in military history space in an (at the very least) equally contentious area (the Balkans in WWII), I thoroughly agree with Nyttend on this. Where 1RR has been applied under ARBMAC (for example), it has tended to reduce the amount of edit-warring and other nonsense. It encourages real contributors onto the talk page where these matters should be discussed, and deters trolls and other ne'er-do-well's. My point is that ARBMAC was originally only for Macedonia, but has now been applied to all Balkans-related articles, broadly defined. That, in my opinion, is a good thing, as it focuses editors on contributing, instead of edit-warring over minutiae. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not only do I completely agree with Nyttend, but I actually think the Syrian civil war should be placed under discretionary sanctions on its own merits. Do you know what will happen if there's nothing in place to prevent POV-pushing? There will be two distinctive groups trying to reshape the main article and all other related pages based on their perception of the confict:

1. Pro-Assad editors of every sort, whether they be patriotic Shiite Muslims or far-left conspiracy theorists. They will try to paint the dictator in an unduly positive light by mitigating the negative coverage of his regime, all the while emphasizing any and all incidents attributed to either the Free Syrian Army or the al-Nusra Front to make it seem as if the entire rebellion is an Islamist insurgency backed by Western governments.
2. Anti-Assad editors who reject the very notion that significant atrocities have also been committed by the rebels (particularly the al-Nusra Front), and will work to sweep any mention of terrorism against the regime under the rug.

There is general consensus among independent observers that both sides have committed war crimes, but that the Assad regime's offences far eclipse those of the rebels. Nevertheless, we must avoid giving undue weight to either side. It needs to be made clear that Assad loyalists are behind most of the abuses, but their opponents have also staged attacks against security and civilian targets. The last time I visited the article, this was already achieved. Allowing either of the aforementioned groups free reign over pages related to the civil war will jeopardize our efforts to cover the topic in an impartial manner. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

RfA: badgering

I'm not reporting or making a specific complaint. However, for my own education, I would like some feedback from admins as to whether this kind of mass polling is appropriate or whether it comes under WP:CANVASS. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My initial impression is that although it's an attempt to sway the conversation, it's not canvassing by the definition of the term here because the editors notified are already aware of the discussion. My opinion is that it should sternly be frowned upon, but not acted against.--v/r - TP 02:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, please notify Pass a Method.--v/r - TP 02:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears he's now been notified. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur with TP. I think it falls under the same general principle as thankspam, and I think it might actually be a good idea to insert a few lines about it after the relevant paragraph in RFAGUIDE, basically saying "You're not gonna get blocked for this, but it might reflect poorly on you." I can think of some legitimate reasons to ask people to revisit their !votes, though I very much doubt I'd ever do it myself. I don't think it would be that much of a problem if it were for only one or two editors (e.g. someone saying "Support; not swayed by any oppose !votes", followed by late-breaking serious concerns), but I do think asking 12 people is somewhat excessive, to the point of being disruptive. But not outrageously disruptive (as opposed to, say, posting on every single !voter's page). So, in short, my answer is that this is something that could be done in an acceptable way, or could be done in an unacceptable way, and that this case falls in a grey area between those two options. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly poor judgment. Practically, I've found that our canvassing policy is very difficult to enforce, so I highly doubt that something can be done here. --Rschen7754 08:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's really more of taking the argument out of the proper venue that's the concern. If Pass had put substantively the same message on the RfA board as a response to each of these editors' votes, then it would have been completely inbounds. Certainly, linking the OP's username in the response so they get a notification would be fine, what about posting that they responded at the RfA on OP's talk page? As much as I think this starts to tread into dangerous waters re canvassing, I would be hesitant to say it is anything more than a style/courtesy transgression. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing, but it needs to stop. If the candidate started polling opposers to reconsider on their talkpages it would be disastrous for the RfA; it's not fair that an opposer can engage in a similar but opposite campaign and get away with it. There should be some sort of guidance against this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing, although I agree with others above that it is completely unacceptable. It would not be a bad idea for guidelines to be rewritten to indicate as much for the future either. I regret to say that this sort of behavior is not the first time Pass a Method has indulged in very seriously problematic behavior. In fact, an indefinite ban of the editor was previously discussed, failing, and the editor has received numerous complaints about their conduct since then. I believe there may well be grounds for requesting either an administrative or arbitration committee review of the behavior of Pass a Method should any similarly inappropriate conduct persist. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter:{{citation needed}} Please. Just so all the commenters have the same set of information. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

However inappropriate, it hasn't done any actual harm to the chances of the rfc passing. Probably somewhat the reverse, in fact, as is often the case with attempts like this. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. So there are 77 supports, someone writes a TLDR oppose (4758 bytes, later amended to 4219, followed by 8113 characters of discussion by multiple editors), and starts in on spamming some of the 77 support voters with a short message imploring them to reconsider? Not likely to have the desired affect. I would say that is what the trout awards are for, but no administrative action is needed. Remind me to add a 78th support vote. Apteva (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva: Consider yourself reminded. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing any administrative action that can be taken here. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is AN, not ANI, so I felt the post belonged.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't really care if an admin intervenes or not, that is up to admin to decide, but this does indeed fall under Wikipedia:Canvassing. Specifically, under both campaigning and vote stacking. As the editor is posting about the RFA itself (regardless of whether those being posted to already know about the discussion or not) in a non neutral manner and asking others to reconsider their vote based on the comments they made in the discussion. That is not a neutral posting in any way. He is asking them to change their !vote. There is only two ways you can vote and he is seeking these editors go in the opposite direction of their chosen decision after the fact. It may even be vote banking if he is choosing these editors based on his perceived belief that they may be a group of individuals of like mind.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If i tried to sway like-minded individuals i would have targeted weak supporters. Instead i merely targeted those who commented about oppose votes (except for one by mistake). Pass a Method talk 03:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That only demonstrates that it may not be vote banking.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).

--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Full definitions from WP:Canvassing

Campaigning Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. Vote-stacking Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters. Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

--Amadscientist (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not canvassing because canvassing is about notifying editors of a discussion. Vote-stacking and campaigning are different types of notifications. You're taking their localized definitions outside of the context of the rest of the policy. In this case, editors are already notified a discussion is on-going.--v/r - TP 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

EdwardsBot authorisation request

I'd like to use EdwardsBot for a one-off distribution of an RfC announcement. Could an admin please add my name to User:EdwardsBot/Access list so that I can do this? Prioryman (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Geek admin requested

Resolved

 – Unblocked pending approval from the appropriate places. --Rschen7754 21:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can some totally smart and hip admin look at an unblock request at User talk:Equalx? Writ Keeper, maybe? And while you're at it, have a look at GroupLens Research, a related article that needs a bit of objective attention. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that this sort of research project that requires account creation or other potentially disruptive changes to the wiki needed some sort of notification to the WMF or ArbCom, but I don't remember the details. Does anyone else? --Rschen7754 02:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Never mind, found it. --Rschen7754 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Threat of violence (toward animals)

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

---

I happened to stumble upon an indefinitely blocked user ("Using iPhone 4S to edit") whose unblock request states "I WILL REALLY shoot my dog and stab [m]y cat to death if you do not unblock me." He's probably just saying stuff just to say stuff, but I don't want to assume. I'm just picturing a poor dog and cat... -- tariqabjotu 07:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he is also threatening to kill all Japanese people in that diff too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some people have serious problems; I wouldn't automatically assume that the threat wasn't serious. Taroaldo ✉ 07:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't, or else I wouldn't have posted this here. -- tariqabjotu 07:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The comment was intended to urge admins to take this incident seriously. Taroaldo ✉ 07:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm Americanwhofan (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Lua toy - can this help for miscellaneous topic or interaction bans?

I just scribbled up Module:ATA, which is meant to help editors avoid inadvertently transgressing some ban or miscellaneous legal/occupational/ideological threat. The way it works is that the editor turns on wiki markup in his signature preferences and adds:

{{subst:#invoke:ATA|block|User:Wnt/MyATABlacklist}}

to his signature. The page name there is replaced with one in his own userspace.

If the page he is editing is equal to any link in double square brackets in the userspace file, the module returns a link in the Wikipedia blacklist (right now I'm using the old ED page as a proof of concept, but if people want to use this I'll ask at the blacklist to get some kind of informative error message "blacklisted"), preventing the edit from being saved; otherwise it returns nothing. In either case subst: is used so there is no template shrapnel.

The big catch is that I don't know any way to conveniently do this in mainspace -- you could do it manually by copying this string, or putting it in a template, but typing an extra {{subst:something}} in every edit would be too irksome to keep up. Or you could sign everything with tildes, mainspace or not, and the Lua template could determine whether to add a signature or not by looking up what namespace you just edited --- except the problem is, I don't know of any way to disable the timestamp which is outside the purview of any Lua script invoked, and would not be acceptable in mainspace of course.

Still, it might plausibly be a useful reminder for a few people who have been interaction-banned from a specific user and are worried they might blunder back on that user's page a year later without remembering about it, or who are so topic banned they can't even go onto certain types of article talk pages. And maybe there's a way to fix the last problem with the namespace. Any thoughts? Wnt (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

New VisualEditor RFC

Please see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC‎ if interested. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

G13 Userbox for editors and admins alike!

I created a userbox for all of you that are interested in working on the G13 eligible draft backlog: {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/G13|user= (name)}}
Doing so will look something like below, only "This user" will be your username if in your userspace. :)

id1This user is
evaluating CSD:G13
eligible AfC draftsid2

This userbox shows how many drafts are G13 eligible on the left side (0 currently but expected to increase to nearly 75K once fully through the job queue) and how many drafts are awaiting deletion as G13 on the right (0). So, this userbox is great for users that want to try and reduce the backlog and save some of the G13 eligible drafts and even more useful for administrators to see how many drafts have been nominated and how many more are on deck to possibly be nominated (strictly on the no edits in six months basis). I personally am reviewing each draft I look at and if it "might" be possible to save it, I'm simply cleaning the submission with the AFCH gadget and giving it another six month reprieve. If there is no way it is savable, it is G11 or G12, or it appears to have found another way into main article space, only then am I nominating for G13 (and sometimes tagging as multiple criteria where applicable). I hope others can find this userbox as helpful as I do and help save some of these drafts from deletion! Technical 13 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So assuming one looks at the article, and thinks that it is still deletable, what is the correct action? CSD g13 via twinkle (or manual) assuming one isn't an admin that can delete directly? Any other steps? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For now I've been G13 with Twinkle which sends out a notification to the creator. The WP:AFCH's code was actually just modified to offer a "G13 nominate" button next to "clean submission" under "other tasks" that should be available in the next live release before too long if the article has been declined and unedited at all in 6 months that will notify the creator as well as all of the submitters (if they are not the same). Technical 13 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's say I go through the old AFC drafts. May I delete declined/abandoned drafts without warning/tagging/notification/etc. as long as they've been unedited in six months? Or am I required to provide notification before deleting? Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, G13 simply says "Rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months. This criterion applies to both rejected AfC pages and unsubmitted AfC pages." and how you interpret that is up to you. This post was merely to advise everyone that in the process of my going through and trying to save (even if only for six more months) some of these drafts and tagging and notifying everyone that may be able to save the draft I thought it worthwhile to create a maintenance category to make me a list to work from and sort them with the oldest at the top of the list and a userbox that helps me keep track of how many are in the eligible based on the criterion and how many are waiting for administrator attention. The userbox has a little logic that <150 on either side displays that side as green and 150+ displays it as red. Anyways, enjoy the box and the maintenance category! Technical 13 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; while I'd read the criterion, I don't remember much of the original discussion, so I wondered if (somewhere) the discussion had decided to require taggers to notify page creators. Presumably I'd be subject to the same requirement if I went out and deleted qualifying pages without tagging them. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, I tended to read a bit of good faith into the nominations and give the article creator a notification that the article has been G13 nominated (even if I did have AdminBits). The bot mentioned above in the page has been restructured to notify/nag the creator when the bot finds a G13 eligible page, but not to take the step of nominating for deletion until 30 days after the notify/nag. The bot still obeys the ruleset of "Notify the creator when you nominate for deletion" as it's just good sense to let someone know when you take a drastic action against something they worked on. Hasteur (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal threats

If an editor made a legal threat against another editor off-wiki (e.g. on a blog) over something they had done or were doing on Wikipedia, would that attract a WP:NLT block? Would it only attract a block if it was publicised on-wiki, either by one of the editors involved or by a third party? Prioryman (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends on if you can show on-wiki evidence that it's the user that is actually posting on the blog. If they've linked to it before or claimed it as their own, or they've predicted their own edits on their blog before they were on-wiki, that'd help.--v/r - TP 23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

By its current terms NLT doesn't care where the legal threat was made. I am not familiar with the history of it, so I can't comment on whether that's new or a consistent thread. However I would say the purpose behind it, as well as some practical considerations make me think that the venue the legal threat occurs is irrelevant, so long as the legal threat has some nexus to Wikipedia (namely to the two editors involved). Take this as an example, two editors engaged in a dispute, never a legal threat on wiki, but one sues the other (which would involve being served with papers, probably by the local sheriff). That clearly is a legal threat (maybe it's gone beyond being a "threat" at this point.... but nobody would think that somehow the NLT policy is cut off at the point actual action's taken). So in my short reading of the policy, off wiki threats are just as relevant as on wiki threats, so long as they bear some resemblance to what's being contested on wiki. Shadowjams (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

TParis is correct BUT that could cause outing issues. You could go directly to an Arbitrator in confidence (i.e by email) with evidence. If it is serious that would be teh best route IMHO--Cailil ^talk 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins telling an editor to "rot in hell" and "f-you"

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

---

At 23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC). And then he engages in trolling on an upset editor's page. Is this appropriate? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

23:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Plenty of trout and boomerang to go around. Thank you to Anthony for actually articulating the OP's comment. This looks like a bunch of waste of time... which I'm sure will be indulged for the next 36 hours or so. Look, I'm never thrilled at the inside-admin-clique plotting strategy, but I'm also not impressed when the "he used fuck" argument pops up. Grow the fuck up. Shadowjams (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Shadowjams, in simple, short, clear terms, with diffs, what happened? I don't care about the swearing. I swear all the time, on user talk pages. But I have some concerns about BWilkins's competency and judgment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was honestly saying thanks for providing some actual context, which seems like the duty of the OP. I didn't mean to chastise you at all Anthony Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've notified Bwilkins of the thread (and actually linked the section) for clarity. While I'm not a large fan of him, I think this is being taken a bit out of context and I find this thread ridiculous. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I read the post in question and Bwilkins never says for TheShadowCrow to "rot in hell", but says to "may you rot in the hell that is eternal block." BIG difference. The "f-you" could be considered over the top, but it appears it was used in frustration at an editor (ie: TheShadowCrow) being ungrateful. Trout Bwilkins and let's move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For context, Bb, Bwilkins, and Sandstein are all kinda involved with user:TheShadowCrow, who is involved in some arbcom enforcement stuff... I don't know the details, nor does anyone else here who's not intimately involved, because we got this oneoff post from Candleabracadabra that provides no context which is not helpful.

I think any of the aforementioned shouldn't take any admin action on this topic (not least of all cause it's AE territory). Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not allowed to say "fuck"? oops. Support use of trout. Taroaldo ✉ 06:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes seems so, I feel like I am back in elementary school. Lets introduce a new rule - Saying Fuck would mean indef block on the user and a hard spanking. The section header makes me feel the word has caused more grievance than the admins alleged indifference. A m i t  웃   12:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know User:TheShadowCrow. In that thread they are very upset about something. They seem sincerely aggrieved. They seem to sincerely believe they've been unfairly blocked (or not unblocked), or something. My concern is that when an editor is in that state, it is just not helpful (the opposite in fact) for an admin to address them in those terms. I'm particularly concerned with BWilkins threatening to revoke TheShadowCrow's talk page access for not showing sufficient deference to an admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely inappropriate for an administrator to tell a user "fuck you" or "rot in hell that is eternal block" in the context of blocking them or discussing their unblock request. This shows that the administrator considers the the block to be punitive, and that they're applying or endorsing it vindictively. But blocks are not supposed to be punitive. If Bwilkins doesn't understand or agree with this policy, then at minimum he needs to stop using, or threatening to use, the block tool, and should probably also stop participating in discussions related to individual blocks. If he does understand and agree with the policy, then a retraction and apology is in order in this case. The user to whom the comments were directed may be an ingrate, but spite is no grounds for supporting a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• As with several other perennial ANI/AN topics we see both sides exaggerate the issue. The speculation that there was a threat due to "not showing sufficient deference to an admin" is wildly incorrect. Reading User talk:TheShadowCrow shows yet another user with an inflated idea of their own rights and importance. Admins should be good at absorbing nonsense, particularly from a sanctioned editor, but admins are human as well, and the nonsense TSC was handing out would have tested anyone's patience. According to BWilkins, he has taken significant trouble towards helping TSC, and the comment in this complaint (assuming BWilkins is correct) is an understandable if sub-optimal response. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we agree on the last part of your statement. I think we can all empathise with a frustrated admin dealing with an ungrateful ass of an editor, if BWilkins's characterisation is accurate. But even if his characterisation is correct - and that remains to be seen because I haven't, and it seems from your comment that you haven't, studied the background carefully enough to know - even if he is correct, I think that sub-optimal response in not on, for an admin discussing the blocking or unblocking of an editor. Ever. Yet BWilkins is a repeat offender. And all that happens is he gets a little minnow-trouting here at AN, we all smile and tut tut and shake our heads and say, there goes ol' BWilkins again, treating people like shit. Heh. Heh.

It's not on. If you admins want to be respected by the general community, if you want this place to be a joy to work in again, petulant, thin-skinned, incautious, insulting admins need to be told in no uncertain terms by you, their peers, to behave. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We can probably agree on a lot more, but first, please comment on whether you maintain the "not showing sufficient deference to an admin" statement, and if so, why (I have read small pieces of TSC's talk, but have not studied it, so I want to know if there is a statement somewhere to support that interpretation). Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my impression on reading the thread. I'm going out now, and then to bed, so can't follow this up for about 12 hours. But I will follow up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume he was referring to Bwilkins's comment "More comments like 'amateur block' will lead to this talkpage being locked" To me that does very much look like Bwilkins is holding TheShadowCrow to a much stricter standard of civility than himself. TheShadowCrow's talk page has several snide and sarcastic comments from Bwilkins ("Do you want to shake your head a little and re-think the logic you're trying to use?", "'You sound visibly aggressive'? Did that sentence sound at all like it made sense before, during, or after clicking 'save'?", "Oh yeah, I was obviously mistaken in my appeal on your behalf. Good luck…"), along with some mild criticisms ("you're being stubborn", "you totally fucked up") from him. For someone who repeatedly writes like this to threaten to silence a user for using the word "amateur" to describe a block seems the height of hypocrisy. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to say I encourage Bwilkins’ conduct, but… given what I learned about hot Transcaucasian guys in Russian Wikipedia, Bwilkins deserves some empathy for withstanding communications related to their topics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Was Bwilkins forced to be an Admin? No. Did Bwilkins want to be an Admin? Yes. I've seen too many badly behaved Admins to have all that much sympathy. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean these badly behaved Admins fail to comply with Wikipedia's civility nonsense? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seem Admins behave badly in very many ways. Very few do a great job. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty sad that people have to pull something 100% out of context, and omit a half-dozen important words in order to try and make someone else look bad. let's go back in time:

• Earlier on TSC's talkpage, I worked very closely and carefully with them regarding their first AE block
• I'm not going to dig diff's out, but after that discussion I went to Sandstein and even mentioned it on ANI to try and get TSC unblocked
• When TSC finally made his AE appeal, I was the Voice that supported his unblock, based on my negotiations with him - I personally felt that I had put my personal reputation on the line for supporting the unblock of a problematic editor
• As Bbb23 stated to TSC "I'm glad I could facilitate a happy ending, but the person who truly deserves your thanks is User:Bwilkins. He went to bat for you"
• Now, I don't expect a trophy, or even a jar of jelly (and Lord knows we never get thanked), but what I do expect is a) people to keep their promises, and b) not flat-out deny the clear and extensive assisatnce that I had provided to them
• TSC broke their promise, and broke their topic ban - and yes, that frustrates me. He then denied that I ever assisted in the first unblock process.
• Contrary to the inflammatory header above, I never told them to "rot in hell", as has been amply proven. Indeed, I never said "fuck you" - if I had meant "fuck you", I would have said "fuck you" - indeed, these days, I've even taken to saying "frick" instead of "fuck", and even that's a rarity except when being used to amplify a phrase ("no fucking way!"), or express disbelief ("what the fuck!"). The hyphenated word "f-you" (sometimes written as "eff you" or "FU") has taken on a different (although related) meaning tham the full "fuck you", and is generally accepted to NOT mean "the full fuck you" anymore. However, I have no desire to argue semantics.
• There is also no possible way to parse anything I stated on that page to mean I was threatening a block for not "showing sufficient deference to an admin" - that's a pretty deceitful statement, and has no basis in English or logic - one can even see that Bbb23 later warned TSC on that VERY page for TSC saying the exact same thing I warned him for.

So, here we're back in the present. I'll AGF that the OP thought he meant well, but when they're that confused about what was going on, should they not have come to me first for clarification? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire context of the remarks is available. Before posting here I read the entire user talk page and some of the related ones (as apparently did at least other commenter in this thread) and I still think your remarks were inappropriate. I understand very well why you were exasperated, and I even acknowledged that the person you were berating was being ungrateful. I will even go so far as to agree with you that they were being deceitful. But that doesn't give you licence to insult them and gloat over the prospect of them remaining blocked indefinitely. I hope you will retract these remarks, if only for the sake of your own reputation. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? Did you just accuse me of gloating? Hello pot, please meet the kettle ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do we have some sort of history together that I'm not aware of? Offhand I don't recall ever having interacted with you before, let alone gloated over something bad which has happened to you. I don't know you from Adam and so didn't come to this thread with an axe to grind. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's kinda my point. You early on made some comments that were clearly made without having read any of the background material - your comments painted me in a rather bad light, and even led to other mistaken comments - you have declined to retract them. Even after reading the entire situation, you have then accused me of gloating ... that's offensive, and the "pot...kettle" relates to you being offensive towards me in your statements, while accusing me of being equally offensive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of context, as this Candleabracadabra person presents them in this "complaint", the comments appear over-the-top and uncalled-for. In context, the comments are somewhat stern rebukes and an expression of frustration, nothing more. This AN report comes across as intentional shit-stirring. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The OP's complaint was disingenuous and dishonestly presented. Resolute 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

An admin gets frustrated at a combative user who, by the look of his user page and block log, does a good job at frustrating people. Inappropriate? Sure, but we're not supposed to be punching bags for people like this either. The user is not currently blocked, the words have already been said, so what is left to resolve or endlessly debate? Trout Bwilkins, advise him to steer clear from this issue and from TSC, and let's hat this debate and move on. Gamaliel (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this discussion should be hatted. So an adminstrator blew his top when dealing with a notoriously aggravating editor. It happens. Admininstrators are human, too. Best way to react? Hell, no. Worth more than a trout? Hell, no. Worth further discussion? Hell, no. So hat and be done with it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

So when "notoriously uncivil" administrators blow their tops, that's really nothing to worry about? But when "notoriously uncivil" regular editors do the same thing that's grounds for an indefinite block? No wonder Wikipedia is going to the dogs. Eric Corbett 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I'm "notoriously uncivil"????? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Eric Corbett 13:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A couple of people coming to AN/ANI, stripping out context and trying to claim that I'm uncivil because of a bizarre interpretation does not mean I'm "notoriously uncivil" - and that's the danger of inflammatory headers such as this. If I was notoriously uncivil, I'd apparently be in good company .. right Eric? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally speaking a bit of abusage does not greatly concern me, and this seems to be a storm in a rather twee and gentile tea cup, but we all know (please don't attempt to deny this) that if this was my friend Eric saying this, there would be calls for him to be immediately hung, drawn and quartered. There really does need to be an even ruling and law here. Doesn't there?  Giano  13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, in the interest of "even ruling and law", if there is consensus to do so, I will block Bwilkins, Eric and yourself indefinitely for long term histories of incivility. Fair enough? Otherwise, we all know there have been a dozen times where you've been brought here for incivility issues and the end result was... no action. Resolute 14:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering when the threats would begin. Let's bear one thing in mind though. When a "notoriously uncivil" editor such as myself is unwise enough to use a word such as "sycophantic" that's recorded for all eternity in their block log. But when a "notoriously uncivil" admin expresses a wish that a regular editor should rot in Hell the waggons circle and the complaint is swiftly closed, in the hope that everyone will forget about it. Eric Corbett 14:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and your continued presence on Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with routine circling of wagons in your own defence. *rolleyes*. Resolute 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When did this turn into yet another attack on me instead of a discussion of Bwilkins' unacceptable behaviour? Your tactic of trying to deflect criticism away from your admin colleague by attacking me is despicable, but utterly predictable. Eric Corbett 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you consider it "despicable" that I point out that people act in your defence the same way they do Bwilkins. It is not an attack to put a mirror in front of you, Eric. We both know how this dance goes. And we both know we'll play in the drama pit for a while, nothing will come of it, and we'll then go back and edit something. Resolute 14:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. The issue is BWilkins versus TheShadowCrow. I have no idea if BWilkins has a history of incivility, but if so then present your evidence as a new topic. Gamaliel (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't defend an administrator telling anyone to rot in the hell of an indefinite block....that's unacceptable.--MONGO 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any user, let alone an Admin, should revert to using such inflammatory language, whatever the circumstance may be. It really ruins the atmosphere here. Admins should be responsible enough to know that are limits to acceptable behaviour and act accordingly at all times. People who attack others in a momentary fit of frustration are still deemed culpable by law. Some action should be taken to dismiss the notion that such personal attacks are acceptable in some cases. I for one am revolted by the shameless use of obscenities by some editors here. Chesdovi (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To the folks who disagree with the result here, what is in your opinon the appropriate way to deal with the issue of a one-time burst of incivility from an admin? Gamaliel (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What has led you to believe that this is a "one-time" burst of incivility? Ignorance on your part? Eric Corbett 14:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue at hand is in fact a one-time burst of incivility. I'm not going to accept your accusation against another user without the presentation of evidence, no matter how much you beat that drum. Gamaliel (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Eric: Without evidence to the contrary, that's all anyone can assume. If you have evidence of a long-standing problem that needs attention by the community, gather your evidence in the form of diffs and present them in a new section. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You and I both know that would be a waste of effort. Eric Corbett 14:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All one need do is a cursory glance at some noticeboard reports...this is not the first such complaint regarding this admin. In defense of Bwilkins he is oftentimes there to make difficult blocks but if he's frustrated to the point where he is taking potshots like thus one we are discussing here then they either need to take a break or relinquish their tools.--MONGO 14:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So you'll just keep complaining about it here? What do you think that will accomplish? All you are doing now is alienating people who might very well agree with you if you approached the matter in a sensible manner. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Eric: Yes. It's much easier to make unsubstantiated accusations here, isn't it? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right...we made up the part where he's telling editors to rot in hell.--MONGO 14:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, bad indenting on my part. The response was to Eric, not you. Repaired. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you done what MONGO suggested are are you simply content to mimic the three monkeys? Eric Corbett 14:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's YOUR job, not mine. YOU'RE the one making the accusation. Put up or shut up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a job here. But that you're too lazy even to do a cursory search for the various complaints about Bwilkins that says a great deal about honesty and integrity. Eric Corbett 14:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you are the one aware of these alleged complaints and you are the one who wants others to accept your point of view, it's incumbent upon you to present this alleged evidence. AN threads are not for serving the cathartic purposes of complaining editors, they are to present evidence and resolve issues. Your continued pointless grousing does neither. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Since it is a question of one-off outbursts vs. a pattern of behavior, perhaps rather than asking Eric to compile a list of diffs just so others can ignore them, I'll just say that if BWilkins says anything like that again within 6 months, it will be considered a pattern of behavior, and I'll block him for 24 hours for violating WP:CIV or WP:NPA or whatever tool we use to punish non-admins that say "fuck" too often. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't use any tools to block people just for saying "fuck", and if you tried to pull that maneuver we'd probably see an unblock in under 30 minutes, then wind up here at AN or worse for a fine and cheery conversation. Bwilkins said "well f-you then", that is an milquetoast dilution of, and very far removed from, "go fuck yourself". Everyone just needs to dial down their saber-rattling to a mild shimmy and move on, honestly. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Just so I'm clear, that wasn't what I was suggesting we do, that's what I was notifying everyone that I am going to do. But yes, you're right, I don't mean he'll be blocked just for using the word "fuck", I meant telling someone "fuck you", or the equivalent. But now that I've clarified that, I'm fine with this being shut down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • This seems a reasonable solution, so I'm hatting to avoid further usage of this thread as a soapbox. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Eric, what's your goal here? Do you think civility matters? If so, please keep that in mind when you interact with other users in the future. If not, please shut the fuck up. Who are you to lecture on civility? --Onorem (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Request Admin Closure of RfC erroneously closed by involved editor

An involved non-admin editor closed an Rfc here [11] on a minor but highly contentious issue. After User:Steeletrap proposed a specific resolution near the end of the thread, User:Srich32977 closed the RfC without warning after the compromise had been agreed to by 3 of the 15 editors who had commented on the RfC. Almost immediately thereafter, various editors denied the result of the RfC and sought to nullify it, starting almost immediately here: [12].

I request that an Admin undo the close, which appears to have been done improperly by an involved non-admin, and provide an Admin close to this RfC. I was the original poster of the RfC and I was one of the three who accepted the suggested compromise, however it's clear that because the RfC was improperly closed it did not serve its purpose of providing a clear resolution of the matter under dispute. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please read objections carefully since they are that the RfC also is challenged because it was brought prematurely before editing was allowed to deal with the issue, because there are WP:RS issues and because it has been used to excuse removal of critical material that was not a subject of the RfC. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look problematic, but I don't see a clear attempt to discuss the problem with the closer before bringing it here and I also don't see an AN notice informing the closer of this discussion. My inclination would be to just re-open it based on the involvement of the closer and that its apparently not resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and leave for someone else to judge consensus, but we should give Srich32977 an opportunity to respond first. Monty₈₄₅ 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I will inform the closer. I did not know that he would be permitted to re-open, which I believe he will do. Clearly, if he had anticipated subsequent events he would not have closed it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the closer. The RfC had lasted 30 days and I was one of the commentators. The proposed language looked good and the RfC did not address the infobox issue. While I favored "more taste" over the "less filling" result, the closure went with "less filling". I see little point in reopening the 30 day old RfC. Start a new one. For more info (and accepted procedures), see WP:CLOSE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Monty, I guess I'm back to my initial request in light of Srich's message. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SPECIFICO has contacted me about the closure, citing the thread I just posted. While the RfC did NOT address the infobox issue (until the last two comments), I will reopen. Have at it and have fun! – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC has been reopened. I simply removed the template and summary language. Specifico, I suggest you set up a subsection that addresses the infobox issue. As for this ANI, I suggest you post a {{resolved}} note. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think tagging a separate issue on an RfC after it is reopened is appropriate, and I hope a neutral closer would not find it appropriate either. User:Carolmooredc 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So what do you want? The "problematic" closure has been undone. At the same time there is not any consensus about the infobox issue because it was not discussed. With this in mind, just how do we reopen the RfC (which focused on the language of the lede) to incorporate the infobox issue? (I do think those who favored less filling over more taste would prefer the filling infobox over the taste infobox.) And just what would a "neutral closer" do, either now or later? I'm confused. – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, now I (and hopefully SPECIFICO) know request for closure is at top of WP:ANI! So now we have two requests! Oi!!! User:Carolmooredc 19:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Administrator threats - carry them out please.

Following a content dispute, User:Daniel Case began making unpleasant threats and insinuations against me ([13], [14]). I do not appreciate this kind of behaviour, nor the imputation that I'm doing something wrong simply by editing from an IP. I am not happy to have these vague threats unacted on and I would like you to carry out the threatened open proxy check as soon as possible. Please report the results in full on my talk page, so that anyone can see them. Thanks.

I could not inform the user about this discussion as his talk page is semi-protected. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)