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

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 99 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 96 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 96 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)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 48 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)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 36 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 33 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)

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

(Initiated 32 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:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 31 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't need a formal closure, but  Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 29 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	0	3
TfD	0	0	6	0	6
MfD	0	0	5	1	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	76	10	86
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 254 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 73 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)

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 71 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 62 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)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 32 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)

RfC of interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

SEO spamming - a heads' up

Not sure where to post this, but it appears SEO-seekers are using dead links to spam their own links in hopes they won't be discovered. Not sure what action can be taken, but this is surely of some interest. — foxj 17:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

rofl. Well, one can hardly expect scummy people to behave like anything but scum. Resolute 22:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There are other ways besides this to insert inappropriate links with little chance of being noticed, which I think better not to explain here in detail. I had not thought of this one, but there is even the possibility that the replacement for a dead link might be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, LiWa3 on the #wikipedia-en-spam IRC channel reports when links are not returning a normal status. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fresh pair of eyes, please

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

---

It's obvious that Abington Friends School is quite notable. It's also filled with copyvio and reads like an advert. Request help weeding it out.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done [1] [2]

BTW, this is a content issue, and nothing to do with admins, so should not be here on AN.

Someone pls archive this? Ta. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Lifting of Topic Ban

Here I was topic banned on Falkland Islands topics. After more than 6 months I would like to take up the Standard Offer and ask that the topic ban be lifted. In doing so, I would draw attention to the fact that it has been acknowledged that I remained WP:CIVIL throughout the episodes that led to this ban. I did make an attempt at an appeal some months ago and at that point had somewhat of a Damascus moment in response to a remark made by User:FOARP and in further conversation with User:Dpmuk. I realised that an error in my conduct was to vociferally respond to accusations made by other editors, and now realise that is fundamentally a mistake, giving the impression of a battlefield mentality. I have edited trouble free after taking a wikibreak (to be honest after retiring with the full intention of quitting for good) and on my return I have edited in some quite controversial areas without any hint of the problems that lead to my topic ban. For example at Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis my comments in response to a post at WP:NPOVN were well received by all sides ([3]). I have been receptive to feedback on my behaviour (for example from User:EatsShootsAndLeaves here) and have managed to edit constructively acknowledging my mistakes. I have a mentor User:Nick-D, whom I consult over any problems I have, and at Nick's suggestion I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics. My intention is to resume a number of articles I have in my sandpit José María Pinedo, Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxas, which are articles on notable subjects in early Falklands history which have been requested by the Falkland Islands workgroup for some time. To be clear my intention is to resume content creation, which was always what I most enjoyed in Wikipedia Matthew Brisbane being an example of the sort of article I like to create. In the interests of full disclosure, I do have problems with PTSD stemming from service in the Balkans with the British Army. I do struggle with depression and I have been diagnosed with an acute anxiety disorder. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the topic ban being lifted on the condition that WCM sticks to 1RR on articles concerning the Falkland Islands as he's promised above. I've been keeping an eye on WCM's talk page and have discussed a few issues with him, and it's clear that he's now approaching discussions and disagreements in a calmer and more productive fashion. As such, I think that there should be few risks involved with him editing Falklands-related topics again. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've not had a chance to look into their recent actions but I'm fairly sure I was on the fence last time they asked and as they've not come to my attention since I'm happy to try lifting the topic ban. Dpmuk (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban - if it causes a problem in the future, it's easily dealt with; and I get the impression that WCM knows that, and knows people will keep an eye on it. No concerns. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support lifting topic ban - Wee Curry Monster's knowledge and insight will be valuable on Falklands pages, and the above demonstrates that there is little risk of future behavioural issues. Kahastok talk 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support lifting topic ban. It's an obvious net positive for the encyclopedia, and the steps taken (as outlined in the appeal) seem adequate to prevent it from causing any problems. I've also reviewed WCM's contributions in another dispute he's recently been involved in, and do not see any ongoing significant problem in behaviour or approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I started doing some general cleanup in some of the articles you contributed to and your statement that your intention is to resume content creation raises some issues that I don't think you've addressed before. We recently cleared out a lot of word-for-word copy violations added by a different editor, unrelated to you, that are relevant here because they involved most of the pages that touch on Falkland Island topics. My concern is that, while helping, you restored copy-violating text in order to work on it, and I'm hoping that you agree that in the future, it's better to work on that material somewhere other than the mainspace and that copy vio problems should be treated with sufficient care. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it relevant to raise a May 2012 edit here? Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue of copy vios seemed relevant enough to this editor to complain about being muzzled about a week ago, so I had a small concern. I hope it turns out to not be relevant. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your concerns are misplaced, I am fully cognisant of WP:COPYVIO, in fact if you ask User:Moonriddengirl I have done my fair share of removing them. The only reason for not dealing with the incident you refer to was I was not permitted to; initiually I was observing a self-imposed absence from the article in question and subequently the topic ban. If you dig a little further you will find some of the material you have removed was written by me in 2007, more than a year before that paper was issued. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. (I'll note that I haven't removed any of your material from 2007 for Copyvio reasons.) And if you're making a clear acknowledgment that editors should not use the unattributed words of others and the importance of proactively keeping any Wikipedia:Plagiarism out of the mainspace then that will put that concern to rest going forward. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban – Wee Curry Monster's highly competent, knowledgeable and valuable contribution to a variety of Falkland Islands topic articles (not only) has been missed during these months, and I have no doubt that lifting the ban (which was hardly justified too) would be beneficial for Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I apologize but I have to be blunt: Wee Curry Monster is a highly pro-British biased editor concerning topics such as the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. This wouldn't be a problem if his behavior was acceptable, but WCM seems to believe to be above Wikipedia's policies and goals, or at least he has his own interpretation for them and rejects other views.

User:Elaqueate has been doing some cleanup in the FI-related articles, addressing major issues to WP such as copy vio and original research. This has been faced by User:Kahastok opposition, as can be seen in FI sovereignty dispute's talk page.[4][5] I know Wee Curry Monster enough as to know that these interventions are the ones that motivates him to return editing on this topic: it is not articles themselves but the discussion of original research and sources what he feels urged to resume. The supreme example of this is Pascoe and Pepper's Getting it Right (originally from here but now removed). He revealed to User:Nick-D and User:Diannaa that this source copied content from WP, written by himself. This paper has been repeatedly pointed out as a self-published source; and not withstanding all this, WCM would defend this source at all cost (see [6][7]). What I'm trying to say is: his behavior is not only problematic in articles themselves but also on talk pages, project pages, etc. How are admins intending to keep an eye on this?

Also, I'd like to point out that WCM and Nick-D have been wiki-friends (and it seems outside WP too) since before I started editing. I don't think that he's the most appropriate person to be his mentor, as it seems that a) WCM has been receiving Nick's advises since long time ago, and b) a pre-established friendship creates a conflict of interests on Nick-D's assertion about Wee Curry Monster. --Langus (t) 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban I was distantly aware of some of WCM's sub-optimal stuff that got him banned. We move on and grow, and everyone has the right to a second chance. Give him it. --John (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban. Having interacted with WCM prior and post his topic ban, I can assure that there has been a significant positive difference in his behavior towards others. He has genuinely learned from his mistake about being vociferous in discussions, and how that can be misinterpreted as battlefield behavior. I further consider that lifting the topic ban would allow Wee a chance to respond to the allegations of original research. If problems arise after the lifting of the topic ban, then those should be reported at AN/I or through an RFC/U. With regards to Langus' concerns, I also encourage the parties to make better use of WP:3O and other dispute resolution methods (and abiding by them, ultimately per WP:DGAF) in order to avoid unproductive discussions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose OP's assessment of their actions is not fully truthful. Please observe their actions with respect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel and see that they have not been following WP:CIVIL and have conducted themselves more in line with battlefield mentality. Being that this conduct was less demonstrated less than a month ago, I see no reason to believe that they've learned from their previous mistakes Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually that was exactly the dispute I thought of when first considering this proposal, and my initial remembrance was that WCM had caused serious problems there. But, when I went and reviewed all his posts there in detail (my memory isn't so great these days), I discovered that there were a number of people (on both sides) engaged in battleground behaviour (one of them was desysopped and one of them was admonished, though others also behaved badly), and WCM's edits there were not seriously problematic, even though I disagreed strongly with his comments and personally thought his participation was unconstructive. Unconstructive is not the same as disruptive or a significant problem, hence my opinion offered here earlier. (He struck some of his stronger comments there, which I think showed an ability to step back that is reassuring in this context.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support This seems exactly why wikipedia has a Standard Offer. There are issues. An editor is confronted and must take a series of actions to improve and turn a corner. This has occurred and the second chance is appropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support handing over the WP:rope, on the condition that WCM abide by 1RR. While this user has some problematic behaviours in the past, they seem to have engaged in a good faith effort to be more WP:civil. If WCM ends up betraying our trust, it shouldn't be much of a problem to impose sanctions, given the history of a topic ban rescinded only with reservations. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

International edit-a-thon today = newbies to avoid biting

Hey folks. As a heads up, Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism is happening in 24 cities around the world today. If you notice any small extra influx of new pages or edits in certain areas (obviously art and feminism especially) please keep in mind that this may be edit-a-thon participants. The good news is that the vast majority of new editors participating will be there with experienced Wikipedians too, and thus can get a helping hand if you send them a talk page message about anything they need to correct or amend. Many thanks, Steven Walling • talk 18:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Non-admin things on AN

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard § Non-admin things on AN Why does this relate to admins in particular? (Ie, why AN?) I'm quite used to lots of editors wrongly assuming admins are 'special' when it comes to content, but it's not great that a WMF employee thinks that way. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Interesting question. I wonder what the interesting answer is going to be? Eric Corbett 20:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I anticipate a lengthy meaningless Machiavellian schpeil...but perhaps I'm just jaded. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) (Just because I'm editing with my volunteer account at the moment.) I just tried to give people a courtesy heads up. Sure, I could have posted on the WikiProject Editor Retention Talk page, some other Wikiprojects, and maybe the New Page Patrol or AFC project talk pages. But I figured if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI. If you don't think it's relevant, go ahead and close the thread. Steven Walling • talk 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Walling, you are correct that "if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI" - however, my point is, they are wrong to do so. It's likely content-issues, not admin-issues, and surely the more we can do to dispell the myth that admins have any authorieh over content, the better. It would be cool if WMF could enourage that attitude. Hoping you understand. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I guess what I mean is, "two wrongs don't make a right". If people post here about content, I can explain why they're in the wrong place and redirect them appropriately. But if WMF employees post here about content, that makes it look like I am wrong to do so. Does that make more sense? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I moved this thread over to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non-admin_things_on_AN because if I did not, it'd be hypocritical. Hope that's cool. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"keep in mind that this may be edit-a-thon participants" - why? Are their edits supposed to be treated differently? Is this an office edict? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's not an edict. That's not even remotely what WP:OFFICE is about or for. Also: I'm using my volunteer admin account for a reason. We have separate (WMF) usernames to separate out when we're doing work for the WMF and when staff are just editing for fun. I repeat this disclaimer on my userpage, like most staff do. Steven Walling • talk 21:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool; in that case, I'll treat you the same as any other editor posting to AN about content. Closing. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad day when the community needs to be reminded of WP:BITE and WP:AGF for these types of outreach events. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that's a sad day (and I think one's arrived), I also think it's reasonable that someone might be concerned about a lot of newbees showing up and suspect some kind of sock issue. While they'd be wrong to start blocking or warning those users, it would be reasonable to ask if anyone can figure out if it is a sock problem. In other words, I think having this announced here is a good thing. And it's not a content issue. It's a Wikipedia issue (use changing a bit). Hobit (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Move assistance

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

---

Please help move Riddarholmen Church to Riddarholm Church. The grammatical (Swenglish) interpretation of the Swedish name is incorrect. It's like Church of the Noble Island now, but should be like Noble Island Church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please supply a reference to a reliable source, thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Google Books ngram supports the claim. Why isn't this discussion at WP:RM? Favonian (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I was overwhelmed here and did not have time then to research the page and try to find out how to do this right. It looked extremely time-consuming for what I had hoped was as rather simple thing. Sorry!

Shall we move this there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

A strange situation (perhaps)

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

---

I was doing some NPP when I came across this. It was created by User:Stanfordpandabot. I purposefully did not notify them as I am not necessarily seeking intervention by a sysop and it could be confusing to (them?), but rather asking for information on how this needs to be handled, if at all. On the user page it states that the account is shared between multiple people, however they also claim to be students. Is there some kind of action needed here? Quite frankly the article is borderline non-notable but perfectly referenced, and the account's editing patterns seemed like so many other paid ones (Wiki-PR and friends) which is what initially caught my eye. But AGF and all that. If we somehow allow students to share accounts then I guess there's nothing to be done here. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't biting anyone nor ignoring something that required action. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Notified, [8] 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, we don't allow that. Perhaps the education project team could be useful here? Pinging User:Ragesoss - it's important to find out whether it's an approved educational assignment (and we know whose hand to lightly slap) or not. Thanks for reporting it, and for your NPP work :). Ironholds (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't allow students to use multiple accounts, but they commonly do anyway if they aren't receiving guidance from established Wikipedians. I'd guess that this is a legitimate in-progress class (since somehow I do know off the top of my head that the mentioned professor is in fact a professor at Stanford, and that he does teach that class,) but one that hasn't received formal guidance. It's fairly common for instructors to hear about the idea of a Wikipedia-based assignment without realizing that we do offer hands-on support. I think it's fairly likely that the professor mentioned is using some sort of assignment that involves Wikipedia, and that he didn't realize we have course pages/in-person support/etc. I'll reach out to the students and professor at some point later later today or tomorrow as I have time, but if someone else really wants to beat me to it, please feel free (though please do let me know if you do.)

Tangentially, we don't quite have a formal process for approving student assignments, and since we can't really stop them currently easily, I'll usually grant course instructor privs to anyone is actually a course instructor, even if I don't agree with their instructional design and/or think it's going to be a trainwreck and even if the instructor refuses to take feedback - that way if it turns out to be one, the mess is much easier to clean up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the outreach and explanation, Kevin. It'd be nice if we did have such a process - that way we could drive informal assignments towards the education programme and some actual structure and support :/. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made contact with the professor, and will be reaching out to the students today or tomorrow. (Broken foot has my on the slowside still.) Ironholds: I agree with you wholeheartedly that such a process would be nice. There's a lot of stuff about the USEP that isn't ideal. Unfortunately, with the amount of stuff I'm juggling in my volunteer time currently, I just don't have the time or energy to put in to a significant revamp of how the USEP currently functions. I suspect this is true of most other involved volunteers. I agree it needs a revamp, but without more support on the compensated end, anything that happens for now is going to be of the half-assed variety - which really is unfortunate. I think the USEP has a huge amount of untapped potential, but it'll take a lot of thought to get right, and likely a systematic revamp and series of RfC's to get everything implemented - and I doubt that anyone who isn't WEF or WMF staff even potentially has the spare capacity to get it ship-shape. Sage and Jami do a lot of important work, but a lot of it is patching holes in the ship more than anything else. (And we certainly do try to drive informal assignments towards the education program even as it stands currently.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've had some back and forth with the professor involved. It appears likely that these are his students (but that hasn't been 100% confirmed yet.) If these are his students, they're innovating within the context of a larger assignment (which does allow for innovation,) but we shouldn't expect to see any additional groups of his students. If too many issues are presented by them, he's willing to state that Wikipedia cannot be used as part of his assignment in his class, but for now, please just treat this set of people as you would any other set of new good faith contributors to Wikipedia (which obviously includes taking actions like AfD'ing etc, if warranted.) It's unlikely that they're commercial spammers as was initially suggested, but very likely that they don't understand many of our policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for DanielTom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Request at meta subsequently withdrawn. Monty₈₄₅ 19:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Hello, per m:Global bans, a general requirement of a global bans request for comment is notify all projects where the user subject to the ban has editied. DanielTom is either an active editor or a past editor of this wiki and therefore I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

FFD backlogs

Just to let you know, files for deletion are backlogged as far back as 24 November. I tried tagging the pages from 24 November to 10 December with the admin backlog banner but the tags were removed by AnomieBOT. I also listed them (mistakenly) on 1 January at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure but the request was removed by Armbrust, but not moved to the right place, hence why these are still backlogged. Cloudbound (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBot removed the backlog notice because it detected the FFD daily header being "broken"; I've tried adding the backlog notice under the header, see if that works. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on indefinitely blocked IP addresses

Hi, this message is sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion on the Village Pump located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Indefinitely blocked IP addresses which may affect administrators on Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Templates

• HughOttoBaesler (talk · contribs)

This user has created a bunch of silly (in my view) templates. I started deleting a couple per WP:CSD#T2 and then decided I'd better seek additional input. The T2 criterion is not particularly helpful when it refers to "policy".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm failing to understand how the templates in his contributions are a misrepresentation of policy? ✄ (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about pages such as {{Radical Party of Chile/meta/shortname}}? If I'm not misunderstanding, they're components of larger templates, not standalone templates. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is about things like Template:Jorge Alessandri electoral Coalition/meta/shortname, which is a very large name for a short text that will never change anyway (Jorge Alessandri died in 1986), so it seems to be rather silly to make a template for this. But perhaps I miss some reason why having this template would be useful after all. Fram (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklist request

• mariogames66.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Can someone who knows more about regex and the blacklist than I do please blacklist www.mariogames66.com? It's been spammmed for a few days now on Mario-related articles by a variety of IPs, and a simple review of that site shows quite clearly that nothing good will ever result from linking to that site. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This can be requested at the blacklist:  Defer to Local blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions are backed up to September, aren't they? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know, and that are only the ones that did get caught .. <repetition of my general rant regarding that omitted for whatever reason fits ..> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

Wondering if anyone could possibly clear the backlog at WP:UAA. Thanks. Ethically^Yours! 07:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

This admin has been editing on behalf of paying clients. He has created articles for paying clients. He's lied about his activities and misled the community. He's also attacked other editors and admins for conflicts of interest while refuses to disclose the full extent his conflict of interest activities. Why is he allowed to retain his administrative tools and to continue to edit here? Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Candleabracadabra To start a discussion, I think it would be appropriate that you made your allegations concrete and provided diffs and other evidence you may have. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Examples that I am aware of include:

• Aaron Wall
• Ugo Colombo (real estate)
• Bob's Discount Furniture
• He has a COI with Vanessa Fox, an article where he has done extensive work
• BLP attacks on an industry rival: Jeffrey A. Citron (Jehochman is associated with competitor Broadvoice) Another problematic edit [9]
• The original Argox article. Adding links to his client [10].
• PSC Inc.
• Intermec
• Lyrtech
• Virtutech
• He was warned about it in 2005: "Hello, it looks like you are using wikipedia for advertising. Please don't do that. Thanks. Kim Bruning 17:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)" Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Edit showing he was aware that advertising clients is against policy.
• He's been involved in trying to influence the COI editing rules even though he has a clear conflict of interest as his company is in the business of promoting companies and making paid Wikipedia articles.
• Removes warning about his COI editing (in regards to COI policy) Irony of ironies.
• edit Saying he doesn't do COI editing because it isn't cost effective. No regard for policies? No effort to clean up the dvertisements he created?
• His statements to 28 bytes about "lying by omission" are also relevant.
• Says he doesn't do paid editing while failing to disclose the articles he has created for clients.

Also:

• Barcoding Inc.
• IntelliTrack
• DAP Technologies
• Roper Industries Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by others, many of these (possible) COIs edits are relatively old. I have set up a list over last edits by Jehochman to the articles I could access:

• PSC Inc. 2006
• Lyrtech 2006
• Roper Industries 2006
• SunRocket 2006
• Jeffrey A. Citron 2007
• Intermec 2007
• Virtutech 2007
• Bob's Discount Furniture 2009
• Vanessa Fox 2009
• Ugo Colombo 2013

Iselilja (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So it's your position that Jehochman has no duty to clean up the advertisements he created, no duty to disclose his history of paid editing, and that creating advertisements is okay if you can get away with it for long enough? Is your position supported somewhere in policy? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This was raised on Jimbo's page, and ArbCom was the recommended target. Why raise drama here? ES&L 13:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because ArbCom isn't the first stop in dispute resolution, and much of the accusation is false. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been paid to edit any articles. When I first arrived at Wikipedia in 2005 and 2006 I wrote about topics that interested me, including my employer and some companies we did business with. After a while I discovered this wasn't a good idea and stopped. If you look at the old versions of the COI guideline you will see that it was very different in 2005, and as a newbie I wasn't even aware it existed. This is all a good example of "don't bite the newbie". Somebody who comes here and naively does things the wrong way should calmly be shown the right way so that they become a productive editor. As for anything recent on the list, it is a false positive. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What about YOUR statement about lying by omission? Can you disclose all the articles you created about clients and other editing you've done about subjects in which you have an association or conflict of interest? Does anyone else at your firm edit Wikipedia articles related to companies you do business with and have they in the past? Please disclose. We need to clean up the advertisements and promotional work you've done. By your own standards there are also serious problems with your continuing here as an editor and an administrator. You clearly state that you don't do paid editing but you clearly have. By your own standards you've been quite dishonest with the community and misled us to get admin tools and other privileges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So you admit that this is retaliation for that other disagreement. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I will not fight with you. The first step in dispute resolution is to go to my talk page and ask me to explain. Incredibly, nobody has done that yet. Apparently the intention is to fight, not to resolve a dispute. If that's the way things are going to be, I will not participate. If any editor wants to come to my talk page and ask questions, they are welcome. All of this is very simple and routine. There is no need to make a fuss. Jehochman ^Talk<

Actually, you have removed posts form your talk page about your paid editing and conflicts of interest. Please disclose all the COI editing you've done here so that it can be examined and cleaned up as necessary.

Why didn't you disclose your history of creating and editing articles on clients during your request to be an administrator? Do you think that this activity is relevant to evaluating your judgment and actions on Wikipedia? Is it appropriate for you to lie by omission?

I have no cause to retaliate for anything and I don't have any conflict of interest in this matter. This discussion is about you, Jonathan Hochman, your history, and your refusal to fully disclose your history of conflicted edits and any ongoing activities at your firm. Please come clean. What connections do you have with Ugo Colombo? If you can't be honest with the community, I think you have to be banned to prevent further damage to Wikipedia and its reputation. You've done a great deal of harm using it for promotion and profit while misleading your fellow editors. I see no sign you've changed your ways and your efforts at distraction and diversion are not helpful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

−

• Wikipedia allows anonymous editing. You have no right to demand disclosure of my real life associations. My answer above is my answer. As for Ugo Columbo, I've already posted notes about that on my talk page. And no, I have not removed posts from my talk page in the last few days. Nobody has posted and question to me at all. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC),

• Jehochman, I have not accused you in being paid. I don't know if you were paid or you were not, and I am proud I have never made a false accusation against anybody. I accused you in spamming, in COI editing, in writing articles on behalf of you clients, and in lying. I've proven all those accusations with more than one diff. Now, you keep saying "much of the accusation is false", Prove it!76.126.141.41 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Going to ArbCom would be premature

In my open letter to Jehochman, I outlined some steps he could take that I believe would allow him to avoid an RFC/U or ArbCom case. Among these steps is adding the {{connected contributor}} template to the talk pages of the articles he has a COI with (whether they were paid edits, or simply an article subject he happened to be interested in that "happened" to be about the CEO of his client's key competitor), and letting the conflict of interest noticeboard know, so that neutral editors can take a look. I don't believe an ArbCom case would be wise at this point; Jehochman has already started a conversation with ArbCom about my open letter, and after a long and candid email discussion between the two of us (which he cc'ed to ArbCom) an arbitrator let us know that this was not something within their remit. (They're not going to sanction an administrator for undisclosed paid editing and lying by omission, for the simple reason that there's no policy against it.) So, if anything, an RFC/U would be the appropriate next step, but again, I believe Jehochman can avoid even that if he acts appropriately here. Let's give him a chance to tag these articles himself before escalating. 28bytes (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• While true, I've been pretty unhappy with his clear COI when it comes to discussions about paid editing (which he defends without noting his job involves SEO and has indicated he's been involved in matching paid editors to his clients). If the solution is disclosure, I'd prefer that he A) also disclose those pages where he's been involved in setting up matching his clients to editors and B) also make it clear when engaged in discussions about paid editing and SEO. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • That's the least of the concerns. His articles need reviewing. Frankly something like a WP:CCI for advertisers is needed. It's very easy to put up wiki articles citing a press release or two and they'll last for years or even close to a decade on the wiki. Most such pages are low traffic and thus unlikely to see much improvement from their initial PR state unless a concerted effort is made. The claim that this is somehow an old dispute should be seen in light of the facts regarding the durability of such PR acts, which is easily measured in years. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I saw the open letter yesterday, and I admired it. I think it's very reasonable to either expect Jehochman to go back over his contributions and check them, or for other editors to do it if he does not. Until that happens, I don't see any need to escalate the dispute resolution process. By the way, I was sorely tempted to put my comment under a heading something like "Tryptofish states the obvious", but I'll restrain myself to simply saying it like this. Take-home lesson for Jehochman: something about glass houses. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

      If I were Jehochman, I would have given up my administrative tools. Then I would have apologized. Then I would have cleaned up the mess I created, and then I would have retired.76.126.141.41 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think an editor that isn’t man or woman enough to edit under their username is in any position to lecture others on the right thing to do. Iselilja (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

28bytes, re ArbCom's statement that they're "not going to sanction an administrator for undisclosed paid editing and lying by omission, for the simple reason that there's no policy against it", could you obtain ArbCom's permission to repeat here exactly what was said in the relevant e-mail (assuming that the above quote is a summary of their message in your own words)? Or alternatively, could someone from ArbCom come here and say what exactly they said? Andreas JN466 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)