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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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

Requests for comment

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 92 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 70 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 68 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 68 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)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 62 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Closed (for now). I missed this comment above by voorts while closing, WeatherWriter, could you clarify if the talk pages were notified? I'm not sure what is usually done if the RFC is not advertised broadly elsewhere. Soni (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(Courtesy pings: Voorts and Soni). The two most recent pages affected (Tornadoes of 2024 and Tornadoes of 2023) were talk page notified. The discussion started over 2 months ago, so if I recall correctly, 2023/2024 were the only articles actually changed at that point in time. An IP-user changed several articles (2011-2022) after the discussion was started. I may have that timeline wrong, but either way, the 2023 article and 2024 article have way more views than any other article, with 2024 actually having over 100k views in the last 30 days. Notifying those, even if 2010-2022 had already been changed would have still caught the same editors as 2023/2024 notifications along with WP:Weather talk page, which was also notified. Even a check on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024 showed it was viewed over 7,000 times (not the article, the talk page). I think it was broadly notified. Plus, it was an RFC, which notified non-tornado editors as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, the two talk page notifications is good for me. Soni (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also, MOSLAYOUT was not notified. I finally found the original discussion in the WikiProject Weather archives (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 3#Need for a standard that will make "Tornadoes in year" pages less U.S.-centric). There wasn't a real consensus at the time to change any article except the Tornadoes of 2024 article. 2023's article was changed for a "here is what a completed article" looks like vs the 2024 article, which is obviously still in construction due to 2024 being the current year. Months later (it looks like 8 days before this discussion started) the IP user notified the WP:Weather talk page about planning to change previous year layouts (pre-2023 ones) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 4#Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier). So my timeline was a little wrong, but even looking at the IP-users notification, editors started not liking the format which was used on 2023/2024's article. To me, pre-2022 didn't even have a consensus to be changed, which is why all the 1946-2010 articles weren't changed and this discussion was started. Hopefully that clears up the timeline. That let me dust off the old memory as well (lol). So the two articles with actual consensus to change were notified, as well as the place where they new layout format was discussed/gained consensus in the first place. MOSLAYOUT was not notified for that discussion nor this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That seems like sufficient notification. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

(Initiated 49 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 May 2024)

Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 42 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

(Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 36 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	12	6	18
TfD	0	0	5	6	11
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	7	7
RfD	0	0	4	0	4
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

(Initiated 50 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

(Initiated 46 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 139 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 45 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)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is pv-magazine.com reliable?

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 July 2024) A discussion about taking a source off the spam blacklist. Probably needs a formal close for it to be actionable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

I request a review of the closes at Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Media Viewer RfC Question 2 to determine whether the closers interpreted consensus incorrectly. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Background

A previous on this same RfC resulted in virtually unanimous Overturn. Then Edokter preformed a half-close on just part 2 (which I find faulty in itself) and which created this mess of two half-closes on a single RfC. Cenarium then preformed the remaining half-close on part 1.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC June_2014_RfC which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. Consensus can change, however there has been no redebate of that question for good reason. Supporters do not waste time initiating redebate in order to not-change standing consensus, and Opposers do not waste time initiating redebate when they know that the result is going to go against them. June_2014_RfC is a standing consensus result. No action had been taken on that outcome due to Superprotect. When Superprotect was withdrawn, there was a raging debate in the community whether any admin would, or should, simply step up to implement June_2014_RfC as a standing consensus-action. Many people were arguing respect for consensus itself, arguing that RfC result be implemented as a simple consensus-action. Others argued against it. The first part of this RfC was established as a place for the community to engage in that debate. The question was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC". This question was an exact reflection of the debate I saw in the community. Part of the reason for the RfC was to inhibit any supporter from taking action, as a formal debate was underway to carefully decide how to proceed. If the first part of the did RfC pass, the second part asked if the community wanted include terms that we should try to work with the WMF before taking action. The second part would issue a Formal Community-Consensus request that MWF do it for us. The second part explicitly proposed a ban on community-action-to-implement for the duration.Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 2 close review

I attempted discussion with the closer Edokter on his talk page. He was entirely non-responsive there. He did briefly comment here on Administrator's Noticeboard, but he immediately went non-responsive. I was literally in the middle of posting a formal Close Review request on his half-close when I saw that part 1 got closed. I informed him of my intent to challenge his close, but that I was holding that action to investigate the new part 1 situation.

This closer wrote a Wikipedia Signpost article promoting Media Viewer. He also posted on the talk page of the original RfC. He was against it, and gave his strong views that it would not be implemented.[1] He called this RfC "poison", and stated that he feared admonishment if he closed it the way he wanted.[2] I can see no good-faith reason for him to preform an improper half-close on part 2 of this RfC, when a closer going his way could have simply written "No effect" for part 2. He took the option of working with the WMF off the table, and cornered a part-1 closer into either disregarding the majority or issuing a close to immediately implement without notice to the WMF.

Part 2 had 6 bullet points, and overall ended with tiny majority support. The closer properly closed as no-consensus on bullet point 6 (I botched #6 during drafting, it was only supposed to note the expiration of the 7-day hold). However there were several Support-all-but-#6 votes in the Oppose section, as well as Oppose-only-#6 votes. That establishes solid support for 1-through-5, and the closer essentially notes that they are worthy of proper consideration for consensus. A closer needs to offer a good explanation if he does not follow the majority. He gave the astounding explanation that he simply didn't want to bother!?! More specifically his explanation was "There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se". That a poor rationale for denying #2 (saying the results should be delivered to the WMF), that is wrong on #3 #4 #5 (issuing a Formal Community Consensus request to the WMF), that is a HUGE error on #1 (imposing a temporary ban on community action to implement). Note that he deliberately declined to close the first part of the RfC. Had the first part passed (and it still could under review), Edokter's failure to issue consensus on #1 could have resulted in someone acting on media viewer as a consensus action, without notice to the WMF, when there was a consensus to prohibit such action. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 2 close review

Alsee, where during the progress of the RFC did you mention that you had "botched #6 during drafting" or seek to withdraw or amend it? If I had seen you do so, I could have raised objections to the remainder. As it was, for the sake of brevity, I only discussed the greatest failing in the proposal. If you think that was an "Oppose-only-#6 vote", you are in error. NebY (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

NebY, You have raised an excellent point. I explicitly did so in this diff.[3]

Note to Closer and everyone. Many of the Opposes on Q2 are clearly Opposed to an "implement" result on Q1, rather than opposed to adding a 7-day hold on the implement from Q1. If it helps firm up a consensus-close, the final bullet point from Q2 could be implicitly or explicitly dropped. The close could say something to the effect of "Consensus to reaffirm and, after a 7 day hold, to implement RfC:Media_Viewer/June_2014". Alsee (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added bolding to the key section. The closer explicitly considered my proposal to drop the poorly-drafted final bullet point. He offered an absurd explanation for rejecting it. Alsee (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I also contacted him on his talk page after the close, again requesting As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2.[4] Notice that the closer never even responded on his talk page, not until after I notified him on my intent to file a close review request due to his active non-responsiveness. At that point he did respond, telling me to stop "badgering" him.[5] The closer was actively hostile, and actively ignored discussion. Alsee (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that I had also added more info in the Part 2 close review section. Look for the blue (edit) showing the addition. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee the diff you provided - thank you - is not from the RfC discussion and was not addressed to those who participated in it, nor does it mention or even hint that you "botched" the RfC or considered it "poorly drafted". It appears that you only considered dropping point #6 when you saw the close and thought the RfC might have passed without it, and that even then you did not think it had been a mistake to include #6; after all, it was precisely that firm action that the entire two-part RfC was designed to produce. You thought to speak loudly and wield a big stick, but the stick is broken and it's time to accept that you did not find the great chorus of support you expected. NebY (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A few observations :

• the close of part 1 as written would make the close of part 2 moot
• the close of part 1 is not bound by the close of part 2 since no consensus was found in part 2
• the text about media viewer in the technology report was a quote of a WMF announcement
• looks to me like a lot of those things are overblown.

Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if the part 2 is reversed and part 1 isn't, I endorse the part 2 falling to you to resolve. It never should have been split between two different closers. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe you should not have split the RfC into two questions. Frankly, the entire language with which you crafted the RfC looks like it was designed to force a consensus your way, with nested and circular conditions, dependancies and legalese throughout. Any commenter (and closer) had to read the questions very carefully in order to understand the implications his/her comment would have. I closed #2 as is because you did not ammend or change it, and I considered all the comments, which clearly showed lack of consensus for implementing all point in #2 as a whole, because that is what all commenters were responding to. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn close. I did think that it should have been at most a "Weak overturn close" (perhaps not justifying the effort to write that down), but looking at facts did make me change my mind. It appears that, before closing (Special:Diff/636641653), the closer has written: "This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it." (Special:Diff/636454901). Not only that calls the impartiality of the closer into question (that wouldn't be that bad), it makes the close rather inconsistent. If RFC was against policy, it should have been closed as "Consensus doesn't matter" or something. Otherwise the reasoning that it is against policy should have been rejected. There is no third possibility.

The reasoning given in the close is also suspect. First it says "Such an implementation would not be possible anyway, as policy provides no foundation for the community to "direct" administrators to perform certain actions, especially those requiring the use of admin privileges.". That is wrong - any deletion discussion closed as "Delete" is a counterexample.

"Even if a 'willing' admin would be prepared to do so, others will be opposed." - that is simply irrelevant. The closer has to decide if consensus exists, not to predict the future. If consensus will not be implemented, then it simply will not be implemented. It will not mean that it did not exist.

"Having said that, There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se. Anyone is free to adress and appeal to the foundation and request a configuration change using a bug report, or do so collectively depending on the outcome question one." - such reasoning would invalidate most content RFCs. After all, everyone can edit articles.

Also, the closer acknowledges that "Most opposition is against the deadline and method given in the first and last terms.". Some opposers have explicitly said that they support everything without 6th point (for example, opposers nr. 2, 4, 5, perhaps 8).

And one more thing: one should note that opposers nr. 3, 15, 17 oppose to this proposal, because it is not harsh enough. That would bring the headcount from +19 -18 =7 (19:18 is about 51%) to +22 -15 =7 (22:15 is about 60%). And if one is not going to accept the argument that this RFC is just against policy, consistency would demand that oppose nr. 11 (and parts of some others) would be discounted. Thus, in fact, the numerical result is not as close, as the numbers of votes in "Support" and "Oppose" sections would suggest...

In conclusion, I think that the presented arguments demonstrate that the close was not very good and should be overturned... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 1 close review

RfC Question 1 ended 75 Support 36 Oppose. More than 2 to 1 support.

I attempted discussion with the closer Cenarium on his talk page. I was the third person to show up objecting to his close. We had extended discussions, but I ended them when it was clear that further discussion of abnormalities in his analysis would be fruitless.

The point where I gave up re-explaining my original concern was just after he explained which votes he struck for cause, and his cause for doing so. The closer stated that he struck "As per other-person" votes as somehow invalid. That is not merely abnormal, that horrifying. People use "As per" as a quick way to effectively copy-paste the arguments listed by someone else. The fact that two people present the same valid argument for their position is certainly not valid cause to strike the second person from participation, and strike them from contributing to consensus. I most dearly hope the closer has not been doing that in his other closes.

The original and main abnormality that I was trying to discuss with this closer was the exact same problem in the original overturned close. I'll just quote my challenge to the original close, with one small strike:

The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

The only difference between this time and last time, is that this time the closer himself points out the problem this creates. The central theme of the closer's explanation, one which he repeats and stresses, is that this RfC did not contain the sort of discussion and debate needed for a closer to directly analyze and issue a consensus on the media viewer setting. And after noting that he can't evaluate and issue a new consensus on that, he proceeds to do so anyway. After changing the question, and finding no debate on the changed question, the closer is cut free from the debate that did happen and wanders off with his views on the issue that wasn't debated. The closer is using the absence of debate on a not-debated-question in order to incorrectly issue a no-consensus on the not-debated-question. Example:

Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This person doesn't even mention media viewer, exactly because media viewer isn't being debated. He's presenting an argument that any standing consensus should be implemented. It is perverse for the closer to use his deliberate silence on an issue not-being-debated as justification to issue a no-consensus on the issue not being debated.

It is especially troubling when the closer is trying to claim that his off-target against-the-numbers no-consensus result has the effect of reversing the outcome of a previously an established 93% consensus. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 1 close review

• Speedy keep. Can we please be done with all this? The issue's been going on since early in the Northern Hemisphere summer, and reviews of reviews of are a bit much. I haven't looked at Alsee's position and have no idea whether the close is in line with my views on the MediaViewer issue; my opinion here is simply that this is comparable to continued AFDs of an article, problematic simply because the continued discussions get in the way. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't seen much of a problem with a string of counter-consensus closes with AFDs, though, and it's fairly clear that this RFC is being closed against consensus based on a "let's not rock the boat" philosophy.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Nyttend if you want to compare this to a second AFD, the comparison is to an AFD that SUCCEEDED and someone else came a long and recreated the article. If the first AFD was valid then there's a good chance the second one is as well. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It was again closed by some spineless lackey of guy with overeager kowtowing to the WMF, that desperately want this extreme anti-community behaviour of the WMF hidden as far from public as possible. The consensus was clear, the first RfC was to be affirmed. There's not a single reason besides "The WMF will not listen to the community in any event, so why bother?" If we kowtow to those guys'n'gals in San Francisco all the time, we can just give up pretending that this project is a community project at all. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to be more civil, but it's very hard to be civil with people, who demonstrate extreme uncivilness like the closers of this RFCs with clear consensus absolutely opposite to what's proclaimed by them. Consensus is clear, was clear, and it's as well clear that the WMF is on an extreme hostile path against the communities and doesn't want to be bothered with community input. The main (and perhaps only) reason for MV was: It was the first major project of that team in SF, so it had to be implemented come what may. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Get rid of mediaviewer. Get rid of it. I don't really care what all of this is, but what I do know, is the consensus in the original RFC was established, the consensus in the RFC to affirm that RFC was 2-1, and this RFC is obviously to implement mediaviewer. Let's get rid of it! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was preparing to close this (needed a few hours free in a row) and was glad to see someone else did. I was planning on closing with "Tell WMF that the community would like this to be opt-in" as it isn't clear at all the community has the authority to do that itself. But I'd not finished thinking about it. Not a satisfying close, but a reasonable one. I don't _think_ I ever participated in this discussion (I don't recall being involved ever, but apparently I was because I got notified about this) and I honestly don't care about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobit I notified you because you commented on the first close review. The fact that you *didn't* participate in the RfC itself makes your evaluation particularly valuable. Alsee (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• RFCs sometimes end up going a way their proposer doesn't like. This is a thing that happens, because it's rare that everyone commenting in an RfC thinks in lockstep with the individual who started it. I can understand Alsee being annoyed that he put a lot of effort into these RfCs and didn't get the results he wanted, but again...that's a thing that happens. We don't reverse RfC closes because we don't like them or because we would have closed differently; we would only reverse them if there is obvious error or malfeasance (and in a case of malfeasance, it's likely to be Arbcom's remit more than AN's). Barring those things, there's nothing stopping you from waiting a month or two and opening a new RfC, if you're convinced it would go differently next time; that's far more likely to get you results than demanding constant re-litigation of closes already done.

  Specific to this case: Both closes appear adequately-reasoned to me; while there is room for disagreement on whether either of them was an ideal close, or whether they weighted points the way I or Alsee might weight them, there's nothing obviously defective that jumps out from either of them. Cenarium, especially, provided extensive explanation of how his decision was reached and, again, while you or I might close it differently, his explanation provides sufficient support for his close. Edokter's close also appears reasonable; the proposal was for items 1-6, and the voters reached no consensus to implement steps 1-6. An adapted proposal striking step 6 could have been put forward and the voting re-started, but it wasn't, and it wouldn't make sense to close based on "some people thought they were voting on this thing, but some other people decided to vote on this other thing that wasn't proposed, so everyone was voting on something different, but I'm going to pick one that only some people voted on and act like everyone was voting on that." That's a common problem that arises in RfC-type discussions, and it nearly always leads to exactly this: a split vote and no consensus. The usual response is to sit back, regroup, and next time, try to craft a proposal that addresses the issues that split the last one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• (e/c)The OP should 'WP:drop the stick- multiple closers have closed against your prefered outcome - so drop the stick, and live with it, as policy counsels, and as we must all do from time to time. Endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the OP again demonstrates a misunderstanding of wp:consensus and WP:NOVOTE - "per" votes don't add any more reasoning, and votes do not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• This is a severe problem when we have something complex for admin closure, by definition the more hasty closers are likely to be those that close, where as the more thoughtful and painstaking closers will be left behind. This is not to say that these closes are necessarily incorrect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Cenarium has pointed out that he spent a considerable time (30 hours?) on this close. Let me make it clear that I was not finding fault, simply raising what seemed to me to be a deeper issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Thanks for the clarification, although I should note that most of it were reading (and a bit of testing) since I was inactive during the events and wanted to get up to date for other reasons as well. Cenarium (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, especially Cenarium's detailed and well-written close (which is what Alsee demanded last time, BTW), and {{trout}} Alsee for admin-shopping. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, please do not misrepresent "what I demanded last time". I literally quoted what I wanted last time. This closer exactly repeated the error, and I'm asking for the exact same thing I asked for last time. I'm asking for a close that accurately reflects the debate. I'm asking for a close analyzes and issues some sort of result on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and some sort of result on "Implement June_2014_RfC". Alsee (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chill. Whatever is being asked here is unclear ('counter', 'overturn', wah…). This likely indicates things have gotten bogged down somewhere. If whatever needs asking again, then please try to phrase the question simply, clearly and accessible to all (eg. Should Media Viewer (a new way to view pictures) be enabled by default on the English Wikipedia?). If the problem is instead bureaucratic/sysadmin/WMF/etc objection then, I presume the techniques used by German Wikipedia can be used. And yes, things may change over-time and one needs to reassess after a suitable break—for instance, I've stuck with Media Viewer since it's release; I only (selfishly) disabled the Media Viewer last weekend when I had some image work to do and tested whether it would be more efficient to disable the viewer in the short-term. So, chill-out, step-back, contemplate the higher-level overview from a distance, it may be that the process (whatever the previous/latest outcome) is snagged on something else. Likely all that is required is a small UI tweak to make it "good enough" for most people, if that's the case lets focus the energy there and contribute civilly, cooperatively and positively. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close It's pretty clear the admin went against consensus , but yet insisted that consensus supported his close, which it didn't. Overturn. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close on both. Part 2 gave no rationale for going against the majority, and part 1 shouldn't have tried to issue a close on an issue that wasn't being debated. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, you already stated your vote - you should indent your comment and label it Comment so it does not look like you are stacking (if you do so, you can delete this comment, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you refering to the close review request itself? Alsee (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closer response I closed the first part of the RFC, while Edokter closed the second part earlier. It seems that Alsee is hell bent on making the point that the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status bears no relation to the question of which media viewer default status we should use now. As if it were a purely formal issue on the relevance of the July RFC, as if the situation had not changed since then, as if the current community's stance on media viewer is irrelevant. This is a deeply flawed notion, rejected by the voters in this RFC. For reasons independent of the community's will, the consensus in the July RFC could not be implemented at the time. The situation has significantly evolved since then, to argue on a purely wikilegal basis, without taking into consideration any of those developments, without any more regard for the underlying issue, is a pointless endeavor that has been implicitly or explicitly rejected by the vast majority of commentators. Alsee did in fact acknowledge that we should reinterpret the question in light of the present situation (notably, the consultation and the improvements made to media viewer), I quote "The RfC clearly asks people to review that outcome [of the consultation], and people can intelligently respond based upon that outcome.". Yet, now, probably because the consensus to disable media viewer by default has dwindled enough that it's difficult to make a case for it, Alsee backtracked from this assertion, saying that people didn't actually agree with it, I quote "I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.". This is clearly false, the vast majority of commentators expressed their view on the underlying issue, i.e. which media viewer default status we should use now, which for Alsee is a (I quote) "utterly trivial issue". It is a fact that the narrow question of reaffirming the previous RFC was debated by only a minority of commentators (half a dozen, the few votes that Alsee selectively quotes), the large majority of commentators actually commented on media viewer, Alsee himself did. The obvious truth is that, contrary to Alsee's claim, in order to answer the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status, we need to answer the question of which media viewer default status we should use now.

The community has consistently rejected the kind of pseudo-legal argument that would bind us to a decision on an issue without actually examining the issue at hand, and that's exactly what voters did here, they commented on the substance, and expected the outcome to be determined on the substance, disproving the wikilegalistic theory that is being promoted by Alsee now in order to sidetrack the real debate which didn't show the results he expected. More than 90% of votes with a rationale commented on media viewer itself, so for Alsee all of those are irrelevant and should be discounted. Whether he wants it or not, for voters, this RFC was on the media viewer default status, the comments show this, there's just no way of wikilawerying that fact away, and there was no consensus to disable it by default for either registered or unregistered users, so there was no consensus for implementing the previous RFC because it was the determining factor. Independently, there was no consensus for reaffirming the previous RFC, due to the lack of comments on this specific issue and the fact almost all voters implicitly or explicitly tied this question to the former. It isn't the closer's fault that the voters commented on an issue that was not exactly the issue that was being asked to be debated by the initiator, or only a subset, it is the initiator's fault for not having understood that the community is, by tradition, more concerned with the substance than the form. It was proper to close on the media viewer default status, since it is overwhelmingly the subject being debated in the RFC and it was necessary in order to answer the question being asked. Now, concerning my 'horrifying' discount of 'per votes', I mentioned those as not contributing to my analysis of arguments, which is kind of obvious since they don't bring any new argument to the table, they were considered when weighing arguments though. I do not believe that Alsee will ever be satisfied with a result that doesn't give him what he wants: as we have seen, he has wikilawyered to such an extent as to contradict his own previous statements, he accused the other closers of bad faith, his opponents in the RFC of bad faith... Yet, many, if not most, of those people were likewise flabbergasted by the WMF's actions, and voting oppose in this RFC, or failing to reach consensus on implementing the previous RFC, is in no way an endorsement of those actions, as I've made clear in my closing statement there is consensus that the WMF acted rashly and with disregard to the community. With regard to the future, I've actively invited the WMF to publish feedback on the latest media viewer version and address the main issues people have. If in a few months there are still concerns, a new RFC properly reviewing the situation (not just a vote) can be held.

TLDR : To determine consensus on the question being asked, it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, and the lack of consensus on the later implied the lack of consensus on the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said people commenting on Media Viewer were "irrelevant and should be discounted", I explicitly stated they should be included! People were debatating whether it would be wise to follow through with consensus, given the MWF's (temporary) blocking of that consensus. Comments on media viewer itself are legitimate reasonable contributing arguments in that debate. In answering that question many participants deliberately did not comment on Media Viewer itself, they saw no need to. Participants who did comment on Media Viewer often only offered a superficial comment on Media Viewer (which your close stresses repeatedly). You cannot ignore what was being debated, and you cannot use the legitimate absence of debate-on-another-question (which you stress) as an excuse to ignore what people DID debate and issue a no-consensus on an issue participants weren't debating. Anyone who thought consensus might have changed could simply Oppose. The result was more-than-2-to-1 Support for following through on an established consensus. It is perverse to issue a "no consensus" the not-debated question and claim that is has the effect exactly opposite of the original established consensus and exactly opposite to the clear consensus here. I'm simply asking for what I asked for after the first overturned close - an examination and close on "Reaffirming and implementing an established consensus". Only 31% 32% called that consensus into question, or opposed following through on it. Alsee (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But I did answer this question, in my closing statement, I first mentioned that you had acknowledged the importance of the new developments, and later, I pointed out that the consensus was no longer standing, as you just recognized yourself. If my closing statement was mostly focused on media viewer, it is because it was, by far, the most important, and certainly the determining factor in whether the July RFC should be reaffirmed and implemented. Cenarium (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the RfC preamble I ensured that participants could take into account both the Superprotect matter and the Consultation matter. If any participants had concerns that the original Consensus was somehow "no longer standing" that is obviously good reason to Oppose Reaffirm and Oppose Implement. At most 32% had the view that the original result might no longer be an accurate reflection of consensus. And as Supporters noted, anyone with a good-faith-belief that consensus actually had changed should run an RfC seeking to establish a new consensus. That's how consensus works, that's how consensus has always worked. People who agree with an established consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus, and people who don't like a consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus when their true belief is that consensus hasn't changed.

In an AFD where the article-writer promises improvements, it is a routine matter for people to consider the promised improvements and to vote Delete because the improvements wouldn't matter. Are you suggesting that you would close any AFD as no-consensus simply because the article-author promised improvements, and the Oppose-delete-minority said they wanted to see how the improvements turned out? Alsee (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close Yes, I'm probably not the most neutral party here, however this close was what I was getting at originally. This fiasco has gone on far too long; multiple closures reaching the same conclusion should say something.Let's move on, and look back at this in the future if consensus gets clearer. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, I agree that the previously overturned close does say something. This RfC has attracted closers with strong minority views. In the review of your close I deliberately left out diffs that you were opposed to the original RfC result (not a participant, but you opposed that consensus), and you supported the development of Superprotect. I took the high road and kept my mouth shut, because I could win the review without the drama. Alsee (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"I could win the review"??? sounds like WP:BATTLE to me. In any case, when I make a closure, I approach it from the evidence and arguments provided, as opposed to my personal views on the situation, which have always sat in the "meh, not bothered" region. My main reason for supporting superprotect was not that I agreed with it, but as it was a good temporary solution to stop an edit war and get back to discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

By "win the review" I meant "overturn an improper close". I would not challenge a close if I did not have a good-faith belief that there was a problem with it. Alsee (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn close. It is nice that the closing rationale in this case (Special:Diff/637404322) is far more detailed than the previous one. That is definitely good. Unfortunately, the details seem to be of the kind that shouldn't have been there... There is a list of discounted arguments (that is good): "The large majority of supports for turning off the feature were either regarding issues addressed by subsequent improvements, expressing disappointment at the version of media viewer first deployed, frustration at the subsequent events, anger at the WMF, or did not provide a rationale. As such, those did not contribute to the result, neither did arguments regarding exceptions to consensus, speculation on the WMF response, or personal feelings on either side.". But I do not see such arguments in the discussion (certainly not a majority). What were those "issues addressed by subsequent improvements"? Whose argument was "anger at the WMF"? How does an argument "personal feelings on either side" even look like? Actually, something was explained in the talk page (Special:Diff/638110026). That is nice, but it is hard to see how numbers are supposed to add up to that "majority" that was promised (19 out of 75 have been listed; also 4 out of 36 "opposes").

Not that such weights are fully justifiable: for example, many "Votes only expressing dissatisfaction at WMF or personal feelings" seem to be simply relevant opinions.

Then the closer proceeds to weighting of the arguments. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how that weighting takes opinions expressed in the discussion into account. For there were certain indicators which arguments had more weight - for example, those same "per X votes". They were ignored. Instead, arguments were dismissed or claimed to have been supported with something like "The argument that the media viewer does not show licensing information sufficiently compared to file pages is unsupported, since on file pages this information is below the image and in their overwhelming majority, readers will not scroll down to it and look at it since they already have what they're looking for, so file pages aren't that much of an opportunity to educate them."... That could be suitable for a "vote", but is it suitable for the close?

Also, the closer introduces a distinction between logged in and non-logged in users ("First off, it is crucial to make a distinction between logged in and logged out users, as most commentators agree, but such separation was not preserved in the format from the previous RFC.") for little reason. It was not in the discussion.

Then, the closer has simply claimed that "The media viewer has also been considerably revamped since then, so the issue being commented on is very different, and the community has a very different take on the situation, meaning the previous RFC result has become irrelevant (but I did consider the still relevant comments from there).", although there were arguments to the contrary in the discussion. No answer or reason why they were ignored was given.

Finally, it is strange to see something like " As noted, there is no consensus for either of the two main outcomes, but there is consensus for requesting several modifications to the media viewer, in order to address several points of enduring concern, expressed on both sides, which need to be resolved as soon as possible, though the implementation of each can be discussed further if needed", followed by 8 points "with consensus", that were not even discussed as such... That does look like a list of things the closer would personally support... But, once again, the closer shouldn't just throw out all discussion and simply declare that things he wants have "consensus". Therefore, I would say that this close should be overturned. -Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive, but as I said I can develop more now. Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap. (And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former.) As I said above, a "per x" vote is indisputably not an argument in itself and therefore there's no way it can contribute to the analysis of arguments, but again, they were considered when weighing arguments. The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments. I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC. Arguments regarding exceptions to consensus and WMF response did not contribute in the end because the conclusion was reached without them needing to be considered.

Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this.

As pointed out already most voters argued on the underlying issue (media viewer), so it was de facto (if not de jure) an extension of the previous RFC, and it is apparent that the state of consensus on the underlying issue changed. Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed. Of this it follows that the distinction between logged in and logged out users had to be made in order to gauge consensus on the underlying issue. Voters did so explicitly, such as when distinguishing editors from readers, or implicitly, such as when referencing the previous RFC in which the distinction was formalized in structure. In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part.

Regarding you penultimate paragraph, I've addressed this extensively above and in my previous answers (to sum up, for voters the determining factor was the underlying issue itself and it became obvious that the community's take on it had massively evolved).

All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments), or in linked discussions (customization and featured pictures). I gave a few examples of possible implementations but only for illustrative and clarity purposes, and I expressly invited further discussion on those points.

Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence. Cenarium (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If the community's position had "massively evolved" you wouldn't be casting a supervote against more than 2-to-1 support, trying to vacate a consensus you don't like. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive" - well, I guess I cannot object to excessive length. My statement (and this response) are not very short either...

"Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap." - I see. That's clearer.

"And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former." - so, could you, please, make a list, so that we could check?

"The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments." - so, what issues (or what "votes") are that?

"I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC.". First of all, the RFC was asking if we should drop the issue. One of possible reasons to choose is quality of the software in question, but, contrary to your view, it is not the only reason. It is also legitimate to consider the relationship with WMF in long term. If you do not discount opinion that we should not fight WMF (let's say, oppose 25 - "Confronting WMF is unproductive, unhelpful and unnecessary."), it is only fair to refuse to discount opinion that confronting WMF on this issue is a good idea. But let's look at specific "votes". You have listed five opinions classified like that: "31,40,41,45,73". I don't think it is right to consider that as basis for 31 (you could have classified it as one of "Votes with no rationale"). 40 is "Especially the brutal force to implement such a buggy, unwanted bling-thing was absolutely disgusting." - at the very least, "buggy" is also somewhat relevant if you ignore the "long-term view". 41 ("Never have so many been so upset at so few, but in this process - which I'm sure will ultimately be devoutly ignored - we have a chance to right a wrong, and maybe, just maybe, get back to the way things were: happy editors, happy readers, and happy fact checkers for articles and images") - well, what about those fact checkers? The description of the image is not really that visible in Media Viewer... 71 ("Moving from neutral to support, per 98.207.91.246's links under Neutral that show many disgruntled readers and very shaky evidence that Media Viewer is beneficial. I also think it's pretty impressive that someone began editing Wikipedia for the express purpose of protesting Media Viewer. Separately, considering some of the feedback left by readers, this feels like yet another case of releasing buggy software to the public and explaining away the detriment to readers and/or new editors by saying it will be fixed. Finally, there was already an RFC on this and the overwhelming consensus was to disable it. What's the holdup?") - can't think of anything wrong with it. Actually, it counts as a very good response to your "The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported". Unfortunately, you ignored it...

"Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this." - first of all, please, calm down. I do not say that you acted in bad faith and would appreciate that you would also respond likewise. So, now that that's dealt with, let's proceed. Yes, I have seen that argument. It is, at the very least, less developed than yours. And if you wanted to specify that you felt it was "a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section", you could have said so in the close (let's say, "I think arguments about copyright information have been answered by oppose 2."). It would have been shorter and clearer. Anyway, your evaluation does seem to ignore the point made in support 3 (difficult cases) and strong support of the argument (supports 3, 35, 36, 47, 59, 74, "per X votes" 6, 32, 60, 66, 67 vs. the oppose 2). And I don't think the oppose 2 is very strong (I hope we won't need to discuss that any further).

"Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed." - as I said, it was one possible reason to choose one option or another, but not the only one. You just mistakenly decided to ignore the others.

"In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part." - first of all, I am afraid that 5 "votes" do not justify such distinction, when it was not really discussed by the rest of participants. Second, well, do you seriously claim that support 26 ("Awful tool, unwanted, unwarranted and a technically backwards step that worsens the experience for editors, whether logged in or not."), support 46 ("keeping Media Viewer disabled by default for both registered and unregistered editors.") or even oppose 6 ("It's long past time to deploy this improved file-page interface, especially for non-logged-in readers who likely don't care about the cruft that we editors do.") justify such distinction? In no "vote" that you mention was any different approach to logged-in and not-logged-in users proposed or advocated!

"All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments)" - sorry, but just because something was tangentially proposed in the discussion does not mean that it has consensus. There might have been users who do not agree, but avoided things that were "offtopic". Therefore, I do not find your approach suitable for closing discussions.

"Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence." - I do happen to think that I have offered some. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.

I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF, for example I counted support #68 and the second part of support #65, among others. What I discounted are comments which didn't contribute to the formation of consensus, because they didn't bring any reasoned argument to the discussion (which includes dismissive or angry comments when their arguments (if any) are expressed elsewhere in a reasoned way). Regarding support #71, you got the number wrong, it was support #73, but since you mentioned it, the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction.

The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC, so it was about more than just oppose #2 (some of them address the "complex cases argument", essentially that it's primarily a TLDR issue that isn't germane to media viewer).

Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well.

The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus.

I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users. Cenarium (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does." - sure. Did anyone claim otherwise?

"I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF" - OK, that's a bit clearer, although it would be far more clear after seeing a list.

"the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction." - yet it was enough to make a participant change his mind. It counts more than your personal view about needs of readers (which, by the way, should have no weight at all). And it is not merely opinion of one IP, but a pattern of reader feedback, with a challenge of evidence used to claim that "Media Viewer is useful to readers.". It shows that this claim is not as uncontroversial, as you claim in the closing statement. And if you have ignored that much of this "vote", that does make me question the rest of your work (that hasn't been presented for us to check). Also, since that claim was so important to your close, mishandling of this "vote" alone can call the whole close into question.

"The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC" - so, you took one discussion with a rather clear consensus to one side, added another discussion (with a lower weight) that had simply overwhelming consensus to the same side, and got no consensus? Sorry, but it doesn't look very believable. Something must have gone wrong.

"Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well." - but they didn't make a distinction.

"The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus." - they still need discussion about them, even if it is just "I propose X." followed by silence.

"I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users." - why only by uninvolved users? And why in plural? It shouldn't be much of an effort, as you must have made the list while closing the discussion. You just create an impression (hopefully, wrong) that there is something worth hiding there... It is very easy to demonstrate that it is wrong. Just upload the file with it and give a link here. It is not like closer doesn't have to defend his own close, when it is, at least, counterintuitive.

And there is still that part about issues (or "votes") that were discounted, because of changed situation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review. I'm not your "opponent". If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary, but I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it. The way it's headed, you and Aslee are just trying to win the argument by attrition, and I'm not going to play along. You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue". It may look like the easy way when a dozen of actively involved users face a single or a handful of uninvolved admins, but it's a tactic that is well known and won't work around here. Wikipedia is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months. Cenarium (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review." - um, that would only be true if you did the close well. That hasn't been demonstrated.

"If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary" - why specifically "uninvolved"?

"I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it." - not in the least. As you have wrote yourself, "The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.".

"You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue"." - no, I am asking you to do a very simple thing: upload the list of arguments or "votes" (with weights) that you have made while closing the discussion. If you closed the discussion properly, you simply had to make a spreadsheet or text file like with such list, for there were too many arguments and names to remember. Thus if you closed the discussion properly, then now the work you have to do would be less hard than writing this response to me.

Of course, if you did not close the discussion properly and just declared that you saw a "majority" because you felt like doing so (and, for all the length of your explanations, it looks like you still haven't given any conclusive evidence that you didn't do so), making a list will be hard. But then, defending a bad close should be very hard. And if you find it too hard, you are always free to give up.

"Wikipedia is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months." - sorry, but I think that is still much better than bad closes. And if you think I should do something about that, I did write a "user essay" with a "checklist" for closing discussions (User:Martynas Patasius/Things to check while closing discussions - which, by the way, includes making lists). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved because I want to be certain that it is a legitimate concern on the close as opposed to a rehashing of the debate. I'm not going to give out a list when the only effect will be to give you as many reasons as there are entries for pointlessly rehashing the debate. Cenarium (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you think that those entries are not exactly perfectly obvious..? That they are, um, debatable..? And you do not want to publish them, because that would hurt your case..? Well, thank you - I don't think it is reasonable to expect you to admit that the reasoning supporting your close is weak in any stronger way.

Although I have to admit that I do not really understand what exactly do you mean by "rehashing the debate"... We have a discussion about weight of arguments concerning situation with Media Viewer, and it does seem to be different from RFC itself. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If you admit that you are going to debate for hours every single minor point that isn't "exactly perfectly obvious", then I think you could not prove my point in any stronger way. I don't have such a written list anyway, I happen to have a good memory but I would still need to go through the discussion to get the exact references, I'm not going to do so just to satisfy your desire for pointless arguing. As for my case, it looks pretty good and I'm very much satisfied, thanks for asking. There's a whole lot of WP shortcuts I could throw out at this point but I'll refrain. You just spent the last several months focused on debating media viewer, don't you have other things to do ? I have. Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to point out that the only uninvolved users are Hobit and Sladen (all others either commented in the RFC, or for Mdann52, closed it previously), and neither Hobit nor Sladen asked for an overturn. I will also point out that the previous close review was advertized in a non-neutral way at village pump (proposals) in a new section. While this didn't affect the previous close review, for which agreement was wide, the users who commented there were subsequently individually notified about the present close review. Although the individual notifications were neutral, this may affect the present close review since the individuals notified were from a group biased by the previous non-neutral advertizing. Only two users who commented here were not notified in this way, they are Fluffernutter and Sladen, none of them asked for an overturn. Cenarium (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the several involved but the review closer usually discounts those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought I would share my findings since I had checked myself. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this ad hominem (and yes, it is ad hominem - you argue that arguments should be ignored because of who their authors are) mean that you do not really have a good answer to the arguments themselves (for example, the ones I have given)..?

But let's look at the opinions of users whom you consider to be uninvolved. Both Hobit and Sladen indicated that they do not really care that much (as one might suspect, that often explains why uninvolved users are uninvolved). They didn't say they want the close to be overturned, but they didn't say they endorse it either. Fluffernutter is oppose 5.

Furthermore, one can construct other similar arguments. For example, "One of two users whose opinion started with 'endorse close' is oppose 11, another one is the previous closer, who closed in the same way.". What does that tell us? Only that ad hominem is not a strong argument... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to review the definition of ad hominem, which consists in commenting on the character of a person, not quite the same thing as noting that several commentators participated in the RFC whose close is being reviewed. I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations. Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations." - I am happy to hear that. Oh, and, since you gave me an excuse - merry Christmas (to you and to other participants)!

"Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote." - I don't see where I suggested that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Martinyas Pastasius, your arguments cite no policy, so your arguments are not good. You also point to factually unsupported arguments - such arguments are not good. Your arguments are also contrary to CONLIMITED, NOVOTE, IDONTLIKEIT, and the instructions at VPT, not to mention CONEXCEPT. There is no ad hominem -- the involved arguments, such as you and I and Alsee, et al., in review, are generally discounted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess you are not actually quoting my arguments and policy, because you expect that the closer will ignore your arguments anyway? As you wish... Although I do hope that your arguments (or lack of them, if you do not want to present them) will be taken into account. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just that arguing and arguing and arguing until you impose the close you want is seen through - as will be that you have no policy nor facts. You dislike it, that's already well understood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Panel of 3 After the original (overturned) close, at least four[6][7][8][9] people called for a panel of three to close this. It's seriously needed here. Alsee (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That would have been nice, but it didn't happen. Given the associated drama with this RFC, it's now unlikely to ever happen, even if we did overturn this close. Maybe we could get that if we held a new RFC in a few months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Username gymnastics

I'm posting this here not necessarily as an accusation of wrongdoing, but because after looking at the guidelines, I'm still a little unclear and would like more experienced editors to offer their opinion on this matter. According to User:Sławomir Biały's userpage, he is semi-retired and according to his contribution list hasn't made an edit since August 2013. However, as you can see here for example, he is, in fact, actively editing. On closer inspection, Sławomir Biały is operating an alternate account User:Slawekb which is redirected back to User:Sławomir Biały, while the editing history remains with Slawekb. Near the top of the userpage for Sławomir Biały is notice of the alternate account, however, it's not immediately apparent (at least to me) and takes a little digging to figure out what's going on here. Is this an acceptable configuration and use of multiple accounts? – JBarta (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it I don't see anything technically wrong with this; they've ceased editing from Sławomir Biały and are only editing from the other account, an account they have a legitimate reason for having (used when special characters aren't available). That said, it seems unnecessarily confusing to be redirecting from the account they're editing from to the one they're not, it would make more sense to me for them to just abandon the other account and use Slawekb full time. The message stating that they edit from the second account is also not as clear as I'd prefer it to be, buried amongst a paragraph well below the semi-retired template. I would urge Sławomir to move their user and user talk to the account they're editing from and continue to not use the old account. Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

See [10] for prior discussion. As the account notice is the four sentence in a blob which includes statements about watchlists and email, it's easily missed. I'm empathic with the desire to sign posts as spelled natively with using a more easily used ASCII character account name, but it does make understanding a take page history confusing. I'll also note that WP:Flow, as currently planned, will eliminate custom signatures, removing this choice. Simply making the alternate account standalone and prominent seems like a reasonable compromise to me. NE Ent 01:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree most strongly with the premise of this entire inquest. I have had this username configuration for almost five years now, and been a productive editor all this time (and for a considerable time before that, laboring under the original account exclusively). Now a small group of administrators wants to legislate community norms retroactively? Nonsense. If it does not violate some explicit guideline, decided by Wikipedia community consensus, then by default my username configuration is reasonable, and well within the norms of acceptable userspace activity. The reasons for this configuration are clear to all of the participants in this discussion, and everyone (hopefully) agrees that these reasons exemplify the mandate of our great project, to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In particular, one of the Foundation's goals has been to include many different cultures and ethnicities. I will not change the way my name is spelled to satisfy some perceived bureaucratic irregularity. The very notion that someone on this noticeboard would even suggest such a thing is positively shameful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to dictate what you should and shouldn't do, as I said in my reply I don't think you're technically doing anything wrong, the redirects are just a little needlessly confusing for other editors. Sam Walton (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, was baffled by this editor's confusing signature, which makes it difficult to peruse their edit history. I encourage the editor to reconfigure things to make things easier for other editors, in the spirit of collaboration. Just use the Sławomir Biały account, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really the only reasonable request here. I will go back to using Sławomir Biały as the primary. Also, I have changed my signature on the secondary so that it points to User:Slawekb and User talk:Slawekb, to make it less confusing. I seem to recall some technical reason for replacing the redirects in my signature, but I cannot think what it could have been offhand. Anyway, given that my contributions will from now on be split between two accounts, I think this inquest will actually have the unintended consequence of making perusing my contributions more confusing, rather than less so. But I will not "compromise" on how I spell my name. That suggestion is totally unacceptable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If User:Sławomir Biały is problematic for you and User:Slawekb is not, why not simply dump the problematic account and just use the alternate? If you feel it's important, you can always put your correctly spelled name at the top of User:Slawekb. Wouldn't the simple approach be the preferred approach? – JBarta (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, frankly I don't like the diminutive name "Slawek" at all. So I don't really want to have that plastered across the top of my user page or user talk page. Not that my personal affairs are any business of this noticeboard, and I find the matter most distasteful that I am being dictated to in this fashion. I do not serve at the pleasure of bureaucrats, and dictating that I should disregard my cultural heritage is disrespectful and falls well outside the mandate of anyone here. It is enough to make me consider leaving the project permanently, given how, from the tenor of the comments here, such behavior seems to be encouraged from our so-called "administrators". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not about being dictated to or serving anyone. Though I understand that if you think about it in those terms you would get upset about it. It was just a bit of unnecessary confusion that I felt could be eliminated in a simple manner. What about this... if the first account is problematic for you and you don't like the second, have you considered ditching both existing accounts for a new one that is non-problematic to login to and is a name you feel comfortable with? That would certainly solve ALL problems with one swipe. Yes? – JBarta (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a bit lost as to why you'd create a new account but then redirect back to an account you no longer edit with? ... Why not make a WP:FRESHSTART and stick to one account? ... Also as noted above your signature is bloody confusing –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} — Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As it has said clearly on my userpage for the past five years: there are diacritics in my username, and login is not always an option. For some time I used an alternate account when login with the diacritics was not available. Surely it is less confusing to use just one account, no? This was the original reason to go to using just the one account. WP:FRESHSTART is totally irrelevant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say that the user needs to fix 2 issues:
  1. The talk page redirect should be reversed - that is, the active user talk page should be that of the active account.
  2. The sig should link directly to the active account, not to a page which redirects to the inctive one.
• Other than this, I see no problems. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Outsiders comment: Shouldn't the actual person be the primary entity? Two accounts (for technical reasons that not all of you have grasped) and one editor/person. You seem to regard edits by User:Sławomir Biały and User:Slawekb as edits by two distinct editors. Pretending to be two persons when you are one would be questionable in my world, not the other way around. The problem lies with Wikipedia. It should be possible to have edit histories automatically merged for two separate legitimate accounts. YohanN7 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Outsider Comment : To try and make an analogy that people might understand a bit better, imagine that your name is Robert and you register an account under that name. Many keyboards don't have the "t" character though, so you also register the name "Bob" since it's a shorter version of your name even though you don't really like being called that. You'd prefer to have people address you as "Robert" though so you sign your posts with that name, redirect the "Bob" pages to "Robert," and put a notice on the "Robert" page that you usually operate from the "Bob" username for exactly that reason. That seems extremely clear and reasonable to me, and I don't see any scenerio where that arrangement could be used to coverup any wrongdoing in a way that wouldn't be found out in about 5 seconds of investigating. And unless I'm missing something that seems to be exactly what happened here. Can we leave the guy alone? Chuy1530 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. This arrangement is acceptable. So long as he undertakes the responsibility of reading messages on both accounts, I don't see any problem with it, or any concern about which one is "active" (since that may change at any moment). Also, why are we complaining about this minor and perfectly understandable practical arrangement, when we have an admin with far more than two simultaneously active accounts? I hope that we aren't sending the message that it's okay to have a bunch of accounts as long as you're doing it for laughs, but that if you need two accounts because of poor language support in the software, then that's a terrible inconvenience for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Could use some help...

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

---

Can someone please block User:Hashemabucu. S/he is creating spam articles back to back and nothing is happening at WP:AIV. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 11:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blocked by User:Gilliam and all articles deleted. APK whisper in my ear 11:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Need user page redaction

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

---

Hi admins, need a quick deletion of personal info. I believe the user is a minor (albeit a problematic one per their sock history). [11] Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is their age listed? It doesn't list an age, so how would you know they are a minor? Also, SPI link? Tutelary (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Although ANI can be fast (AN less so), oversight are even faster than a fast thing, if you're concerned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: for future reference, suggestions that a user is a minor is not something that is generally suppressed (oversighted) or deleted. If someone says, "I'm FooBar, I'm ten-years-old, I live in Metropolis, and my parents are FooRab and BarFoo," that will generally be removed. Just Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Thanks, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Keegan: - Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was concerned that if the kid was a minor, they shouldn't be posting their real name online. If that's not a problem, then I suppose nothing need be done. I'll keep Oversight in mind. Thanks both. Oh, and the SPI report is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabriella~four.3-6/Archive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering

Yesterday evening (well, today in GMT) I did a Non-Administrative Closure of an open RFC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_engineering#Editing_disagreement_over_soot_particles. I concluded that there was rough consensus to mention the injection of soot particles as a form of climate engineering, but not to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter". I then had a request from an IP to re-open the closure, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=640125111&oldid=640098032. The IP does not appear to be one of the participants in the original discussion, but IP addresses change. In reviewing the closure, I think that my closure was correct, and that there is no need to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter", which are mentioned in the paper, but do not have to be in the article. I am not planning to re-open my closure but understand that my closure can be re-opened here by an admin after discussion. Since some of the editors were talking past each other in the RFC, I did suggest that if anyone was dissatisfied with the closure, they might try the dispute resolution noticeboard to request a volunteer moderator to facilitate more focused discussion. I am willing to have my closure reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed. Granted I had been away on business for a number of days and hadn't had the time to reply to the other involved editor's argument, I am however, now back and wish to continue the discussion process.

I diligently ping the other editor in the discussion when replies are made to the RFC and find this premature close needless and a bit antagonistic. As no warning, or even a note, had been posted on the talk page giving due notice to those concerned that it would be closed in XYZ number of days, instead, I arrived to reply and found that, much to my chagrin, the whole page was locked from further discussion. I dutifully contacted the closer:Robert McClenon, in the hopes that they would revert the enforcement of the lockout, or even to get involved and give their 2 cents to the RFC, but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close. The close does appear to correctly read the consensus. Although participation was low, no editor apart from the proposer appears to have been in favour of making reference to firestorms and nuclear winters in the article. This means that there was no consensus to make such references in the article. The IP user should note that this does not mean that they are banned from discussing the matter further with other editors, just that a holding-position has been reached, which will not change unless/until they can get consensus for what they want. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That was curiously fast and I think a bit of a mis-characterization, I am simply in favor of summarizing the proposal with the very spirit of that found in the 2 peer-reviewed papers. Honestly, we already have a full length paragraph on the thing here Nuclear_winter#Climate_engineering. So a single concise sentence, much like those used by the actual scientists that are referenced(Paul Crutzen), with a link to that above article section would suffice, No? Secondly I am now rather confused, how can a "consensus for what I want" be reached or "further discussion on the matter with other editors" occur on the talk page, when the RFC has been closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You can open a new section on the talkpage, saying that you wish to continue discussion, because you are not satisfied that the correct outcome was reached in the RfC. If you can win either new editors or editors who participated in the RfC over to your point-of-view, then you may be able to achieve a new consensus. Of course, I can't promise you that this would be successful, just informing you that you are entitled to try it. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, so I have to open another RfC? Why can't the one that was open only yesterday just be re-opened? The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along. Honestly I need to express that this is like the twilight zone, we have editors claiming they seemingly "know better" than the writings of 3 peer-reviewed climate scientists, one of which is a Nobel prize winner. The consensus should be what is peer-reviewed. Not what wiki-editors feel.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to start another RfC, just a regular discussion will do. In fact, that's better if you don't want someone to come along and close it in a month.

I can't really comment on who is right and wrong in the dispute, because I don't know, but perhaps the other editors don't so much feel they know better than the peer-reviewed sources, more that they feel able to make an editorial judgement about what words to quote and not quote. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Where in the rules does it say that requests for comments must be closed within a month? All I've read is that Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. - So, seen as BOTH editors involved are willing to continue to comment, was not the closure of the RfC obviously premature and contrary to policy?

Secondly, I am now honestly curious by your argument, why does wikipedia enertain non-scientists being arrogant enough to think they can go "make editorial judgements about words to quote"? Isn't that what trash tabloids are renowned for doing? There is 1 thing of making things as simple as possible, but as Einstein said, they should be made no simpler. I agree with making it easy for lay readers by stating things in plain English, but that is a world apart entirely from the "editting" process of engaging in bastardizing the spirit of the plain English of 2 completely independent peer-reviewed papers. Omitting important climate terms, that will, I guarantee you, result in readers being misled and confused.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse, the close seems to accurately reflect the discussion. I don't deny that the papers mention nuclear winter and firestorm soot, but there seems to be a consensus among editors that the article shouldn't include those terms at this time. You may take this as administrator endorsement of the close, if you wish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Further Thoughts by Closer

I had no involvement in this question until I closed the RFC. However, I have a few comments, since the IP seems to be trying to raise a variety of arguments that do not seem to be based on policy or guideline.

The IP wrote: "The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed." The RFC was concluded: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time." There was no request to extend the RFC, which had been open for 43 days. The claim that the RFC was prematurely closed is unsubstantiated.

I did not know that the IP who requested closure revert was the originator of the RFC. The originating IP and the requesting IP are in entirely different blocks. By the way, IP, that is another reason why I encouraged you to create a registered account. It is also a reason why many closers minimize the contributions of IP editors, because they cannot tell whether multiple IP addresses are one human being or multiple human beings.

The IP wrote: "but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason." This is being discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard because this is the proper venue for the review of closures. I was not reporting the IP for misconduct, but was using the standard an-notice template to inform the requesting IP of the closure review. The IP requested that I revert or re-open the closure. After that request, I reviewed the RFC and my closure, and I did not think that I had made a mistake, but was willing to be reviewed. I see nothing in the guidelines about RFCs that requires, encourages, or even permits a closure to be re-opened simply to allow a late comment after the RFC has expired, and has not been extended. Since I thought that I had acted in process, but wished to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I voluntarily asked for closure review. I see that two editors endorse my closure, and that the IP does not, but his or her arguments appear to be tendentious rather than persuasive.

The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them. Any reader who goes from the references to the paper will see that. How much of the content of a referenced paper should be included in an encyclopedic article is a matter of judgment as to what is due and undue weight.

The IP states that: "The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along." There were multiple editors who replied to the RFC. The last reply was on 4 December 2014. It was hardly hasty to close it on 29 December 2014.

As was mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked", and the talk page isn’t closed. The RFC is closed unless the closure reviewers think that it should be re-opened. The IP has a right to continue discussion, either via another RFC (which may have the same result), or via round-and-round discussion on the talk page, or, as I suggested, at the dispute resolution noticeboard with a volunteer moderator who will try to encourage interactive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. As mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked". It was a fair closure of that debate. Other debates, in the future, may have different conclusions. Igor the bunny (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

To reply to the falsehoods in User talk:Robert McClenon's argument. He claims that the closure was done nice and proper, however how is one supposed to really get a sense of that when he repeatedly states things that are demonstrably untrue? In both his RfC closing argument that he gave and most recently here just hours ago he and others have written - "The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them.". However, you will forgive me for not being convinced you know what you're talking about, as the papers actually never mention firestorm, but they do repeatedly mention nuclear winter and therefore I thought it more than worthy of using that very term. As you can imagine, when someone makes arguments based on falsehoods like that, you really have to wonder, did they even read the papers or the accompanying arguments in their favor?

Secondly, what the rest of you are telling me is - No we cannot possibly re-open the RfC even though, I requested that it be re-opened VERY quickly. I must instead start a whole new talk page section and copy-paste both my and Jon's continuing arguments into that? This really all seems rather pedantic, and not to mention, it will result in connected discussions being spread all over the place on the talk page, for really no sound reason. As policy appears to dictate Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What you should probably do is brush up on WP:How to lose, and then let things settle for a while. WP:There is no deadline for getting a given word into the article. Try working on something else for a while, and come back to this later. Generally speaking, if you open a new discussion on the same subject immediately, you get not only the same unfavorable response from the same people disagreed with you before, but you even get other people yelling at you and insisting that the old discussion was right (including people who would have never commented or who might have agreed with you under other circumstances). Take a break, and let it calm down. Wikipedia will still be here a few months from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap on libertarian articles

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

---

Steeletrap is currently subject to a topic ban from all matters related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute as a result of the Austrian Economics arbitration case. Despite this, Steeletrap has recently been involved in a series of edits on libertarian articles, including BLP edits, that not only repeat the behavior for which Steeletrap was topic-banned, but directly violate the topic ban:

• Edits to article on Reason magazine.
• Edits to article on Justin Raimondo
• Edits to article on Stefan Molyneux

On the Reason article, Steeletrap created a sub-section for existing information about Holocaust revisionists writing for the outlet that was primarily sourced to pieces in the outlet, while removing more mundane material cited to secondary sources on the basis these incident were not notable. Some of the material in the Reason article explicitly involved Gary North a member of the LvMI. Additionally the edits to Justin Raimondo and Molyneux's article continue the highly inappropriate BLP editing for which Steeletrap was previously sanctioned by ArbCom in addition to, on the Raimondo article, removing material cited to Murray Rothbard, another member of the LvMI.

This editing suggests to me that Steeletrap either needs to subjected to some sort of lengthy block or be subject to an extended topic ban that covers all edits related to libertarianism, since the same policy-violating behavior is leaking onto articles less clearly covered under the Austrian Economics case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain to me how any of the subjects relate to Austrian economics or the Ludwig von Mises Institute. (On raimondo, I removed a huge amount of unsourced content, a sentence of which included a mention of Murray Rothbard. Once this was pointed out, I happily re-added Rothbard to the article. I did not alter any of the statements regarding North.)Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason shouldn't have published and praised Holocaust deniers if it didn't want to be criticized on these grounds. Steeletrap (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, Raimondo shouldn't have speculated that Israel had advance knowledge of 9/11 if he didn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Sometimes the truth about a BLP is inflammatory; that doesn't mean spreading that truth is defamatory. All my edits to these articles are accurate and you can't point to any that aren't. Steeletrap (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see these edits as a violation of the LvMI topic ban. However, it appears Steeletrap, instead of moving far away from LvMI and considering what led to his topic ban, has instead moved to the closest topic area possible and continued with the same types of edits that led to the ban. Even the modus operandi is the same - adding edits to show connections between the subjects and extremism such as holocaust denial. In one of the edits linked to above, he added that the subject "is also a conspiracy theorist" and cites the an article on 9/11 on the subject's own website. In fact nowhere in the source does the subject claim to be a conspiracy theorist, that is Steeletrap's synthesis, and something to be particularly avoided in a BLP. I would suggest an overall topic ban on right-wing politics in the U.S. and a site ban if the same type of editing continues.

Also, Steeltrap, who argues the subject "Raimondo shouldn't have speculated that Israel had advance knowledge of 9/11 if he didn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist" should read WP:LABEL. It says labels should be avoided unless they are frequently used in sources and then we should use in-line citation.

TFD (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, while not technically a violation of the topic ban, it's the exact same pattern of negative behaviour. A topic ban isn't an invitation to continue the problematic behaviour in a related subject area, it's a warning to improve one's editing patterns lest a full ban be imposed. In this case, the BLP editing is definitely problematic for the reasons outlined as above, and such edits should be reverted on sight. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

This community is composed of hyper-sensitive half wits. ("Revenge of the C students," I like to call it.) That's the essential problem. People are incapable of understanding what NPOV means; it doesn't mean "if you can't say anything nice, [about a BLP] don't say anything at all." It means "accurately describe all facts regarding BLPs." Arguing that the Jews were somehow at fault for 9/11 happening--insofar as they knew about it and let it happen--is a conspiracy theory according to reliable sources. Wikipedia's own article on 9/11 truth says that 9/11 truthers (and by implication, Raimondo) are conspiracy theorists. (Nor is the label "conspiracy theorist" a value-laden label comparable to "racist" or "cult leader." Many people take on the term conspiracy theorist as a badge of owner.)

In any case, now that we've resolved that this isn't a "topic ban violation," can we take these charges to the BLP forum? Steeletrap (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Earlier today, I noticed the editor in question made this series of edits to our article on Elizabeth Warren. He also accused her of "credential fraud" on the talk page. -- Calidum 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no such accusation. I said that the accusation against Warren is one of credentials fraud (she was accused of lying about being a racial minority in order to get affirmative action). I don't know whether the allegation is true. Please read more and write less. And my additions to the preposterously biased Warren page are sock solid. As my previous edits make clear, I am a liberal who is sympathetic to Warren's positions. And I voted for Warren over Brown. But the article mischaracterized the accusations and evidence against Warren. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

None of what's been presented here rises to a level that would warrant imposing additional TBAN(s). Please use dispute resolution to discuss the content issues and if you feel that there are persistent and disruptive behavior violations, document them and your DR efforts at ANI. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Insert: On the Molyneux article I initiated a BRD and Steeletrap reverted without engaging in discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the arbcom decision, ``Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased.``

The third edit posted in the start of this thread, [12], is an article which mentions and links to Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Therefore, per the terms, I suggest Steeletrap be blocked for a short time. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL. The notion that a page that links to LvMI is inherently related to it is absurd. By your naive, literalistic logic, I should be topic banned from commenting on this page (i.e. from defending myself), because the term "Mises Institute" is used here. Steeletrap (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, this page is not an article.

You seem to think you can step around the conditions. You cannot. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my topic ban? I was not just banned from editing "articles," but was also banned from "other pages" related to the Mises Institute. By your absurd logic--which I can't believe you thought about for more than half a minute--I cannot defend myself on this page, because LvMI is mentioned. Clearly, a more restrictive definition of "related to" has to be adopted. Steeletrap (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Steeletrap's edits are a direct violation of her WP:TBAN. The ban extends to Mises.org-related persons. (In the Raimondo case her edits involved both Rothbard and Rockwell – founders of Mises.org.) When she edits anything involving such a person, she violates bullet number 4 in the TBAN example list. This is disruptive, and disruptive behavior is not excused by "Oh, you could undo my TBAN-violation edits" or "Oh, I happily reverted 1 of the 2 violations." Her edits surrounding Gary North are problematic as well. The North material is there in context with other sources. When she says "Reason shouldn't have published and praised Holocaust deniers ..." it strongly suggests that she wants to use WP:RGW as a justification. (Her edits have been on articles that I've followed for years and I've admonished her as best I could since the TBAN was imposed. And per her talk page, admonitions for various editors were posted in May, June, July, August, and then in November and December.) Her recent responses to me have consisted of taunts about my competence, knowledge of fringe science, and law school experience. Setting the taunts aside, I recommend that her TBAN be expanded to libertarian-related (and BLP) topics. Also, she might be given some time to contemplate her actions. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Time to contemplate" is not a permissible block reason. However, accusing other editors (ie me) of "naive, literalistic logic" is. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[Insert] Igor, I think you misunderstand my comment. "Time to contemplate" is not given as a reason to block Steeletrap. I am suggesting a block so that Steeletrap will consider what the aspects of her editing have lead to a block of a certain period. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Steepletrap, are you able to edit Wikipedia without editing any articles that are at all linked to the problems leading to your TBANs?

Yes, that's a vague statement. But Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy; either you can or you can't, it's a straight question. Igor the bunny (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Since I've come to Wikipedia, I've been hounded by Srich. He is a nice guy and means well; I certainly wouldn't feel threatened by him if we met in real life. But he has had issues in effective interaction with female users. He is very heavy-handed as an editor and comes across as a bully. This form of communication has led him to have a lot of poor interactions with WP Women. Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the background to these allegations--That Srich (and TFD, who has repeatedly called me as biased for characterizing white nationalist and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's 1991 gubernatorial campaign as racist) have hounded me for over a year--should be taken into account arbitrators, in the arbs' evaluations of their allegations against me. Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You just blew any last vestige of 'good faith', for me. Support block. Igor the bunny (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO was topic-banned from LvMI in the same ARBCOM case as Steeletrap. (See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Proposed decision#SPECIFICO topic-banned.) I suggest he stop editing this discussion. If it is not a clear violation, it is not a good idea. TFD (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Query: Why has this not been referred to Arbitration enforcement? Isn't this precisely what AE is meant for? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Steeletrap are you actually denying that you have have been engaged in pseudohistorical revisionism? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm looking through Raimondo's article, and I can't see why his article is relevant here. It looks like he's written a few articles for them, but he's a writer: as far as I can tell, they've just published some columns that he's written. Unless I'm missing something, edits to this guy's article aren't inherently a topicban violation, just as edits to the JRR Tolkien article wouldn't violate a hypothetical topicban from Houghton Mifflin-related subjects. With that in mind, chopping unsourced information isn't a problem, and objecting to its removal on ban-related grounds is cutting off your nose to spite your face: putting back an unsourced statement (the result of this series of diffs) is improper, and the removal improves the encyclopedia: policy says that we ignore a rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, how is Molyneux related to the Mises Institute or otherwise covered by the ban? I'm left concluding that the only ban violation was the removal of the following Gary North-related text from the Reason article: In response, ''Reason'' received several letters condemning Martin and North's articles, but also some letters expressing admiration for the issue.<ref name="MA">{{cite web |url=http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/ |title=As Reason’s editor defends its racist history, here’s a copy of its holocaust denial “special issue” |first=Mark |last=Ames |work=[[PandoDaily]] |date=July 24, 2014 |accessdate=14 November 2014 }}</ref> Final note — people, please read WP:BANEX. When you're banned from a topic, you are most definitely not banned from discussing the ban itself. Any ban violations by SPECIFICO have occurred elsewhere. Given the fact that the problems are being greatly exaggerated, and that this looks like what the lawyers call a case of unclean hands, it seems to me that everyone ought to be given a stern reminder to drop the matter, to stop editing stuff about active Mises members on one hand, and to stop hounding people for non-violations on the other. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, the user made this edit [13]. That article says, "Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has described Molyneux as...". The TBAN says ``Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to [...] the Ludwig von Mises Institute...``. Is that not a violation? If it's not, then pretty much any breach can be side-tracked so the TBAN is toothless. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Read WP:TBAN. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Steeletrap is banned from editing weather, and Molyneaux is New York. Stop creating violations. Nyttend (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While I believe the way Steeletrap's edits touch on various LvMI individuals violates the topic ban, my objections are not strictly to the topic ban violations, but the overall pattern of editing. Since the arbitration case applies to Austrian Economics rather than libertarianism in general, not all the relevant edits would fall within the purview of the discretionary sanctions. I believe those edits are just as objectionable as the ones that were cited in the original arbitration case and, as others have noted, this is effectively Steeletrap moving just one step outside the topic area to engage in the same pattern of editing. That some of these edits violate the topic-ban as well only makes it more pertinent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. So what admin action are you requesting? Igor the bunny (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing here would warrant a sanction without the ban, and aside from Gary North, there aren't any ban violations: we can't just go and sanction her because her editing pattern resembles the banned subject. Are you suggesting that we expand the topic-ban to include everything connected to libertarianism? If so, you'd do better to create a new section, so that it's separate from this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor, I see from this page that "I have edited previously under another account". Let me remind you that WP:SOCK unambiguously states that "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project". Since your userspace does not identify your other account, you are already in violation of the sockpuppetry, even though your other account is in good standing. Further participation in discussions internal to the project will likely result in a block for sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we ban the sock before proceeding? He also makes absurd arguments, such as saying I should be banned for calling his arguments absurd. Steeletrap (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sure, admins will ban this sock without any evidence, just because you asked. Um. Igor the bunny (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, Wikipedia:Clean start allows editors to retire an account and open a new one, without disclosing the first, provided there are no continuing sanctions attached to the first account. WP:SOCK allows editors to use different accounts at the same time, provided there is a valid reason and no cross-over. And btw, improving the encyclopedia is never a valid reason for violating a topic ban. TFD (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

The large majority of editors do not believe a TB violation occurred. The relevant concern of most of the anti-Steele editors is a vague, unspecific accusation of "BLP violations." (Igor the bunny thinks I should be banned for calling his arguments naive.) With that in mind, I request an admin to close this thread; TDA is free to open this on the appropriate thread, BLPN. Steeletrap (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a funny majority you've drawn up. Igor the bunny (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Users who allege a TB violation- Igor, Srich, Devil's Advocate. User's who reject the charge of a substnative (non-technical and bannable) TB violation: TFD, Lankiveil (admin), SPECIFICO, Nyttend (admin), myself. 5 to three is a large majority. (Other users have commented on the page but have not made their views clear.) So far, you are the only user who supports banning me for calling your arguments weak. Steeletrap (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt I said "ban"? Igor the bunny (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Both TFD and Lankiveil agree that you are repeating the same behavior for which you were sanctioned on a closely-related topic. That they don't think there was a clear topic ban violation does not somehow mean this should be closed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this AN be closed without action. The proper forum for Steeletrap's violations is Arbcom Enforcement. They can resolve both issues: 1. those edits involving Mises.org-related persons, and 2. the BLP violations. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree this AN should be closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Redirects for ALL emoji flags

Hello! First of all I want to warn you that the following characters won't render on all platforms, I am talking about the regional indicator symbols.

Currently 🇯🇵, 🇰🇷, 🇩🇪, 🇨🇳, 🇺🇸, 🇫🇷, 🇪🇸, 🇮🇹, 🇷🇺 and 🇬🇧 already exist for the flags already supported on iOS. But now all flags (for example 🇳🇱 (NL, Netherlands)) are also supported on Android 5.0 "Lollipop".

I think we should add redirects (with a bot) for all ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter country codes to the appropriate flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin0van0der0vliet (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The first copyright plea of 2015

Happy New Year. :) The copyright corners of Wikipedia are growing (more) backlogged again - we have a few stalwarts working at WP:SCV, but it has a backlog of almost a month, and WP:CP is not much better. WP:CCI is just depressing. Anybody have time to pitch in, even a little? "Many hands make light work" and all that. I am so willing to talk to anybody about how this work is done, but the basic process is pretty simple. SCV is generally the low-hanging fruit - brand new articles, copying is generally obvious. CP and CCI can be a little more challenging, but you might be surprised how often obvious issues pop up that have been unaddressed for years. There are annotation templates created for easy review at WP:SCV and WP:CP, but please don't be intimidated by those if you don't like annotation templates. They're so not the point. They're only a tool. :) That the work gets done is the key thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Need more admins to monitor GamerGate sanctions

Per this discussion, [14] we could use some more admins to help enforce the GamerGate sanctions. We currently have 6 open RfE's, 4 of which not a single admin has commented.[15] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Close review please

My RfC close at Template talk:Infobox person is being questioned, so I'd be grateful for some independent views on whether I accurately summarised the consensus. Please see my talk page for further information.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)