Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 52 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Imane Khelif should get 1RR Arbitration Enforcement

(Initiated 12 days ago on 11 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Can an admin please close the two TBAN proposals which are present in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). TarnishedPath^talk 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Valereee. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 113 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 110 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 110 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 81 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 62 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 61 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 50 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 46 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 39 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

(Initiated 37 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Residence in the infobox

(Initiated 36 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#Trump photo

(Initiated 1 day ago on 22 August 2024) There are currently two separate RfCs about Trump’s infobox photo. Should there be a procedural close, or should discussion be allowed to continue? Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	38	38
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	5	70	75
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 268 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 10#What should the criteria of inclusion be for the state infobox?

(Initiated 101 days ago on 14 May 2024) Requesting formal closure on this archived discussion from three months ago due to a discussion on a sub-page of the main article. There is a claim that since it was never closed by an uninvolved party that it lacks consensus. As I have since been involved in a related discussion, I would not count as uninvolved under the criteria. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Now moot due to current events. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 91 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on this matter has essentially been ongoing since May 17, 2024, when Musk announced that the URL was officially changed from twitter.com to x.com. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it's worse than that. Since Twitter was rebranded to X on July 23, 2023:

• Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#Requested move 24 July 2023
• Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk/Archive 1#Requested move 24 July 2023
• Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#(closed) Requested move 31 July 2023
• Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#Requested move 30 August 2023
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 19#X (social network) – a redirect with a history of edit-warring
• Talk:List of most-followed Twitter accounts#Requested move 14 August 2024 – just closed within the past day.

Clearly the discussions will continue virtually nonstop until Wikipedia finally kills the bird. A lot of moving parts here, though; that complicates the matter.

 Doing... I've put in too many hours on this to stop now, but it will be many more hours before I have a close, if not longer. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Whew, wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 87 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 85 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 76 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 46 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Amakuru. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

(Initiated 13 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

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

---

Would someone please indefinitely semi-protect the articles listed in this WP:COIN thread? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• After looking at the log, I went ahead and indef SP'ed it. The other articles should be taken to RFPP if needed, but that one was obviously the leading target for this round of SPA POV/COI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Possibly dangerous external link

Not sure if this is an appropriate place for such notice. If not, please move it to a better place.

Page Music education for young children, reference 5. from www.brighthubeducation.com – when I shift+click it to open in a new window, my MSIE 11 hangs up for a moment and then it says it closed the page to protect my computer... Can anyone check, please, if the page is actually dangerous? If so, probably the link should be removed? --CiaPan (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I was feeling adventurous so I loaded it in Chrome and Firefox, no warnings. I will say the page looks completely different in the browsers, even the colors are radically different, plus Firefox showed two huge ads (I have adblock plus installed in Chrome). Whatever malware testing service MS is using, they are either extra smart and catching something Chrome and Firefox can't, or more likely it is a configuration or other error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's likely misbehavior by one of the third-party ad/tracking networks they use. Ghostery blocks a bunch of them and I had no issues loading the page. However the source does not back up the content cited and I don't see why Germany is specifically mentioned in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Other odd things:

• If you send it a GET / HTTP/1.0 it returns HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden but if you sent it a GET / HTTP/1.1 it returns HTTP/1.1 200 OK.
• If you disable javascript it sends you to http://www.brighthubeducation.com/distil_r_blocked.html
• It sends you different content depending on what browser you claim to be in the user agent string.

I don't think they are serving any malware, but I do think they are trying to be overly clever with browser sniffing, and that Wikipedia should not link to this URL for the simple reason that we don't know what the person clicking on the link will get. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a report should be filed at WP:SBL then. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you do that, please? I don't feel fluent enough in English, in Wikipedia policies and in technical details of browser-HTTP-server communication to prepare a good report. --CiaPan (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban from reference desks

It is with sad heart that I propose to topic ban User:Sagittarian Milky Way from the reference desks. At the worst, he's trolling. At the best, he's phenomenally unhelpful, and totally uninterested in helping with the primary function of the Ref Desks, which is to provide users who have questions with either Wikipedia articles and/or external references to help them find the answers to questions they may have. Sagittarian Milky Way seems to be primarily interested in using it as a chat room, and more troublingly, with putting forth an offensive personal agenda. Recent diffs from recent days include BLP-level violations pondering the sexual attractiveness of female U.S. Supreme Court Justices, Religious bigotry, a long Personal political rant, etc. That's just from the past 24-48 hours. It has to stop. The ref desks are not supposed to be the "comment section" from HuffPost. It's supposed to be a place where users can get links to further reading on topics that they don't understand, full stop. I hate to have to do something like this, but I am having a hard time finding much redeeming contributions from Sagittarian Milky Way on the ref desks, the above links are not comprehensive, but rather merely a sampling of his recent contributions. For that reason I formally propose a full ban from the Ref Desks for Sagittarian Milky Way. --Jayron32 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --Jayron32 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support This user is always on the edge, usually asking the sort of science questions you'd get from a smart pre-teen. The inappropriateness shown at Humanities as mentioned by Jayron is all-too often over the edge. But even good questions usually devolve into nonsense and show a lack of true interest in the topic. I decided deliberately after this post which I put over an hour into answering that I would not answer him again on any question. Since then I have noticed several of his posts and not been surprised by their disruptive nature. I have changed my vote back from "final warning" I see he's been talked to about this behavior and the response below evinces no conscientiousness of the issue. At the least a block is a good idea, and a topic ban is fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I guess I don't have much to defend besides that I wasn't trolling. Trolling is intentional. You people really don't believe that one could live to teenagerhood in New York City before seeing an animal mate in real life outside a zoo? I hadn't okay. I'm not judging it unreasonable if some people wanted to do that, not that was I sure they existed or not and don't mind either way. I didn't make anything up, especially not to troll. People on the Ref Desk and other parts of non-article space not hidden their political views all the time, some left of most of the US, some right of US center. Have they gotten banned for it? I do appear to have violated WP:BLP. Removed. I haven't erased anything on my talk page, Medeis. Oh, and the Magic School Bus was where I learned many years ago the very simple thing of which color is absorbed by what if you're still wondering why I said that. That cultural reference might not be understood by other generations. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • That ANI question was only hypothetical, honest. I worry about low probability terrible things that could happen to me often. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • And then you were all acting like that really happened. Sheesh, that never happened (but I guess that was an unanswerable question for the desk in any form anyway). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Pedantically, I wasn't actually pondering Justices' sexual attractiveness either, as I was thinking about whether I liked or might like their younger faces before and after I saw them and I already knew their recent sexual attractiveness levels. Also I didn't look up their 20th century pictures just now to have (offensive) examples, that pondering happened 6 years ago and I was just recounting it. Clearly I need to be more conscientious before saving. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

SMW, I'd recommmed you read WP:Competence is required. I have changed my vote back to ban in the face of your response. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Contributions highly suggest trolling. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, although I don't think he's a troll exactly. Sometimes people just don't know how to act appropriately on the Internet, whether because of age or brain chemistry or both. I remember being dumb and annoying on the Internet once too. For starters, it would help a lot if he asked himself "does anyone really want to hear about my masturbation habits?" Because the answer is always "no, just no." Adam Bishop (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Taking up far too much space with inappropriate content, demonstrating persistent poor judgment = abuse of the RD. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if may opinion may count since im not a regular, but has Jayron already warned SGM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.79.50 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. In my evaluation of the situation, "Sagittarian Milky Way" fails to appreciate the potential for intellectual accomplishment in the Reference desks and tries too hard to bring his own version of intellectual accomplishment to the desks. This results in longwinded (for the Reference desks) creative writing such as this. I didn't even read that. I may be missing the next great writer. But it would be somewhat off-target to call this trolling, in my estimation, because the intention is to contribute to/participate in the dialogue taking place. While the Reference desks are not a chat room there are ample examples of asides that we all participate in. I would give "Sagittarian Milky Way" another chance to try to stay more on topic. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am somewhat sympathetic with that, and was thinking a medium-length block might be better. But then SMW could not be guided towards actual contributions to the project, since he couldn't contribute at all. So I think a topic ban, which he could appeal after, say, six months, by pointing to his contributions to the project makes a lot more sense. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Trolling, bad judgement, whatever, since it doesn't matter. The end result is that the individual doesn't need to be working the reference desk if that is the kind of participation we can expect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Even though the instruction near the top of each ref desk stating "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate" is ignored at times there is a difference between "participating" in a thread and "initiating" it. There are plenty of other places on the interwebs where SMW can turn to for this sort of thing. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Multiple Socks? This user has long seemed to resemble other trollesque users quite closely. Currently we have a questioon by Justin545 here. This user has been trolling the refdesks and the site for more than half a dozen years, with the same typical subjects. See this 157K edit on "Gravitational Field vs. Electric Force Field. Why?" I suggest an SPI be performed as well, since the topical overlap is quite obvious. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Obviously unsuitable for the refdesks, and SMW's comments above make it appear they are unsuitable for Wikipedia—we don't care if a pattern of behavior is intentional trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - SMW is at times off-point, and needs to better learn our community standards. But I do believe his intent is not to disrupt. And if we're going to topic ban ref desk users who don't intend to disrupt but still do disrupt on occasion, then there's several users I'd ban before SMW. A WP:TROUT and a firm suggestion to think twice about posting should suffice. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support; whether this is intentional trolling or genuine stupidity doesn't matter—his continued presence at the reference desks is serving no useful purpose and wasting other people's time. 9% edits to mainspace pretty much says it all. @SemanticMantis, "there are other trolls at the reference desks" is certainly true, but the cleanup has to start somewhere. ‑ iridescent 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My recollection was that SMW has provided good refs and info in the past. But I could be mistaken. Maybe @Sagittarian Milky Way: could provide a list of diffs that show their good, helpful replies. Failing that kind of evidence, the !votes seem to be showing support for topic banning. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Search for my name [[1]] which is an oldid with a lot of my posts. I had things to do today which explains why it took so long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose per SemanticMantis. Although I agree that SMW's posts are more entertaining than informative and are in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, SMW is by no means the only regular contributor to the reference desks who uses them to express political opinions and personal beliefs, rather than providing sourced answers to questions. If SMW is banned, I think we need to clearly establish which element of his behaviour distinguishes him from the many other contributors who have not been banned for similar reasons. If it's lack of constructive contributions, that's probably OK. If it's his sexual (or, worse, political) opinions that make the difference, that isn't. I wouldn't have any major objections if some other offenders against WP:NOTFORUM were banned from the reference desks, but I don't see why SMW, in particular, is being singled out for sanctions while others are left free to amuse themselves on the desks. Tevildo (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Or we could warn then topic ban the other regular contributors to the reference desks who use them to express political opinions and personal beliefs rather than providing sourced answers to questions. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would support that - if SWM is to be sanctioned, then others who do the same thing should be sanctioned. The issue will be setting the limits of "the same thing". Tevildo (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I do "the other thing". Interjecting my opinions and beliefs with the sourced answers, not rather than. That's not to say I can source those opinions and beliefs, so I'm still filling heads with unsourced and unprofessional information, but that's just the gravy, not the meat. We can not give up on the gravy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Tevildo. I was on the fence at first before his/her argument. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support completely uninvolved; I hardly ever even look at the ref desks, but that first diff (and really that whole thread) has me sold here. The ref desks are in effect public-facing positions; not only BLP violations but the level of juvenile sexism in general is not appropriate. The other links and comments suggest that we're getting a mostly-unfiltered view of an immature internal monologue. There's plenty of other places on the internet to do that if you really must. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, not so much because there are other editors who also disrupt the Reference Desk equally, which there are, so much as because I see that no one has admonished or cautioned User:Sagittarian Milky Way on his own talk page that his posts to the Reference Desk have been inappropriate. He hasn't been warned at all. I recommend that this thread be closed as No Consensus in favor of a topic-ban, but with a link on his talk page as a formal warning. The idea that vandals have to be given four escalating warnings before they are blocked is a myth, but the idea of giving a clueless good-faith editor one warning should not just be a myth. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I can find no warning and no diffs of warnings have been provided. Although many of the contributions to the Reference Desk have been problematic, I see no evidence that User:Sagittarian Milky Way is not willing to listen. I agree with Robert McClenon's analysis. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  Really, guys? Read the whole thread in that first diff. We can't ask someone to stay out of a public-facing position because no one warned him that it was an inappropriate place to discuss what makes him horny? Facepalm Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the diffs really show anything rising to the level of a ban, yeah, some of the comments were juvenile, but that's about it, and Opabinia_regalis Like I said, his comment was juvenile, but the reality of wikipedia is: WP:NOTCENSORED KoshVorlon 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I think everyone's heard enough of that anyway, I'm going to keep it to myself. The point was you're going to affect many males too much if everyone goes topless, because humans have hidden estrus. Who knows, maybe me and my father's sex drive is not actually near average (at least for the desk) which makes it sound too exaggerated to not be trolling? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought saying this was futile but it's clearly not now.

Okay, I get it, 1. This is too far with explicitness even if there's a point (satire, showing that an opinion's not from repression or prudishness, etc). 2. Self-coitus mentions aren't just somewhat disturbing. 3. If I'm too lazy to show sources, find more than an iota to add, edit (or even read) long posts till they stop flowing terribly, or analyse until deciding the least miscontruable way to say something, then wait till I'm interested enough in a topic to do those things. 4. If I'm too lazy to analyse exactly where to cut an interesting line that's going too off-topic then default to cut.

If I was warned I would've stopped. The only other time I was brought to AN didn't exactly inspire confidence in the idea that significant numbers of people are objecting (to say the least), that's why I kept on. It's unfortunate that these posts all bunched up around the same time (and that a racist troll was right before the mine), but less bunched up posts like this would not be an ANI and the bunching up is unavoidable per the law of truly large numbers unless I changed and didn't decide to push my luck here. I think if I hadn't pressed the button at the top and even saw the racist question before it was deleted I wouldn't have asked the fundamentalist Q just because of the appearance of bad faith. Otherwise, if I knew someone would get offended (especially unconvincably), I would've thought until I asked "Does anyone have evidence of someone saying people shouldn't go to zoos before a certain age?" Full stop. At least it would just sound like a non-sequitur at worst.

And what's with the sockpuppet oversuspiciousness? Like a guy who's user page is pages of nearly 100% programming is so obviously me (who hasn't made a single question that shows knowledge of any programming language). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per I am One of Many. Ssscienccce (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Trying to imagine how Reference Desk is perceived by women and religious minorities, in particular, when such disruptive, non-productive and highly offensive editing is allowed to continue. Let an example be made and enforce same standard of civil Wikipedia behavior on others if problems persist. This disturbing pattern of tolerated behavior is affecting my motivation and ability to contribute to Reference Desk in good conscience. I will not be tarred by association with such. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a religious minority and I can easily tolerate this. For what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

• Based on recent actions, and the general trends here, I'm inclined to let this matter drop, and withdraw my support for a ban. SMW has changed significantly since the discussion started, and has both apologized, changed their behavior considerably, and tried to make amends. I'm inclined to let this go as a "lesson learned the hard way" matter, and per WP:ROPE, let SMW know he's on a short leash from now on... --Jayron32 18:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Free bleeding

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

---

Looks like Talk:Free bleeding still exists, even though Free bleeding was deleted. —danhash (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Marked it for deletion. In the future, please use {{db-talk}} for talk pages of deleted pages(more info here). Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Edited --12:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI Danhash. When an admin deletes a page they usually delete the talk page as well - though occasionally one gets missed. In this case a bot deleted the page and they are not programmed to get the talk page as well. Thus as JAaron95 states you just need to add the "db-talk" template to take care of things. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• It probably isn't known by non-admin, but we have two ways to delete a page: through Twinkle, which has a checkbox, and through the direct interface. This doesn't count the other scripts we use at AFD and such. I'm not sure how many total ways we have to access the same function, to be honest. Sometimes, we just forget to tick a box. I didn't even know we had a bot cleaning up after us janitors, for that matter. Regardless, JAaron95 is correct, just tag with that template and someone will be along soon after. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Yogesh saini

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

---

The subject article has been tagged for CSD A7 twice few times and the tag has been removed by creator. The article hence doesn't get included in the speedy del category, which I suppose would be the place where admins frequent and delete the stuff. Hence posting note here for attention. Or is this wrong venue? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The correct course of action would be to replace the tag and warn the user with {{uw-speedy1}}; in this case, however, I've just deleted it. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Request closure review for RfC at Monsanto Legal Cases

I request a closure review by any editor with no history or involvement in the issue or the cluster of controversial issues around Monsanto, agrochemicals, and the food industry to please review the closure that was done by an editor at RfC: Should this article mention current lawsuits by U.S. cities against Monsanto? The close that was delivered seems to be strangely oblique to me, neither solidly giving a resolution to the actual concrete question of the RfC, and also peppering in odd aspersions. The reason that i request a closure review is that the editor who did the closure, JzG aka Guy, is definitely involved in the subject area and i had specifically asked for a neutral, uninvolved editor to do the closing. User JzG did the closing despite knowing that he is involved in the subject matter, and also personally with me in the past, in an oppositional manner. I simply wish to see a closure by an uninvolved and fair-minded editor. Others also share my concerns about the neutrality of the closer, as shown in this discussion which also provided multiple links that clearly shows that the closing editor is not at all neutral in regard to the subject matter. I have asked editor JzG / Guy to voluntarily revert his closing to allow another editor to make the closing call, and he did not do so. This is seen at his talk page where other editors also requested the same. Please help. I would appreciate the time and unbiased mind of any totally uninvolved and neutral editor on this question. Please be totally uninvolved with the whole controversy cluster around agrochemicals and the chemical industry in general. Thank you for your consideration. SageRad (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I do very much encourage other admins to read the above, assess its implicit assumptions of the OP's zealous belief in his own rectitude and neutrality, and especially what constitutes "fair-minded" and "involved".

SageRad is an anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto activist. I have no significant history of edits in respect of either GMOs or Monsanto. I've spent a lot of time trying to explain to SageRad the fallacious nature of his apparent belief that anybody who is not vehemently anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto, is by definition pro-GMO and pro-Monsanto. He does not want to hear this, or indeed anything else that runs counter to his internal narrative of heroic advocacy of The Truth™, and hence he will not accept an RfC close which only gives him most of what he wants, but falls short of giving carte blanche endorsement for every conceivable anti-Monsanto story he might bring along.

Frankly, I think SageRad is a huge time sink whenever he edits any article related to GMOs or Monsanto. And that is my entirely fair-minded appraisal of the situation. He is not capable of checking his bias at the door (e.g. this edit where he adds to a WP:BLP an accusation of censorship based on the article subject removing SageRad's own comments from his blog - and SageRad edit-warred over this; he has no clue what neutral means in respect of his own agenda). Guy (Help!) 19:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that, Guy. Please note that i did not represent myself as neutral, but i did request someone neutral to review an RfC, which is the purpose of holding an RfC in the first place -- to get outside perspective on a topic, and then have it assessed in as neutral way as possible. I did not close the RfC myself because i am an involved editor, and that would defeat the purpose. Your closing of it also defeated the purpose. Please be accurate when you attribute statements to me, as you were inaccurate above.

Secondly, i am not an ideological anti-Monsanto activist, and i reject that aspersion. I have a long view on the history of Monsanto and harms the company has caused to people and the planet, because that is rooted in the reality of the company. I am for integrity and i wish Wikipedia to represent reality as best arrived at through the good faith dialogue among editors of many different perspectives, to try to work out the best approximation to a neutral point of view as possible. I am very serious about this. Often, my role at an article is to try to balance it out so that it does not read like a brochure in defense of the chemical industry, but that is to counterbalance the bias that is already embodied in a page.

Why do you have objections to my calling out that you are involved this topic, and to ask for a closure review by someone who is not involved? As for your aspersions, i don't find them appropriate or accurate, personally and i think your attacking tone is uncalled for, and further shows the problem of bias that gives me pause that you were the closer of the RfC. SageRad (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for a block

Since the issue about Hijiri 88 has been ongoing since … ages? I am now officially asking to be blocked from editing en.wikipedia. I am sure as there is a procedure for almost anything here there must be one for that one too. Me not to request this step would actually support Hijirii88’s ongoing tactics which to my mind are sick. I am sick of quoting diffs but the named user’s activity within the category of Nichiren Buddhism will factually disable me to further contribute to the project without violating the current IBAN – Nichiren Buddhism is my expertise and so far I was able to discuss issues on a sane level – even outside Wikipedia. I acquired this expertise by practising Nichiren Buddhism, being part of a NRM and afterwards seeking NEUTRAL information. My request for a topic ban for Hijirii88 on Nichiren Buddhism was factually declined. Since de.wikipedia works on a slightly different mode I will be able to contribute still with less conflict and focused on the project’s purpose. On a very private note, and why not stating this here, I am professionally unable to deal with, what to my mind are, clear mental issues. Who would have thought that highlighting the little Kenji man’s (Kenji Miyazawa) bibliographical skeletons in the closet would lead to all this. Dealing with Hijrii88 is nerve racking as long one does not agree. Personally I find the complete deletion of sources and refs manipulative as this medium does allow for means to keep them visible to the reader even though one might fail to disagree on the article’s wording … so much for no censoring on Wikipedia. This all turns to a kindergarten level and I do have a job, family etc. and let there be no doubt about it, my participation here was also part of a healing process coming out of a cult. Dealing with the SGi article under current guidelines is futile though. Cheers for nothing and sorry for having waffled on. So please just block me :-) As you guys do not seem to care what information is made public so why should I --Catflap08 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I am not in a position to stop an administrator from blocking the above individual if they so see fit. However, I do think that, if he honestly believes his comments above, which I have no doubt he does, perhaps the better alternative for the project as a whole would be to request that ArbCom review the situation and decide whether they have any support for his allegations and, if they do, they might be able to take some sort of action which would reduce the likelihood of further troubles for all those involved in the future, through whatever form of sanctions ArbCom might choose to impose. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)